Torquay Exile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 2:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: October 29th, 2021, 1:00 am Was it me that said County have had that amount in the bank?

What I have said is that County have an income of 2m, AND money in the bank.

I have no idea what expenditure County are committed to, however 1 year contracts appear to be more popular recently. What I will say, is if anyone were to offer to buy the club for less than 10% of it's income, I would believe that they were in it to make a killing. Personally, I would still be doubtful of intentions, if it were less than 100% of income.

County have an income of £1m from TV and £1m from tickets, plus money in the bank. So to get their hands on that, how much were the prospective purchasers willing to invest?

Going by what you said above in the quotation marks, that's how you came across. More than or equal to £2,200.000 in the bank.

So £1,000,000 from TV agreement is that every season or once a blue moon? The £1,000,000 in ticket sales. Are that in-season tickets or at the end of the season after 23 games?

I'm unable to tell you what figures that they would have invested in Newport County. I have had to sign an NDA to cover that part of the documents that I had received.

The 1m for TV is what all league two clubs get per season. The 1m for all tickets, season or otherwise, is an assumption that a number of people on here have come up with, but is probably ball park figure.

Bangitintrnet wrote: October 29th, 2021, 3:59 pm

Torquay Exile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 2:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: October 29th, 2021, 1:00 am Was it me that said County have had that amount in the bank?

What I have said is that County have an income of 2m, AND money in the bank.

I have no idea what expenditure County are committed to, however 1 year contracts appear to be more popular recently. What I will say, is if anyone were to offer to buy the club for less than 10% of it's income, I would believe that they were in it to make a killing. Personally, I would still be doubtful of intentions, if it were less than 100% of income.

County have an income of £1m from TV and £1m from tickets, plus money in the bank. So to get their hands on that, how much were the prospective purchasers willing to invest?

Going by what you said above in the quotation marks, that's how you came across. More than or equal to £2,200.000 in the bank.

So £1,000,000 from TV agreement is that every season or once a blue moon? The £1,000,000 in ticket sales. Are that in-season tickets or at the end of the season after 23 games?

I'm unable to tell you what figures that they would have invested in Newport County. I have had to sign an NDA to cover that part of the documents that I had received.

The 1m for TV is what all league two clubs get per season. The 1m for all tickets, season or otherwise, is an assumption that a number of people on here have come up with, but is probably ball park figure.

In answer to your previous question, about 10 percent. I can now tell you after receiving an email from someone. I can now tell you that it would have been a lot more than 10 %. I have sent another email. I'm waiting on a reply. And I hope that I'm able to let you a lot more. Once I get an answer. I hope to get a reply today or sometime in the next week or so.

The accounts that are published for the club are more comprehensive than for many clubs at our level in that they contain profit and loss information as well as balance sheet.

The P&Ls show that Turnover for the last 3 years that have been published were -

2018 - £3,223,377
2019 - £4,803.488
2020 - £3,647,606

The Balance Sheet shows that as at 30th June 2020, cash at bank and in hand was £1,334,691.

It will be interesting to see how the 2021 figures stack up against these after a full season of no crowds, furlough scheme and other government grants/loans and increased ifollow availability during the 2020/21 season.

To confirm, the following are the Board of Directors and the Trust Board of Directors. Is there anyone missing?

1. Paul Marks (Chair),
2. Kelly Anderson
3. Mark Crook
4. Gavin Foxall
5. Bob Herrin
6. Shaun Johnson
7. Kevin Ward
8. Nigel Stephenson
9. Mike Everett
10. Colin Faulkner
11. Peter Madigan

Amberexile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 7:59 pm The accounts that are published for the club are more comprehensive than for many clubs at our level in that they contain profit and loss information as well as balance sheet.

The P&Ls show that Turnover for the last 3 years that have been published were -

2018 - £3,223,377
2019 - £4,803.488
2020 - £3,647,606

The Balance Sheet shows that as at 30th June 2020, cash at bank and in hand was £1,334,691.

It will be interesting to see how the 2021 figures stack up against these after a full season of no crowds, furlough scheme and other government grants/loans and increased ifollow availability during the 2020/21 season.

It would be nice to know what have they spent £2,312,915 on?

Torquay Exile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 9:08 pm To confirm, the following are the Board of Directors and the Trust Board of Directors. Is there anyone missing?

1. Paul Marks (Chair),
2. Kelly Anderson
3. Mark Crook
4. Gavin Foxall
5. Bob Herrin
6. Shaun Johnson
7. Kevin Ward
8. Nigel Stephenson
9. Mike Everett
10. Colin Faulkner
11. Peter Madigan

Kelly recently stood down to take the safeguarding job and is yet to be replaced I think? Joe Crocker is missing - he was elected after Ryan Courtney left his role.

Re spend - the club do provide details of expenses and info eg number of staff, total transfer fees, etc. Though often money is unspent and kept on hand. Probably wise given the highs and lows of football.

Torquay Exile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 9:08 pm To confirm, the following are the Board of Directors and the Trust Board of Directors. Is there anyone missing?

1. Paul Marks (Chair),
2. Kelly Anderson
3. Mark Crook
4. Gavin Foxall
5. Bob Herrin
6. Shaun Johnson
7. Kevin Ward
8. Nigel Stephenson
9. Mike Everett
10. Colin Faulkner
11. Peter Madigan

You are missing one name and one name you have mentioned is a club official not a Director. If you look on the Trust Supporters minutes the info regarding attendees from the latest published meeting is there.

Torquay Exile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 9:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 7:59 pm The accounts that are published for the club are more comprehensive than for many clubs at our level in that they contain profit and loss information as well as balance sheet.

The P&Ls show that Turnover for the last 3 years that have been published were -

2018 - £3,223,377
2019 - £4,803.488
2020 - £3,647,606

The Balance Sheet shows that as at 30th June 2020, cash at bank and in hand was £1,334,691.

It will be interesting to see how the 2021 figures stack up against these after a full season of no crowds, furlough scheme and other government grants/loans and increased ifollow availability during the 2020/21 season.

It would be nice to know what have they spent £2,312,915 on?

They spent £3,843,675.

Amberexile wrote: October 30th, 2021, 1:33 am

Torquay Exile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 9:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: October 29th, 2021, 7:59 pm The accounts that are published for the club are more comprehensive than for many clubs at our level in that they contain profit and loss information as well as balance sheet.

The P&Ls show that Turnover for the last 3 years that have been published were -

2018 - £3,223,377
2019 - £4,803.488
2020 - £3,647,606

The Balance Sheet shows that as at 30th June 2020, cash at bank and in hand was £1,334,691.

It will be interesting to see how the 2021 figures stack up against these after a full season of no crowds, furlough scheme and other government grants/loans and increased ifollow availability during the 2020/21 season.

It would be nice to know what have they spent £2,312,915 on?

They spent £3,843,675.

I hope you don't mind me asking you. How did you come to the figure of £3,843,675?

flat4 wrote: October 8th, 2021, 8:01 am The club should be carrying out both Q1 and 2, so therefore this poll is totally meaningless in its present format.
IMO

Yes, you are right. That is why uptheport should have asked Stan again. Whether that was the questions for the poll that he wanted to ask the supporters, would he like to change the questions? And before anyone decides to have a go at me. I'm not blaming uptheport in any shape or form.

The question implied that changes are necessary. It also doesn't take account of whether the club have the Ballance correct.

We know that substantial amounts have been spent on Rodney Parade by our landlord, and we can also assume that we have contributed.

The arguments that are put forward about owning a ground, conveniently ignore the Capital cost of purchase, the very substantial running costs, not to mention future investment in the asset.

With a lease, the tenant is seeking security, and the landlord is also seeking security, of rental income. What is unusual about our tenancy is that our landlord is meeting the purchase costs, the running costs, and the investment costs. The Expenditure therefore far outweigh's any rental income.

The Landlord does however have two tenants, one of which uses the ground more than twice that of the other, so who is it that is benefiting most from the three forms of expenditure?

Personally, I can't fathom how the club could afford to meet the expenditure required. Furthermore it was the Dragons that proved that it isn't affordable when they had to be taken over or go bust. The business case simply doesn't stack up unless you can afford to take a long term view, as our Landlords are doing.

My view is that County have fallen lucky with a Landlord that is investing heavily and needs a tenant who uses the asset.

I also think that it suits the Dragons to have the WRU as landlord, as they haven't rushed to alter the situation, and why should they? The other regions are complaining, and maybe the WRU should consider taking an interest in the other regions grounds as they have such a good record in ground development and investment.

Compare and contrast landlords at Rodney Parade with that at Newport Stadium, where investment has been minimal.

“The Expenditure therefore far outweigh's any rental income.“

Good argument but you’re probably guessing there.

The key advantage of being a tenant as you e said, is we get security of some sort. This hasn’t always been effective security in the past as our sport involves having a pitch we can pass on. Rodney Parade has been widely derided as the worst pitch in the league in recent years.

Plus, key is our grasp on that security is weakening as our tenancy runs out. We face being asked to leave, or sign a more expensive tenancy extension. We have no bargaining power, as a business we have no assets beyond cash in the bank: it would take a Hollywood-type investor with more money than sense to buy into our club, pay for a new ground and training facilities and move the club forward.

We really need to buy a plot of council land cheaply, secure a loan to build a small place we can call our own with a 4G facility next door we can train on and rent out.

Otherwise we face losing our club inside 10 years I feel.

But could we do that and retain EFL status? I'd be amazed. And could the council sell us land cheaply? Wouldn't they have a legal obligation to get the market price?

I suppose there are three options.

1) We carry on as we are. My view DeePeeNCAF is right. We have no leverage and are at the mercy of the WRU.

2) We find a way of having an equal partnership with the rugby at Rodney Parade. That is the best option in my view. However it is difficult to see why the rugby would sell their interest. Had the rugby gone bust 30 years ago and the Dragons were tenants at Somerton Park would we sell a half interest to them? It is possible but only with the full support of Newport City Council.

3) We develop a stadium of our own. That will take time and as George Street Bridge has correctly pointed out it may require taking a step back.

Owlsabout on another thread is right. We are in difficulties off the pitch. I don't know what the solution is, I do know unless we face up to it and talk sooner or later it will rear up and bite us on the arse.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: November 7th, 2021, 11:07 am However it is difficult to see why the rugby would sell their interest.

Financial necessity, the same thing that got us in there in the first place. This time stemming from declining public interest in the sport below international level.

We are in difficulties off the pitch.

Are we? Chapter and verse?