Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: The Takeover

241 by whoareya
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 9:06 am
Percy plunkett wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:42 am We should all get an email today with the runners and riders so,let’s wait for that and then read all about it.
I wouldn't necessarily hold your breath on that. In respect of the Notice that we should all receive soon all the Trust Rules require is that the BOD indicate the business to be dealt with. The word "indicate" does not require them to be specific on anything and I would suspect that, as negotiations/discussions are likely to be ongoing, no 'runners and riders' will be named or any details of any proposals made revealed.
Chris, I know from the County Facebook forum that you have provided very good detail of the Trust Constitution to those bothered enough to take an interest.

But at this critical stage in the future of the club, is there not a danger of this being counter productive - perversely by 'educating' the Board itself to give as little information as possible to the Trust members, to suite their own preferences, particularly if one of their own Co-opted members is announced as their Preferred Bidder?

Re: The Takeover

242 by whoareya
Stow Hill Sid wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:51 am

The front-runner in a two horse race is rarely anything other than the favourite. If the S W Argus are reporting him to be the front-runner this must be based on something. They have either seen the bids or they are reporting information relayed to them by someone who has. They wouldn't be so unprofessional as to go on heresy from either bidders.

But you've used the term 'the' front runner, whilst the Argus article says 'a' front runner. They are not the same meanings or contexts, which is possibly why the article used 'a' and not 'the'.

Re: The Takeover

244 by whoareya
Torquay Exile wrote: September 12th, 2023, 11:38 pm Stan has mentioned many times how important it is to have our own Stadium and we all know that he's right.
How can you speak for us all by saying we all know that he's right?
Have you asked everyone on the forum thIs question?

HAVE THEY ALL ANSWERED THAT THEY AGREE WITH YOUR ASSUMPTION?

Do you have evidence or proof to confirm this?

Re: The Takeover

245 by lowandhard
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 9:06 am
Percy plunkett wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:42 am We should all get an email today with the runners and riders so,let’s wait for that and then read all about it.
I wouldn't necessarily hold your breath on that. In respect of the Notice that we should all receive soon all the Trust Rules require is that the BOD indicate the business to be dealt with. The word "indicate" does not require them to be specific on anything and I would suspect that, as negotiations/discussions are likely to be ongoing, no 'runners and riders' will be named or any details of any proposals made revealed.
Well, you were certainly correct about that. All we are told is the date and the time and a request to pre-register for the meeting.

Re: The Takeover

246 by Bonson&Hunt
whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:48 am
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:20 am
whoareya wrote:
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 12th, 2023, 8:00 pm Try reading that which is written.

The important word is that Huw Jenkins is the ''FAVOURITE' (Sorry to shout.)

If this were leaked by either Mr Jenkins or Mr Pratt the story line would merely be that Mr Jenkins is in the frame. Only the known attitude of the board could have allowed the words that Mr Jenkins is the favourite to have been written.

It is possible but extremely unlikely that analysis is incorrect.
Where does the Argus article say that he's the favourite?

It says 'a front runner' and 'a leading contender', not the favourite.
Yes, I've read the article twice and at no point does it say that HJ is the favourite. It says that he is " a frontrunner" (note 'a' not 'the') and "has long been a leading candidate" (again 'a' and not 'the'). So, have I read "that which is written" differently from Stan?
Chris, you've read it as it is written, not how Stan wants it to be..........
Also note that Stan has stated that Jon Pratt is the other bidder. That is confirmation of a rumour not previously confirmed publicly anywhere else. As Stan has a mutual dislike of the Board, it must have come from one of his cabal of bitter ex employees.

So he has effectly leaked the other bidder out in public, something he, on this thread, has criticised the Board for doing with Huw Jenkins via the Argus, even though he has no proof whatsoever.

Welcome to Stansworld...........
However much I appreciate Stan's input, do we think we can all stay on topic & stop colouring our views with sly digs. Takes away the impact of the view.

Re: The Takeover

247 by whoareya
lowandhard wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:02 am
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 9:06 am
Percy plunkett wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:42 am We should all get an email today with the runners and riders so,let’s wait for that and then read all about it.
I wouldn't necessarily hold your breath on that. In respect of the Notice that we should all receive soon all the Trust Rules require is that the BOD indicate the business to be dealt with. The word "indicate" does not require them to be specific on anything and I would suspect that, as negotiations/discussions are likely to be ongoing, no 'runners and riders' will be named or any details of any proposals made revealed.
Well, you were certainly correct about that. All we are told is the date and the time and a request to pre-register for the meeting.
Did you not see this bit in the email?:

Trust members will be notified of the identity of the preferred bidder, with a summary of their proposal, not less than three days in advance of the meeting.

Re: The Takeover

248 by Chepstow'sFine
JonD wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:07 am I'm somewhat confused by bidders. I thought there were two but neither of them features Huw, so I assume he is affiliated to one of the two I have heard about. My, it's hard to keep up.
Same, I thought it was JP V DB. If Huw's aligned to one of these then that gets my vote.

Re: The Takeover

249 by lowandhard
My advice for those getting hung up by the precise phraseology of information in our much beloved local rag, is simply this:- I have seldom found it to use good lucid prose so I’m doubtful that the use of definite and indefinite articles is as carefully considered as any self-appointed analyst of the clandestine machinations of football clubs would wish to be the case. Perhaps the modern equivalent of the Rosetta Stone?…

Re: The Takeover

251 by Amberexile
lowandhard wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:02 am
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 9:06 am
Percy plunkett wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:42 am We should all get an email today with the runners and riders so,let’s wait for that and then read all about it.
I wouldn't necessarily hold your breath on that. In respect of the Notice that we should all receive soon all the Trust Rules require is that the BOD indicate the business to be dealt with. The word "indicate" does not require them to be specific on anything and I would suspect that, as negotiations/discussions are likely to be ongoing, no 'runners and riders' will be named or any details of any proposals made revealed.
Well, you were certainly correct about that. All we are told is the date and the time and a request to pre-register for the meeting.
I wonder how many people it would take to pre-reguster instructing the chair to vote against the resolutions as their proxy to change the attitude of the Board regarding the information being shared?

Re: The Takeover

252 by whoareya
Bonson&Hunt wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:06 am
whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:48 am
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:20 am
whoareya wrote:
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 12th, 2023, 8:00 pm Try reading that which is written.

The important word is that Huw Jenkins is the ''FAVOURITE' (Sorry to shout.)

If this were leaked by either Mr Jenkins or Mr Pratt the story line would merely be that Mr Jenkins is in the frame. Only the known attitude of the board could have allowed the words that Mr Jenkins is the favourite to have been written.

It is possible but extremely unlikely that analysis is incorrect.
Where does the Argus article say that he's the favourite?

It says 'a front runner' and 'a leading contender', not the favourite.
Yes, I've read the article twice and at no point does it say that HJ is the favourite. It says that he is " a frontrunner" (note 'a' not 'the') and "has long been a leading candidate" (again 'a' and not 'the'). So, have I read "that which is written" differently from Stan?
Chris, you've read it as it is written, not how Stan wants it to be..........
Also note that Stan has stated that Jon Pratt is the other bidder. That is confirmation of a rumour not previously confirmed publicly anywhere else. As Stan has a mutual dislike of the Board, it must have come from one of his cabal of bitter ex employees.

So he has effectly leaked the other bidder out in public, something he, on this thread, has criticised the Board for doing with Huw Jenkins via the Argus, even though he has no proof whatsoever.

Welcome to Stansworld...........
However much I appreciate Stan's input, do we think we can all stay on topic & stop colouring our views with sly digs. Takes away the impact of the view.
With respect, you don't get to decide on the content of responses.

And its not a sly dig its an observation of a misleading post that had a sly dig in it, which at least one other poster has also noted.

If you want to be a moderator then get in touch with Admin, I'm sure they'd welcome some help.

Otherwise put me on your foe list, it would be a welcome relief to me as all you do is whine.

Re: The Takeover

253 by Bonson&Hunt
whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:12 am
Bonson&Hunt wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:06 am
whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:48 am
Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:20 am
whoareya wrote:
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 12th, 2023, 8:00 pm Try reading that which is written.

The important word is that Huw Jenkins is the ''FAVOURITE' (Sorry to shout.)

If this were leaked by either Mr Jenkins or Mr Pratt the story line would merely be that Mr Jenkins is in the frame. Only the known attitude of the board could have allowed the words that Mr Jenkins is the favourite to have been written.

It is possible but extremely unlikely that analysis is incorrect.
Where does the Argus article say that he's the favourite?

It says 'a front runner' and 'a leading contender', not the favourite.
Yes, I've read the article twice and at no point does it say that HJ is the favourite. It says that he is " a frontrunner" (note 'a' not 'the') and "has long been a leading candidate" (again 'a' and not 'the'). So, have I read "that which is written" differently from Stan?
Chris, you've read it as it is written, not how Stan wants it to be..........
Also note that Stan has stated that Jon Pratt is the other bidder. That is confirmation of a rumour not previously confirmed publicly anywhere else. As Stan has a mutual dislike of the Board, it must have come from one of his cabal of bitter ex employees.

So he has effectly leaked the other bidder out in public, something he, on this thread, has criticised the Board for doing with Huw Jenkins via the Argus, even though he has no proof whatsoever.

Welcome to Stansworld...........
However much I appreciate Stan's input, do we think we can all stay on topic & stop colouring our views with sly digs. Takes away the impact of the view.
With respect, you don't get to decide on the content of responses.

And its not a sly dig its an observation of a misleading post that had a sly dig in it, which at least one other poster has also noted.

If you want to be a moderator then get in touch with Admin, I'm sure they'd welcome some help.

Otherwise put me on your foe list, it would be a welcome relief to me as all you do is whine.
I don't respond to insults by another insult. I engage man to man with all posters here. Your post is respected & noted & as I've consistently said to any one who drops down to the insult level, try & keep on topic. Thank you so much.

Re: The Takeover

254 by Stow Hill Sid
whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 9:28 am
Stow Hill Sid wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:51 am

The front-runner in a two horse race is rarely anything other than the favourite. If the S W Argus are reporting him to be the front-runner this must be based on something. They have either seen the bids or they are reporting information relayed to them by someone who has. They wouldn't be so unprofessional as to go on heresy from either bidders.

But you've used the term 'the' front runner, whilst the Argus article says 'a' front runner. They are not the same meanings or contexts, which is possibly why the article used 'a' and not 'the'.
We're being told it's a two horse race. In
a two horse race the frontrunner is 'the' frontrunner. They can't be anything else.

Re: The Takeover

255 by Amberexile
Chepstow'sFine wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:09 am
JonD wrote: September 13th, 2023, 8:07 am I'm somewhat confused by bidders. I thought there were two but neither of them features Huw, so I assume he is affiliated to one of the two I have heard about. My, it's hard to keep up.
Same, I thought it was JP V DB. If Huw's aligned to one of these then that gets my vote.
DB has not shown an interest, you were misled by disinformation. We don't really know that JP has either although maybe the recent activity will smoke him out.
Post Reply

Return to “Newport County Football Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chepstow'sFine, landinho, neilcork68, newrodneyfan, OLDCROMWELLIAN, rncfc