Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 8:33 am

pembsexile wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:41 am Good grief, there is probably more than two of them. In the first paragraph he writes ‘their’ instead of ‘they’re’. That’s three by my reckoning.

Also, further proof of their continued nonsense. In the first paragraph of their last post they stated ‘only just seen this continued fantasy’. Strange that, as person number one of the group replied to the comment they quoted at 9.21pm yesterday. The original poster (ncafc) put his post up at 4.03pm. Then person number two, or is it three, puts this ‘fantasy’ comment at 8.55pm Sunday.

There is only one fantasy going on here and that is the members of a group who post under one user name. Definitely at least two, possibly three.

I was at the football yesterday and commented on the final post later, but didn't look further back. I only noticed this crap of yours on Sunday.

The fact that you believe this crap, just shows how utterly taken in by Stan you are, as he is the one that first decided that if someone challenged him, then they must be from the club/trust. Since then he has suggested I am allsorts of people, from friends to brothers to a young and and old person. It's typical of him, make a statement based on pure fantasy, and the incredibly gullible lap it up.................

And of course we remember you arranging to meet up with Stan before the original trust meeting 9 years ago, and then you strenuously denied that you knew him............... but the lie unraveled didn't it...........

Myself and Mike have never met in person.. I hope to do so but we live in different countries.

However I don't hide my identity, nor Mike his. But you are more than one person. It's your different writing styles. You claim to be in your 60s but use troll as an insult. As for 'Jack knows what I am trying to do' that doesn't ring true of an older person.

All of you are pathetic.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 9:23 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 8:33 am

pembsexile wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:41 am Good grief, there is probably more than two of them. In the first paragraph he writes ‘their’ instead of ‘they’re’. That’s three by my reckoning.

Also, further proof of their continued nonsense. In the first paragraph of their last post they stated ‘only just seen this continued fantasy’. Strange that, as person number one of the group replied to the comment they quoted at 9.21pm yesterday. The original poster (ncafc) put his post up at 4.03pm. Then person number two, or is it three, puts this ‘fantasy’ comment at 8.55pm Sunday.

There is only one fantasy going on here and that is the members of a group who post under one user name. Definitely at least two, possibly three.

I was at the football yesterday and commented on the final post later, but didn't look further back. I only noticed this crap of yours on Sunday.

The fact that you believe this crap, just shows how utterly taken in by Stan you are, as he is the one that first decided that if someone challenged him, then they must be from the club/trust. Since then he has suggested I am allsorts of people, from friends to brothers to a young and and old person. It's typical of him, make a statement based on pure fantasy, and the incredibly gullible lap it up.................

And of course we remember you arranging to meet up with Stan before the original trust meeting 9 years ago, and then you strenuously denied that you knew him............... but the lie unraveled didn't it...........

Myself and Mike have never met in person.. I hope to do so but we live in different countries.

However I don't hide my identity, nor Mike his. But you are more than one person. It's your different writing styles. You claim to be in your 60s but use troll as an insult. As for 'Jack knows what I am trying to do' that doesn't ring true of an older person.

All of you are pathetic.

Why not ask Jack what I was referring to? That would be the obvious thing to do, but not for you..........

All this little group intoxicated by putting their name on an anonymous forum. Why, what does it achieve? And that's the problem isn't it, it is people who are not interested in achieving anything. Nothing.

Stan who uses me to attack HJ as he wants to return the club to the Trust, and has no interest in capital investment of RP. The next in a long line of chairmen who have no interest, and have therefore been attacked by Stan.

The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. Since then all chairman have purchased shares along with the trust. Eventually Les Scadding provided the biggest capital investment in the club, but to move it forwards, not in RP. That provided the TV money from football league status.

HJ has provided cash to solve cash flow problems, not capital investment. The trust ran the club for 8 years without the benefits of having an owner chucking millions at it and charging interest payments. They ran it in a way that preserved our FL status against all those clubs that lost theirs.

Did the previous club ever go 8 years straight without being reelected or relegated? But that's achieving something, so that doesn't count in your little world, only attacking those who don't buy a ground, nothing else, except the vital importance of putting your name on an unofficial forum............

This little group of tiny minded people, not interested in achieving, just themselves.........

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 10:33 am

Did the previous club ever go 8 years straight without being reelected or relegated?

The answer to that is yes.

However what you also forget is that re-election involved the bottom four. To compare you really have to ask how often in the last ten years have Newport County finished in the bottom four?

You really are as thick as sh!te.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 10:33 am

Did the previous club ever go 8 years straight without being reelected or relegated?

The answer to that is yes.

However what you also forget is that re-election involved the bottom four. To compare you really have to ask how often in the last ten years have Newport County finished in the bottom four?

You really are as thick as sh!te.

So how often finishing in the bottom 4 were the original County relegated? Once is the answer that you are looking for.......

So how often, having finished 9 years in the league under the Trust, have we been relegated after finishing in the bottom 4?

Again someone who doesn't look for any achievement, simply attacks as he did all his working life. Achieving absolutely nothing, because HJ like every other chairman doesn't agree with the troll, who puts his money into Sligo...........

Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

Well they sold shares (pledges) at Lysarts, which was roughly £400k at that time, unless you can tell us differently?

I'm looking forward to these random arguments popping up on ATC once we all migrate over! Although the thought police will probably shut them down...

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Chepstow'sFine wrote: April 15th, 2024, 1:42 pm I'm looking forward to these random arguments popping up on ATC once we all migrate over! Although the thought police will probably shut them down...

Not from me they won't. As I keep saying I'm not going to give the prize prick Bangit the excuse to spoil other people's simple pleasures.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:07 pm

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Ah I see, fair enough. I seem to remember 400 people attending, so that would be a more likely outcome.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:29 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:07 pm

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Ah I see, fair enough. I seem to remember 400 people attending, so that would be a more likely outcome.

Stan is correct on both counts I believe and the actual sales - and indeed the capital with which the club started - was far far less than either amount.

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 3:43 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:29 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:07 pm

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Ah I see, fair enough. I seem to remember 400 people attending, so that would be a more likely outcome.

Stan is correct on both counts I believe and the actual sales - and indeed the capital with which the club started - was far far less than either amount.

Only IMB has mentioned that the actual sales and capital was indeed smaller than I stated, to which I agreed. So is IMB confused as to who he is?

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:29 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:07 pm

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Ah I see, fair enough. I seem to remember 400 people attending, so that would be a more likely outcome.

Bangit' you really are as thick as sh!te. Yes it was me that said both, you agreed with me. Well you agreed with that which I wrote. Clearly you didn't realize that it was me who wrote it. You really are embarrassing yourselves.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 5:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:29 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:07 pm

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Ah I see, fair enough. I seem to remember 400 people attending, so that would be a more likely outcome.

Bangit' you really are as thick as sh!te. Yes it was me that said both, you agreed with me. Well you agreed with that which I wrote. Clearly you didn't realize that it was me who wrote it. You really are embarrassing yourselves.

Am I?

It's you that believes that we can spend capital that we don't have, not me.

It's also you that believes that opposition clubs having capital to spend, isn’t the issue that the trust have faced, and came out on top 18 times..........

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 3:43 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:29 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 15th, 2024, 2:07 pm

IMB wrote: April 15th, 2024, 12:52 pm Bangit...

You say 'The new club started in 1989 with £400k capital investment in shares. '.

Did it?

My memory is that the share issue was far less than that. I think £100,000 but I could be wrong. However more importantly the size of the share issue is not the same as the amount of shares which were actually sold.

Ah I see, fair enough. I seem to remember 400 people attending, so that would be a more likely outcome.

Stan is correct on both counts I believe and the actual sales - and indeed the capital with which the club started - was far far less than either amount.

The oldest data that I can find is from the accounts dated 30 June 1995. These tell us that between 30 June 1994 and 30 June 1995 Share Capital increased from £53,420 to £58,680.

They go on to say -
During the year 526 shares of £10 each were allotted and fully paid for at par to increase the capital base of the Company.

Shares acquired by Directors and allotted fully paid for at par since 30 June 1995 are as follows:

W S Brown 10 D M Hando 10
P Burgess 110 S Pepperall 10
M L Everett 10 R J Taylor 10
J A Greenham 10 D Williams 10
M J Greenham 10 E Wulf 10

That will mean that another £2,000 of share capital was raised between the end of year and the accounts being published.

Looking at the 1996 accounts, we learn that initially £100,000 of share capital was authorised for sale and during the 95/96 a further £11,000 were bought a process that continued.

Based on that, I think it unlikely that the original share sales raisedmore than £40,000