Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

16
excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.
The only round the back way to vote for any 'non-preferred bidder', whose identity is unlikely to be known, is not to vote in favour of proposal 1.If there were 26% voting that way then I think, if that happens, the BOD would or should resign en masse. The situation then would be a new BOD would need to be appointed. That new BOD would have to consider how it was to proceed with a fresh round of bids and maybe a different process of presentation to members or soldier on with the Trust.

That would make for a lively meeting and I think the minority might need a police escort from the building!

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

17
excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.
Nonsense.

If there are a few petty minded individuals who would not vote whoever the board recommended then if the boards recommendation was the best the poorer bid would finish third in an elimination process and be eliminated.

However such is the anger at the boards behaviour that come the vote on 28th September it is perfectly possible that 25% of the electorate will reject the preferred bidder even if that bid is the best.

I get that you are loyal to the club. But wake up and smell the coffee. This attempt by the board to usurp the democratic control of our club stinks. And most of us get that.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

18
excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.
Well, almost but not quite. Would you have trusted the skipper of the Titanic to pick the salvage crew? Me neither!
Unless the fans are told the criteria of the selection process and what’s on offer, how can they like being kept in the dark. They’re not fools and wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. If it’s a stitch up however, they’d kick it in the teeth.
You see the problem is, the board have exhausted the patience and trust of many.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

19
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:02 pm I think it is fairly common for parties bidding for contracts, or other business agreements, to remain anonymous unless they achieve preferred bidder status. It is possible that the second group in this case will not want their names publicly known. Since knowing who the persons are will be fundamental to our consideration of the worthiness of any bid, revealing details but keeping the persons anonymous would not be satisfactory.

I presume that the second group will be free to reveal themselves if they wish. I also presume that the two groups are known to one another since Colin Everett was trying to get them to co-operate with each another.
Having been involved in many competitive bids, I always knew who the other bidders were.

If I was the second group you can bet I would make myself known and why my bid is better and what the fans are losing out on in attempt to derail the preferred bid.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

20
Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:36 pm
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:02 pm I think it is fairly common for parties bidding for contracts, or other business agreements, to remain anonymous unless they achieve preferred bidder status. It is possible that the second group in this case will not want their names publicly known. Since knowing who the persons are will be fundamental to our consideration of the worthiness of any bid, revealing details but keeping the persons anonymous would not be satisfactory.

I presume that the second group will be free to reveal themselves if they wish. I also presume that the two groups are known to one another since Colin Everett was trying to get them to co-operate with each another.
Having been involved in many competitive bids, I always knew who the other bidders were.

If I was the second group you can bet I would make myself known and why my bid is better and what the fans are losing out on in attempt to derail the preferred bid.
Perhaps Huw Jenkins had already started process?

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

21
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:29 pm
Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:36 pm
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:02 pm I think it is fairly common for parties bidding for contracts, or other business agreements, to remain anonymous unless they achieve preferred bidder status. It is possible that the second group in this case will not want their names publicly known. Since knowing who the persons are will be fundamental to our consideration of the worthiness of any bid, revealing details but keeping the persons anonymous would not be satisfactory.

I presume that the second group will be free to reveal themselves if they wish. I also presume that the two groups are known to one another since Colin Everett was trying to get them to co-operate with each another.
Having been involved in many competitive bids, I always knew who the other bidders were.

If I was the second group you can bet I would make myself known and why my bid is better and what the fans are losing out on in attempt to derail the preferred bid.
Perhaps Huw Jenkins had already started process?
Yes, you have to wonder about the reason behind the press being briefed about him being one of the bidders and who did that. It seems to have made him the favourite with the fans. It will be very interesting to see the reaction if he isn't the chosen one.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

22
Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:39 pm
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:29 pm
Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:36 pm
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:02 pm I think it is fairly common for parties bidding for contracts, or other business agreements, to remain anonymous unless they achieve preferred bidder status. It is possible that the second group in this case will not want their names publicly known. Since knowing who the persons are will be fundamental to our consideration of the worthiness of any bid, revealing details but keeping the persons anonymous would not be satisfactory.

I presume that the second group will be free to reveal themselves if they wish. I also presume that the two groups are known to one another since Colin Everett was trying to get them to co-operate with each another.
Having been involved in many competitive bids, I always knew who the other bidders were.

If I was the second group you can bet I would make myself known and why my bid is better and what the fans are losing out on in attempt to derail the preferred bid.
Perhaps Huw Jenkins had already started process?
Yes, you have to wonder about the reason behind the press being briefed about him being one of the bidders and who did that. It seems to have made him the favourite with the fans. It will be very interesting to see the reaction if he isn't the chosen one.
Yes indeed. In an admittedly perverse way I look forward to it being so.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

23
Chris Davis wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:57 pm
excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.
The only round the back way to vote for any 'non-preferred bidder', whose identity is unlikely to be known, is not to vote in favour of proposal 1.If there were 26% voting that way then I think, if that happens, the BOD would or should resign en masse. The situation then would be a new BOD would need to be appointed. That new BOD would have to consider how it was to proceed with a fresh round of bids and maybe a different process of presentation to members or soldier on with the Trust.

That would make for a lively meeting and I think the minority might need a police escort from the building!
😂 the anarchist in me is tempted but truthfully we all just want the best for the club and of course stability. We don’t however, want to be treated like fools we want to know who the bidders are and roughly what they have to offer - we are, by no means, demanding to see their bank statements - merely the whites of their eyes which is the bare minimum when hunting ( whether for prey, a business partner or investor ). Am I being unreasonable ?

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

24
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: September 17th, 2023, 9:29 pm
Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:36 pm
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:02 pm I think it is fairly common for parties bidding for contracts, or other business agreements, to remain anonymous unless they achieve preferred bidder status. It is possible that the second group in this case will not want their names publicly known. Since knowing who the persons are will be fundamental to our consideration of the worthiness of any bid, revealing details but keeping the persons anonymous would not be satisfactory.

I presume that the second group will be free to reveal themselves if they wish. I also presume that the two groups are known to one another since Colin Everett was trying to get them to co-operate with each another.
Having been involved in many competitive bids, I always knew who the other bidders were.

If I was the second group you can bet I would make myself known and why my bid is better and what the fans are losing out on in attempt to derail the preferred bid.
Perhaps Huw Jenkins had already started process?
That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

25
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.
Let's try some critical analysis.

I agree entirely with your analysis that the Argus must have been sure. And I agree that there has been no denial. Which adds credence but let's be honest the board of directors would have difficulty communicating that Thursday follows Wednesday.

Now if Huw Jenkins leaked the story without the approval of the board of directors what has he to gain? Why if he is the front runner would he want to jeopardize that by potentially annoying the board? Jenkins must be astute, I can't see him going off on a frolic of his own. Astute businessmen calculate. I don't say it's impossible but I think it unlikely.

Could the board have done so with or without the agreement of Mr Jenkins. Yes is the answer to that. By leaking the story they would no doubt hope to prepare the ground as it were. However if that was their intention it has been an entirely predictable catastrophe. You will no doubt have noticed that many supporters and trust members are really annoyed at being disenfranchised. However I do believe that such is their arrogance twinned with stupidity that the board leaking this story is very possible. Perhaps even probable.

There is a third possibility. It may be that whilst the board of directors or those directors who control the board want Huw Jenkins, it might be that an astute board member who for one of any number of reasons doesn't want Mr Jenkins to win leaked the story. If I was on the board, and if I wanted to stop Mr Jenkins, and being intelligent knowing that leaking in advance the boards intentions would stir up the hornets nest, that's what I would have done.

If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

26
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.
If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.
I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

27
SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.
If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.
I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.
I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

28
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:09 am
SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.
If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.
I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.
I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.
Very well said Stan, you’d have to be a special sort of idiot not to learn from your life experiences. Sadly, some never learn anything at all.

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

29
lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:32 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:09 am
SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.
If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.
I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.
I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.
Very well said Stan, you’d have to be a special sort of idiot not to learn from your life experiences. Sadly, some never learn anything at all.
None of this is relevant to you and Stan constantly lying, it's just about hiding behind the moral high ground.
Stop lying is the answer, not hiding, stop lying......

Re: GIVING TRUST MEMBERS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE

30
Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:39 am
lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:32 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:09 am
SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am
Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am
G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.
If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.
I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.
I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.
Very well said Stan, you’d have to be a special sort of idiot not to learn from your life experiences. Sadly, some never learn anything at all.
None of this is relevant to you and Stan constantly lying, it's just about hiding behind the moral high ground.
Stop lying is the answer, not hiding, stop lying......
Well you appear to be an expert at both those activities