County ranger wrote: January 29th, 2023, 5:51 pm

halfmoon wrote: January 29th, 2023, 5:45 pm

Justanordinaryfan wrote: January 29th, 2023, 5:30 pm

Blackandamber wrote: January 29th, 2023, 4:49 pm

County ranger wrote: January 29th, 2023, 4:19 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 29th, 2023, 3:02 pm Sold their soul for a Yankee dollar, Hope we hold out as long as possible before doing similar, preferably for ever, although the way the game is going it may become inevitable. But they are playing that lot from the wrong side of town. Probably best to avoid it. There seems to be so much football these days where the best result would be both teams losing.

And we sold our soul for the Les dollar so stop being so hypocritical- your bitterness is quite sad - we all wish we had the Wrexham owners 10 year plan rather than Les who had a budget and walked away when he had spent it - don’t forget Wrexham would be EFL already if they had not faced the Les dollar.

We hardly sold our soul for the Les dollar. He took over from Chris Blight because he had more money. Nearly all of the players who gained promotion were free transfers or on loan. Scalding paid off the monthly overdraft.

The situation with the Hollywood stars is vastly different.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/31255661

Let’s be honest we would be overjoyed if we had similar investment ?

I think fan ownership, while severely limiting what you can achieve financially, is worth far more than putting your club in the hands of a private owner who may well leave you up shit creek, as we know well. There’s a reason phoenix clubs mostly stick to being fan owned - they’ve learned the hard way. So despite the riches, I think Wrexham fans are mad to have given away the club they owned.

Would agree with your thoughts we were lucky Les was honourable and did what he could to secure a future unlike Bury, Oldham etc. etc. This is why I have little time for this American circling us I don’t think they realise the financial commitment required and lack of thanks you get which ultimately encourages them to walk away. This said we are where we are owing to a benefactor so I think hypocritical comments lack any reality or class.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:27 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

You are right and if I and those that agree with me can't persuade a majority that fans ownership is the best way forward then of course I accept that.

Where I think that the club should though be more communicative is on what basis was the hybrid model rejected. Was it because they ignored what supporters wanted, or was it because they weren't able to attract someone interested in buying a stake in the club.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:08 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:27 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

You are right and if I and those that agree with me can't persuade a majority that fans ownership is the best way forward then of course I accept that.

Where I think that the club should though be more communicative is on what basis was the hybrid model rejected. Was it because they ignored what supporters wanted, or was it because they weren't able to attract someone interested in buying a stake in the club.

Stan, barriers can easily be created to prevent an action that you don’t fully support, in the Boards case Shaun Johnson mentioned that they were placing a minimum £5m value on the County! That is a big enough deterrent don’t you think?

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:08 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:27 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

You are right and if I and those that agree with me can't persuade a majority that fans ownership is the best way forward then of course I accept that.

Where I think that the club should though be more communicative is on what basis was the hybrid model rejected. Was it because they ignored what supporters wanted, or was it because they weren't able to attract someone interested in buying a stake in the club.

Stan, barriers can easily be created to prevent an action that you don’t fully support, in the Boards case Shaun Johnson mentioned that they were placing a minimum £5m value on the County! That is a big enough deterrent don’t you think?

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:25 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:08 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:27 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

You are right and if I and those that agree with me can't persuade a majority that fans ownership is the best way forward then of course I accept that.

Where I think that the club should though be more communicative is on what basis was the hybrid model rejected. Was it because they ignored what supporters wanted, or was it because they weren't able to attract someone interested in buying a stake in the club.

Stan, barriers can easily be created to prevent an action that you don’t fully support, in the Boards case Shaun Johnson mentioned that they were placing a minimum £5m value on the County! That is a big enough deterrent don’t you think?

Well at the time we had millions in the bank and guaranteed millions from the FA. So would you want someone to invest 500 thousand, only to take out say 4 million?
[/quote

I don’t recall us having literally “millions” in the bank, what have we got that is tangible to show for that?

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:25 pm

Well at the time we had millions in the bank and guaranteed millions from the FA. So would you want someone to invest 500 thousand, only to take out say 4 million?

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:25 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:08 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:27 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

You are right and if I and those that agree with me can't persuade a majority that fans ownership is the best way forward then of course I accept that.

Where I think that the club should though be more communicative is on what basis was the hybrid model rejected. Was it because they ignored what supporters wanted, or was it because they weren't able to attract someone interested in buying a stake in the club.

Stan, barriers can easily be created to prevent an action that you don’t fully support, in the Boards case Shaun Johnson mentioned that they were placing a minimum £5m value on the County! That is a big enough deterrent don’t you think?

Well at the time we had millions in the bank and guaranteed millions from the FA. So would you want someone to invest 500 thousand, only to take out say 4 million?

pembsexile wrote: January 31st, 2023, 7:21 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:25 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 9:08 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:27 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:06 pm
I thought that there had been a vote with a majority in favour of a hybrid model, however the result was seemingly ignored.

You are right and if I and those that agree with me can't persuade a majority that fans ownership is the best way forward then of course I accept that.

Where I think that the club should though be more communicative is on what basis was the hybrid model rejected. Was it because they ignored what supporters wanted, or was it because they weren't able to attract someone interested in buying a stake in the club.

Stan, barriers can easily be created to prevent an action that you don’t fully support, in the Boards case Shaun Johnson mentioned that they were placing a minimum £5m value on the County! That is a big enough deterrent don’t you think?

Well at the time we had millions in the bank and guaranteed millions from the FA. So would you want someone to invest 500 thousand, only to take out say 4 million?

Millions in the Bank? Not quite sure where you get this from. I wish it were true though.
On the Supporters Trust website are the Auditors accounts Financial statements for the Newport County Supporters Society Ltd.
Profit
2021. £108,571
2020. £101,106
2019. £89,283
2018. £48,858
2017. £17,006

These are the latest figures the Supporters Trust show. Unless the Football club have a separate auditing system with their own financial operating procedures that is what we had recently. Well, the last six years anyway.

Trigger wrote: January 30th, 2023, 8:16 pm

He's not American, he's from Newport and a county supporter.

owlsabout wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:01 am He did ho public in order for our board to acknowledge his request to become involved with the club ! Apparently he s been trying for a while without no response from the board .now contact has been made he would have signed a non disclosure agreement!. If you rewind 4 years ago at an open meeting directors SJ KW and Co opted MC stated that the club were running at a loss of 350;000 a year and we can't depend cup runs alone to survive. We'll have been fortunate and lucky till this season with some great big cup days play offs finals, this fan owned won't work without major investment or a take over !we own nothing the infrastructure has been poor crowds have dropped due to poor results paid off managers / imo the time is right for a change .

whoareya wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:30 am

owlsabout wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:01 am He did ho public in order for our board to acknowledge his request to become involved with the club ! Apparently he s been trying for a while without no response from the board .now contact has been made he would have signed a non disclosure agreement!. If you rewind 4 years ago at an open meeting directors SJ KW and Co opted MC stated that the club were running at a loss of 350;000 a year and we can't depend cup runs alone to survive. We'll have been fortunate and lucky till this season with some great big cup days play offs finals, this fan owned won't work without major investment or a take over !we own nothing the infrastructure has been poor crowds have dropped due to poor results paid off managers / imo the time is right for a change .

He didn't go public - otherwise we'd know all about him and his interest, I thought it was all via the County Facebook group initially - that's not going public, that's chatting on social media.

Non disclosure agreements aren't used in the context of expressing an interest, it defeats the object. Its only when you enter into negotiations that disclose/open book/due diligence becomes relevant.

Who are his advisors, or is he just personally looking as an ex-pat supporter?
What background/expertise does he have in professional football, or is he another Les?

If this was going to fly, it would have already taken off. If the Board hadn't been receptive then you look to engage with the owners - having trust ownership is ideal for getting past a reluctant Board because you can engage directly with the real owners, but you have to get your message out. I don't use Facebook so that's probably why I don't know who he is or what his intentions are.

I'm guessing that I'm not alone on that.