Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 6:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

As it would be a large investment into the club, and targeted for a purpose, be it players or infrastructure, I am not convinced of a reason why the trust or the 21% fans shareholding would actually block it?

Bear in mind that this is more long term, and while my suggestions above may well not play out, what is likely is that a number of parties get involved and they all have to benefit, so it is likely to be very complicated.

Amberexile wrote: September 16th, 2023, 12:07 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 6:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

As it would be a large investment into the club, and targeted for a purpose, be it players or infrastructure, I am not convinced of a reason why the trust or the 21% fans shareholding would actually block it?

Bear in mind that this is more long term, and while my suggestions above may well not play out, what is likely is that a number of parties get involved and they all have to benefit, so it is likely to be very complicated.

That's my point, no need to make it more difficult and more likely to breakdown from the outset.

wattsville_boy wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:26 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 15th, 2023, 9:32 am Most of the people who post on this board, indeed most football fans hold to the belief that most football clubs, lose money most seasons. As a consequence of which to be successful a rich benefactor is required. That belief is utterly nonsensical. Now at the outset I should say this piece of mine is in not intended as a criticism of Mr Jenkins.

Now I get that football clubs seem to post huge losses year in and year out. But as we all know figures posted at Companies House often bear little resemblance to the true financial position.after all this time last year they showed Newport County to be one of the few League clubs returning a healthy profit. And we all know how that turned out.

I for years have tried to point out that if companies lose money year in year out thet go bust. And compared to most types of trading concern football clubs have a stunning record of continuing to trade.

Now ask yourselves this. Mr Jenkins is a successful businessman. He wishes to take control of Newport County. Does anybody seriously believe that he has suddenly developed an overpowering love of Newport County. So much so that rather than use his wealth to ensure his family are financially secure he has instead decided to throw it away on a failing football club? Or do you think it more likely that he believes he can make money?

Now I make no inherent criticism of this. For Huw Jenkins to make money he has to make Newport County successful. That is what we all want. Arguments about Mr Jenkins are well rehearsed elsewhere and that is not the purpose of this post.

Consider this. The real purpose of investers coming into any business is to make money by making that company successful. It may be that in the short term a cash injection is needed, that is the risk of business. And Newport County had that cash injection from Cup runs, transfer fees and the money given by many readers here as trust members.


The reason the Trust failed as owners of Newport County was not because the trust model is unsustainable. It is because the trust was run by people who at best should not have been allowed to run a bath. The present board don't have the ability and it is for the best they go. However incompetent they may be, they do maintain some vestage of pride. Not much perhaps but some.

They at least had the guts to remain and face the music. Unlike those twin architects of Newport County's failure. The arrogant purveyors of failure. The smug dismissive duo who ran Newport County and who seeing the sh!t about to hit the fan disappeared like snow in the Sahara.

Never again trust anyone with your money if you don't know how that money is being spent.

I think you're wrong. Yes Huw Jenkins is investing to make money but only because I think he can see that buying a "down on it's luck" club and putting it on its feet doesn't necessarily require much finance, but does need organisation.

So you buy the club. You find someone who will run the commercial department so that it increases revenue by x% year on year. You find someone good at marketing, an office manager that will run the back office more efficiently. You speak to the landlords and see whether you can renegotiate the rental, even if it's to move payments to when EFL payments come in. You increase the transfer budget slightly so then perhaps your Manager can bring in the type of player he wasn't able to get in the summer.

None of the above requires a lot of money. If you get good staff then some of the extra money required to employ them could lead to cost savings and/or greater revenue or increased footfall. And Huw Jenkins has been a party to taking a club up the divisions, so has more than an idea of what needs doing.

Even short-term investment could be recouped easily. A promotion raises the profile of a club and puts it on the radar of more moneyed investors.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 16th, 2023, 7:17 am

Amberexile wrote: September 16th, 2023, 12:07 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 6:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

As it would be a large investment into the club, and targeted for a purpose, be it players or infrastructure, I am not convinced of a reason why the trust or the 21% fans shareholding would actually block it?

Bear in mind that this is more long term, and while my suggestions above may well not play out, what is likely is that a number of parties get involved and they all have to benefit, so it is likely to be very complicated.

That's my point, no need to make it more difficult and more likely to breakdown from the outset.

All boards have individuals that take a different view to the majority, but still work together in the common aim, because they still have the same issues to solve. Where they come from to start with, wether voted on or put together by chance, doesn't really matter.

I take the view that Jon Pratts background in accusations and finance suggest that he will be pursuing deals with landlords and/or acquiring assets. Huw Jenkins background is in getting everyone to work together. Long term he tarnished his reputation with the trust fans by taking an offer that they felt suited the individual board members more than the club.

It depends if you see history repeating itself, with just the good bits and not the bad, but overall it appears to me that JP is happy beavering away in the background, with HJ more of a leader.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 6:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

As it would be a large investment into the club, and targeted for a purpose, be it players or infrastructure, I am not convinced of a reason why the trust or the 21% fans shareholding would actually block it?

Bear in mind that this is more long term, and while my suggestions above may well not play out, what is likely is that a number of parties get involved and they all have to benefit, so it is likely to be very complicated.

Chris Davis wrote: September 16th, 2023, 11:40 am I suppose a preferred bidder, as specified in the Notice, could represent a joint bid enveloped into one. Equally it could be a single bidder. We shall know soon.

rncfc wrote: September 16th, 2023, 11:37 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 6:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

As it would be a large investment into the club, and targeted for a purpose, be it players or infrastructure, I am not convinced of a reason why the trust or the 21% fans shareholding would actually block it?

Bear in mind that this is more long term, and while my suggestions above may well not play out, what is likely is that a number of parties get involved and they all have to benefit, so it is likely to be very complicated.

Do you feel like you're wasting your time coming on here to try and ingrain the trusts' strategy into the brains of about 50 people?

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 16th, 2023, 6:39 pm

rncfc wrote: September 16th, 2023, 11:37 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 6:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 5:39 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:33 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........

I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........

While there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.

Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.

I agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.

With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?

Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.

Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.

However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.

All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust

Didn't the resolution to allow for more shares to be issued by NCAFC pass recently? That is for whoever has control of NCAFC which won't then be the trust.

Now as I see it, a combined bid might require more than 51%, and to achieve that both bidders would purchase shares that they have issued, thereby reducing the trust's share and/or they could try to purchase the remaining shares owned by individuals.

As a combined bid, obviously they would have to agree generally on a way forward before the start.

But to me there could be natural separations anyway. For instance the Dragons Consortium would probably own a third share in the Dragons and a third share in RP each, so 6 shares in total. Or the cabbage patch could be separated out from the stadium and then there would be 9 shares in total.

Now if they want to develop the cabbage patch, they have to get agreement from the Council Planning department, who have designated it for sporting use.

The second issue is the existing squash courts which have a separate lease. Now interestingly NCAFC also have a separate lease for the land at Spytty Stadium for the former Bar Amber and adjacent area. That bit of land is perfect size for new squash courts to be built. So if a land lease swap happened between the squash club, and NCAFC, suddenly NCAFC have an interest in RP.

The athletics track at RP has a ten year lifespan, and the Council via our former director Kevin Ward will need to fund a new track. So why not move it to the cabbage patch, with funding provided by the Council?

The Dragon's consortium could finance the new squash courts at Spytty and assist NCAFC in getting EFL ground development funding for RP which would involve changing rooms for the athletes, along with a training pitch in the middle for use by both codes.
David Buttress is involved with the Westminster government leveling up funding/lottery good causes funding, and that might be able to assist the investors from the Dragon's consortium and the new investors in NCAFC.

So if one of the NCAFC bidders is more interested in investing in real estate, and one is more interested in commercial activity, a natural split between investors would be there right from the start................

With a 26,26,27,21 split no one party would have control so while shares can be sold this year without also offering to sell shares to existing shareholders, no single party could insist on buying them without at least one other party agreeing to it. The Trust plus either bidder could block it.

That is why bidders will not allow that split in shares and board representation. Coming up with something that works for everybody will be tricky.

As it would be a large investment into the club, and targeted for a purpose, be it players or infrastructure, I am not convinced of a reason why the trust or the 21% fans shareholding would actually block it?

Bear in mind that this is more long term, and while my suggestions above may well not play out, what is likely is that a number of parties get involved and they all have to benefit, so it is likely to be very complicated.

Do you feel like you're wasting your time coming on here to try and ingrain the trusts' strategy into the brains of about 50 people?

Not as much as you are, bearing in mind the trust will have little say, so we are talking about what the investors might do................