Dembele

Posh owner says Town have netted around 550k including the original transfer fee & sell on..

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/grimsby-town-dembele-transfer-fee-6640154

Quoted from Peeler_Crab

Posh owner says Town have netted around 550k including the original transfer fee & sell on..

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/grimsby-town-dembele-transfer-fee-6640154

You mean Fenty…

Looks like the sell-on is £350k then. Just £150k left until the shackles are off.

Thank you Russell Slade. He got at least one thing right.

Quoted from aldi_01

You mean Fenty…

Yes - it's good news. The sooner he's paid off, the better.

Quoted from aldi_01

You mean Fenty…

Is this daft point going to be made every single time? It was money we knew we were paying Fenty so it is beneficial to the club as it accelerates the process in paying that off and puts money into the playing budget quicker.

How hard is that for people to understand?

Quoted from pontoonlew

Is this daft point going to be made every single time? It was money we knew we were paying Fenty so it is beneficial to the club as it accelerates the process in paying that off and puts money into the playing budget quicker.

How hard is that for people to understand?

At least graduate level by the looks of it 🤔

This amount is fixed/the minimum that we will receive.  However, will there be some additional funding coming our way if Bournemouth get promoted this season?

But Felipe Noche said we weren’t getting anything and he’s a much more reliable source than a chairman actually involved in the transfer.

Suggests the initial fee is around £1.6m.

Quoted from pontoonlew

Is this daft point going to be made every single time? It was money we knew we were paying Fenty so it is beneficial to the club as it accelerates the process in paying that off and puts money into the playing budget quicker.

How hard is that for people to understand?

Just because everyone understands doesn't make it a good situation. Once he's done hoovering up all our money from transfers and revenue, what exactly are we going to have in the playing budget? This was the only windfall we had coming in and we won't see any of it, we don't currently have any young stars on the books we can sell on for a hopeful windfall in a few years and certainly no money coming in, so no idea where you think we'll get money for transfers from.

As much as I love the idea of the leech sucking the club dry for his own benefit being paid off sooner rather than later it's also frustrating that we won't have any of this money to use.

A step closer to putting fenty once and for all behind us

Quoted from Kris2

Just because everyone understands doesn't make it a good situation. Once he's done hoovering up all our money from transfers and revenue, what exactly are we going to have in the playing budget? This was the only windfall we had coming in and we won't see any of it, we don't currently have any young stars on the books we can sell on for a hopeful windfall in a few years and certainly no money coming in, so no idea where you think we'll get money for transfers from.

As much as I love the idea of the leech sucking the club dry for his own benefit being paid off sooner rather than later it's also frustrating that we won't have any of this money to use.

It’s a tricky one this. There’s certainly a narrative in my head whereby the new owners could / should have pushed harder in terms of agreeing to purchase Fenty’s shares but not his debt (at least not in the short-term) - a debt which could be argued he’d had long enough in control of the club to have repaid had he managed it competently.

Once the Alex May story had leaked, Fenty’s position at the club (and in the Town) had frankly become untenable. I think he came out of it with a pretty good deal all things considered; was his hand really so strong as to have been able to negotiate an arrangement so favourable?

On the flip side, our position at the time was precarious, and Fenty is notoriously obstinate. Perhaps Stockwood and Pettit felt that in conceding on that point and getting the deal done they stood the best chance of keeping us in the football league, which was most paramount of all.

I think, had we been sat 9th in League Two right now and not the Conference, less might get made of this. But, alas, despite the best of efforts and intentions we failed to stay up and find ourselves grinding it out in an unprecedentedly wealthy National League, which only serves to compound the frustration.

I think it’s reasonable to dissect the deal that was done, but only with the acknowledgement that it’s much easier to do with the benefit of hindsight.

I wonder if our owners welcome this statement Peterborough having told us they couldn’t say if a sell on fee was receivable let alone the amount due to confidentiality. As to the statement content it seems contradictory in implying we get a fixed amount but they don’t there take being dependent on future appearances, promotion etc. I supposed they could have renegotiated the position with us before selling Dembele in January on the lines of we are indifferent if we sell him or not so you may got nothing so here’s what we are prepared to give you or won’t sell. Now Peterborough have revealed the position a statement from the owners setting out the position would be transparent .Whatever the machinations we know enough to know that with this the £500 k instalment due last December and other transfer fees in Fenty is either paid off or very close to it and the best course of action would be to move on and stop thinking  or implying it is hindering the forward management of the club.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Looks like the sell-on is £350k then. Just £150k left until the shackles are off.

The initial fee was £200k, I Think. Plus another £100k when they got promoted, If correct then the additional amount is £200k. If that is 25% of their transfer profit over what they paid us initially, that would make the fee £1 million. But this is largely guesswork on my part.

The £550k, plus I think £250 for Pollock, and £100k for Grist, would mean JF has been repaid £900k. So he is still owed another £600k.

One would hope that at some point he would do the decent thing and donate £200k back to the club, or The Trust. We can but hope.
    

We could have had no saleable assets and took longer to pay JF off, so the three lots of transfer cash have just speeded up the process. He wanted all his money back and that's the deal the new owners agreed, whether you like it or not.

They had already committed to paying that amount and have had three windfalls to help speed along the end point, so maybe they will put some more money into the transfer budget now. The transfers were never guaranteed, especially the latest sell on fee, so it's money they have had on top of expected outgoings. We've had over budget attendances too, so it wouldn't be fantasy to be paying fees for the right players in the summer I would have thought.

Quoted from RonMariner

The initial fee was £200k, I Think. Plus another £100k when they got promoted, If correct then the additional amount is £200k. If that is 25% of their transfer profit over what they paid us initially, that would make the fee £1 million. But this is largely guesswork on my part.

The £550k, plus I think £250 for Pollock, and £100k for Grist, would mean JF has been repaid £900k. So he is still owed another £600k.

One would hope that at some point he would do the decent thing and donate £200k back to the club, or The Trust. We can but hope.
    

And the cow jumped over the moon.

Quoted from RonMariner

The initial fee was £200k, I Think. Plus another £100k when they got promoted, If correct then the additional amount is £200k. If that is 25% of their transfer profit over what they paid us initially, that would make the fee £1 million. But this is largely guesswork on my part.

The £550k, plus I think £250 for Pollock, and £100k for Grist, would mean JF has been repaid £900k. So he is still owed another £600k.

One would hope that at some point he would do the decent thing and donate £200k back to the club, or The Trust. We can but hope.
    

I thought Dembele went for £100k and then we got the additional £100k last summer. That £100k went straight to Fenty along with £250k for Pollock and £100k+ for Grist. So that's £450k+ on top of the £500k he was due on 31st December 2021 meaning the Dembele sell-on takes us into the last £200k.

Quoted from Poojah

It’s a tricky one this. There’s certainly a narrative in my head whereby the new owners could / should have pushed harder in terms of agreeing to purchase Fenty’s shares but not his debt (at least not in the short-term) - a debt which could be argued he’d had long enough in control of the club to have repaid had he managed it competently.

Once the Alex May story had leaked, Fenty’s position at the club (and in the Town) had frankly become untenable. I think he came out of it with a pretty good deal all things considered; was his hand really so strong as to have been able to negotiate an arrangement so favourable?

On the flip side, our position at the time was precarious, and Fenty is notoriously obstinate. Perhaps Stockwood and Pettit felt that in conceding on that point and getting the deal done they stood the best chance of keeping us in the football league, which was most paramount of all.

I think, had we been sat 9th in League Two right now and not the Conference, less might get made of this. But, alas, despite the best of efforts and intentions we failed to stay up and find ourselves grinding it out in an unprecedentedly wealthy National League, which only serves to compound the frustration.

I think it’s reasonable to dissect the deal that was done, but only with the acknowledgement that it’s much easier to do with the benefit of hindsight.

I heard a rumour that 1878, whether it involved Shutes or not, were pivotal in the leak about Alex May. Whether or not that's true, they pushed very hard to take control of the club. You might argue that Fenty's position was untenable, but the club wasn't in a dire financial state and it's pure conjecture as to how many fans would have turned up if he was still here.

So 2 people with an affinity for the club, that may or may not have been involved in the turmoil going on, who had been publicly announcing their plans because they wanted to own it were left in a situation of let it play out, or agree to pay off the loans. It's a pretty strange situation that they agreed to, normally the loans would be taken on by the buyers to make a clean break, but in this case they stayed with Fenty. Maybe it was a shrewd move to deflect criticism if things didn't go so well, maybe they just don't have that much available cash. Doesn't really matter, because they publicly said that they don't see a problem with the loan arrangement and that they want the money they're putting in back too.

Fenty had a club with a decent current account and knew that there was interest in a lot of players that would have left a cash amount similar to his loans. It's a significant amount of money for anybody, and the money he put in was to keep the club going. Regardless of how badly money may have been spent, he didn't let the club go bust and shouldn't be expected to fund other people's vanity project.

Quoted from HerveJosse

I wonder if our owners welcome this statement Peterborough having told us they couldn’t say if a sell on fee was receivable let alone the amount due to confidentiality. As to the statement content it seems contradictory in implying we get a fixed amount but they don’t there take being dependent on future appearances, promotion etc. I supposed they could have renegotiated the position with us before selling Dembele in January on the lines of we are indifferent if we sell him or not so you may got nothing so here’s what we are prepared to give you or won’t sell. Now Peterborough have revealed the position a statement from the owners setting out the position would be transparent .Whatever the machinations we know enough to know that with this the £500 k instalment due last December and other transfer fees in Fenty is either paid off or very close to it and the best course of action would be to move on and stop thinking  or implying it is hindering the forward management of the club.

Twice in a week, I concur!

I would hazard the confidentiality side of it is that revealing the sell-on makes it quite easy to establish the initial fee in an undisclosed transaction. But as a few predicted Darragh MacAnthony can't keep his mouth shut for long when it comes to money.

Quoted from pen penfras

I heard a rumour that 1878, whether it involved Shutes or not, were pivotal in the leak about Alex May. Whether or not that's true, they pushed very hard to take control of the club. You might argue that Fenty's position was untenable, but the club wasn't in a dire financial state and it's pure conjecture as to how many fans would have turned up if he was still here.

So 2 people with an affinity for the club, that may or may not have been involved in the turmoil going on, who had been publicly announcing their plans because they wanted to own it were left in a situation of let it play out, or agree to pay off the loans. It's a pretty strange situation that they agreed to, normally the loans would be taken on by the buyers to make a clean break, but in this case they stayed with Fenty. Maybe it was a shrewd move to deflect criticism if things didn't go so well, maybe they just don't have that much available cash. Doesn't really matter, because they publicly said that they don't see a problem with the loan arrangement and that they want the money they're putting in back too.

Fenty had a club with a decent current account and knew that there was interest in a lot of players that would have left a cash amount similar to his loans. It's a significant amount of money for anybody, and the money he put in was to keep the club going. Regardless of how badly money may have been spent, he didn't let the club go bust and shouldn't be expected to fund other people's vanity project.

Was this rumour over a game of snooker by any chance?

‘Shouldn’t be expected to fund other peoples vanity project’


Wow.
the supporters over the years funded your mate Fenty’s

And that can’t be argued.

No fans. No club. Simple.

Fed up of the narrative Fenty saved the club.

It’s a load of balderdash.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

I thought Dembele went for £100k and then we got the additional £100k last summer. That £100k went straight to Fenty along with £250k for Pollock and £100k+ for Grist. So that's £450k+ on top of the £500k he was due on 31st December 2021 meaning the Dembele sell-on takes us into the last £200k.

Got £150k for him according to Fry - https://footballleagueworld.co.....s-fulham-are-linked/

Maybe that’s why we need the data scientists from Loughborough University, to work out how much money we’re due from Peterborough after Fry’s dealings.

Quoted from pen penfras

I heard a rumour that 1878, whether it involved Shutes or not, were pivotal in the leak about Alex May. Whether or not that's true, they pushed very hard to take control of the club. You might argue that Fenty's position was untenable, but the club wasn't in a dire financial state and it's pure conjecture as to how many fans would have turned up if he was still here.

So 2 people with an affinity for the club, that may or may not have been involved in the turmoil going on, who had been publicly announcing their plans because they wanted to own it were left in a situation of let it play out, or agree to pay off the loans. It's a pretty strange situation that they agreed to, normally the loans would be taken on by the buyers to make a clean break, but in this case they stayed with Fenty. Maybe it was a shrewd move to deflect criticism if things didn't go so well, maybe they just don't have that much available cash. Doesn't really matter, because they publicly said that they don't see a problem with the loan arrangement and that they want the money they're putting in back too.

Fenty had a club with a decent current account and knew that there was interest in a lot of players that would have left a cash amount similar to his loans. It's a significant amount of money for anybody, and the money he put in was to keep the club going. Regardless of how badly money may have been spent, he didn't let the club go bust and shouldn't be expected to fund other people's vanity project.

I don’t think anyone was expecting Fenty to pay for anyone else’s vanity project, but it might have been nice if he had contributed anything at all to his own over his sixteen years in charge, but he didn’t, not a single penny towards his numerous bad decisions.

Fundraiser to help pay off the leech as soon as possible? Lol

Quoted from pen penfras

I heard a rumour that 1878, whether it involved Shutes or not, were pivotal in the leak about Alex May. Whether or not that's true, they pushed very hard to take control of the club. You might argue that Fenty's position was untenable, but the club wasn't in a dire financial state and it's pure conjecture as to how many fans would have turned up if he was still here.

So 2 people with an affinity for the club, that may or may not have been involved in the turmoil going on, who had been publicly announcing their plans because they wanted to own it were left in a situation of let it play out, or agree to pay off the loans. It's a pretty strange situation that they agreed to, normally the loans would be taken on by the buyers to make a clean break, but in this case they stayed with Fenty. Maybe it was a shrewd move to deflect criticism if things didn't go so well, maybe they just don't have that much available cash. Doesn't really matter, because they publicly said that they don't see a problem with the loan arrangement and that they want the money they're putting in back too.

Fenty had a club with a decent current account and knew that there was interest in a lot of players that would have left a cash amount similar to his loans. It's a significant amount of money for anybody, and the money he put in was to keep the club going. Regardless of how badly money may have been spent, he didn't let the club go bust and shouldn't be expected to fund other people's vanity project.

I cannot say whether 1878 were or were not involved in the leak because I honestly don't know the answer, however that's completely immaterial. Whether they did or they didn't, the fact is that Fenty was in cahoots with a man who no Town fan in their right mind would have wanted to be involved with the club, both morally-speaking and out of concern for the club's long-term existence.

If he hadn't have done that, and if he hadn't orchestrated a deal with Ian Holloway who was patently complicit in the whole arrangement, and if he hadn't allowed our actions post-March 2020 to have been an absolute shít show then the opportunity to have put his head on a figurative stick wouldn't have been there. It's absolutely as simple as that.

You point out that Fenty had kept the club on an even keel financially. This much is true; I don't and can't dispute that because it is fact. But is that a robust solitary barometer of how well he ran the club? Plainly it isn't, because had it been there wouldn't have been an overwhelming desire from the fan base to have him leave the club in the December of 2020.

He ran the club by austere means with zero vision (except perhaps a pipe dream of a new stadium which he also, completely factually, never got remotely close to delivering). Over time, the football got worse, the results got worse and the attendances and other income streams got worse. The one tangible piece of success (if you can call promotion from non-league 'success' for a club of our size and stature) that we ever had under his stewardship he completely failed to capitalise on, and so began the cycle of austere decline once more.

He oversaw relegation into non-league twice in eleven years, despite six of those years having been spent in the National League abyss itself. You can't get relegated into a division you're already in. That did not have to be. Under the right stewardship this club has more than enough natural resources to avoid relegation into non-league, and yet we've fallen through the trapdoor on two separate occasions.

If there were a scorecard for good football club management, it would have to be balanced. Yes, financial stability would be on it. But so would the quality of football, results, league finishes, promotions, relegations, improvements to facilities and infrastructure, product of the youth system, club identity and philosophy, sentiment amongst the fanbase and so on. By all means, award Fenty a 7 or an 8 for financial stability if you wish, but make an argument for anything higher than a 3 in any of the other categories and you're having an absolute laugh.

I consider myself a pretty objective person. I don't think Fenty was the devil, just as I don't think Stockwood and Pettit are the new messiahs. I believe Fenty meant well for the most part, but lacked the talent and self-awareness to build on those good intentions. Regrettably, there is an abundance of evidence that John Fenty ran this club disastrously, well meaning or not, over almost two decades. I'll reserve judgement on the new owners until such a time they've had a fair crack of the whip.

You on the other hand appear to have an agenda. Whether it's pro-Fenty, anti-1878 (or both) I don't know but it's difficult to take your opinion seriously when you tend only to raise your head above the parapet when these kind of discussions arise.

Quoted from Poojah

I cannot say whether 1878 were or were not involved in the leak because I honestly don't know the answer, however that's completely immaterial. Whether they did or they didn't, the fact is that Fenty was in cahoots with a man who no Town fan in their right mind would have wanted to be involved with the club, both morally-speaking and out of concern for the club's long-term existence.

If he hadn't have done that, and if he hadn't orchestrated a deal with Ian Holloway who was patently complicit in the whole arrangement, and if he hadn't allowed our actions post-March 2020 to have been an absolute shít show then the opportunity to have put his head on a figurative stick wouldn't have been there. It's absolutely as simple as that.

You point out that Fenty had kept the club on an even keel financially. This much is true; I don't and can't dispute that because it is fact. But is that a robust solitary barometer of how well he ran the club? Plainly it isn't, because had it been there wouldn't have been an overwhelming desire from the fan base to have him leave the club in the December of 2020.

He ran the club by austere means with zero vision (except perhaps a pipe dream of a new stadium which he also, completely factually, never got remotely close to delivering). Over time, the football got worse, the results got worse and the attendances and other income streams got worse. The one tangible piece of success (if you can call promotion from non-league 'success' for a club of our size and stature) that we ever had under his stewardship he completely failed to capitalise on, and so began the cycle of austere decline once more.

He oversaw relegation into non-league twice in eleven years, despite six of those years having been spent in the National League abyss itself. You can't get relegated into a division you're already in. That did not have to be. Under the right stewardship this club has more than enough natural resources to avoid relegation into non-league, and yet we've fallen through the trapdoor on two separate occasions.

If there were a scorecard for good football club management, it would have to be balanced. Yes, financial stability would be on it. But so would the quality of football, results, league finishes, promotions, relegations, improvements to facilities and infrastructure, product of the youth system, club identity and philosophy, sentiment amongst the fanbase and so on. By all means, award Fenty a 7 or an 8 for financial stability if you wish, but make an argument for anything other than a 3 in any of the other categories and you're having an absolute laugh.

I consider myself a pretty objective person. I don't think Fenty was the devil, just as I don't think Stockwood and Pettit are the new messiahs. I believe Fenty meant well for the most part, but lacked the talent and self-awareness to build on those good intentions. Regrettably, there is an abundance of evidence that John Fenty ran this club disastrously, well meaning or not, over almost two decades. I'll reserve judgement on the new owners until such a time they've had a fair crack of the whip.

You on the other hand appear to have an agenda. Whether it's pro-Fenty, anti-1878 (or both) I don't know but it's difficult to take your opinion seriously when you tend only to raise your ahead above the parapet when these kind of discussions arise.

As usual a superb summing up poojah

Poojah for a knighthood.

Claiming fenty ran the club in a financially stable manner in itself is a ridiculous claim when you think of the 7 years and counting of football league money weve missed out on, and people forgetting we were being told BY fenty that we wouldnt have a competetive none league budget if we stayed in none league a season or two more last time we were down.

Quoted from Poojah

I cannot say whether 1878 were or were not involved in the leak because I honestly don't know the answer, however that's completely immaterial. Whether they did or they didn't, the fact is that Fenty was in cahoots with a man who no Town fan in their right mind would have wanted to be involved with the club, both morally-speaking and out of concern for the club's long-term existence.

If he hadn't have done that, and if he hadn't orchestrated a deal with Ian Holloway who was patently complicit in the whole arrangement, and if he hadn't allowed our actions post-March 2020 to have been an absolute shít show then the opportunity to have put his head on a figurative stick wouldn't have been there. It's absolutely as simple as that.

You point out that Fenty had kept the club on an even keel financially. This much is true; I don't and can't dispute that because it is fact. But is that a robust solitary barometer of how well he ran the club? Plainly it isn't, because had it been there wouldn't have been an overwhelming desire from the fan base to have him leave the club in the December of 2020.

He ran the club by austere means with zero vision (except perhaps a pipe dream of a new stadium which he also, completely factually, never got remotely close to delivering). Over time, the football got worse, the results got worse and the attendances and other income streams got worse. The one tangible piece of success (if you can call promotion from non-league 'success' for a club of our size and stature) that we ever had under his stewardship he completely failed to capitalise on, and so began the cycle of austere decline once more.

He oversaw relegation into non-league twice in eleven years, despite six of those years having been spent in the National League abyss itself. You can't get relegated into a division you're already in. That did not have to be. Under the right stewardship this club has more than enough natural resources to avoid relegation into non-league, and yet we've fallen through the trapdoor on two separate occasions.

If there were a scorecard for good football club management, it would have to be balanced. Yes, financial stability would be on it. But so would the quality of football, results, league finishes, promotions, relegations, improvements to facilities and infrastructure, product of the youth system, club identity and philosophy, sentiment amongst the fanbase and so on. By all means, award Fenty a 7 or an 8 for financial stability if you wish, but make an argument for anything higher than a 3 in any of the other categories and you're having an absolute laugh.

I consider myself a pretty objective person. I don't think Fenty was the devil, just as I don't think Stockwood and Pettit are the new messiahs. I believe Fenty meant well for the most part, but lacked the talent and self-awareness to build on those good intentions. Regrettably, there is an abundance of evidence that John Fenty ran this club disastrously, well meaning or not, over almost two decades. I'll reserve judgement on the new owners until such a time they've had a fair crack of the whip.

You on the other hand appear to have an agenda. Whether it's pro-Fenty, anti-1878 (or both) I don't know but it's difficult to take your opinion seriously when you tend only to raise your head above the parapet when these kind of discussions arise.

If you look at my post history, I post about lots of things. Not so much the matches because I can't get to many with family commitments and being so far away.

I've been critical of Fenty and agreed with 1878 decisions. The main reason people think I'm critical of them is because there's absolutely no balance on here. If Fenty did the things that 1878 have done, there'd be huge criticism. I think they've got a hell of a lot wrong, which is not surprising, but the lack of any criticism whatsoever and pouncing on the people that make any grumblings I find bizarre. This from the same people that say we weren't critical enough of Fenty, but should allow the new owners to make the exact same mistakes because they're not Fenty doesn't follow any logic other than there was a hatred of him.

As for my post, I was simply posturing that if they did get involved with the Alex May leak, which I have no idea whether or not they did, just a rumour, then they may have felt a sense of responsibility for the situation and been more open to making a deal. I'm not defending getting involved with Alex May, it was a terrible decision and was obvious what reaction the fans would have. Bizarrely the vote to accept his investment was unanimous, so the trust were well out of touch with the fan base on that issue.

Quoted from pen penfras

If you look at my post history, I post about lots of things. Not so much the matches because I can't get to many with family commitments and being so far away.

I've been critical of Fenty and agreed with 1878 decisions. The main reason people think I'm critical of them is because there's absolutely no balance on here. If Fenty did the things that 1878 have done, there'd be huge criticism. I think they've got a hell of a lot wrong, which is not surprising, but the lack of any criticism whatsoever and pouncing on the people that make any grumblings I find bizarre. This from the same people that say we weren't critical enough of Fenty, but should allow the new owners to make the exact same mistakes because they're not Fenty doesn't follow any logic other than there was a hatred of him.

As for my post, I was simply posturing that if they did get involved with the Alex May leak, which I have no idea whether or not they did, just a rumour, then they may have felt a sense of responsibility for the situation and been more open to making a deal. I'm not defending getting involved with Alex May, it was a terrible decision and was obvious what reaction the fans would have. Bizarrely the vote to accept his investment was unanimous, so the trust were well out of touch with the fan base on that issue.

For someone 'so far away' you seem to come up with little nuggets of information that most of us don't seem to be party to.

To be honest, if Stockwood walked on the pitch today, pulled down his strides and took a massive turd on the centre spot it would still be less embarrassing than have the stuff we’ve had to endure for 17 years…so yeh, that’s why there’s a lack of balance….

Quoted from MuddyWaters

For someone 'so far away' you seem to come up with little nuggets of information that most of us don't seem to be party to.

I said I knew people involved with the club. You talk about people from Newport regularly but don't live there. What's your point?

Quoted from pen penfras

I said I knew people involved with the club. You talk about people from Newport regularly but don't live there. What's your point?

I did know someone on the board at Newport but, by dint of rotation, he has served his time on their board. There you go, honesty & transparency.

Back to the thread subject .90plus 5 winner today from Srikie well on the way to payback for Bournemouth.

Quoted from golfer

And the cow jumped over the moon.

From the old nursery rhyme

“Hey diddle diddle
The mortgage fiddle
May teamed up with John F
The Telegraph snapped
Alec the Con
And Fenty ran off with the transfer fees”

Quoted from pen penfras

I heard a rumour that 1878, whether it involved Shutes or not, were pivotal in the leak about Alex May. Whether or not that's true, they pushed very hard to take control of the club. You might argue that Fenty's position was untenable, but the club wasn't in a dire financial state and it's pure conjecture as to how many fans would have turned up if he was still here.

So 2 people with an affinity for the club, that may or may not have been involved in the turmoil going on, who had been publicly announcing their plans because they wanted to own it were left in a situation of let it play out, or agree to pay off the loans. It's a pretty strange situation that they agreed to, normally the loans would be taken on by the buyers to make a clean break, but in this case they stayed with Fenty. Maybe it was a shrewd move to deflect criticism if things didn't go so well, maybe they just don't have that much available cash. Doesn't really matter, because they publicly said that they don't see a problem with the loan arrangement and that they want the money they're putting in back too.

Fenty had a club with a decent current account and knew that there was interest in a lot of players that would have left a cash amount similar to his loans. It's a significant amount of money for anybody, and the money he put in was to keep the club going. Regardless of how badly money may have been spent, he didn't let the club go bust and shouldn't be expected to fund other people's vanity project.

So are you saying Fenty’s mistake was in getting caught out not in forming a partnership with May in the first place?

Quoted from pen penfras

I said I knew people involved with the club. You talk about people from Newport regularly but don't live there. What's your point?

‘And we don’t have Fenty anymore’ they sing…

I’m struggling to see what the issue is in our new owners, who wanted the club, did wrong in exposing the flipping moron that ruined the club over 17 years getting in to bed with a fraud…Fenty’s downfall was greed and arrogance. He’s just angry because he got caught, not because what he did was wrong…