pembsexile wrote: May 8th, 2022, 1:00 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 12:07 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 7th, 2022, 6:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 7th, 2022, 10:48 am

pembsexile wrote: May 7th, 2022, 10:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 7th, 2022, 9:46 am Oh dear oh dear oh dear

We have an abulance chaser looking for a disaster to hang his big project on, and his right hand man simply diverting attention. Pathetic.

Yet another straw man argument.

Diverting attention? Have a look at my post on this thread at 9.43am yesterday where I responded to you.

Exactly, precisely.
Has it never a occurred to you that the County are in the best situation that they could be. I. E. Having a landlord that requires them in order to make the ground viable? Just think about that..........

Now I don't know if the ground is viable with just the County as the sole user, but I know for sure that it isn't viable without them.

Now Consider Coventry City, owned Highfield Road. Wanted a bigger ground and the Council wanted them to move, hence the Rioch. Attendence fell to the point where the stadium wasn't viable for them and the owners (a charitable trust and the local council) and they had to move away until it became viable again.

Now consider Newport Rugby, no longer viable to play at RP moved away, doing better.

Also consider Bristol City and the Bristol Bears that play there. They lost the memorial ground to Bristol Rovers, who has done better?

You are falling into Stans trap of believing that because the ownership of RP is with the WRU, that they wish to do us harm, and that is the basis of the discussion. It simply isn't an argument that has any merit.


Why don't you consider the evidence, the WRU are just a landlord looking after something that needs to be viable.

I have studied planning in Wales, which is important, because planning is devolved, and I know what is required even to get to outline planning consent. The Council moved various sports to Spytty, but always provided an alternative
Facility. So to build on RP the first thing they would require is where is the alternative facility being constructed and detail benifit, and the need of the realeasd site. Road network and access statements. A community statement, an environmental impact assessment, etc, etc.

Another thing to consider is that the WRU pay 80% of each of the Regions Welsh players wages. So the income that the Regions receive from bums on seats is far less.

The bottom line is this. We don't require cement, when what we are bringing to the table makes the venue viable.

What on earth do you mean by ‘Precisely. Exactly’? My previous comment could hardly be construed to mean that I was diverting attention from a serious issue could it? I just wish some people on here (not just you) would refer to what people actually say, instead of what they think people say. Furthermore, other people, including you used the word cement in their post before I did. Cementing our position as the premier sporting club in Newport is a sound proposition. How do we do that is the question.

I think I made it quite clear in my post yesterday that I am certainly not a planning expert but I do have opinions and ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly no diversionary tactics from me.

Quote from Stan....

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done

Now that sets the tone of there is a problem, and the solution to solving it, is speaking to clubs about how to develop their own stadium, nothing else is to be considered.
Torquay Exile asks a question of Stan, and you respond on his behalf. So Torquay Exile asks if you are Stan? and gets abused. That's diversion.

Then I am not allowed by you to ask the question, why is cementing a relationship at Rodney Parade a unique problem to County when ground shares happen regularly all around the Country? You refuse to answer, by basically telling me I am not allowed to ask that, as the question should be how can WE do so? Ignoring the point that I am making, that we have already. Then you complain about my use of the word Cement. Again this is just diversion.

If you and Stan spent some time researching what clubs are doing now, they are sharing. Why are they doing that, and ignoring the holy grail of cementing sporting supremacy?

It appears that you like to twist what I actually say to suit your own narrative. That is your prerogative. Read again what I have said on this thread and there is no way that I have told you that you are not allowed to ask anything. You have completely made this up. I, or anyone else have no right to say to anyone that they are not allowed to ask a question. What I have done is suggest an alternative question. People do it all the time. That is completely different to what you suggest.

Furthermore, I have not complained about your use of the word cement. In the context it is being used, it is a good word. I even used it myself after other people had. I am merely pointing out that it had been used by others. You jump on it and say it is a diversion tactic. Absolute nonsense.

The start of this thread made the point that the WRU may be looking to cut the number of Welsh clubs to three from four. I wonder who the favourite for revamping/reorganising/culling are? That concerns me.

So that people understand my view and It doesn’t get twisted, here it is:

We have been fortunate since 2012 to have an agreement with Dragons, then WRU to use RP (Tfft). I am glad we moved there. I was there yesterday along with over 5300 others supporting our team. I used to even go over to see the Dragons some years ago but don’t anymore. They are on a bad (seemingly inescapable) slide unfortunately. In the context of ground sharing our fortunes are inextricably linked to them. There is no escaping that. We are the prime tenant at the moment and probably contribute more money than the Dragons. What happens if we slide into the Conference?

What about the future?

As far as priorities go, our number one priority next season should be cementing our position as Newport’s premier sporting club by trying to ensure that we carry on with L2 survival. That is paramount. Whilst important, anything else is secondary.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 2:18 pm

Again, why is sliding into the conference a problem in relation to Rodney Parade? we have played there before in the conference rather successfully, and made the ground viable. I'm not arguing that we should try to be in the Conference, just why is it a problem?

My argument about cementing our position as Newport premier sporting club is what dce does it make?

If as you say our relationship at Rodney Parade concerns you, what do you have against researching why ground shares happen regularly all around the Country?

Don't you want to know the answer?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 8th, 2022, 3:17 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 2:18 pm

Again, why is sliding into the conference a problem in relation to Rodney Parade? we have played there before in the conference rather successfully, and made the ground viable. I'm not arguing that we should try to be in the Conference, just why is it a problem?

My argument about cementing our position as Newport premier sporting club is what dce does it make?

If as you say our relationship at Rodney Parade concerns you, what do you have against researching why ground shares happen regularly all around the Country?

Don't you want to know the answer?

I don't have a problem with ground sharing. My problem is that we are not in an equal partnership with the rugby. WRU own both dragons and Rodney Parade.

You simply ignore that.

Again, that is happening around the Country, why can't you find out why?

Why would falling into the Nationsl Leaguecause such a big problem? A fair question. Let me answer it.

Look at our gates in the Conference. A promotion season and yet often playing in front of sub 2000 crowds. If we go down our income will go down. Not just from far fewer attendees at games but loss of advertising and other ancillary income. You think our rent will come down?

We pay for what we use. We use a lot of electronic advertising, a lot of hospitality as well as the seats the pitch etc. We use them more than the Dragon's therefore we keep RP viable, the Dragon's don't. We can play at Spytty in the Conference, we won't have electronic advertising, hospitality box income etc. but we could if needed (see Newport Rugby, Coventry City). The WRU know this, and they know that they have to keep Rodney Parade viable.

And this time we don't have Lotto Les to finance these shortfalls and allow us to bring in a squad capable of being competitive in the National League.

If we go down, we are f@cked. And sooner or later we will go down. Our only hope is that instead of burying their heads in the sand the directors of Newport County accept that we have a real structural problem and address it. On the evidence I have seen that would appear to be unlikely.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 7:27 pm It matters not who shares with who, as long as it is beneficial to both parties. Football has more money than Rugby, and thus most will be Rugby with Football Clubs.

There are lots more football teams sharing the same ground.

With Rugby, Salford will play at Sale's ground. Coventry play at the Rioch with Wasps, and Saracens were at Vicarage Rd, Watford.
The Welsh FA have played at the Principality, Cardiff Blues at the Cardiff City Stadium. Ospreys at the Liberty. Bristol Bears at Ashton Gate,and of cource Bristol Rovers played with Bristol Bears at the Memorial.

Tell me who of them have taken a financial interest in the ground?
You have quoted Exeter in the past, and how did they build a new stand? Well they made millions on player sales, and spent some of it on a ground they rent from the Council. We owned Somerton Park when we went into a death spiral, and Newport RFC owned Rodney Parade.

Now tell me who has gone bust because they rent a ground with a bigger partner?

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 7:27 pm It matters not who shares with who, as long as it is beneficial to both parties. Football has more money than Rugby, and thus most will be Rugby with Football Clubs.

There are lots more football teams sharing the same ground.

With Rugby, Salford will play at Sale's ground. Coventry play at the Rioch with Wasps, and Saracens were at Vicarage Rd, Watford.
The Welsh FA have played at the Principality, Cardiff Blues at the Cardiff City Stadium. Ospreys at the Liberty. Bristol Bears at Ashton Gate,and of cource Bristol Rovers played with Bristol Bears at the Memorial.

Tell me who of them have taken a financial interest in the ground?
You have quoted Exeter in the past, and how did they build a new stand? Well they made millions on player sales, and spent some of it on a ground they rent from the Council. We owned Somerton Park when we went into a death spiral, and Newport RFC owned Rodney Parade.

Now tell me who has gone bust because they rent a ground with a bigger partner?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 8th, 2022, 4:53 pm How many EFL clubs are tenants of the rugby club in their town or city? I can't find any.

Jonesy3 wrote: May 8th, 2022, 9:31 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 8th, 2022, 4:53 pm How many EFL clubs are tenants of the rugby club in their town or city? I can't find any.

Coventry City.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 8th, 2022, 11:01 pm

Jonesy3 wrote: May 8th, 2022, 9:31 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 8th, 2022, 4:53 pm How many EFL clubs are tenants of the rugby club in their town or city? I can't find any.

Coventry City.

This would be the Coventry City who were shafted by their owners with the first move to the Ricoh Arena. A vibrant First Division club.
2005 Left Highfield Rd.
2007 Saved by a hedge fund from administration.
2012 Relegated to League 1
2013 Moved to Northampton.
2014 Returned to the Ricoh. Knocked out of Cup by Worcester.
2017 Relegated to League 2
2019 Move to Birmingham for two years.

Okay back now at the Ricoh and in the Championship. But as my uncle Albert said, if you want to knoe the future look at what has already happened.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 2:18 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 8th, 2022, 1:00 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 12:07 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 7th, 2022, 6:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 7th, 2022, 10:48 am

pembsexile wrote: May 7th, 2022, 10:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 7th, 2022, 9:46 am Oh dear oh dear oh dear

We have an abulance chaser looking for a disaster to hang his big project on, and his right hand man simply diverting attention. Pathetic.

Yet another straw man argument.

Diverting attention? Have a look at my post on this thread at 9.43am yesterday where I responded to you.

Exactly, precisely.
Has it never a occurred to you that the County are in the best situation that they could be. I. E. Having a landlord that requires them in order to make the ground viable? Just think about that..........

Now I don't know if the ground is viable with just the County as the sole user, but I know for sure that it isn't viable without them.

Now Consider Coventry City, owned Highfield Road. Wanted a bigger ground and the Council wanted them to move, hence the Rioch. Attendence fell to the point where the stadium wasn't viable for them and the owners (a charitable trust and the local council) and they had to move away until it became viable again.

Now consider Newport Rugby, no longer viable to play at RP moved away, doing better.

Also consider Bristol City and the Bristol Bears that play there. They lost the memorial ground to Bristol Rovers, who has done better?

You are falling into Stans trap of believing that because the ownership of RP is with the WRU, that they wish to do us harm, and that is the basis of the discussion. It simply isn't an argument that has any merit.


Why don't you consider the evidence, the WRU are just a landlord looking after something that needs to be viable.

I have studied planning in Wales, which is important, because planning is devolved, and I know what is required even to get to outline planning consent. The Council moved various sports to Spytty, but always provided an alternative
Facility. So to build on RP the first thing they would require is where is the alternative facility being constructed and detail benifit, and the need of the realeasd site. Road network and access statements. A community statement, an environmental impact assessment, etc, etc.

Another thing to consider is that the WRU pay 80% of each of the Regions Welsh players wages. So the income that the Regions receive from bums on seats is far less.

The bottom line is this. We don't require cement, when what we are bringing to the table makes the venue viable.

What on earth do you mean by ‘Precisely. Exactly’? My previous comment could hardly be construed to mean that I was diverting attention from a serious issue could it? I just wish some people on here (not just you) would refer to what people actually say, instead of what they think people say. Furthermore, other people, including you used the word cement in their post before I did. Cementing our position as the premier sporting club in Newport is a sound proposition. How do we do that is the question.

I think I made it quite clear in my post yesterday that I am certainly not a planning expert but I do have opinions and ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly no diversionary tactics from me.

Quote from Stan....

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done

Now that sets the tone of there is a problem, and the solution to solving it, is speaking to clubs about how to develop their own stadium, nothing else is to be considered.
Torquay Exile asks a question of Stan, and you respond on his behalf. So Torquay Exile asks if you are Stan? and gets abused. That's diversion.

Then I am not allowed by you to ask the question, why is cementing a relationship at Rodney Parade a unique problem to County when ground shares happen regularly all around the Country? You refuse to answer, by basically telling me I am not allowed to ask that, as the question should be how can WE do so? Ignoring the point that I am making, that we have already. Then you complain about my use of the word Cement. Again this is just diversion.

If you and Stan spent some time researching what clubs are doing now, they are sharing. Why are they doing that, and ignoring the holy grail of cementing sporting supremacy?

It appears that you like to twist what I actually say to suit your own narrative. That is your prerogative. Read again what I have said on this thread and there is no way that I have told you that you are not allowed to ask anything. You have completely made this up. I, or anyone else have no right to say to anyone that they are not allowed to ask a question. What I have done is suggest an alternative question. People do it all the time. That is completely different to what you suggest.

Furthermore, I have not complained about your use of the word cement. In the context it is being used, it is a good word. I even used it myself after other people had. I am merely pointing out that it had been used by others. You jump on it and say it is a diversion tactic. Absolute nonsense.

The start of this thread made the point that the WRU may be looking to cut the number of Welsh clubs to three from four. I wonder who the favourite for revamping/reorganising/culling are? That concerns me.

So that people understand my view and It doesn’t get twisted, here it is:

We have been fortunate since 2012 to have an agreement with Dragons, then WRU to use RP (Tfft). I am glad we moved there. I was there yesterday along with over 5300 others supporting our team. I used to even go over to see the Dragons some years ago but don’t anymore. They are on a bad (seemingly inescapable) slide unfortunately. In the context of ground sharing our fortunes are inextricably linked to them. There is no escaping that. We are the prime tenant at the moment and probably contribute more money than the Dragons. What happens if we slide into the Conference?

What about the future?

As far as priorities go, our number one priority next season should be cementing our position as Newport’s premier sporting club by trying to ensure that we carry on with L2 survival. That is paramount. Whilst important, anything else is secondary.

Again, why is sliding into the conference a problem in relation to Rodney Parade? we have played there before in the conference rather successfully, and made the ground viable. I'm not arguing that we should try to be in the Conference, just why is it a problem?

My argument about cementing our position as Newport premier sporting club is what difference does it make?

If as you say our relationship at Rodney Parade concerns you, what do you have against researching why ground shares happen regularly all around the Country?

Don't you want to know the answer?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 8th, 2022, 4:53 pm How many EFL clubs are tenants of the rugby club in their town or city? I can't find any. As I have said I think it makes good sense to share with the rugby, I think that being beholden to the rugby is a recipe for disaster.

How without Lotto Les and far fewer attendees will we avoid going into a 1980s like death spiral?


Now can you answer my questions?

pembsexile wrote: May 9th, 2022, 9:03 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 2:18 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 8th, 2022, 1:00 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 8th, 2022, 12:07 pm

pembsexile wrote: May 7th, 2022, 6:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 7th, 2022, 10:48 am

pembsexile wrote: May 7th, 2022, 10:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 7th, 2022, 9:46 am Oh dear oh dear oh dear

We have an abulance chaser looking for a disaster to hang his big project on, and his right hand man simply diverting attention. Pathetic.

Yet another straw man argument.

Diverting attention? Have a look at my post on this thread at 9.43am yesterday where I responded to you.

Exactly, precisely.
Has it never a occurred to you that the County are in the best situation that they could be. I. E. Having a landlord that requires them in order to make the ground viable? Just think about that..........

Now I don't know if the ground is viable with just the County as the sole user, but I know for sure that it isn't viable without them.

Now Consider Coventry City, owned Highfield Road. Wanted a bigger ground and the Council wanted them to move, hence the Rioch. Attendence fell to the point where the stadium wasn't viable for them and the owners (a charitable trust and the local council) and they had to move away until it became viable again.

Now consider Newport Rugby, no longer viable to play at RP moved away, doing better.

Also consider Bristol City and the Bristol Bears that play there. They lost the memorial ground to Bristol Rovers, who has done better?

You are falling into Stans trap of believing that because the ownership of RP is with the WRU, that they wish to do us harm, and that is the basis of the discussion. It simply isn't an argument that has any merit.


Why don't you consider the evidence, the WRU are just a landlord looking after something that needs to be viable.

I have studied planning in Wales, which is important, because planning is devolved, and I know what is required even to get to outline planning consent. The Council moved various sports to Spytty, but always provided an alternative
Facility. So to build on RP the first thing they would require is where is the alternative facility being constructed and detail benifit, and the need of the realeasd site. Road network and access statements. A community statement, an environmental impact assessment, etc, etc.

Another thing to consider is that the WRU pay 80% of each of the Regions Welsh players wages. So the income that the Regions receive from bums on seats is far less.

The bottom line is this. We don't require cement, when what we are bringing to the table makes the venue viable.

What on earth do you mean by ‘Precisely. Exactly’? My previous comment could hardly be construed to mean that I was diverting attention from a serious issue could it? I just wish some people on here (not just you) would refer to what people actually say, instead of what they think people say. Furthermore, other people, including you used the word cement in their post before I did. Cementing our position as the premier sporting club in Newport is a sound proposition. How do we do that is the question.

I think I made it quite clear in my post yesterday that I am certainly not a planning expert but I do have opinions and ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly no diversionary tactics from me.

Quote from Stan....

Morning Colin,

My plan is really simple.

First step is that we acknowledge the problem.

Second step is that we politely explain to those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, that that is no longer an option.

Third step is that we speak to all the clubs who have developed their own stadiums and ask them how they managed to do it. What worked and as importantly what didn't.

Step four is to engage with the fan base and start to work towards our aim, together.

Step five is we listen to everyone who wants to help.

Step 6. We ignore those who are so narrow minded that they believe nothing can be done

Now that sets the tone of there is a problem, and the solution to solving it, is speaking to clubs about how to develop their own stadium, nothing else is to be considered.
Torquay Exile asks a question of Stan, and you respond on his behalf. So Torquay Exile asks if you are Stan? and gets abused. That's diversion.

Then I am not allowed by you to ask the question, why is cementing a relationship at Rodney Parade a unique problem to County when ground shares happen regularly all around the Country? You refuse to answer, by basically telling me I am not allowed to ask that, as the question should be how can WE do so? Ignoring the point that I am making, that we have already. Then you complain about my use of the word Cement. Again this is just diversion.

If you and Stan spent some time researching what clubs are doing now, they are sharing. Why are they doing that, and ignoring the holy grail of cementing sporting supremacy?

It appears that you like to twist what I actually say to suit your own narrative. That is your prerogative. Read again what I have said on this thread and there is no way that I have told you that you are not allowed to ask anything. You have completely made this up. I, or anyone else have no right to say to anyone that they are not allowed to ask a question. What I have done is suggest an alternative question. People do it all the time. That is completely different to what you suggest.

Furthermore, I have not complained about your use of the word cement. In the context it is being used, it is a good word. I even used it myself after other people had. I am merely pointing out that it had been used by others. You jump on it and say it is a diversion tactic. Absolute nonsense.

The start of this thread made the point that the WRU may be looking to cut the number of Welsh clubs to three from four. I wonder who the favourite for revamping/reorganising/culling are? That concerns me.

So that people understand my view and It doesn’t get twisted, here it is:

We have been fortunate since 2012 to have an agreement with Dragons, then WRU to use RP (Tfft). I am glad we moved there. I was there yesterday along with over 5300 others supporting our team. I used to even go over to see the Dragons some years ago but don’t anymore. They are on a bad (seemingly inescapable) slide unfortunately. In the context of ground sharing our fortunes are inextricably linked to them. There is no escaping that. We are the prime tenant at the moment and probably contribute more money than the Dragons. What happens if we slide into the Conference?

What about the future?

As far as priorities go, our number one priority next season should be cementing our position as Newport’s premier sporting club by trying to ensure that we carry on with L2 survival. That is paramount. Whilst important, anything else is secondary.

Again, why is sliding into the conference a problem in relation to Rodney Parade? we have played there before in the conference rather successfully, and made the ground viable. I'm not arguing that we should try to be in the Conference, just why is it a problem?

My argument about cementing our position as Newport premier sporting club is what difference does it make?

If as you say our relationship at Rodney Parade concerns you, what do you have against researching why ground shares happen regularly all around the Country?

Don't you want to know the answer?

I completely understand that you are not arguing that we should try to be in the National league (Conference). No one who is a County fan would want that.

With the associated fall in revenue, I believe that sliding into the National league (Conference) would be a backward step. Probable dwindling support, lower club income and facing an uphill struggle to get back in the league.

In my previous post I said (Tfft) that we have been ground sharing with the rugby at RP for a decade. If we hadn’t gone to RP I don’t think we would have had the relatively few good years in L2. The status quo is working as it is. It is not perfect, it is not ideal but at this stage it is the best we can get. Ground sharing works for us at the moment.

My concerns are twofold;

1 Given the article in the Times about the possibility of the WRU culling one club in Wales, the probability (not certainty) is that one of the teams will be the Dragons. Our future is linked with them as at the moment we appear to be the primary tenant (financially). They appear to be going backwards unfortunately. If they go, in the eyes of our Landlord, is RP sustainable with only a football club paying rent? We will never know what is inside their heads but I cannot see the WRU in that event saying yes, we should support the County at RP. I sincerely hope that the Dragons improve. Two clubs can be catered for at RP.

2. Our recent form is dire. If that carries on into next season there is more than a real possibility that we could find ourselves heading towards the National league with all the disadvantages that holds. It is of paramount importance that we retain L2 status at the end of next season. I just hope we get the right players in.

If ground sharing works for other clubs, then good on them. If it ain’t broke, then why fix it. Unfortunately, we could be heading in the need to ‘fix it’ direction.

When we were last in the Conference and then went to RP, the Dragons were successful. They had far larger crowds than us. It was not a perfect relationship but it worked. It was viable and in the interest of the WRU at that time that it worked. Will it still be viable in a few years? It is the future that concerns me.