whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:07 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:21 am

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.

I disagree, by revealing the identity of this bidder, the first one to go public, the article has merely confirmed him/them as a front runner. There is nothing in the article that gives preferred content or reasons that make him/them 'the' front runner, ahead of any other bidder.

They have described HJ's bid as being a front runner in a two horse race. They could not describe it as that without either seeing the bids or being informed by someone who has.

flat4 wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:15 am As it was the Argus that released the story, I can only imagine it was with the blessing of the club, which to me displays yet again how little respect the Board has for the fans.

Or of course it may not have been with the blessing of the club. That seems to be merely your assumption.

whoareya wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:46 am

Chepstow'sFine wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:36 am

Amberexile wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:24 am

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.

Are you sure? Some of the wise old sages on here seem pretty adamant.

He specialises in equity funding with investors (and advising the current Conservative government, but that's another story) so I'm sure he's had discussions along those lines, but that might not have progressed to actually submitting a bid.
Unless I've missed it, we don't actually know how many bids have been made, but the assumption is that only two bids have been submitted.

There may be/have been more.

When investor's look at a company, they look for value. That is a company with poor results that they can invest in, and turn around.
RP making losses of £800k a year every year is the type of company that can be bought cheaply.
Making losses is good for attracting investment.

It is probably no coincidence, that Jon Pratt with a background in company takeovers, was Co opted to the trust board knowing the next set of accounts were poor, and thus he could attract investor's................... .

Now that the Dragon's deal has concluded, with 3 people owning a third each, IMO it is probably likely that they also own a third each of RP.

When the announcement of the Dragon's deal concluding was made, the guy that runs Compeed spoke with the press, and while thanking others included the Council in his praise.

The cabbage patch has a sporting use designation with the Council...................

I hope that the running track at Spytty, much maligned for facing into the wind, will be moved to the cabbage patch, by relocating the squash courts and demolishing the former Newport Athletic Club House.
That will allow Spytty to be redesigned as a 5,000 capacity Rugby/Football ground, with the shed cover, moving to RP to sit over the away end which could have permanent terracing, and RP having 10,000 capacity.

Our temp seating (now at the away end) could be used for the running track, and in the middle of the track a training pitch.......

That's what I would like to see from investment, with the Council, County and the Dragon's all having a stake.

I would also like to see both bidders join forces, and as mentioned before less dependency on trust subscriptions.

flat4 wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:15 am As it was the Argus that released the story, I can only imagine it was with the blessing of the club, which to me displays yet again how little respect the Board has for the fans.

But why would The Argus need the club's blessing to run that story? Huw's interest could've come to light quite easily.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:04 am

Further I fail to see why those members who can't attend are disenfranchised.

Doesn't this (included in the email to Trust members) mean that nobody is disenfranchised by being unable to attend.

.....Alternatively, you can appoint the Chair of the Meeting to vote on your behalf by following the same appointment process, again with an instruction to vote for or against the resolution or to use their discretion.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:04 am

lowandhard wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:35 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: September 13th, 2023, 10:21 am

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.

As I said above, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the precise wording used in our much-loved local rag. That A or B is a front runner may just mean that he is one of the two left at the front of a larger field of contenders, who knows? It’s probably folly to analyse forensically the Sybil-like pronouncements made in an organ that is not highly respected for it’s good lucid prose.

Morning Mike,

Have to disagree with you I'm afraid. We were told that there were two viable bidders by the club. I had previously been informed that they were Mr Jenkins and Mr Pratt. The board also indicated that they would have a preferred candidate. They are of course perfectly entitled to express their view.

Now I agree you can over analyse but one name has been released. Whether the term front runner or favourite is used that's irrelevant. They both mean the same. Further if supporters are to make choice they need the full details of both bids. That, thus far has not been forthcoming.

Further I fail to see why those members who can't attend are disenfranchised. However as the boardvcan choose a date when they and their friends and family turn up, it just about ensures the vote will go the way they wish.

Now to be clear. I know neither Mr Jenkins or Mr Pratt. I have no preferred bidder. What I would hope is that the best candidate for the future wins. That candidate might well be Mr Jenkins.

And here's the thing. Everybody on here wants the best for Newport County. But already people on here are saying their happy with Mr Jenkins. But what if Mr Pratt's offer is the better one?

I don't know who the better candidate is. Neither does anyone else.

Hi Brendan, while I agree with your aspiration that the club picks the best candidate and that the members should be able to make a choice based on the best information., as regards the Argus article we will have to differ as you say. You see I have small respect for their journalistic skills but also of their care in choosing articles. I think that if he ( HJ ) is THE front runner then that is clear enough but if he is A front runner then it would merely indicate he is among the leading group, the others having fallen by the wayside.

excessbee wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:38 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:04 am

Further I fail to see why those members who can't attend are disenfranchised.

Doesn't this (included in the email to Trust members) mean that nobody is disenfranchised by being unable to attend.

.....Alternatively, you can appoint the Chair of the Meeting to vote on your behalf by following the same appointment process, again with an instruction to vote for or against the resolution or to use their discretion.

Yes. I think what could be seen as disenfranchisement is no express nmention of an opportunity for members to ask questions directly of the preferred bidder. I'm sure however that this not being on the agenda won't stop some.

Amberexile wrote: September 13th, 2023, 12:20 pm

excessbee wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:38 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 13th, 2023, 11:04 am

Further I fail to see why those members who can't attend are disenfranchised.

Doesn't this (included in the email to Trust members) mean that nobody is disenfranchised by being unable to attend.

.....Alternatively, you can appoint the Chair of the Meeting to vote on your behalf by following the same appointment process, again with an instruction to vote for or against the resolution or to use their discretion.

Yes. I think what could be seen as disenfranchisement is no express nmention of an opportunity for members to ask questions directly of the preferred bidder. I'm sure however that this not being on the agenda won't stop some.

The dates don't entirely make sense. The three day notice is presumably a legal deadline in line with the Trust articles, but surely that information should be released considerably earlier if Trust members wish to ask questions of Trust representatives in the marquee at the Bradford match on Saturday 23rd.

excessbee wrote: September 13th, 2023, 1:11 pm The dates don't entirely make sense. The three day notice is presumably a legal deadline in line with the Trust articles, but surely that information should be released considerably earlier if Trust members wish to ask questions of Trust representatives in the marquee at the Bradford match on Saturday 23rd.

It is possibly because of the requirement of the Note to Rule 37.4 that, if first class posted, a communication will be deemed to be received by the member in 48 hours. So, this is effectively the very last date such information can be communicated.

If, as appears to be the case supporters are being asked to cast their vote on a binary proposition of remain as we are or vote for Huw Jenkins, there is a problem. The board have said the trust model is unsustainable. So you vote for Mr Jenkins or you vote for oblivion.

Now there are many reasons why the board may favour Mr Jenkins.
1) They genuinely believe that Mr Jenkins offer is the best for Newport County.
2) They will be allowed to keep their seats on the board.
3) Mr Jenkins will not spill the beans as to how Newport County's finances got into such a state.
4) There are so many other possibilities, too many to mention.
5) A combination of the above.

The criticism of the incumbent board is the lack of transparency and disclosure. Now we have it in spades. And one final point to emphasize this. If you look at posts defending the board of directors just look at how many contain the phrase.: 'It could be that.........'.

Just one thing missing from your post.....

Now there are many reasons why the board may favour Mr Jenkins. It could be that..,

Chris Davis wrote: September 13th, 2023, 1:22 pm

excessbee wrote: September 13th, 2023, 1:11 pm The dates don't entirely make sense. The three day notice is presumably a legal deadline in line with the Trust articles, but surely that information should be released considerably earlier if Trust members wish to ask questions of Trust representatives in the marquee at the Bradford match on Saturday 23rd.

It is possibly because of the requirement of the Note to Rule 37.4 that, if first class posted, a communication will be deemed to be received by the member in 48 hours. So, this is effectively the very last date such information can be communicated.

I get the bit about 48 hours to meet the postal requirements, but if that is the date that is actually used, it doesn't allow time to raise any issues by asking in the marquee on 23 September.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 13th, 2023, 1:28 pm If, as appears to be the case supporters are being asked to cast their vote on a binary proposition of remain as we are or vote for Huw Jenkins, there is a problem. The board have said the trust model is unsustainable. So you vote for Mr Jenkins or you vote for oblivion.

Now there are many reasons why the board may favour Mr Jenkins.
1) They genuinely believe that Mr Jenkins offer is the best for Newport County.
2) They will be allowed to keep their seats on the board.
3) Mr Jenkins will not spill the beans as to how Newport County's finances got into such a state.
4) There are so many other possibilities, too many to mention.
5) A combination of the above.

The criticism of the incumbent board is the lack of transparency and disclosure. Now we have it in spades. And one final point to emphasize this. If you look at posts defending the board of directors just look at how many contain the phrase.: 'It could be that.........'.

I agree.
I hope the decisions are made for the good of the club not what the decision makers get out of it.
IF the other bidder is J Pratt he may want to bring his own people in because he may feel a fresh start is needed..The current people , the ' decision makers ' may vote against what could be a better deal for the CLUB but not for them...

I believe both offers / options should be known to Supporters before the 28th September so shareholders will vote for the ( hopefully ) better option for the CLUB not INDIVIDUALS

Turkey's don't vote for Christmas .

Eg


Pratt says " I will invest £3million but you lot bugger off , I have my own team to bring in to run the club"

Jenkins says " I have £2.75 million to invest but most of you will stay on as Board Members.....


Which one do you think they would vote for ????

Was told Pratt doesn't want the current board there so will be interesting who they pick