Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 10:13 am

All I want to know is where did it go? And if the answer is 'it was never there' I would like to know why I was misled.

UPTHEPORT wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:37 am I suspect running a football club costs a lot of money

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:17 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Who knows? Not me, not you (apparently). This is the point, is it not? Nobody has a clue what has been going on including, seemingly, the people in charge.

What is there to lose by telling trust members exactly what has happened? If there's nothing to hide, then let's hear it. It might rebuild some trust if we're going to be expected to carry on/recommence contributions "post takeover".

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:49 am

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:17 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Who knows? Not me, not you (apparently). This is the point, is it not? Nobody has a clue what has been going on including, seemingly, the people in charge.

What is there to lose by telling trust members exactly what has happened? If there's nothing to hide, then let's hear it. It might rebuild some trust if we're going to be expected to carry on/recommence contributions "post takeover".

I have explained why I think it happened, I have explained who I think caused the problem, and why I think the club has a duty of care to protect an employee, when it seems highly likely he has suggested bullying has taken place. I agree I/we don't know, but it's not important to me to establish what went wrong in the past, or identify the individual responsible, to try to increase trust money in the future. As you know I believe relying on the trust subscription is not away of running the club in the future, because the age profile of the 1000 is far higher than the 3000 and it can only end in tears.

The question is why is Stan and Low and hard pushing it as some big issue, when the trust influence will all but disappear? The person in charge of the bidding process is well known, has a well earned reputation, and has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived issues...............

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:12 pm Look I'll say it because nobody else will.

After the first meeting I said to Sean Johnson the following.

You are refusing to say that Nigel Stephensonis responsible for this mess. Mr Johnson did not disagree.

Let me be clear I don't know whether Mr Stephenson was responsible. But here's the thing.

The directors of Newport County signed off on those figures. They stated that they had put due dilligence in examining the figures. Mr Foxhall was in addition to being chairman finance director. His job was to supervise Mr Stephenson. It was the duty of every director to check.

If you're in charge, you are responsible. And the directors of Newport County were in charge. This nod, nod, wink, wink, that it is all Nigel Stephenson's fault is bollox.

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:57 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:49 am

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:17 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Who knows? Not me, not you (apparently). This is the point, is it not? Nobody has a clue what has been going on including, seemingly, the people in charge.

What is there to lose by telling trust members exactly what has happened? If there's nothing to hide, then let's hear it. It might rebuild some trust if we're going to be expected to carry on/recommence contributions "post takeover".

I have explained why I think it happened, I have explained who I think caused the problem, and why I think the club has a duty of care to protect an employee, when it seems highly likely he has suggested bullying has taken place. I agree I/we don't know, but it's not important to me to establish what went wrong in the past, or identify the individual responsible, to try to increase trust money in the future. As you know I believe relying on the trust subscription is not away of running the club in the future, because the age profile of the 1000 is far higher than the 3000 and it can only end in tears.

The question is why is Stan and Low and hard pushing it as some big issue, when the trust influence will all but disappear? The person in charge of the bidding process is well known, has a well earned reputation, and has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived issues...............

There are gaps in the version of events we've been told. You have been clever enough to come up with a possible theory as to how money may have been spent. Some others, including some of those trying to take over the club, have a different idea.

The club are only planning on presenting one of the two bids to the membership.

If you don't want conspiracies, rumours, and moaning, then just present both bids and play things with a straight bat. The vote could form two parts:

1) The voting of the concept of a takeover.
2) Which takeover.

Doing it this way is only going to cause more questions to be asked, which makes people think there is something to be gained by doing it that way. Be honest and transparent, it isn't much to ask.

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:17 pm I am not an accountant so I am not qualified to comment in detail. However, in the submitted Annual Accounts for 21/22 in the NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2022, it states the following:

" The Club has reported losses for the year totalling £1.231,493 giving rise to net current liabilities of £340,973 and net liabilities of £393,464".

Now to me this is entirely consistant with the information given that the 2021 figures were inflated. It would appear from the reported balance sheet that the three areas concerned were a big fall in 'debtors' (people who owed us money), a big fall in cash in the bank and a big increase in creditors (people we owed money to). Now Nick Igoe said that after investigation they had no explanation as to why these figures might have been inflated and, as I recollect, there was little point in pursuing the reasons why. He also stated, in so many words, that he did not see any evidence of criminal activity connected with the 2021 figures. I think what might have persuaded him to that view was there was no significant or unexpected differences in the money in the bank. It also seems to me that even allowing for these discrepancies, the overall result showed a deficit in line with the normal 'structural deficit' of £3-400K.

So, for me, there is unlikely to be any activity that would make the police or CPS to become involved in a theft or deception case.

I have also looked at the 'Action Fraud' website. There it gives a definition of fraud. That definition is "Fraud is when trickery is used to gain a dishonest advantage, which is often financial, over another person" So whilst 'inflation of figures' might be regarded as trickery, there are other elements that have to be met. Firstly, that an individual or individuals have gained an advantage. Well, I am not sure what advantage an individual persons at the Club might have gained by doing it or what other person it might have gained an advantage over by doing it. However and secondly, crucially, that advantage has to be dishonestly gained. Now, we know that Nick Igoe is neither a police officer nor a CPS lawyer, so might not be the very best judge of potential criminality but I am sure he is expert enough to spot grounds for suspicion and hence reporting to the police. It seems absolutely clear that he did not.

So, for me, there is no prospect that either the Police or CPS, would be interested in pursuing criminal action against anyone and Action Fraud will not proceed with any report because it is not possible to produce sufficient evidence of dishonest advantage over another person.

However, that stops no one reporting a potential Action Fraud claim, because it is for that body to decide if it needs to consider action.