ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

1
There may or not be an item on the agenda of the forthcoming AGM about the election of Directors to the Trust Board. However, I think that it must be. This is because the Trust's Rules make it mandatory for one third of elected Directors to resign. If no elected Directors - and it must be elected Directors - replace these, then the Trust will fall foul of it's own Rules. This is in two respects. The first is that there must be a minimum of six Directors and the second is that non elected Directors must not outnumber elected Directors.

For the election, the Rules(Rule 61) states this “Elected directors shall be elected only in accordance with the Election Policy adopted by the (Trust)”. I don't think the Trust has ever adopted any such policy. I have asked for it from the Trust and my specific request has never been even acknowledged.

So, if an election for Directors happens and the Trust has not adopted an Election Policy, the BOD can run the election as it likes.

The Football Supporters Association, from where the Trust gets it's Model Rules and which was used to register the Trust as a legal body, provides a model Elections Policy, which, of course, could have been adopted by the Trust.

This Model Election Policy briefly provides for the following:

1. An independent process for running the election.

2. A timetable, which starts 8 weeks before the AGM.

3. A nominations and eligibility process, which requires candidates to submit a statement in support of their nomination. This should be done well in advance of the election. Importantly, candidates are to self certify that they have read the Code of Conduct for Board Members and will abide by it.

As far as I can tell, the Trust does not have any such Code of Conduct. I have asked for it and my request has not been responded to.

4. Campaigning is managed.

5. A voting and results declaration process is set out

Although the election process is to be managed independently, there is a big role for the Trust Secretary to undertake. I don't believe that the Trust has a Secretary.

To sum up, I think that if there is to be an election for Directors at the AGM, inevitably it will not be run in accordance with the Model provided by the FSA. It will be an on the night process again based on 'Who fancies it ?' amongst possibly 'favourites' of some faction or another . To my mind, this is far from the best way to get effective Directors.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

2
Just a further point about the role of Trust Secretary, which is a legally required appointment. The FSA says this:

"....Under the law governing Community Benefit Societies, the members are the most important people. The Society belongs to them, so the Secretary’s responsibility is to them, not the Board. The Board act in the name of the members, but where the Secretary feels that the Board is acting less in the interests of the trust than of members’, then they must act...."

You wonder what might have happened if the BOD had appointed an effective Secretary, who had carried out these duties in the way described above.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

3
I am not for one moment suggesting that you shouldn't be writing this or expressing your views and opinions on the Trust. I do though wonder if much of what you say is really now a case of the horse having bolted.

For me, and I stress this is simply my opinion, the Trust members having chosen to give up control of Newport County to Huw Jenkins have in effect chosen to turn the Trust into a supporters club. It's sole purpose as far as I can see being to raise money for Newport County.

For me the idea that there can be effective directors of the club itself is fanciful. Mr Jenkins and his fellow unknown backers are in this to make money and only that. Trust elected directors will have as much influence on the board of Mr Jenkins' Newport County, as those nodding heads do on Valdimir Putin's cabinet.

For my own part I'm neutral on that. Clearly to make money, the new owners need to invest to make Newport County successful and as such it falls all square with capitalist ideology. Fan owned Newport County equating to British Rail pre Thatcher, compared to privately owned Newport County equating to the wonderful NetWork Rail you have today

Two points arise. Leaving aside. My own view being that the Trust with now whither on the vine. And discussion of the administration of the Trust is therefore futile.

Secondly, and at this stage no more than a nagging doubt, I do wonder if now having seen the books, Mr Jenkins might be having second thoughts. And for those like George Guest and PMG, I am not stating that as fact, or even that I believe that to be the case, just that as a possibility I don't rule it out.
And much as the aforementioned duo might choke on their lunchtime repast, I suspect I am not alone in wondering that.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

4
An aside on one of your (admittedly less worrying) points. If we assume that HJ has more money than he could reasonably hope to spend in several lifetimes then the idea that his dealings at Newport County could net him anything more than what to him would amount to a bit of loose change, makes me wonder if maybe he isn't just in it to make money.

Goes against the grain, I grant you.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

5
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:00 pm I am not for one moment suggesting that you shouldn't be writing this or expressing your views and opinions on the Trust. I do though wonder if much of what you say is really now a case of the horse having bolted.

For me, and I stress this is simply my opinion, the Trust members having chosen to give up control of Newport County to Huw Jenkins have in effect chosen to turn the Trust into a supporters club. It's sole purpose as far as I can see being to raise money for Newport County.

For me the idea that there can be effective directors of the club itself is fanciful. Mr Jenkins and his fellow unknown backers are in this to make money and only that. Trust elected directors will have as much influence on the board of Mr Jenkins' Newport County, as those nodding heads do on Valdimir Putin's cabinet.

For my own part I'm neutral on that. Clearly to make money, the new owners need to invest to make Newport County successful and as such it falls all square with capitalist ideology. Fan owned Newport County equating to British Rail pre Thatcher, compared to privately owned Newport County equating to the wonderful NetWork Rail you have today

Two points arise. Leaving aside. My own view being that the Trust with now whither on the vine. And discussion of the administration of the Trust is therefore futile.

Secondly, and at this stage no more than a nagging doubt, I do wonder if now having seen the books, Mr Jenkins might be having second thoughts. And for those like George Guest and PMG, I am not stating that as fact, or even that I believe that to be the case, just that as a possibility I don't rule it out.
And much as the aforementioned duo might choke on their lunchtime repast, I suspect I am not alone in wondering that.
The consultative exercise might suggest ways the the Trust could be effective and in ways that you may not have thought of. If that proves to be the case, then it must be run properly and with the fullest involvement of the Trust members.

In my opinion, it is likely that HJ will look to have the appointees he makes from the Trust non-voting Directors. If that is the case they will have to rely on their ability to persuade other AFC Directors and principally HJ of the merits of their inputs. However, against this, their duty as Directors of the AFC must be exercised in the best interests of the AFC and not the Trust.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

6
JonD wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:11 pm An aside on one of your (admittedly less worrying) points. If we assume that HJ has more money than he could reasonably hope to spend in several lifetimes then the idea that his dealings at Newport County could net him anything more than what to him would amount to a bit of loose change, makes me wonder if maybe he isn't just in it to make money.

Goes against the grain, I grant you.
For those with the money making gene, the fun is in the doing, not the result. Take footballers. If I was being paid £500,000 a week, I'd work for six months, a year at the most and retire. I don't suppose those multimillionaires off to play football in Saudi Arabia need the ackers.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

7
Chris Davis wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:16 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:00 pm I am not for one moment suggesting that you shouldn't be writing this or expressing your views and opinions on the Trust. I do though wonder if much of what you say is really now a case of the horse having bolted.

For me, and I stress this is simply my opinion, the Trust members having chosen to give up control of Newport County to Huw Jenkins have in effect chosen to turn the Trust into a supporters club. It's sole purpose as far as I can see being to raise money for Newport County.

For me the idea that there can be effective directors of the club itself is fanciful. Mr Jenkins and his fellow unknown backers are in this to make money and only that. Trust elected directors will have as much influence on the board of Mr Jenkins' Newport County, as those nodding heads do on Valdimir Putin's cabinet.

For my own part I'm neutral on that. Clearly to make money, the new owners need to invest to make Newport County successful and as such it falls all square with capitalist ideology. Fan owned Newport County equating to British Rail pre Thatcher, compared to privately owned Newport County equating to the wonderful NetWork Rail you have today

Two points arise. Leaving aside. My own view being that the Trust with now whither on the vine. And discussion of the administration of the Trust is therefore futile.

Secondly, and at this stage no more than a nagging doubt, I do wonder if now having seen the books, Mr Jenkins might be having second thoughts. And for those like George Guest and PMG, I am not stating that as fact, or even that I believe that to be the case, just that as a possibility I don't rule it out.
And much as the aforementioned duo might choke on their lunchtime repast, I suspect I am not alone in wondering that.
The consultative exercise might suggest ways the the Trust could be effective and in ways that you may not have thought of. If that proves to be the case, then it must be run properly and with the fullest involvement of the Trust members.

In my opinion, it is likely that HJ will look to have the appointees he makes from the Trust non-voting Directors. If that is the case they will have to rely on their ability to persuade other AFC Directors and principally HJ of the merits of their inputs. However, against this, their duty as Directors of the AFC must be exercised in the best interests of the AFC and not the Trust.
Hi Chris,

As I said at the outset, it's just a difference of opinion; mine being that the Trust is no longer relevant.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

8
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:22 pm
Chris Davis wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:16 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:00 pm I am not for one moment suggesting that you shouldn't be writing this or expressing your views and opinions on the Trust. I do though wonder if much of what you say is really now a case of the horse having bolted.

For me, and I stress this is simply my opinion, the Trust members having chosen to give up control of Newport County to Huw Jenkins have in effect chosen to turn the Trust into a supporters club. It's sole purpose as far as I can see being to raise money for Newport County.

For me the idea that there can be effective directors of the club itself is fanciful. Mr Jenkins and his fellow unknown backers are in this to make money and only that. Trust elected directors will have as much influence on the board of Mr Jenkins' Newport County, as those nodding heads do on Valdimir Putin's cabinet.

For my own part I'm neutral on that. Clearly to make money, the new owners need to invest to make Newport County successful and as such it falls all square with capitalist ideology. Fan owned Newport County equating to British Rail pre Thatcher, compared to privately owned Newport County equating to the wonderful NetWork Rail you have today

Two points arise. Leaving aside. My own view being that the Trust with now whither on the vine. And discussion of the administration of the Trust is therefore futile.

Secondly, and at this stage no more than a nagging doubt, I do wonder if now having seen the books, Mr Jenkins might be having second thoughts. And for those like George Guest and PMG, I am not stating that as fact, or even that I believe that to be the case, just that as a possibility I don't rule it out.
And much as the aforementioned duo might choke on their lunchtime repast, I suspect I am not alone in wondering that.
The consultative exercise might suggest ways the the Trust could be effective and in ways that you may not have thought of. If that proves to be the case, then it must be run properly and with the fullest involvement of the Trust members.

In my opinion, it is likely that HJ will look to have the appointees he makes from the Trust non-voting Directors. If that is the case they will have to rely on their ability to persuade other AFC Directors and principally HJ of the merits of their inputs. However, against this, their duty as Directors of the AFC must be exercised in the best interests of the AFC and not the Trust.
Hi Chris,

As I said at the outset, it's just a difference of opinion; mine being that the Trust is no longer relevant.
Agree 💯 get rid of trust altogether. 100k is peanuts and I for one will stop my trust membership as soon as Huw finally takes over.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

9
countymadbel wrote: December 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:22 pm
Chris Davis wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:16 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:00 pm I am not for one moment suggesting that you shouldn't be writing this or expressing your views and opinions on the Trust. I do though wonder if much of what you say is really now a case of the horse having bolted.

For me, and I stress this is simply my opinion, the Trust members having chosen to give up control of Newport County to Huw Jenkins have in effect chosen to turn the Trust into a supporters club. It's sole purpose as far as I can see being to raise money for Newport County.

For me the idea that there can be effective directors of the club itself is fanciful. Mr Jenkins and his fellow unknown backers are in this to make money and only that. Trust elected directors will have as much influence on the board of Mr Jenkins' Newport County, as those nodding heads do on Valdimir Putin's cabinet.

For my own part I'm neutral on that. Clearly to make money, the new owners need to invest to make Newport County successful and as such it falls all square with capitalist ideology. Fan owned Newport County equating to British Rail pre Thatcher, compared to privately owned Newport County equating to the wonderful NetWork Rail you have today

Two points arise. Leaving aside. My own view being that the Trust with now whither on the vine. And discussion of the administration of the Trust is therefore futile.

Secondly, and at this stage no more than a nagging doubt, I do wonder if now having seen the books, Mr Jenkins might be having second thoughts. And for those like George Guest and PMG, I am not stating that as fact, or even that I believe that to be the case, just that as a possibility I don't rule it out.
And much as the aforementioned duo might choke on their lunchtime repast, I suspect I am not alone in wondering that.
The consultative exercise might suggest ways the the Trust could be effective and in ways that you may not have thought of. If that proves to be the case, then it must be run properly and with the fullest involvement of the Trust members.

In my opinion, it is likely that HJ will look to have the appointees he makes from the Trust non-voting Directors. If that is the case they will have to rely on their ability to persuade other AFC Directors and principally HJ of the merits of their inputs. However, against this, their duty as Directors of the AFC must be exercised in the best interests of the AFC and not the Trust.
Hi Chris,

As I said at the outset, it's just a difference of opinion; mine being that the Trust is no longer relevant.
Agree 💯 get rid of trust altogether. 100k is peanuts and I for one will stop my trust membership as soon as Huw finally takes over.
I suspect many will think as you do.
Even so that stance will leave many questions to answer, such as what becomes of the 27% shares held by the Trust ? And who makes that decision, given it was a written in the takeover bid that the Trust will retain that percentage.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

10
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 9th, 2023, 7:45 pm
I suspect many will think as you do.
Even so that stance will leave many questions to answer, such as what becomes of the 27% shares held by the Trust ? And who makes that decision, given it was a written in the takeover bid that the Trust will retain that percentage.
73% of the shares were gifted on a promise. Shares in Newport AFC and shares in the Trust are of nominal value only, essentially worthless. The only value being the ability to control of Newport County. That control, if they still want it, is in the hands of the Huw Jenkins led consortium.

I am not saying it was the wrong decision but I do feel that many don't really understand the decision taken in late September. Let me reiterate. The vote was for the motion do you give our club away for free to the Huw Jenkins led consortium?

The answer was a resounding yes.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

11
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 9th, 2023, 7:45 pm
countymadbel wrote: December 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:22 pm
Chris Davis wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:16 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 1:00 pm I am not for one moment suggesting that you shouldn't be writing this or expressing your views and opinions on the Trust. I do though wonder if much of what you say is really now a case of the horse having bolted.

For me, and I stress this is simply my opinion, the Trust members having chosen to give up control of Newport County to Huw Jenkins have in effect chosen to turn the Trust into a supporters club. It's sole purpose as far as I can see being to raise money for Newport County.

For me the idea that there can be effective directors of the club itself is fanciful. Mr Jenkins and his fellow unknown backers are in this to make money and only that. Trust elected directors will have as much influence on the board of Mr Jenkins' Newport County, as those nodding heads do on Valdimir Putin's cabinet.

For my own part I'm neutral on that. Clearly to make money, the new owners need to invest to make Newport County successful and as such it falls all square with capitalist ideology. Fan owned Newport County equating to British Rail pre Thatcher, compared to privately owned Newport County equating to the wonderful NetWork Rail you have today

Two points arise. Leaving aside. My own view being that the Trust with now whither on the vine. And discussion of the administration of the Trust is therefore futile.

Secondly, and at this stage no more than a nagging doubt, I do wonder if now having seen the books, Mr Jenkins might be having second thoughts. And for those like George Guest and PMG, I am not stating that as fact, or even that I believe that to be the case, just that as a possibility I don't rule it out.
And much as the aforementioned duo might choke on their lunchtime repast, I suspect I am not alone in wondering that.
The consultative exercise might suggest ways the the Trust could be effective and in ways that you may not have thought of. If that proves to be the case, then it must be run properly and with the fullest involvement of the Trust members.

In my opinion, it is likely that HJ will look to have the appointees he makes from the Trust non-voting Directors. If that is the case they will have to rely on their ability to persuade other AFC Directors and principally HJ of the merits of their inputs. However, against this, their duty as Directors of the AFC must be exercised in the best interests of the AFC and not the Trust.
Hi Chris,

As I said at the outset, it's just a difference of opinion; mine being that the Trust is no longer relevant.
Agree 💯 get rid of trust altogether. 100k is peanuts and I for one will stop my trust membership as soon as Huw finally takes over.
I suspect many will think as you do.
Even so that stance will leave many questions to answer, such as what becomes of the 27% shares held by the Trust ? And who makes that decision, given it was a written in the takeover bid that the Trust will retain that percentage.
If the Trust is dissolved, it's property, including it's shareholding, must by law be given to a similar CBS or charity. Nothing can be distributed to members. The members would make the decision to dissolve. I very much doubt if HJ could get any remedy against the Trust. That is even if the retention was included in the contract, which is not the written takeover bid. I very much doubt that it would be included, anyway.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

12
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 9:56 pm
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 9th, 2023, 7:45 pm
I suspect many will think as you do.
Even so that stance will leave many questions to answer, such as what becomes of the 27% shares held by the Trust ? And who makes that decision, given it was a written in the takeover bid that the Trust will retain that percentage.
73% of the shares were gifted on a promise. Shares in Newport AFC and shares in the Trust are of nominal value only, essentially worthless. The only value being the ability to control of Newport County. That control, if they still want it, is in the hands of the Huw Jenkins led consortium.

I am not saying it was the wrong decision but I do feel that many don't really understand the decision taken in late September. Let me reiterate. The vote was for the motion do you give our club away for free to the Huw Jenkins led consortium?

The answer was a resounding yes.
Having been given the shares for free by Les Scadding, the vote was do you believe that HJ is in a better position financially to now take the club forward, than the trust membership will ever be?

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

13
Bangitintrnet wrote: December 10th, 2023, 6:06 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 9:56 pm
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 9th, 2023, 7:45 pm
I suspect many will think as you do.
Even so that stance will leave many questions to answer, such as what becomes of the 27% shares held by the Trust ? And who makes that decision, given it was a written in the takeover bid that the Trust will retain that percentage.
73% of the shares were gifted on a promise. Shares in Newport AFC and shares in the Trust are of nominal value only, essentially worthless. The only value being the ability to control of Newport County. That control, if they still want it, is in the hands of the Huw Jenkins led consortium.

I am not saying it was the wrong decision but I do feel that many don't really understand the decision taken in late September. Let me reiterate. The vote was for the motion do you give our club away for free to the Huw Jenkins led consortium?

The answer was a resounding yes.
Having been given the shares for free by Les Scadding, the vote was do you believe that HJ is in a better position financially to now take the club forward, than the trust membership will ever be?
First of all Les Scadding was paid for his shares. Do you really think when he walked away anyone else would have given him a penny for them. Secondly the Trust membership didn't run the club, the leadership of the Trust, ran Newport County.

But on the main point with you I agree. Huw Jenkins will make a better job of running the club than Kevin Ward, Shaun Johnson and Gavin Foxall. Then again Harvey the Rabbit, Kermit the Frog and Derek the Dildo would make a better fist of it.

Re: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AT THE AGM

14
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 10th, 2023, 12:05 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: December 10th, 2023, 6:06 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 9th, 2023, 9:56 pm
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 9th, 2023, 7:45 pm
I suspect many will think as you do.
Even so that stance will leave many questions to answer, such as what becomes of the 27% shares held by the Trust ? And who makes that decision, given it was a written in the takeover bid that the Trust will retain that percentage.
73% of the shares were gifted on a promise. Shares in Newport AFC and shares in the Trust are of nominal value only, essentially worthless. The only value being the ability to control of Newport County. That control, if they still want it, is in the hands of the Huw Jenkins led consortium.

I am not saying it was the wrong decision but I do feel that many don't really understand the decision taken in late September. Let me reiterate. The vote was for the motion do you give our club away for free to the Huw Jenkins led consortium?

The answer was a resounding yes.
Having been given the shares for free by Les Scadding, the vote was do you believe that HJ is in a better position financially to now take the club forward, than the trust membership will ever be?
First of all Les Scadding was paid for his shares. Do you really think when he walked away anyone else would have given him a penny for them. Secondly the Trust membership didn't run the club, the leadership of the Trust, ran Newport County.

But on the main point with you I agree. Huw Jenkins will make a better job of running the club than Kevin Ward, Shaun Johnson and Gavin Foxall. Then again Harvey the Rabbit, Kermit the Frog and Derek the Dildo would make a better fist of it.
They have got us to the playoffs twice in 8 years, Scadding once. We didn't pay a penny to Les for his shares, we were just custodians.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: County Exile, Madhatter, OLDCROMWELLIAN