OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 8th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Stow Hill Sid wrote: March 8th, 2023, 9:57 pm Out of curiosity, if Mr Paul Marks is chair of the Supporters' Trust, and that is the same as the board of Newport County AFC, then what is The board that our chairman chairs?

Yes Paul Marks is the chair of the Supporters Trust board. Only some members of that board are chosen to constitute a Football club committee. It is that committee that G Foxall is/was ? the chair of.
I believe that a lot of the misunderstanding of the constitution of the Supporters Trust is caused by the use in common parlance of the term 'football club board' , when the model rules refer to it as a 'committee', the trust board minutes refer to it as the 'club group'.
It is also further confused by the clubs website staff index showing G Foxall as board chairmen.

It is not just a football committee as you put it, they are Directors of a separate legally constituted entity with its own memorandum and articles. As such the co-opted members technically don’t even have to be members of the Trust, although I would like to think they are.

Stow Hill Sid wrote: March 8th, 2023, 9:57 pm Out of curiosity, if Mr Paul Marks is chair of the Supporters' Trust Board, and that is the same as the board of Newport County AFC, then what is the board that our chairman chairs?

I do agree that in certain circumstances it does appear to be confusing. I think OC in his reply has explained it better than I. I think the best way is to think of things as the Trust and the club. Paul Marks is Chairman of the supporters Trust. They are the majority shareholders of the club. GF is/was chair of the football club. He is also a Director of the Supporters Trust board. Trust and club. They are different legal entities with the same aims and ambitions.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: March 9th, 2023, 5:09 am

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 8th, 2023, 10:31 pm

Stow Hill Sid wrote: March 8th, 2023, 9:57 pm Out of curiosity, if Mr Paul Marks is chair of the Supporters' Trust, and that is the same as the board of Newport County AFC, then what is The board that our chairman chairs?

Yes Paul Marks is the chair of the Supporters Trust board. Only some members of that board are chosen to constitute a Football club committee. It is that committee that G Foxall is/was ? the chair of.
I believe that a lot of the misunderstanding of the constitution of the Supporters Trust is caused by the use in common parlance of the term 'football club board' , when the model rules refer to it as a 'committee', the trust board minutes refer to it as the 'club group'.
It is also further confused by the clubs website staff index showing G Foxall as board chairmen.

It is not just a football committee as you put it, they are Directors of a separate legally constituted entity with its own memorandum and articles. As such the co-opted members technically don’t even have to be members of the Trust, although I would like to think they are.

The term committee I take from the model rules, it is not my terminology. I'm sure others will continue to call it a group or board, but whatever anyone personall whishes to call it, I don't believe it changes their role. The scope and responsibilities of that 'committee' has to be set in writing by the full trust board, according to the model rules.
I agree that I can find no stipulation as to why a co-opted member has to be a trust member.
Just to add more confusion to the matter, the appointed members of what the model rules refer to as committees, i.e. in our case 'football group' and 'community group' , don't even have to be directors, as long as there is at least one director on every 'committee.
As for the legal ramifications of such a set up I confess my ignorance.'

pembsexile wrote: March 9th, 2023, 6:49 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: March 8th, 2023, 9:57 pm Out of curiosity, if Mr Paul Marks is chair of the Supporters' Trust Board, and that is the same as the board of Newport County AFC, then what is the board that our chairman chairs?

I do agree that in certain circumstances it does appear to be confusing. I think OC in his reply has explained it better than I. I think the best way is to think of things as the Trust and the club. Paul Marks is Chairman of the supporters Trust. They are the majority shareholders of the club. GF is/was chair of the football club. He is also a Director of the Supporters Trust board. Trust and club. They are different legal entities with the same aims and ambitions.

Good post Mike.
The constitution of the Supporters Trust board, football club and community club has been ongoing unaltered more or less since it's conception. I know you have been expressing your confusions and concerns about it's set up for some time.
It's obvious though that there has only been so many posts on this topic recently, since the unexplained reason why G Foxall has 'gone missing' and the appointment of J Pratt as a co-opted director.
Undoubtedly concerns and speculation will continue to be rife, whilst the club decide to remain silent.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 9th, 2023, 9:10 am

pembsexile wrote: March 9th, 2023, 6:49 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: March 8th, 2023, 9:57 pm Out of curiosity, if Mr Paul Marks is chair of the Supporters' Trust Board, and that is the same as the board of Newport County AFC, then what is the board that our chairman chairs?

I do agree that in certain circumstances it does appear to be confusing. I think OC in his reply has explained it better than I. I think the best way is to think of things as the Trust and the club. Paul Marks is Chairman of the supporters Trust. They are the majority shareholders of the club. GF is/was chair of the football club. He is also a Director of the Supporters Trust board. Trust and club. They are different legal entities with the same aims and ambitions.

Good post Mike.
The constitution of the Supporters Trust board, football club and community club has been ongoing unaltered more or less since it's conception. I know you have been expressing your confusions and concerns about it's set up for some time.
It's obvious though that there has only been so many posts on this topic recently, since the unexplained reason why G Foxall has 'gone missing' and the appointment of J Pratt as a co-opted director.
Undoubtedly concerns and speculation will continue to be rife, whilst the club decide to remain silent.

Is it in the clubs gift to tell anyone that two employees have decided to step aside while an outside investigation takes place?

Think about it, teachers do face investigations more regularly than ever, do we have the right to know that little Johnny has accused the teacher of x and that he has been accused of x before? Surely the allegations have to be investigated properly, and only if x is proven, does it then need to be publicised? Otherwise what's to stop little Johnny's mate trying the same thing, because he wants to be taught by someone else?

Likewise in Court the Jury are not told of the accused previous convictions (accusations), in order that it does not influence how the Jury will consider the evidence of the particular case in front of them.

No its not but nice to know our secartery is going before he posts it on social media

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 9:39 am

Likewise in Court the Jury are not told of the accused previous convictions (accusations), in order that it does not influence how the Jury will consider the evidence of the particular case in front of them.

The Crimanal Justice Act 2003 allows the prosecution to make a bad character application to put previous convictions before a jury.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2023, 10:05 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 9:39 am

Likewise in Court the Jury are not told of the accused previous convictions (accusations), in order that it does not influence how the Jury will consider the evidence of the particular case in front of them.

The Crimanal Justice Act 2003 allows the prosecution to make a bad character application to put previous convictions before a jury.

But it has to be accepted to be in the interest of the case, its not a right.

owlsabout wrote: March 9th, 2023, 9:41 am No its not but nice to know our secartery is going before he posts it on social media

I see, so what the secretary posts on social media must be because he is being bullied, is that the inference that you've made?

And what about Jon Pratt, are his posts on social media due to him being bullied as well?

Is it impossible to reach a conclusion whereby Jon Pratt wanted to join the 'board' without standing for election first? Could it be that he asked to be considered for co-option and the board said we have someone with the skills that you offering on the board who is based in London?

Could it be that miraculously that person has to vacate the role that he has, in order to carry out the duties of another who has chosen to step aside?

So all because of accusations made on social media, Jon Pratt suddenly finds himself joining the 'board' instead of his proclaimed interest in taking over the club................

Strange how things can happen.............

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:17 am



But it has to be accepted to be in the interest of the case, its not a right.

It is in the interest of justice. Similar fact evidence.

So if one person makes an allegation of bullying it will be one persons word against another. If more than one person has made similar allegations then it may well become relevant.

My understanding is that Mr Stephenson is litigating the matter against the club. The club are potentially vicariously liable. In terms if my information is correct and if Mr Stephenson is successful then all those trust members will see their money going not to strengthen the club but to pay compensation.

And if that is the situation as I said before without any prejudice to the case itself, if the Trust members may be liable, I believe they have a right to know.

I get that you and the club don't like that. But in the words of Fletch' in Porridge. "Tough Titty".

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:55 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:17 am



But it has to be accepted to be in the interest of the case, its not a right.

It is in the interest of justice. Similar fact evidence.

So if one person makes an allegation of bullying it will be one persons word against another. If more than one person has made similar allegations then it may well become relevant.

My understanding is that Mr Stephenson is litigating the matter against the club. The club are potentially vicariously liable. In terms if my information is correct and if Mr Stephenson is successful then all those trust members will see their money going not to strengthen the club but to pay compensation.

And if that is the situation as I said before without any prejudice to the case itself, if the Trust members may be liable, I believe they have a right to know.

I get that you and the club don't like that. But in the words of Fletch' in Porridge. "Tough Titty".

It's not in the clubs gift, because it is an outside investigation.

Is it their interests? Well let's concider little Johnny, claiming x against his headmaster. If x is deemed a sex offence, and the headmaster had previous, it could well be in the interest of the investigation to publish limited detail of the accusation, in order to see how many other pupils may also come forward with accusations that may form part of any further action.

Again though, it is a matter for the outside investigation to deside.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 12:16 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:55 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:17 am



But it has to be accepted to be in the interest of the case, its not a right.

It is in the interest of justice. Similar fact evidence.

So if one person makes an allegation of bullying it will be one persons word against another. If more than one person has made similar allegations then it may well become relevant.

My understanding is that Mr Stephenson is litigating the matter against the club. The club are potentially vicariously liable. In terms if my information is correct and if Mr Stephenson is successful then all those trust members will see their money going not to strengthen the club but to pay compensation.

And if that is the situation as I said before without any prejudice to the case itself, if the Trust members may be liable, I believe they have a right to know.

I get that you and the club don't like that. But in the words of Fletch' in Porridge. "Tough Titty".

It's not in the clubs gift, because it is an outside investigation.

Is it their interests? Well let's concider little Johnny, claiming x against his headmaster. If x is deemed a sex offence, and the headmaster had previous, it could well be in the interest of the investigation to publish limited detail of the accusation, in order to see how many other pupils may also come forward with accusations that may form part of any further action.

Again though, it is a matter for the outside investigation to deside.

Have I missed something, so you are confirming that the allegations are being investigated by an external party? So please enlighten me as to who is that party, and what are the costs for their services?

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: March 9th, 2023, 12:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 12:16 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:55 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:17 am



But it has to be accepted to be in the interest of the case, its not a right.

It is in the interest of justice. Similar fact evidence.

So if one person makes an allegation of bullying it will be one persons word against another. If more than one person has made similar allegations then it may well become relevant.

My understanding is that Mr Stephenson is litigating the matter against the club. The club are potentially vicariously liable. In terms if my information is correct and if Mr Stephenson is successful then all those trust members will see their money going not to strengthen the club but to pay compensation.

And if that is the situation as I said before without any prejudice to the case itself, if the Trust members may be liable, I believe they have a right to know.

I get that you and the club don't like that. But in the words of Fletch' in Porridge. "Tough Titty".

It's not in the clubs gift, because it is an outside investigation.

Is it their interests? Well let's concider little Johnny, claiming x against his headmaster. If x is deemed a sex offence, and the headmaster had previous, it could well be in the interest of the investigation to publish limited detail of the accusation, in order to see how many other pupils may also come forward with accusations that may form part of any further action.

Again though, it is a matter for the outside investigation to deside.

Have I missed something, so you are confirming that the allegations are being investigated by an external party? So please enlighten me as to who is that party, and what are the costs for their services?

It's in Kelly Anderson's reply at the start of the reply received thread, which also mentions the policy documents which are numerous and can be accessed on the club website.

As far as costs are concerned, I believe Kelly Anderson's indicated in her speech, that after she had liaised with the FA to ascertain their involvement requirements, the FA if necessary would instigate, and therefore meet the costs of any serious inquiry.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 1:00 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: March 9th, 2023, 12:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 12:16 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:55 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 9th, 2023, 11:17 am



But it has to be accepted to be in the interest of the case, its not a right.

It is in the interest of justice. Similar fact evidence.

So if one person makes an allegation of bullying it will be one persons word against another. If more than one person has made similar allegations then it may well become relevant.

My understanding is that Mr Stephenson is litigating the matter against the club. The club are potentially vicariously liable. In terms if my information is correct and if Mr Stephenson is successful then all those trust members will see their money going not to strengthen the club but to pay compensation.

And if that is the situation as I said before without any prejudice to the case itself, if the Trust members may be liable, I believe they have a right to know.

I get that you and the club don't like that. But in the words of Fletch' in Porridge. "Tough Titty".

It's not in the clubs gift, because it is an outside investigation.

Is it their interests? Well let's concider little Johnny, claiming x against his headmaster. If x is deemed a sex offence, and the headmaster had previous, it could well be in the interest of the investigation to publish limited detail of the accusation, in order to see how many other pupils may also come forward with accusations that may form part of any further action.

Again though, it is a matter for the outside investigation to deside.

Have I missed something, so you are confirming that the allegations are being investigated by an external party? So please enlighten me as to who is that party, and what are the costs for their services?

It's in Kelly Anderson's reply at the start of the reply received thread, which also mentions the policy documents which are numerous and can be accessed on the club website.

As far as costs are concerned, I believe Kelly Anderson's indicated in her speech, that after she had liaised with the FA to ascertain their involvement requirements, the FA if necessary would instigate, and therefore meet the costs of any serious inquiry.

Many thanks

Is this still going on?