Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

I can't image the choice of preferred bidder will be his alone.

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

However, you get into the viscous circle of starting with not being able to afford to pay professional directors to run the club so selecting those who put themselves forward often as default options, those people being unable to generate sufficient profits to employ professional directors to run the club or when they do deciding not to employ them possibly in their own best interests.

How many good and dedicated directors resigned because they couldn't work with those who controlled the board?

That was the problem.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I think this is an important point to consider, but has been overlooked in the past.

The Trust Board elections are surely the most accurate measure of interest in the Trust generally. The reason for stagnation and complacency could be due to the lack of competition and also an assumption by the incumbents that there is no appetite for change.

But conversely, it puts the incumbents in a difficult position, do they walk away knowing there are no candidates to replacement them, (for several years in succession), or did they seek to consolidate the board and spread the load with co-opted Board members? When things go pear shaped, co-opting is deemed to be driven by cronyism, nepotism etc., but it could also be from a point of need, even desperation.

Not directly related, but I remember a discussion on here some time ago about a nepotistic appointment of someone in a role at the club, after the usual ranting, it was acknowledged that most people have or would offer/accept a role in similar circumstances.

It will be interesting to see what structure is put in place should the gifting of the club occur, but once in private investor hands, cronyism will become a way of life.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:53 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.

Amond was signed 13 days after Madigan and Crook were appointed to the Board, what part do you say Madigan and Crook played in us signing Amond?

You do like to tell people what they believe without seemingly reading what they actually say. So let me put you right. I would far prefer to club to be run by the Trust in the short-term. I recognise that the current Board is not capable or do not feel capable of doing that. I don't see that as a reason for the firesale that is now going on. The sales strategy of telling the world the club is on the brink and then trying to sell it is madness, it is akin to trying to sell your car while broken down on the hard shoulder of the M1.

I recognise that the majority of fans who express an opinion on social media want "investors" to come into the club without being able to define what that means but I would much prefer the Board seek help through the election of new members and seeking volunteer assistance within the supporter base to put in the hard work to get the finances back on an even keel first.

To continue the car analogy, let's get the car towed home, get a mate to fix it, give it a good clean and polish, climb into the back seat with the Mrs one more time if only for the memories and then think about whether we really do want to get rid of it.

I find the way the Board are railroading this firesale through objectionable and unecessary.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:47 pm


The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.
[/quote]

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.
[/quote]

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?
[/quote]

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................
[/quote]

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.
[/quote]

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............
[/quote]

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.
[/quote]

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.
[/quote]

Amond was signed 13 days after Madigan and Crook were appointed to the Board, what part do you say Madigan and Crook played in us signing Amond?

You do like to tell people what they believe without seemingly reading what they actually say. So let me put you right. I would far prefer to club to be run by the Trust in the short-term. I recognise that the current Board is not capable or do not feel capable of doing that. I don't see that as a reason for the firesale that is now going on. The sales strategy of telling the world the club is on the brink and then trying to sell it is madness, it is akin to trying to sell your car while broken down on the hard shoulder of the M1.

I recognise that the majority of fans who express an opinion on social media want "investors" to come into the club without being able to define what that means but I would much prefer the Board seek help through the election of new members and seeking volunteer assistance within the supporter base to put in the hard work to get the finances back on an even keel first.

To continue the car analogy, let's get the car towed home, get a mate to fix it, give it a good clean and polish, climb into the back seat with the Mrs one more time if only for the memories and then think about whether we really do want to get rid of it.

I find the way the Board are railroading this firesale through objectionable and unecessary.
[/quote]

That's interesting. (Although in reading your penultimate paragraph I might not take you up on any offer of a lift, especially if you have a front seat passenger also. )

On a serious note I agree that a fire sale is taking place. I had thought the reason for which is that the house is on fire. That may be the case. However if undue haste is a factor it does rather give rise to the question of why.

As ever, agree or not I would be interested in your thoughts.

In my 'Reset Part 2' document, this was my proposal for directors:

SELECTION FOR THE BOARD

Selection of Directors to serve on the BOD, should be completely revised from an 'on the night' process to a process akin to employee selection with the vital proviso that that any such Director is put into office following a members vote. Of necessity, this may not apply to co-opted Directors.
New Directors shall partake in a training programme to fit them better for their duties. This training being optional for existing Directors. It would not be necessary for co-opted Directors to do so if it is clear that such persons are objectively judged as being immediately capable of effectively carrying out the duties of a Director.

Directors, as individuals and as the BOD, should have access to a mentoring resource, which should be independent of the Club. This is both to help them in the performance of their role and to support them in dealing with the dynamics of relationships within the Board, if necessary.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:53 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.

Amond was signed 13 days after Madigan and Crook were appointed to the Board, what part do you say Madigan and Crook played in us signing Amond?

You do like to tell people what they believe without seemingly reading what they actually say. So let me put you right. I would far prefer to club to be run by the Trust in the short-term. I recognise that the current Board is not capable or do not feel capable of doing that. I don't see that as a reason for the firesale that is now going on. The sales strategy of telling the world the club is on the brink and then trying to sell it is madness, it is akin to trying to sell your car while broken down on the hard shoulder of the M1.

I recognise that the majority of fans who express an opinion on social media want "investors" to come into the club without being able to define what that means but I would much prefer the Board seek help through the election of new members and seeking volunteer assistance within the supporter base to put in the hard work to get the finances back on an even keel first.

To continue the car analogy, let's get the car towed home, get a mate to fix it, give it a good clean and polish, climb into the back seat with the Mrs one more time if only for the memories and then think about whether we really do want to get rid of it.

I find the way the Board are railroading this firesale through objectionable and unecessary.

Yes, the money to sign Podge had to have guarantors, we had just survived by the skin of our teeth the great escape, because we were skint, and signing players on long contracts was an issue.....

You also believe that generally younger people in the 3000 will replace and expand the older in the 1000, I don't, it's a simple as that........

I understand that you believe it is a fire sale, but it appears to me that both Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins have had time to look at the club from the inside to assess what is required, and to formulate a bid that the trust membership would see as possible, and positive. That to me is not a fire sale, its the opposite..........

The other factor involved is RP, and until very recently that has been owned by the WRU, who wanted it as an asset to sell the unsaleable Dragon's.........

All in all, that is very different from what normally happens with football club sales, were owners choose the next owner on the basis of what money they personally get back, not on what is best for the club........

To me at least, in essence if it is Jon Pratt v Huw Jenkins then HJ is probably selling a vision of trust helped funding of commercial activities, and JP probably outside funding wanting assets and savings to produce profits.....

For me I don't particularly want either vision, but I accept that the trust model of 8 years ago is no longer fit for purpose, simply because the opposition has changed. That has been compounded by clubs coming up with big resources, which in the past didn't particularly happen.

I would prefer if we didn't need to change, but I accept that we do, not because of the past, but because of the likely future.........

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:53 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.

Amond was signed 13 days after Madigan and Crook were appointed to the Board, what part do you say Madigan and Crook played in us signing Amond?

You do like to tell people what they believe without seemingly reading what they actually say. So let me put you right. I would far prefer to club to be run by the Trust in the short-term. I recognise that the current Board is not capable or do not feel capable of doing that. I don't see that as a reason for the firesale that is now going on. The sales strategy of telling the world the club is on the brink and then trying to sell it is madness, it is akin to trying to sell your car while broken down on the hard shoulder of the M1.

I recognise that the majority of fans who express an opinion on social media want "investors" to come into the club without being able to define what that means but I would much prefer the Board seek help through the election of new members and seeking volunteer assistance within the supporter base to put in the hard work to get the finances back on an even keel first.

To continue the car analogy, let's get the car towed home, get a mate to fix it, give it a good clean and polish, climb into the back seat with the Mrs one more time if only for the memories and then think about whether we really do want to get rid of it.

I find the way the Board are railroading this firesale through objectionable and unecessary.

You also believe that younger people in the 3000 will replace and expand the 1000 I don't, it's a simple as that. I understand that you believe it is a fire sale, but it appears to me that both Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins have had time to look at the club from the inside to assess what is required, and to formulate a bid that the trust membership would see as possible, and positive. That is not a fire sale..........

The other factor involved is RP, and until very recently that has been owned by the WRU who wanted it as an asset to sell the Dragon's.........

All in all, that is very different from what normally happens, were owners choose the next owner on the basis of what money they personally get back, not on what is best for the club........

To me at least, in essence if it is Jon Pratt v Huw Jenkins then HJ is selling a vision of trust helped funding, and JP outside funding wanting assets and savings to produce profits.

For me I don't particularly want either vision, but I accept that the trust model of 8 years ago is no longer fit for purpose, simply because the opposition has changed. That has been compounded by clubs coming up with big resources, which in the past didn't particularly happen.

I would prefer if we didn't need to change, but I accept that we do, not because of the past, but because of the likely future.........

You should stop telling me what I believe, you get it wrong every time.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:53 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 7:33 pm

Surely Colin Everett is best placed in this particular area, and I can't imagine for one minute that the preferred bidder is on the basis of the toss of a coin.

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.

Amond was signed 13 days after Madigan and Crook were appointed to the Board, what part do you say Madigan and Crook played in us signing Amond?

You do like to tell people what they believe without seemingly reading what they actually say. So let me put you right. I would far prefer to club to be run by the Trust in the short-term. I recognise that the current Board is not capable or do not feel capable of doing that. I don't see that as a reason for the firesale that is now going on. The sales strategy of telling the world the club is on the brink and then trying to sell it is madness, it is akin to trying to sell your car while broken down on the hard shoulder of the M1.

I recognise that the majority of fans who express an opinion on social media want "investors" to come into the club without being able to define what that means but I would much prefer the Board seek help through the election of new members and seeking volunteer assistance within the supporter base to put in the hard work to get the finances back on an even keel first.

To continue the car analogy, let's get the car towed home, get a mate to fix it, give it a good clean and polish, climb into the back seat with the Mrs one more time if only for the memories and then think about whether we really do want to get rid of it.

I find the way the Board are railroading this firesale through objectionable and unecessary.

You also believe that younger people in the 3000 will replace and expand the 1000 I don't, it's a simple as that. I understand that you believe it is a fire sale, but it appears to me that both Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins have had time to look at the club from the inside to assess what is required, and to formulate a bid that the trust membership would see as possible, and positive. That is not a fire sale..........

The other factor involved is RP, and until very recently that has been owned by the WRU who wanted it as an asset to sell the Dragon's.........

All in all, that is very different from what normally happens, were owners choose the next owner on the basis of what money they personally get back, not on what is best for the club........

To me at least, in essence if it is Jon Pratt v Huw Jenkins then HJ is selling a vision of trust helped funding, and JP outside funding wanting assets and savings to produce profits.

For me I don't particularly want either vision, but I accept that the trust model of 8 years ago is no longer fit for purpose, simply because the opposition has changed. That has been compounded by clubs coming up with big resources, which in the past didn't particularly happen.

I would prefer if we didn't need to change, but I accept that we do, not because of the past, but because of the likely future.........

You should stop telling me what I believe, you get it wrong every time.

That may be the case, but if you are basing what you think on the club having a fire sale, then there are too many factors at play at the same time for that to be true. So the basis of your argument is clearly flawed.....