The bottom line for me is the council has the biggest stake in the success of what you might call Brand Newport. But that's another statement of the obvious.

George Street-Bridge wrote: June 8th, 2022, 9:44 am I'll have one more go. This is the problem. You can only honestly say "would be the first to really try" if you know for a fact there had never been a previous real attempt. But you knew perfectly well there was, because it has been discussed here at least three times and you participated at least twice, most recently just over a year ago.

Maybe you think it wasn't "real" - but you can't at the same time make that call AND claim ignorance of it.

Anyway, PMSL at the idea "your plan" is anything but a statement of a blindingly obvious course of action. Outside your head it's about as insightful as saying today is Wednesday.

Let's see what we agree on and what we don't

You believe that a presentation in 1989 was a real attempt to solve the problem by a chairman of Newport County. As you don't tell us whether the chairman of Newport County was at the meeting I rather think you are on weak ground. You can disagree.

Since 2003, I have been on this board banging on about our need for a fit for purpose stadium. In that time no Newport County chairman has come out and said we need to develop ground security.

In fairness to Howard Greenhaf, he did negotiate our move to Rodney Parade. David Hando is on record as saying both that he had no problem with the athletics track at Spytty and that we could never have become a League club had we remained at Spytty. Whilst I welcome David's volte face, it's a shame it took him until 2013 to see something which was blindingly obvious to me in 2003. So as you can imagine I make no apologies for stating the blindingly obvious.

And to be clear, whilst I agree with Kevin Ward that our agreement with Rodney Parade is 'frankly not very good' I wish he had the courage to state the blindingly obvious. Which is in any negotiation if one party knows that it has all the cards that party can and will get by far the better of the deal.

However I am delighted that as you think talking to David Buttress to see if we can make common cause is blindingly obvious. On that we are in complete agreement.

George Street-Bridge wrote: June 8th, 2022, 9:53 am The bottom line for me is the council has the biggest stake in the success of what you might call Brand Newport. But that's another statement of the obvious.

George I agree. Absolutely. You get it, I get it. 9000 hits on this topic points out that some don't.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 8th, 2022, 10:10 am
You believe that a presentation in 1989 was a real attempt to solve the problem by a chairman of Newport County.

No. The presentation was in the mid to late 90s. We have discussed it more than once. You yourself replied to a post in which I said 1989 "is a bogus date anyway given we had to spend the next five years sorting out the FAW". And to another where I mentioned that the landowner had problems over renewing the lease in the late 90s and moved out in 1998. There was no Over the Bridge Exiles as early as 1989.

As you don't tell us whether the chairman of Newport County was at the meeting I rather think you are on weak ground.

Non sequitur of the year award, and it's only June, Yes, he was.

Stan, you still seem unable or unwilling to grasp tke point that it was you who introduced the 1989 date by referring (in 2021) to there being an issue about not having our own ground for 32 years.

excessbee wrote: June 8th, 2022, 10:51 am Stan, you still seem unable or unwilling to grasp tke point that it was you who introduced the 1989 date by referring (in 2021) to there being an issue about not having our own ground for 32 years.

My belief is we have never really got to grips with the problem of a lack of ground security since 1988. No chairman of Newport County has ever said this is a problem we need to solve.

George talks of meetings which went nowhere. Which if it was recognized that there was a problem make my point.

If my car breaks down and it needs fixing I telephone a garage. If the garage can't fit me in I phone a different garage. If my car breaks down and the first garage can't fix it and I just sit in my car thinking there is nothing else I can do, then I'd be a moron.

I don't think we have properly addressed the issue since 1988. I believe sooner or later that will come back to bite us on the arse.

If I am right, then the satisfaction of being able to say I told you so will be as nothing to the devastation I will feel if we lose our league status again.

Okay a question which sums it up. Anybody reading this has to answer it for themselves. You alone will know the answer.

Think of something you really wanted but didn't get. If you like your biggest ambition that you didn't achieve. That which on your death bed you will regret. So now the really simple question.

Did you give up because you failed? Or did you fail because you gave up?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 8th, 2022, 11:16 am

excessbee wrote: June 8th, 2022, 10:51 am Stan, you still seem unable or unwilling to grasp tke point that it was you who introduced the 1989 date by referring (in 2021) to there being an issue about not having our own ground for 32 years.

My belief is we have never really got to grips with the problem of a lack of ground security since 1988. No chairman of Newport County has ever said this is a problem we need to solve.

George talks of meetings which went nowhere. Which if it was recognized that there was a problem make my point.

If my car breaks down and it needs fixing I telephone a garage. If the garage can't fit me in I phone a different garage. If my car breaks down and the first garage can't fix it and I just sit in my car thinking there is nothing else I can do, then I'd be a moron.

I don't think we have properly addressed the issue since 1988. I believe sooner or later that will come back to bite us on the arse.

If I am right, then the satisfaction of being able to say I told you so will be as nothing to the devastation I will feel if we lose our league status again.

Again this is all based on assumption Stanley , a piece of paper does nothing to help if we were to lose our league status does it?

Can you please detail therefore how you can be so sure it benefits , when you are not in possession of the costs of ownership, and associated maintenance and development costs, against the costs of rental, with no fixed expenditure risks?

Can you also detail why you are not happy with the clubs choices since 1989?

Thank you.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 8th, 2022, 11:16 am George talks of meetings which went nowhere. Which if it was recognized that there was a problem make my point.

No, I didn't. It was one useful, informative meeting to brief a group of supporters about a proposal for a new ground which had got as far as identifying a site and a developer drafting plans, which for whatever reason didn't proceed. It does the opposite of making your point.

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..

Which of course is not the same thing as "meetings which went nowhere". The meeting was useful and informative, but the project never got off the ground. To be very precise, I don't know how much further it got, if it did.

George Street-Bridge wrote: June 9th, 2022, 10:09 am Which of course is not the same thing as "meetings which went nowhere". The meeting was useful and informative, but the project never got off the ground. To be very precise, I don't know how much further it got, if it did.

Dear readers,
Make up your own minds. If someone writes 'The meeting was informative but the project didn't get of the ground' would you think a) That is materially the same as the meeting went nowhere, or b) it does not mean substantially the same thing as the meeting went nowhere?

And having done that, dear readers, let's get back on topic. Myself and George agree that the council would be the best landlord. As far as I can tell George agrees with me that the phone call I suggested is worth making. Where there is a disagreement between myself and George is that he believes it is so blindingly obvious that the call has been made that I am merely trying to paint myself as someone with deep insight. My only response to that is as I am quite capable of missing the blindingly obvious I see no harm in pointing it out.

One question at least has been answered. Those of you who will have tried to follow the substance of the debate will recall that I also expressed the view that if there were common cause to be made with the Dragons it should include public lobbying. I say this because I remember how successful it was for Charlton Athletic. And I suspect most of you will not remember Rosie Barnes. The fact that you don't remember her explains why organized lobbying can be so successful. Clearly if lobbying were to be done in public it would have been done by now. And to be clear, that is a judgement call, it is my view, it is not a criticism of those who take a different view.

I should add that Ms Barnes might have lost anyway. Then again Simon Hughes didn't.

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?

Bangitintrnet wrote: June 8th, 2022, 12:13 pm

Again this is all based on assumption Stanley , a piece of paper does nothing to help if we were to lose our league status does it?

Can you please detail therefore how you can be so sure it benefits , when you are not in possession of the costs of ownership, and associated maintenance and development costs, against the costs of rental, with no fixed expenditure risks?

Can you also detail why you are not happy with the clubs choices since 1989?

Thank you.

Three paragraphs let me answer each in turn.

If we lose our League status, our attendances will be substantially lower. Our ancillary income will likewise take a massive hit. If we owned our own stadium, there would be no rent to pay. If we rented from the council my view is there is an incentive to assist which is not there from a private landlord. If only because many Newport County supporters have a vote in elections for Newport City Council.

Your second paragraph is misconceived. Whilst it is true that I prefer ownership, and if anyone on this board who has bought their own house wants to come on here and seriously tell me that they wished they had stayed in rented accommodation I would be surprized. I own two houses. I rent one out. I am a good landlord, I charge below the market rate for rent, I carry out repairs immediately. The fact remains that someone goes out to work for thirty five hours a week and the payment he receives for his first ten hours he gives to me. This allows me to play golf, go fishing, have nice holidays, pontificate on this board, and not have to go out to work. Owning always works out far less expensive than renting.

However this thread is about whether we should endevour to make common cause with the Dragon. You believe a private Landlord is as good a landlord as a local authority. I don't.

Your final question. Can I say why I am not happy with the clubs choices since 1989. Huge assumption on your part. And utterly wrong. The club will have made thousands of decisions since 1989. I will have agreed with some, disagreed with others.

If you mean do I believe that Newport County have not adequately addressed the problem of a suitable stadium since 1989, then yes I do. Since the inception of this board, I firstly argued that Spytty Park was simply not fit for purpose. That we would never be a League club had we remained there. I have felt that since watching a game in the late 1990's v Cambridge City And in 20 years on this board I have expressed that view. And I might add been roundly insulted on this board for doing so.

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.