Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:37 pm I read Chris Davis's analysis as I do everyone's. And other than saying that although technically correct, Chris's view that we don't know who the preferred bidder is going to be, is one I don't share. All the evidence points to Huw Jenkins. That said I think Chris's forensic skills are unimpeachable. My analysis is that there is a problem here in addition to those cited. That being that whilst I'm convinced that Huw Jenkins is the preferred bidder, it matters not whether he is or not, what for me is important is not the name of the bidder but the details of the bid. And of that we know nothing. If you read this Chris I would be interested on your take on this discrete point.

Now whilst Chris puts it in neutral terms and I don't, he being more circumspect than me, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I have misrepresented his view, we agree on one thing absolutely.

The board of Newport County are giving you Hobson's choice. Take what we offer or leave it.

I find that utterly unacceptable. For me it is the final kick in the teeth for supporters who over the years have forked out a fortune to keep Newport County afloat.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:37 pm I read Chris Davis's analysis as I do everyone's. And other than saying that although technically correct, Chris's view that we don't know who the preferred bidder is going to be, is one I don't share. All the evidence points to Huw Jenkins. That said I think Chris's forensic skills are unimpeachable. My analysis is that there is a problem here in addition to those cited. That being that whilst I'm convinced that Huw Jenkins is the preferred bidder, it matters not whether he is or not, what for me is important is not the name of the bidder but the details of the bid. And of that we know nothing. If you read this Chris I would be interested on your take on this discrete point.

Now whilst Chris puts it in neutral terms and I don't, he being more circumspect than me, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I have misrepresented his view, we agree on one thing absolutely.

The board of Newport County are giving you Hobson's choice. Take what we offer or leave it.

I find that utterly unacceptable. For me it is the final kick in the teeth for supporters who over the years have forked out a fortune to keep Newport County afloat.

Chris Davis wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:50 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:37 pm I read Chris Davis's analysis as I do everyone's. And other than saying that although technically correct, Chris's view that we don't know who the preferred bidder is going to be, is one I don't share. All the evidence points to Huw Jenkins. That said I think Chris's forensic skills are unimpeachable. My analysis is that there is a problem here in addition to those cited. That being that whilst I'm convinced that Huw Jenkins is the preferred bidder, it matters not whether he is or not, what for me is important is not the name of the bidder but the details of the bid. And of that we know nothing. If you read this Chris I would be interested on your take on this discrete point.

Now whilst Chris puts it in neutral terms and I don't, he being more circumspect than me, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I have misrepresented his view, we agree on one thing absolutely.

The board of Newport County are giving you Hobson's choice. Take what we offer or leave it.

I find that utterly unacceptable. For me it is the final kick in the teeth for supporters who over the years have forked out a fortune to keep Newport County afloat.

At this moment in time, I believe that nobody, outside the BOD and Colin Everett and the bidders themselves in respect of their own bids, know the details of any bid.
I would agree that the BOD are giving Trust members 'Hobson's Choice' in terms of the preferred bidder being 'take it or leave it'. However, as I have expressed, it is not 'Hobson's Choice' in the sense that members can vote down proposed resolution 1. I have indicated elsewhere what I think the practical implications of that might be.

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:42 pm That's an unpleasant and unnecessary observation.

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:59 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:42 pm That's an unpleasant and unnecessary observation.

Though perhaps not an untruthful observation eh?

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: September 17th, 2023, 10:05 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:59 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:42 pm That's an unpleasant and unnecessary observation.

Though perhaps not an untruthful observation eh?

I think it's a perfectly accurate and truthful observation.

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:10 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: September 17th, 2023, 10:05 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:59 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:42 pm That's an unpleasant and unnecessary observation.

Though perhaps not an untruthful observation eh?

I think it's a perfectly accurate and truthful observation.

Thank you for that, despite what Bangit accuses me of, I have never set out to mislead, let alone lie. I think all of us want is just, even now, belatedly, a little bit of openness.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 17th, 2023, 1:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 12:31 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 17th, 2023, 12:01 pm This is my understanding of the Club's financial position explained at the meeting of the 13 June 2023. It is taken from a note I took and published on FB the day after the meeting. This information was provided by in independent forensic accounting specialist in football finances, whose name I cannot recall.

The Accounts figures: The figures for 2021 were grossly overstated. The reason for this was unclear but there was no indication of 'misappropriation'. The Board was unwilling to be drawn to any extent at all on who was responsible for this but from other things mentioned it appeared to me that it arose from inadequate systems of accounts preparation, no external review from an outside external accountancy practice, limited or no internal 'testing' of the figures provided and no challenge given by the external auditors.

To my mind (note, a personal opinion but I am a retired lawyer and I hold an LLB (Hons) degree), none of these things would allow criminal charges to proceed because it would have to be shown that there was a deliberate intent to mislead (see below). In my view, it seems that it was just widespread accounting mismanagement practice. The comparative figure for 2022 showed exaggerated negative differences for the most part. The balance of money in the bank was not affected by these factors.

To my mind, the last two sentences are important here and particularly in relation to the supposed £1.2 million 'loss'. So, taking the first of these. It's a bit like you being mistakenly told by your bank in a **** up by them that at the end of June you had £10,000 in the bank. A couple of weeks later they contact you to own up and say that it was a mistake – something went wrong – and in fact you always had the £5000 that you thought you had. The reality of the situation is that you never had £10000 so it's no good saying the bank robbed you of £5k because you never had it in the first place. You might want to give the bank a rollicking or even change the bank but it doesn't alter the facts of how much money you really had.

The last sentence clearly indicates that although in my note of the meeting referred to above, the financial specialist clearly indicates that, in his opinion, there was no misappropriation, criminal or otherwise. In accordance with Section 19 of the Theft Act 1968 it would have to be shown that, in respect of the Directors, the statement made to the AFC shareholders was “...known to be false, or reckless as to whether it is true or false...”. To discharge that burden the prosecution would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that that was was done by a Director or Directors. No one knows how that might have proceeded with the police or the CPS as, as far as I am aware the matter was never put to them. However, that is not to say that the BOD may have breached Company law requirements to accurately report the financial situation or the accountants/auditors failed in their professional duty to spot it.

I’m pretty confident that you’re right in your analysis and it’s more likely to be cockup rather than any malfeasance but I still don’t understand why the relevant professionals couldn’t have produced a report explaining the situation. Nor does it explain why when the BoD saw that the situation wasn’t as rosey as predicted, they weren’t sounding the warning bells and going to the members to say that a further boost in funding may be required. It also doesn’t explain our incompetence in generating enough income through normal commercial and sponsorship methods during some relatively successful seasons.

First of all well done to Chris Davis for being so proactive.

Secondly I agree with Mike on his theory that the most likely explanation for the money's disappearence is cockup. However we don't know that and I believe that we should. Secondly cockup doesn't explain why as late as January GF, as he is termed in the minutes, was claiming that the finances were in good order. I'm afraid that the entire board either knew that they weren't or should have known that our financial position was so dire.

This excuse that they didn't know, even if true, won't wash. If I passed you a dud cheque as payment for buying your car you would be annoyed. If I then said 'sorry I didn't know that my account was devoid of funds' would you merely shrug your shoulders and say 'fair enough'. Or would you then say, 'didn't occur to you to check your bank account before driving off in my BMW?'

Anyway I shall be writing tomorrow with my concerns to the proper authorities. I will keep you informed.

Stan 'the ****' Einstein.

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:44 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 17th, 2023, 1:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 12:31 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 17th, 2023, 12:01 pm This is my understanding of the Club's financial position explained at the meeting of the 13 June 2023. It is taken from a note I took and published on FB the day after the meeting. This information was provided by in independent forensic accounting specialist in football finances, whose name I cannot recall.

The Accounts figures: The figures for 2021 were grossly overstated. The reason for this was unclear but there was no indication of 'misappropriation'. The Board was unwilling to be drawn to any extent at all on who was responsible for this but from other things mentioned it appeared to me that it arose from inadequate systems of accounts preparation, no external review from an outside external accountancy practice, limited or no internal 'testing' of the figures provided and no challenge given by the external auditors.

To my mind (note, a personal opinion but I am a retired lawyer and I hold an LLB (Hons) degree), none of these things would allow criminal charges to proceed because it would have to be shown that there was a deliberate intent to mislead (see below). In my view, it seems that it was just widespread accounting mismanagement practice. The comparative figure for 2022 showed exaggerated negative differences for the most part. The balance of money in the bank was not affected by these factors.

To my mind, the last two sentences are important here and particularly in relation to the supposed £1.2 million 'loss'. So, taking the first of these. It's a bit like you being mistakenly told by your bank in a **** up by them that at the end of June you had £10,000 in the bank. A couple of weeks later they contact you to own up and say that it was a mistake – something went wrong – and in fact you always had the £5000 that you thought you had. The reality of the situation is that you never had £10000 so it's no good saying the bank robbed you of £5k because you never had it in the first place. You might want to give the bank a rollicking or even change the bank but it doesn't alter the facts of how much money you really had.

The last sentence clearly indicates that although in my note of the meeting referred to above, the financial specialist clearly indicates that, in his opinion, there was no misappropriation, criminal or otherwise. In accordance with Section 19 of the Theft Act 1968 it would have to be shown that, in respect of the Directors, the statement made to the AFC shareholders was “...known to be false, or reckless as to whether it is true or false...”. To discharge that burden the prosecution would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that that was was done by a Director or Directors. No one knows how that might have proceeded with the police or the CPS as, as far as I am aware the matter was never put to them. However, that is not to say that the BOD may have breached Company law requirements to accurately report the financial situation or the accountants/auditors failed in their professional duty to spot it.

I’m pretty confident that you’re right in your analysis and it’s more likely to be cockup rather than any malfeasance but I still don’t understand why the relevant professionals couldn’t have produced a report explaining the situation. Nor does it explain why when the BoD saw that the situation wasn’t as rosey as predicted, they weren’t sounding the warning bells and going to the members to say that a further boost in funding may be required. It also doesn’t explain our incompetence in generating enough income through normal commercial and sponsorship methods during some relatively successful seasons.

First of all well done to Chris Davis for being so proactive.

Secondly I agree with Mike on his theory that the most likely explanation for the money's disappearence is cockup. However we don't know that and I believe that we should. Secondly cockup doesn't explain why as late as January GF, as he is termed in the minutes, was claiming that the finances were in good order. I'm afraid that the entire board either knew that they weren't or should have known that our financial position was so dire.

This excuse that they didn't know, even if true, won't wash. If I passed you a dud cheque as payment for buying your car you would be annoyed. If I then said 'sorry I didn't know that my account was devoid of funds' would you merely shrug your shoulders and say 'fair enough'. Or would you then say, 'didn't occur to you to check your bank account before driving off in my BMW?'

Anyway I shall be writing tomorrow with my concerns to the proper authorities. I will keep you informed.

Stan 'the ****' Einstein.

Hahahahahaha.. Some people are saying that you already grassed up the club to the police to try and make your inane deluded ramblings a self fulfilling prophecy.

Nobody likes a grass in Newport, Stan. Especially not when the grass is just trying to further his narcissistic agenda on a message board read by about 20 people.

Torquay Exile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:46 am

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:44 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 17th, 2023, 1:33 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 17th, 2023, 12:31 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 17th, 2023, 12:01 pm This is my understanding of the Club's financial position explained at the meeting of the 13 June 2023. It is taken from a note I took and published on FB the day after the meeting. This information was provided by in independent forensic accounting specialist in football finances, whose name I cannot recall.

The Accounts figures: The figures for 2021 were grossly overstated. The reason for this was unclear but there was no indication of 'misappropriation'. The Board was unwilling to be drawn to any extent at all on who was responsible for this but from other things mentioned it appeared to me that it arose from inadequate systems of accounts preparation, no external review from an outside external accountancy practice, limited or no internal 'testing' of the figures provided and no challenge given by the external auditors.

To my mind (note, a personal opinion but I am a retired lawyer and I hold an LLB (Hons) degree), none of these things would allow criminal charges to proceed because it would have to be shown that there was a deliberate intent to mislead (see below). In my view, it seems that it was just widespread accounting mismanagement practice. The comparative figure for 2022 showed exaggerated negative differences for the most part. The balance of money in the bank was not affected by these factors.

To my mind, the last two sentences are important here and particularly in relation to the supposed £1.2 million 'loss'. So, taking the first of these. It's a bit like you being mistakenly told by your bank in a **** up by them that at the end of June you had £10,000 in the bank. A couple of weeks later they contact you to own up and say that it was a mistake – something went wrong – and in fact you always had the £5000 that you thought you had. The reality of the situation is that you never had £10000 so it's no good saying the bank robbed you of £5k because you never had it in the first place. You might want to give the bank a rollicking or even change the bank but it doesn't alter the facts of how much money you really had.

The last sentence clearly indicates that although in my note of the meeting referred to above, the financial specialist clearly indicates that, in his opinion, there was no misappropriation, criminal or otherwise. In accordance with Section 19 of the Theft Act 1968 it would have to be shown that, in respect of the Directors, the statement made to the AFC shareholders was “...known to be false, or reckless as to whether it is true or false...”. To discharge that burden the prosecution would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that that was was done by a Director or Directors. No one knows how that might have proceeded with the police or the CPS as, as far as I am aware the matter was never put to them. However, that is not to say that the BOD may have breached Company law requirements to accurately report the financial situation or the accountants/auditors failed in their professional duty to spot it.

I’m pretty confident that you’re right in your analysis and it’s more likely to be cockup rather than any malfeasance but I still don’t understand why the relevant professionals couldn’t have produced a report explaining the situation. Nor does it explain why when the BoD saw that the situation wasn’t as rosey as predicted, they weren’t sounding the warning bells and going to the members to say that a further boost in funding may be required. It also doesn’t explain our incompetence in generating enough income through normal commercial and sponsorship methods during some relatively successful seasons.

First of all well done to Chris Davis for being so proactive.

Secondly I agree with Mike on his theory that the most likely explanation for the money's disappearence is cockup. However we don't know that and I believe that we should. Secondly cockup doesn't explain why as late as January GF, as he is termed in the minutes, was claiming that the finances were in good order. I'm afraid that the entire board either knew that they weren't or should have known that our financial position was so dire.

This excuse that they didn't know, even if true, won't wash. If I passed you a dud cheque as payment for buying your car you would be annoyed. If I then said 'sorry I didn't know that my account was devoid of funds' would you merely shrug your shoulders and say 'fair enough'. Or would you then say, 'didn't occur to you to check your bank account before driving off in my BMW?'

Anyway I shall be writing tomorrow with my concerns to the proper authorities. I will keep you informed.

Stan 'the ****' Einstein.

Hahahahahaha.. Some people are saying that you already grassed up the club to the police to try and make your inane deluded ramblings a self fulfilling prophecy.

Nobody likes a grass in Newport, Stan. Especially not when the grass is just trying to further his narcissistic agenda on a message board read by about 20 people.

How old are you, 6.

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:44 am

Hahahahahaha..

Nobody likes a grass in Newport, Stan.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:54 am

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:44 am

Hahahahahaha..

Nobody likes a grass in Newport, Stan.

Well there we have it. If anyone who reads this board has a daughter or a wife or mother who was raped and i knew who did it, I would grass them up. SixtyYearFan thinks you would not like me for doing so.

What a total pr!ck.