| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... 11:13 - Nov 1 with 13117 views | TheResurrection |
And the resignation of Jenkins and to get a full understanding of the strategy on survival.
Call a meeting with your members if you feel you need to do this officially or just make a public statement to this affect and take it to the press.
The time has come now to show our strength and to make it clear that not only are we a significant shareholder but we're also many thousands of lifelong supporters.
No more pussy footing around. Do this before the next meeting with them. |  |
| |  |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:28 - Nov 1 with 1199 views | londonlisa2001 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:09 - Nov 1 by costalotta |
Res, calm down. I think you might need to read it again. She was referring to herself as a 10 pound memeber not you. |
Exactly !! |  | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:34 - Nov 1 with 1178 views | TheResurrection |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:10 - Nov 1 by Uxbridge |
In terms of bad publicity, and publicly stating that, I think we'd struggle to be more explicit than the recent Trust address. That spelled out, in breathtaking details, the collusion of the sellers in particular and the lack of engagement to date from the buyers.
Since then, a new COO has been appointed, who there will be a meeting with this week, and there is a meeting scheduled with Levien this weekend. Let's see if events of recent weeks have had the desired result. We'll know soon enough.
Anyway, let me say where I am with all this. I still believe that, if there is any chance of maintaining the Trust's stake and influence in the football club (to pre-sale levels, or more accurately higher) then that's still the desirable outcome. I'm as skeptical as anyone, however the meetings need to happen to either progress that or finally close the door. If that can't be done, then selling all or part of the Trust stake makes a lot of sense. I'm duty bound however to point out that this is something that was noted in the address as something we've tried to get movement on and there simply hasn't been an offer on the table, so logically if there's no willingness to buy then a sale would need to either be forced by a) PR means or b) legal means. Both scenarios would likely be damaging to the football club and our prospects on the pitch (if they could get worse).
And that's my point. If we can't find a way through this, then I believe any exit strategy, while desirable, would likely be very, very messy and probably damaging. If it's even successful, and the guidance to date from legal counsel is not as clear as anyone would like. As mentioned in the meeting a couple of weeks ago, any such decisions such as selling or taking legal action would be determined by the Trust members. And that would be a very tough decision.
As for Jenkins, I think Phil covered this before in that there isn't an official Trust policy on this yet, however I think it's at the point where there needs to be. To me, I think it makes more sense to finalise that after this weekend's meetings when we can understand how the land lies, both in terms of the club's plans and the Americans views. Needless to say I would hope, the views of a significant section of the support regarding Jenkins' role will be shared at that time. I'd shed no tears either way though. |
And, with all due respect I think we should be more decisive here than allowing them to dictate the pace of the game. If you feel a full statement calling for his head or showdown talks is too much. Put something out there in the middle for the wider sporting public to digest.
Make a statement of intent, perhaps what you hope to achieve from this meeting. Make the press know how important this is and our feelings on the recent substandard management.
Don’t go in there only to find a polite American promising the world to us to find no real change and more time lost.
There’s no right or wrong here — just opinions on strategy and frankly, the Trust have not shown anything like the teeth they should have so don’t keep on making the same mistakes now.
Take the initiative, get the ball in their box and get a sight on goal!! | |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:35 - Nov 1 with 1171 views | NeiltheTaylor |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:34 - Nov 1 by TheResurrection |
And, with all due respect I think we should be more decisive here than allowing them to dictate the pace of the game. If you feel a full statement calling for his head or showdown talks is too much. Put something out there in the middle for the wider sporting public to digest.
Make a statement of intent, perhaps what you hope to achieve from this meeting. Make the press know how important this is and our feelings on the recent substandard management.
Don’t go in there only to find a polite American promising the world to us to find no real change and more time lost.
There’s no right or wrong here — just opinions on strategy and frankly, the Trust have not shown anything like the teeth they should have so don’t keep on making the same mistakes now.
Take the initiative, get the ball in their box and get a sight on goal!! |
I agree. A little bit of "news management" heading into the weekend, would be helpful. | |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:39 - Nov 1 with 1155 views | NeathJack |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:34 - Nov 1 by TheResurrection |
And, with all due respect I think we should be more decisive here than allowing them to dictate the pace of the game. If you feel a full statement calling for his head or showdown talks is too much. Put something out there in the middle for the wider sporting public to digest.
Make a statement of intent, perhaps what you hope to achieve from this meeting. Make the press know how important this is and our feelings on the recent substandard management.
Don’t go in there only to find a polite American promising the world to us to find no real change and more time lost.
There’s no right or wrong here — just opinions on strategy and frankly, the Trust have not shown anything like the teeth they should have so don’t keep on making the same mistakes now.
Take the initiative, get the ball in their box and get a sight on goal!! |
It's not often I agree you with but I certainly do here. |  | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:40 - Nov 1 with 1149 views | Nookiejack |
I understand OPs demand to remove HJ - however he actually may not want to go through next 7 months of vile abuse, at Liberty, away games, U23 games as position of club gets worse and worse.
May avoid significant pay off if he resigns. Although the longer he is in post he does rack up his circa £500k annual salary. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:41 - Nov 1 with 1146 views | londonlisa2001 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:10 - Nov 1 by Uxbridge |
In terms of bad publicity, and publicly stating that, I think we'd struggle to be more explicit than the recent Trust address. That spelled out, in breathtaking details, the collusion of the sellers in particular and the lack of engagement to date from the buyers.
Since then, a new COO has been appointed, who there will be a meeting with this week, and there is a meeting scheduled with Levien this weekend. Let's see if events of recent weeks have had the desired result. We'll know soon enough.
Anyway, let me say where I am with all this. I still believe that, if there is any chance of maintaining the Trust's stake and influence in the football club (to pre-sale levels, or more accurately higher) then that's still the desirable outcome. I'm as skeptical as anyone, however the meetings need to happen to either progress that or finally close the door. If that can't be done, then selling all or part of the Trust stake makes a lot of sense. I'm duty bound however to point out that this is something that was noted in the address as something we've tried to get movement on and there simply hasn't been an offer on the table, so logically if there's no willingness to buy then a sale would need to either be forced by a) PR means or b) legal means. Both scenarios would likely be damaging to the football club and our prospects on the pitch (if they could get worse).
And that's my point. If we can't find a way through this, then I believe any exit strategy, while desirable, would likely be very, very messy and probably damaging. If it's even successful, and the guidance to date from legal counsel is not as clear as anyone would like. As mentioned in the meeting a couple of weeks ago, any such decisions such as selling or taking legal action would be determined by the Trust members. And that would be a very tough decision.
As for Jenkins, I think Phil covered this before in that there isn't an official Trust policy on this yet, however I think it's at the point where there needs to be. To me, I think it makes more sense to finalise that after this weekend's meetings when we can understand how the land lies, both in terms of the club's plans and the Americans views. Needless to say I would hope, the views of a significant section of the support regarding Jenkins' role will be shared at that time. I'd shed no tears either way though. |
Funnily enough Ux, I think that the decision about staying in or selling (trying to sell, more accurately) partly at least depends on our view of whether or not we will stay up.
Because if we go down, the Trust's share will be worth considerably less, the Americans will outvote the Trust in order to get rid of anything that moves to get their money back, and the trust would have less money to rescue the club if it all goes t*ts up and we spiral down.
I bet no one in their right mind would put in £21m on a gamble of us staying up at the moment, and yet, effectively, by not attempting to force a sale, that is exactly what the a Trust are doing. And if it gets much further, we'll never get anything like £21m out, as we'll have lost the chance to say that we believe we were unfairly prejudiced as we'll have accepted it by default. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:41 - Nov 1 with 1141 views | Uxbridge |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:34 - Nov 1 by TheResurrection |
And, with all due respect I think we should be more decisive here than allowing them to dictate the pace of the game. If you feel a full statement calling for his head or showdown talks is too much. Put something out there in the middle for the wider sporting public to digest.
Make a statement of intent, perhaps what you hope to achieve from this meeting. Make the press know how important this is and our feelings on the recent substandard management.
Don’t go in there only to find a polite American promising the world to us to find no real change and more time lost.
There’s no right or wrong here — just opinions on strategy and frankly, the Trust have not shown anything like the teeth they should have so don’t keep on making the same mistakes now.
Take the initiative, get the ball in their box and get a sight on goal!! |
I've got no issue with the Trust making a public statement calling for Jenkins' head. I'd just like to see how this weekend's discussions go first.
I think the list of what we want was outlined in the last address ... and I'm going to cut and paste these:
a) Protection of the Trust’s stake in the football club and, if that cannot be achieved, a path to agreeing a sale of all or part of the Trust’s stake;
b) Veto rights over decisions that could affect the long-term security of the football club (e.g. excessive debt, issuing new shares);
c) The right to appoint a second director to the board of the football club to better protect the interest of our members;
d) Removal of any directors whose shareholding was below 5%;
e) No dividends to be issued without consent;
d) has already happened. I'd then add pretty much to the top of that list, given the lack of engagement to date, that there needs to be significant improvement on the day to day engagement between the SD and the management of the club.
This isn't a wishlist. It's fundamental to protecting the Trust's status at the club. Maybe there is merit to reaffirming these fundamental requirements before the weekend, I'll certainly raise the point, but I also know the Americans are more than aware of what we want. |  |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:42 - Nov 1 with 1133 views | Gowerjack |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 12:21 - Nov 1 by londonlisa2001 |
I know that - he was touted to everyone,
But our board were given all the credit in the media - we had SAF telling everyone that would listen how brilliant we had been in finding such a bargain.
And it went to people's heads. We started signing 'lesser lights' who had done well in other leagues - Gomis, Tabanou, Eder, Barrow. Because people began to think of themselves as a footballing genius. Doing 'clever' deals, to get players in for 'free' (who then wanted to leave the instant they got here as they'd still get their signing money and could get it again by moving on). Being clever by not signing Joe Allen and keeping Ki and signing Fer, when anyone with half a brain could see that Allen would rip up the league this year. |
Abso feckin lutley spot on. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:44 - Nov 1 with 1128 views | Nookiejack |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:40 - Nov 1 by Nookiejack |
I understand OPs demand to remove HJ - however he actually may not want to go through next 7 months of vile abuse, at Liberty, away games, U23 games as position of club gets worse and worse.
May avoid significant pay off if he resigns. Although the longer he is in post he does rack up his circa £500k annual salary. |
Just think of that £40k a month salary for taking us down - with club impoding as Yanks sell off all the assets to recoup their investment.
.....on top of the millions he has received from them for his shares. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:44 - Nov 1 with 1125 views | Uxbridge |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:41 - Nov 1 by londonlisa2001 |
Funnily enough Ux, I think that the decision about staying in or selling (trying to sell, more accurately) partly at least depends on our view of whether or not we will stay up.
Because if we go down, the Trust's share will be worth considerably less, the Americans will outvote the Trust in order to get rid of anything that moves to get their money back, and the trust would have less money to rescue the club if it all goes t*ts up and we spiral down.
I bet no one in their right mind would put in £21m on a gamble of us staying up at the moment, and yet, effectively, by not attempting to force a sale, that is exactly what the a Trust are doing. And if it gets much further, we'll never get anything like £21m out, as we'll have lost the chance to say that we believe we were unfairly prejudiced as we'll have accepted it by default. |
By that logic, the Trust should sell whenever the club is worth its most. That's not what the Trust should be about IMO. I suspect that's not what you meant though.
It's also not even a decision on selling or not, it's trying to force a sale. It'd be extremely messy. And, of course, how firmly heels are dug in will likely also depend on our league position.
Lots of variables here. | |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:51 - Nov 1 with 1103 views | Gowerjack |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:06 - Nov 1 by costalotta |
You need to be on the board if not chairman Lis.
There are others posters here that would get my vote onto the board too. |
Lisa
Clasie
Eames
Seem to me to show the right balance of business acumen pragmatism and passion that the Trust needs right now.
With Perchie taking the minutes ...... | |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:52 - Nov 1 with 1103 views | londonlisa2001 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:41 - Nov 1 by Uxbridge |
I've got no issue with the Trust making a public statement calling for Jenkins' head. I'd just like to see how this weekend's discussions go first.
I think the list of what we want was outlined in the last address ... and I'm going to cut and paste these:
a) Protection of the Trust’s stake in the football club and, if that cannot be achieved, a path to agreeing a sale of all or part of the Trust’s stake;
b) Veto rights over decisions that could affect the long-term security of the football club (e.g. excessive debt, issuing new shares);
c) The right to appoint a second director to the board of the football club to better protect the interest of our members;
d) Removal of any directors whose shareholding was below 5%;
e) No dividends to be issued without consent;
d) has already happened. I'd then add pretty much to the top of that list, given the lack of engagement to date, that there needs to be significant improvement on the day to day engagement between the SD and the management of the club.
This isn't a wishlist. It's fundamental to protecting the Trust's status at the club. Maybe there is merit to reaffirming these fundamental requirements before the weekend, I'll certainly raise the point, but I also know the Americans are more than aware of what we want. |
Not a chance of (b). They have paid out to get the voting rights of their non owned, non Trust shares assigned to them, so why would they then give the rights they have paid for away? If they would remotely agree to that, they would have stuck at their 68%. So that's a complete non starter.
(A) is effectively asking for non dilution - see above. Remember that they can't dilute value anyway under the companies act, so non dilution of percentage is neither here nor there since the Trust can be outvoted on absolutely everything anyway (as they have over 75% of votes).
(C) - they have already shoved another couple of Americans on the board, and if the trust has two directors they can be outvoted on everything at board level anyway. So not sure what difference that makes to be honest. The Americans can put others on the board if they wish under the new articles.
Sorry to sound negative, but the trust needs to ask for stuff that they can realistically get. Either the Americans can see the value of an 'on board' fan base or they can't. If they can't (and there is no indication that they can) then all of this is moot. If they can, then it has to be a mutually respectful conversation. Just asking for stuff that is impossible is pointless.
If you want my bet, they'll give up the second director as it doesn't make any difference, and say that all is well. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:52 - Nov 1 with 1102 views | TheResurrection |
We also need to fully establish what appetite they have got for a fight against relegation come January, especially if we are on a lowly amount of points come the turn of the year.
This is why I want Jenkins primarily taken to account and significant investment in our scouting system — but that needs to happen NOW!! | |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:52 - Nov 1 with 1101 views | NeiltheTaylor |
I believe the art of successful negotiation requires knowing what the other party truly wants. The Trust being what it is will always be necessarily clear on what that is, even down to what it will accept as a bottom line best and final offer.
The current majority owners' position is a bit more inscrutable, especially to what they can be persuaded to accept at the different junctures. Beyond "they're here to rob us blind, mun", I think it would be in our interest to understand that before the "showdown" occurs. | |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:55 - Nov 1 with 1082 views | Gowerjack |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:35 - Nov 1 by NeiltheTaylor |
I agree. A little bit of "news management" heading into the weekend, would be helpful. |
Especially this weekend what with the " Worlds Biggest Club" approaching
Yellow and Green scarves anyone? | |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:56 - Nov 1 with 1078 views | londonlisa2001 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:44 - Nov 1 by Uxbridge |
By that logic, the Trust should sell whenever the club is worth its most. That's not what the Trust should be about IMO. I suspect that's not what you meant though.
It's also not even a decision on selling or not, it's trying to force a sale. It'd be extremely messy. And, of course, how firmly heels are dug in will likely also depend on our league position.
Lots of variables here. |
My logic is based on where we are now.
If we have no influence (real influence not Iip service) then we may as well get the money when it is available. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:59 - Nov 1 with 1070 views | max936 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 11:51 - Nov 1 by 3swan |
Not sure about showdown talks, but did I read that the owners are over for the game Sunday and the Trust were expecting a meeting? |
I honestly can't see that meeting being a productive one, they'll just say most of the right things and then not act on them, its as obvious as the nose on our faces, I think the OP is spot on, on this one, Jenkins and his gang have got to go and go now!!!
And get someone to take the computer off JVZ to stop him making pathetic and stupid Tweets the guy is an embarrassment and seems intent on winding us Fans up. |  |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:06 - Nov 1 with 1045 views | monmouth |
Re The Millionaire Shit Businessman Huw Jenkins, I can't really see how the Trust's view on him will change whatever the outcome of the meeting.
Maybe if they understand the score and the strength of feeling the Americans will offer up his and The Millionaire Vending Merchant Leigh Dineen's heads on a plate as a goodwill gesture, and ban The Millionaire Small Time F*ckwit Carpet Fitter John Van Zweden at the same time.
My, how I detest those scum. But seriously, could the Trust ever work with Jenkins again anyway? Hard to see it imo. |  |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:09 - Nov 1 with 1036 views | costalotta |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:27 - Nov 1 by londonlisa2001 |
No - I said re your proposed statement (you said - shall I draft a statement) - I (ME) am only a £10 member so it's not up to ME but I think you should be involved... |
:-)
I did try. |  | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:10 - Nov 1 with 1024 views | londonlisa2001 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:09 - Nov 1 by costalotta |
:-)
I did try. |
Lol. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:20 - Nov 1 with 992 views | costalotta |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:52 - Nov 1 by londonlisa2001 |
Not a chance of (b). They have paid out to get the voting rights of their non owned, non Trust shares assigned to them, so why would they then give the rights they have paid for away? If they would remotely agree to that, they would have stuck at their 68%. So that's a complete non starter.
(A) is effectively asking for non dilution - see above. Remember that they can't dilute value anyway under the companies act, so non dilution of percentage is neither here nor there since the Trust can be outvoted on absolutely everything anyway (as they have over 75% of votes).
(C) - they have already shoved another couple of Americans on the board, and if the trust has two directors they can be outvoted on everything at board level anyway. So not sure what difference that makes to be honest. The Americans can put others on the board if they wish under the new articles.
Sorry to sound negative, but the trust needs to ask for stuff that they can realistically get. Either the Americans can see the value of an 'on board' fan base or they can't. If they can't (and there is no indication that they can) then all of this is moot. If they can, then it has to be a mutually respectful conversation. Just asking for stuff that is impossible is pointless.
If you want my bet, they'll give up the second director as it doesn't make any difference, and say that all is well. |
If a couple of posters in a message board can see this and in response to UXs post it begs the question where the £uck is the Trust getting its advice from? FFS, we are back where we were last week albeit with an Healthier discussion.
The thing Trust has never been tested before and as well as becoming stale it's forgotten how to fight. As been said, reactive. Leadership NOT strong enouhg. We are coming across a street weak! Anyway, I don't want to go into that again but to repeat...going forward inits current form the individuals runnnign the show appear to be not strong enough to deal with it. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or come across as stiring it up. It's not my intention. Just the way I and many others now see it.
We know that in our beautiful city we have the balls and brains to fight. We've done it before. Why have we become so shockingly bad at this? [Post edited 1 Nov 2016 14:23]
| | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:30 - Nov 1 with 961 views | londonlisa2001 |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:20 - Nov 1 by costalotta |
If a couple of posters in a message board can see this and in response to UXs post it begs the question where the £uck is the Trust getting its advice from? FFS, we are back where we were last week albeit with an Healthier discussion.
The thing Trust has never been tested before and as well as becoming stale it's forgotten how to fight. As been said, reactive. Leadership NOT strong enouhg. We are coming across a street weak! Anyway, I don't want to go into that again but to repeat...going forward inits current form the individuals runnnign the show appear to be not strong enough to deal with it. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or come across as stiring it up. It's not my intention. Just the way I and many others now see it.
We know that in our beautiful city we have the balls and brains to fight. We've done it before. Why have we become so shockingly bad at this? [Post edited 1 Nov 2016 14:23]
|
To be fair, what we can say on a public forum and what the Trust board can say are two very different things.
Just because the Trust aren't publicising their every move on here doesn't mean that they are not doing things in private.
And sometimes these things take a bit of time. Let's see how the next couple of weeks pan out before blaming them for not acting. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:35 - Nov 1 with 942 views | costalotta |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:30 - Nov 1 by londonlisa2001 |
To be fair, what we can say on a public forum and what the Trust board can say are two very different things.
Just because the Trust aren't publicising their every move on here doesn't mean that they are not doing things in private.
And sometimes these things take a bit of time. Let's see how the next couple of weeks pan out before blaming them for not acting. |
I thought I was being fair. Certainly holding back.
Lisa, my response was in response to yours on UXs and how easily you ripped it apart. That's on this message board.
Like I said , I was holding back and to be frank we've been waiting for a while already. I know nothing will changbe and I suspect so do you along with many others do too. It's obvious why. | | | |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:37 - Nov 1 with 939 views | fbreath |
Anything they tell the trust will need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Remember these guys are shrewd operators, are on paper highly educated and will have advisers of the highest level.
It will be like a chess match and they will be planning moves ahead.
I hope we have the people in place with the nous to be better than them |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 14:39 - Nov 1 with 931 views | Uxbridge |
| I demand the Trust asks for showdown talks with the Club... on 13:52 - Nov 1 by londonlisa2001 |
Not a chance of (b). They have paid out to get the voting rights of their non owned, non Trust shares assigned to them, so why would they then give the rights they have paid for away? If they would remotely agree to that, they would have stuck at their 68%. So that's a complete non starter.
(A) is effectively asking for non dilution - see above. Remember that they can't dilute value anyway under the companies act, so non dilution of percentage is neither here nor there since the Trust can be outvoted on absolutely everything anyway (as they have over 75% of votes).
(C) - they have already shoved another couple of Americans on the board, and if the trust has two directors they can be outvoted on everything at board level anyway. So not sure what difference that makes to be honest. The Americans can put others on the board if they wish under the new articles.
Sorry to sound negative, but the trust needs to ask for stuff that they can realistically get. Either the Americans can see the value of an 'on board' fan base or they can't. If they can't (and there is no indication that they can) then all of this is moot. If they can, then it has to be a mutually respectful conversation. Just asking for stuff that is impossible is pointless.
If you want my bet, they'll give up the second director as it doesn't make any difference, and say that all is well. |
I'm far from convinced (a) and (b) are as cut and dried as all that, and also I slightly disagree on the absoluteness of the protections of the companies act .. value is subjective and variable. Again, we get into the legals.
Anyway, obviously I can't discuss negotiating strategy on here, however your penultimate paragraph outlines things perfectly in my eyes. They either see the value of the Trust, in which case they'll want to work with us in ensuring our position (both now and in the future), or they will not. However, I do not see things that are necessarily impossible - protection of the stake may not necessarily mean non-dilution so long as at a fair value, as you say the value of the asset would not change under those circumstances. Maybe the vetoes will be an issue, however without significant input into such important decisions there's little value of being there. As you say, two directors with little input isn't any different from one. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
