Bangitintrnet wrote: June 9th, 2022, 11:32 am As has been pointed out to you, by others, most people really don't have the interest, to even post a question or back a question. Let alone back a public letter, so why do you assume there to be any apatite at all for public lobbying? Why not simply ask the trust for their thoughts?

You could also put it to the test, and have a vote before proceeding of course, but then again what if it the result didn't suit the agenda?

My only agenda is that I want Newport County to be as successful as possible.

If you go back through this thread, other than yourself/yourselves nobody has said they think that the phone call should not be made. But that doesn't matter. If you're right you're right. And whether people agree with you or not is irrelevant. I said for over 10 years we couldn't be a League club if we remained at Spytty. I got dog's bollox abuse on here, but now everyone knows I was right. If I am lucky Newport County will find a way of ensuring a safe and prosperous future. If they don't sooner or larer we can renew our friendships with Bishop's Stortford and Swindon Supermarine.

As I keep saying to you, these are all assumptions. It's even an assumption that the club will back the proposal. So what do you have against putting it to the vote first?

You chose not to do that with the open letter, now you are deciding what other people want, simply by the fact that they haven't been arsed to comment. Is that really the way a professional club should run its affairs, at the behest of every single supporter, instead of what they see is what is best at the time?

Things may change, but it might just be that the club think that the WRU have invested in our future more than our fans, or anybody else wants to. Why change for change sake? when the proposer can't be bothered to list the benefits, or have a vote first. (it was low and hards vote proposal by the way)

Bangitintrnet wrote: June 9th, 2022, 12:03 pm As I keep saying to you, these are all assumptions. It's even an assumption that the club will back the proposal. So what do you have against putting it to the vote first?

You chose not to do that with the open letter, now you are deciding what other people want, simply by the fact that they haven't been arsed to comment. Is that really the way a professional club should run its affairs, at the behest of every single supporter, instead of what they see is what is best at the time?

Things may change, but it might just be that the club think that the WRU have invested in our future more than our fans, or anybody else wants to. Why change for change sake? when the proposer can't be bothered to list the benefits, or have a vote first. (it was low and hards vote proposal by the way)

Nonsense.

No assumption on my part. I'm just giving my view. I have no objection to having a vote on it. That would be interesting. It won't alter my view. Back in 2016 I lived in England. I voted remain in the EU referendum. I accept the result. Doesn't alter my view that it was probably the most ridiculous act of self harm any country has ever inflicted upon itself..

If the club take the view as you seem to suggest they do that the WRU have invested in our future more than our fans, then it would suggest that there is a massive disconnect between the fans and the club. Never known that in a fans owned club before. Ever thought of asking why?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 9th, 2022, 11:40 am

In 2015 David Hando said, rightly in my view, that we would never have become a League club had we remained at Spytty I welcome very much that acknowledgement.

It does though beg a number of question. If Spytty was not a stadium which could accommodate League football in 2015, why wasn't that seen in 1995? Why between 1994/5 when we moved to Spytty and 2012 when we left did boards of Newport County not recognize something which for me was blindingly obvious?

I don't have a monopoly on good ideas. And I have as many bad ideas as the next man. But unless we work together we never achieve that which Newport County is capable of.

I agree that, from the outset, Spytty was far from ideal, however it was adequate for our needs at the time. I posed the question a short while back about whether, between our return to Newport and the move to Rodney Parade, the criteria for a ground suitable for league football changed to exclude an athletics track, making it not only unsuitable from a spectator's point of view, but unacceptable to meet ground regulations. I'm speculating on that and would welcome any response. Someone did mention the London Stadium, but that, as far as I know, only becomes an athletic track once in a blue moon after a huge amount of conversation.

excessbee wrote: June 9th, 2022, 1:25 pm
I agree that, from the outset, Spytty was far from ideal, however it was adequate for our needs at the time. I posed the question a short while back about whether, between our return to Newport and the move to Rodney Parade, the criteria for a ground suitable for league football changed to exclude an athletics track, making it not only unsuitable from a spectator's point of view, but unacceptable to meet ground regulations. I'm speculating on that and would welcome any response. Someone did mention the London Stadium, but that, as far as I know, only becomes an athletic track once in a blue moon after a huge amount of conversation.

I would accept that the argument was that Spytty met our needs at the time if our need was to play in Tier 6. But the stated aim of the club was to return League football to Newport.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 9th, 2022, 1:29 pm

excessbee wrote: June 9th, 2022, 1:25 pm
I agree that, from the outset, Spytty was far from ideal, however it was adequate for our needs at the time. I posed the question a short while back about whether, between our return to Newport and the move to Rodney Parade, the criteria for a ground suitable for league football changed to exclude an athletics track, making it not only unsuitable from a spectator's point of view, but unacceptable to meet ground regulations. I'm speculating on that and would welcome any response. Someone did mention the London Stadium, but that, as far as I know, only becomes an athletic track once in a blue moon after a huge amount of conversation.

I would accept that the argument was that Spytty met our needs at the time if our need was to play in Tier 6. But the stated aim of the club was to return League football to Newport.

And that is exactly what we did, mission accomplished, despite the difficulties that our Council and the FAW put in front of us.

Yes its nice to have a wishlist, but we don't require a stadium the size of the Cardiff City Stadium, and nor do Cardiff now, but they are still paying the debt for it.

I am old enough to remember Wolves and Chelsea building huge stands as first division clubs and then, not needing them in the second division, were they stayed a long time, paying interest on the debts.

If the stadium is fit for purpose at the level that you play at, then it is fit for purpose full stop. It's no good budgeting for something that might never happen.

Incidentally, I haven't seen you comment yet on the stated aims of the club, that Colin posted yesterday. What do you think of that statement?

Bangitintrnet wrote: June 9th, 2022, 2:32 pm

If the stadium is fit for purpose at the level that you play at, then it is fit for purpose full stop. It's no good budgeting for something that might never happen.

A view that you are perfectly entitled to hold.

Twee though it is my view is 'fail to prepare, prepare to fail'.

Well Rodney Parade holds more than we are likely to get in Div 1, and can be temporarily expanded, as it was for Spurs, so I would argue the club is prepared.

What do you think of the club mission statement?

Bangitintrnet wrote: June 9th, 2022, 4:01 pm Well Rodney Parade holds more than we are likely to get in Div 1, and can be temporarily expanded, as it was for Spurs, so I would argue the club is prepared.

What do you think of the club mission statement?

I have never read a mission statement of any organization without doubling up with laughter.
What does it say?

Colin posted a link to it yesterday

Bangitintrnet wrote: June 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm Colin posted a link to it yesterday

What Newport County's mission statement is 'Colin posted a link to it yesterday'?

Bizarre.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 9th, 2022, 9:59 am

George Street-Bridge wrote: June 6th, 2022, 9:40 am It is simply not true that no board since 1988 has tried to secure a ground. There was a plan in the mid to late 90s which didn't get off the ground, as described here more than once.

This is what you said George.

Probably a linguistic thing. 'Went nowhere', which is what I said, well here in Ireland means the same as 'didn't get off the ground' which is what you said..

""He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody."

John Lennon

Bangitintrnet wrote: June 9th, 2022, 4:01 pm Well Rodney Parade holds more than we are likely to get in Div 1, and can be temporarily expanded, as it was for Spurs, so I would argue the club is prepared.

What do you think of the club mission statement?

Firstly, I am genuinely perplexed by this 30 page thread which seems to me essentially to have been generated by someone’s view that Dragons and County are in a precarious position re tenure at Rodney Parade and that it may be worth a phone between the two parties to see if there can be agreement on a way forward in both their best interests. Clearly I’m missing the nuances of the arguments.

Anyway, to the point I want to make. Is this really a mission statement? In my opinion a mission statement should at least include a fundamental purpose of the club which is being articulated to us fans. All this statement is doing is identifying an obvious aspiration that we should be owning our own ground? I have just looked at the Swansea City mission statement which I think is pretty good and gives a clear purpose and direction -
“Swansea City’s mission is to become an established and sustainable Premier League team that continues to progress year on year. Crucial to our success is our playing identity and style which we recognise is key to future success.”

County19081967 wrote: June 9th, 2022, 7:35 pm

Firstly, I am genuinely perplexed by this 30 page thread which seems to me essentially to have been generated by someone’s view that Dragons and County are in a precarious position re tenure at Rodney Parade and that it may be worth a phone between the two parties to see if there can be agreement on a way forward in both their best interests. Clearly I’m missing the nuances of the arguments.

You haven't missed any of the nuance. That is, in a nutshell, all I have said.