Precisely, why ask for comments after you have sent an open letter? What is the point in trying to engage with Stan, as he has shown without any doubt, that he isn't interested in any form of engement?

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 26th, 2022, 6:44 pm Precisely, why ask for comments after you have sent an open letter? What is the point in engaging with someone who isn't interested in engement?

I am always interested in what people think. And I'm more interested when people disagree with me. Firstly because if they take the time to write a critique , they deserve a response. Secondly sometimes they point out a flaw in my argument which I had not seen. Thirdly even if my view is not changed it is often improved as I am forced to sharpen up my views. Finally some people may be interested in my views but choose not to comment.

When it comes to people who have no interest in what I say, that's fine too. Far and away the topic on this board which is most read and certainly the most long running is 'News of former County players'. I have no interest in players when they leave County, I follow the shirt. I therefore seldom read the thread, if ever, I don't comment on it. I hope I would never be so arrogant as to suggest people stop posting about subjects, on the basis those subjects don't interest me.

When you try to justify your stance that the WRU are all evil, and the Council are the answer, by starting the answer with "I think" that is not factual, it's that simple, isn't it?
As you have written the open letter, it is for you to back up your comment with actual facts.

When I point out to you, the money that has been invested in Rodney Parade by the WRU it is factual. So if you really are interested in what people think, provide facts, it's as simple as that.

It appears that you are unable to argue against the millions invested by the WRU, simply continually answering " I think the Council should invest in ownership" , without being able to answer the incredibly simple question, Rodney Parade, is not, and never has been, for sale.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 26th, 2022, 7:50 pm When you try to justify your stance that the WRU are all evil,

I'm really sorry but I stopped reading at this point.

I don't think that the WRU are evil. It is not my stance, and I can't debate with someone who for whatever reason can equate what I do think, which is the WRU owe a duty to Welsh rugby not to Newport County, with being evil.

I am happy to listen to and debate with anyone. I will listen and debate with you. But when a post begins with a claim such as yours in the post above I think it best ignored.

I am sorry that just is not good enough. YOU have sent the open letter. Stop avoiding answering the rest of the post, by deflection.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 26th, 2022, 8:16 pm I am sorry that just is not good enough. YOU have sent the open letter. Stop avoiding answering the rest of the post, by deflection.

As I said I am quite happy to debate with anyone. Yourself included. However I can't debate with someone who opens a post by claiming I am maintaining that the Welsh Rugby Football Union are 'evil'. I will continue to read your posts. If and when you raise points which merit discussion I will respond. Until then forgive me but I won't be responding. Feel free to have the last word.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 26th, 2022, 8:16 pm I am sorry that just is not good enough. YOU have sent the open letter. Stop avoiding answering the rest of the post, by deflection.

FfS give over

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 26th, 2022, 12:56 pm I do have a plan, and that is that those who have charge of our club should examine each and every opportunity and explore ways to move our club forward.

This doesn't mean you have a plan, unless it's a unique insight. Why would any club not be doing this as a matter of routine?

We are now seeing the top surface of the pitch being replaced, this is work required annually to ensure that the pitch allows water to reach the drainage system freely. The "lawn mowers" used immediately after each game, actually keep the grass layer from compacting. This is all very different from using rollers to compact this layer, and much more expensive.
That is why having a landlord prepared to invest year on year is important, and something that we didn't have at Spytty.
The club have been in profit for the last 4 seasons, unheard of, not only for us in our history, but elsewhere in the league.
We are making good use of the facilities, that bring in money, it's more about the commercial side than just bums on seats these days.
The relationship that we have with David Buttress/WRU is poles different from when we moved in with Newport Rugby.

All of the above shows that we have a very good landlord relationship, who are investing for mutual benefit.
Those are the facts that Stan chooses to ignore when he states "I think"

He doesn't answer why the Council can provide better security? Or even why is the ground not up for sale? Just another list of "I think"

Is that realistic? Is it the basis upon which you choose to write an open letter, presumably to intiate change?

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 27th, 2022, 6:31 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: May 26th, 2022, 12:56 pm I do have a plan, and that is that those who have charge of our club should examine each and every opportunity and explore ways to move our club forward.

This doesn't mean you have a plan, unless it's a unique insight. Why would any club not be doing this as a matter of routine?

Two things.

As I explained above it is a simple plan. That does not make it a bad plan. Television was a complicated invention, the wheel was a very simple invention. The phrase we have in the English language is the greatest invention since the wheel. Just because something is simple does not mean it is without merit.

I'm not quite sure whst your second point is. I could the question literally and say because we are the only club in the EFL renting from the a WRU. However if you question was meant to be whether the club might be doing that which I suggest and would be doing so anyway without any input from me, then I can only answer that they might be.

My point is that whether it would be worth a phone call. Thus far I have read nothing to suggest it is not.

Bangitintrnet wrote: May 27th, 2022, 8:33 am We are now seeing the top surface of the pitch being replaced, this is work required annually to ensure that the pitch allows water to reach the drainage system freely. The "lawn mowers" used immediately after each game, actually keep the grass layer from compacting. This is all very different from using rollers to compact this layer, and much more expensive.
That is why having a landlord prepared to invest year on year is important, and something that we didn't have at Spytty.
The club have been in profit for the last 4 seasons, unheard of, not only for us in our history, but elsewhere in the league.
We are making good use of the facilities, that bring in money, it's more about the commercial side than just bums on seats these days.
The relationship that we have with David Buttress/WRU is poles different from when we moved in with Newport Rugby.

All of the above shows that we have a very good landlord relationship, who are investing for mutual benefit.
Those are the facts that Stan chooses to ignore when he states "I think"

He doesn't answer why the Council can provide better security? Or even why is the ground not up for sale? Just another list of "I think"

Is that realistic? Is it the basis upon which you choose to write an open letter, presumably to intiate change?

I let out a house. This is true by the way.

I like to think I am a good landlord. I work through an agent. I charge a fair rent. Sometimes my friends and my agent criticize me saying I could charge more. I ensure that the house is in good order. If and when any problems occur I have arranged for a local builder to carry out immediate repairs. Finally the law in ireland allows me to evict a tenant without fault with no more than three months notice. I have assured my tenant I will give at least 12 months notice.

But one day when I need to, I will sell that house. And there is no certainty that the next landlord will be as good/soft in the head, delete as appropriate as me. Circumstances change. Stockport have an agreement which they can enforce with their local authority for 125 years. That is long term security. That is why a local authority will offer greater security. A local authority have the interest of the community as their prime concern, a private landlord has himself as it's prime concern. A local authority will give 125 years security. A private landlord won't.

If you ask a sensible question I will endevour to give you a sensible reply. A little suggestion. If you ask a question by writing 'Why do you believe a local authority would make a better landlord than a private landlord it sounds so much less aggressive than 'why won't he answer that?' And as a consequence we have a debate and not an argument.

So you can engage, but only to discuss topics that you judge as worthy, and of course to start your answer "I believe" rather that discuss facts.

O. K. Then as you now want to engage, please can you engage with the following:

Why do you believe if the Council had ownership they will invest in the facilities to the extent that the WRU do?

Why do you believe that the Council will provide a lease of 125 years to County, when there are two users of the site?

Why do you believe that it is in the best interests of Newport County to have a landlord with a proven record of zero investment?

How do you think it assists Newport County to have a landlord who doesn't provide the facilities that will help Newport County provide advertising and corporate sponsorship income?

How do you think the Council taking an interest in Rodney Parade stops the Dragon's being culled or Newport County going into a death spiral?

Why do you think that Rodney Parade is for sale?

I would definitely see the council as a preferable landlord because it has (or should have) a stake in the success of Newport as a brand. As we do, while the Dragons - I think crazily - have walked away from it.

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 27th, 2022, 11:09 am I would definitely see the council as a preferable landlord because it has (or should have) a stake in the success of Newport as a brand. As we do, while the Dragons - I think crazily - have walked away from it.

Can I ask you to consider, why you think the Ospreys discussed merging with the Scarlets, as they share a council owned ground?

I know that Swansea now have operational control, but do you think that it may have been Swansea City wanting a contribution to things such as pitch renewal, that the Council and Ospreys didn't particularly have a specific requirement for.

George Street-Bridge wrote: May 27th, 2022, 11:09 am I would definitely see the council as a preferable landlord because it has (or should have) a stake in the success of Newport as a brand. As we do, while the Dragons - I think crazily - have walked away from it.

We certainly agree on the first limb of what you say.

Further you may very well be right that the Dragons have walked away. Whether or not they are crazy to do so is for them to consider. If you are right then my idea, and an idea the board may well have had, dies at birth and there is nothing we can do. It also may well be the case that the board made the telephone call. If they did and it went nowhere, at least they tried and I would commend that.