| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121256 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:27 - Jul 3 with 2679 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:53 - Jul 3 by vetchonian |
There are a lots of ifs and buts to all the arguements but how is everyone so sure that £21M will be enough to buy the club one day?
That is based on an almost doomsday scenario......and assumes the court case is won..
Lets say we win whats to stop Jason and Steve raising the £21m as debt in the club?
If all shareholding is sold what will then be the purpose of the Trust? |
But by conceding the 'Drag' rights the Trust shareholding is going to be sold anyway. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:36 - Jul 3 with 2668 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:21 - Jul 3 by UplandsJack |
In fairness Vetch and I've had this discussion with Phil himself on here.
There's not much chance of you ever seeing that many new faces on the board as it's pretty much a closed shop....
They all vote for each other etc.
I have suggested fixed term with periods of disqualification from re-election to help injection of "new blood" but nothing has changed, so.... Same old, same old. |
how many people have stepped up to replace them?
I'd like to see some new people on there - especially Lisa or Shaky at this time - but do they have the time or will to? They'd get my vote. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:48 - Jul 3 with 2640 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:36 - Jul 3 by harryhpalmer |
how many people have stepped up to replace them?
I'd like to see some new people on there - especially Lisa or Shaky at this time - but do they have the time or will to? They'd get my vote. |
How many indeed?
There are around 1800 members so I would think that if someone is able to get around 25% of those to vote for them they'll get in.
Generally this discussion has been very courteous but there are enough calls to grow a pair and veiled suggestions of self interest that I wonder why anyone wants to put themselves out there. I have a great deal of respect for those who do. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:51 - Jul 3 with 2625 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:27 - Jul 3 by Nookiejack |
But by conceding the 'Drag' rights the Trust shareholding is going to be sold anyway. |
Exactly.
What people really need to ask is - why are the drag rights a red line for them? It seems to me that they get all the power to do what they want with our shares whilst we get zilch.
If dragrights are trivial then why are the venture capitalists so adamant abour wanting them?
And if they're a big deal, why are we prepared to give them up? |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:04 - Jul 3 with 2596 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:51 - Jul 3 by DafyddHuw |
Exactly.
What people really need to ask is - why are the drag rights a red line for them? It seems to me that they get all the power to do what they want with our shares whilst we get zilch.
If dragrights are trivial then why are the venture capitalists so adamant abour wanting them?
And if they're a big deal, why are we prepared to give them up? |
The thing is from various posts on this thread - there is a large constituency who think by voting not to take legal action - the Trust will maintain its stake.
This is not the case - by conceding the 'Drag'' rights as soon as the Yanks want to sell they can 'Drag'' along the Trust and sell the Trust's stake to the new buyer. (The Trust would receive same price per share as the Yank's).
So it just depends when the Yanks decide to sell.
I don't think the constituency who want the Trust to keep a stake in the club - have clocked this? They will be very disappointed when the Yanks decide to sell. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:21 - Jul 3 with 2568 views | UplandsJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:48 - Jul 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
How many indeed?
There are around 1800 members so I would think that if someone is able to get around 25% of those to vote for them they'll get in.
Generally this discussion has been very courteous but there are enough calls to grow a pair and veiled suggestions of self interest that I wonder why anyone wants to put themselves out there. I have a great deal of respect for those who do. |
How many people actually voted last time round?
If I recall and forgive me if I'm wrong it was about 600.
Also if I recall correctly, there were 2 or 3 new candidates who put themselves forward and not one got elected. Instead the old guard were comfortably re-elected.
Honestly, it's no wonder no-one bothers.
If the board truely wanted new Blood injected they would look to make it more achievable.... |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:51 - Jul 3 with 2445 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:04 - Jul 3 by Nookiejack |
The thing is from various posts on this thread - there is a large constituency who think by voting not to take legal action - the Trust will maintain its stake.
This is not the case - by conceding the 'Drag'' rights as soon as the Yanks want to sell they can 'Drag'' along the Trust and sell the Trust's stake to the new buyer. (The Trust would receive same price per share as the Yank's).
So it just depends when the Yanks decide to sell.
I don't think the constituency who want the Trust to keep a stake in the club - have clocked this? They will be very disappointed when the Yanks decide to sell. |
And is that any different to taking the legal action?
If we win we surrender our shares for 21 m maybe
Or we take the deal and maybe when they sell out we get
A bit more as the yanks will be looking to profit | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:56 - Jul 3 with 2433 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:21 - Jul 3 by UplandsJack |
How many people actually voted last time round?
If I recall and forgive me if I'm wrong it was about 600.
Also if I recall correctly, there were 2 or 3 new candidates who put themselves forward and not one got elected. Instead the old guard were comfortably re-elected.
Honestly, it's no wonder no-one bothers.
If the board truely wanted new Blood injected they would look to make it more achievable.... |
Put yourself forward. I'll nominate you and I'll get a campaign going to get you voted on.
Go on go for it. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:11 - Jul 3 with 2407 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
I'm way too lazy to read all these pages .
In laymen terms
What's happening then ? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:06 - Jul 3 with 2328 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:51 - Jul 3 by vetchonian |
And is that any different to taking the legal action?
If we win we surrender our shares for 21 m maybe
Or we take the deal and maybe when they sell out we get
A bit more as the yanks will be looking to profit |
.............or only £5m if we get relegated and go into a downward spiral
From the bookies odds we are 9/4 to be relegated this upcoming season which equates to a 30%.
To stay up over the next 5 seasons that equates to about 83% chance of being relegated.
So 17% chance of staying up over next 5 seasons and then you also need TV rights to increase for Yanks to make a profit.
I don't like the 83% to 17% probabilities against - when whichever option is chosen the Trust will sell its stake.
I prefer to take the £23m now.
Surely the purpose of the Trust is to protect the value of its stake (thats why by definition it is called a Trust) rather than gamble with 17% upside chance of success (plus need an increase in TV money)?
Its not a 50% : 50% bet - look at where we finished last season. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 04:53 - Jul 4 with 2199 views | dameedna |
Trust negotiated a deal.
Not everyone trusts this offer or understands the deal.
Members being asked to vote to accept or not.
If not accepted either legal or negotiate further.
5m offered to trust, trust keeps an advisory role and sight of finances.
The trust could lose and cannot afford litigation if loses loses shirt pants socks.
Debate on QC opinion and requests on disclosure of opinion.
Trust members committing hours of voluntary work.
Confusion over Chairmans position which is a sideshow.
Real world power broking.
Undercurrrents about the biggest supporter in the land.
Board failure to recognise some aspects of the support. Timing of striking a deal in the off season.
Timing and cost of litigation. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:27 - Jul 4 with 2162 views | Jackanapes |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:06 - Jul 3 by Nookiejack |
.............or only £5m if we get relegated and go into a downward spiral
From the bookies odds we are 9/4 to be relegated this upcoming season which equates to a 30%.
To stay up over the next 5 seasons that equates to about 83% chance of being relegated.
So 17% chance of staying up over next 5 seasons and then you also need TV rights to increase for Yanks to make a profit.
I don't like the 83% to 17% probabilities against - when whichever option is chosen the Trust will sell its stake.
I prefer to take the £23m now.
Surely the purpose of the Trust is to protect the value of its stake (thats why by definition it is called a Trust) rather than gamble with 17% upside chance of success (plus need an increase in TV money)?
Its not a 50% : 50% bet - look at where we finished last season. |
Yes because our fate lies in the hands of the bookies. ROFL. NoClue is apt. |  |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:34 - Jul 4 with 2149 views | Vetchfielder |
I'm sorry if this buried somewhere in the previous pages but could somebody from the Trust please confirm and name the parties that would be subject to the legal action?
Thanks |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:37 - Jul 4 with 2147 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:30 - Jul 3 by Uxbridge |
Quite. Also I've pretty much agreed with everything you've written this morning. It is inconceivable. I'm also pretty sure this would have been an issue for the likes of Morgan and Jenkins from last year too, who have retained minority holdings.
Above all else, the drag along clause has been the aspect I've personally struggled with. Speaking as someone who's always seen significant value in the Trust retaining a stake in the club, and as has been said it's a fundamental aim of the Trust, to potentially sign that future involvement away has been something that has caused great concern. What ultimately it's come down to for me is that the other options on the table are even less palatable - legal action quite possibly means the Trust exit the club anyway (but with much greater upheaval to the club), and retaining the existing stake and scenario means the Trust has even less control over events in the future.
I've got no idea how this vote will go (this site is focused so much on the sale vs. legal argument but interestingly most of the angst a lot of the comms the Trust have received from its members worry about why we'd even advocate any reduction in the shareholding), but I suspect the offer on the table would be a lot more likely to be successfully approved if the drag along clause was removed. I'd certainly be much happier. [Post edited 3 Jul 2017 11:31]
|
Well I must say I feel more comfortable after you posted that.
If as previously seemed to be the case you didn't have serious reservations about the drag-along rights, it suggested to me you either didn't understand what it meant or had some kind of hidden agenda.
As such I find your doubts reassuring and suggest to me you are open to further arguments that I'll try to make perhaps this weekend, time permitting.
However, right now I'd like to dispute the received wisdom that litigation will lead to major long term upheaval for the club. Yes it will take a long time, but the case itself won't take more than a few weeks at the most, and the primary reason for the delay is there is a significant waiting list for cases to reach the High Court (last I heard in the region of 2 years).
During that time nothing will happen, no lawyers fees will rack up, and there will be nothing to report in the press. The greatest danger is boredom!
In the interim would Kaplan try to kick the Trust off the board? No. Would Pearlman cancel the meetings with the Trust? I honestly doubt it, and I'd also take this opportunity to challenge the notion that selling the Trust's stake ends its influence with the club; the voice of the supporters will always get a hearing with any half-decent management. Even Tan has come round on that point, I believe! |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:55 - Jul 4 with 2089 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:37 - Jul 4 by Shaky |
Well I must say I feel more comfortable after you posted that.
If as previously seemed to be the case you didn't have serious reservations about the drag-along rights, it suggested to me you either didn't understand what it meant or had some kind of hidden agenda.
As such I find your doubts reassuring and suggest to me you are open to further arguments that I'll try to make perhaps this weekend, time permitting.
However, right now I'd like to dispute the received wisdom that litigation will lead to major long term upheaval for the club. Yes it will take a long time, but the case itself won't take more than a few weeks at the most, and the primary reason for the delay is there is a significant waiting list for cases to reach the High Court (last I heard in the region of 2 years).
During that time nothing will happen, no lawyers fees will rack up, and there will be nothing to report in the press. The greatest danger is boredom!
In the interim would Kaplan try to kick the Trust off the board? No. Would Pearlman cancel the meetings with the Trust? I honestly doubt it, and I'd also take this opportunity to challenge the notion that selling the Trust's stake ends its influence with the club; the voice of the supporters will always get a hearing with any half-decent management. Even Tan has come round on that point, I believe! |
If as you are suggesting it could take 2 years for the case to be heard, what would happen if the Yanks were to sell up in that period? |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:31 - Jul 4 with 2039 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:27 - Jul 4 by Jackanapes |
Yes because our fate lies in the hands of the bookies. ROFL. NoClue is apt. |
That's not noclue, dimwit. Try to keep up please. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:38 - Jul 4 with 2016 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:55 - Jul 4 by NeathJack |
If as you are suggesting it could take 2 years for the case to be heard, what would happen if the Yanks were to sell up in that period? |
Interesting question.
Overhanging litigation would likely put an effective halt to any attempt to sell the club via a controlling interest in the US LLC holding company.
In purely financial terms it wouldn't make much difference if an acquiror were committed to buying 100% of the club, but then again the Trust might withdraw leaving them without the target level of ownership.
In any case it introduces a considerable level of uncertainty and financial risk that any potential acquiror would certainly think twice about.
Given the lengths Team Kaplan have gone to give them maximum flexibility of action, there is no doubt they would be very, very unhappy with such a situation.
On the other hand for the Trust it is piling on more negotiating leverage! | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:43 - Jul 4 with 2012 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:27 - Jul 4 by Jackanapes |
Yes because our fate lies in the hands of the bookies. ROFL. NoClue is apt. |
I have just referred to the bookies to objectively assess the probabilities of the 2 options.
What % chance do you think we have of staying up for the next 3-5 seasons?
Likewise of not doing so?
The Yanks will be working to a 3-5 year plan. If we stay up and TV Rights go up it is likely they will sell and drag along the Trust - thw Trust then has to sell its stake.
The downside is we could get relegated during the next 5 years and go into a downward spiral - there are scenarios where Trust will obtain a 16% share of the parachute money but others where will only end up receiving the current £5m offer.
So in making the decision it is important in my view to assess the % likelihood of staying up for 3-5 seasons verses of not doing so.
I have tried to use the bookies odds of trying to assess this.
Happy if someone else has a better assessment of the probabilities. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:18 - Jul 4 with 1967 views | Meraki |
Do the Trust know who ACTUALLY owns the club? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:10 - Jul 4 with 1914 views | QJumpingJack |
Before I vote, I want to know on how communication works between the Trust and the club.
Do they Americans listen to the Trust or just tell them how things are going to play out?
Is information withheld from the Trust?
And why can't the Trust influence the pricing decision on pre-season friendlies?
Charging £20 for Sampdoria/training session is not best for the loyal fans. [Post edited 4 Jul 2017 10:11]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:21 - Jul 4 with 1826 views | budegan |
Trust member here with a question.
Apologies if it's been dealt with further up the thread but I've not had the time to read every single post sorry, even a nutshell answer would be much appreciated :)
Do we know why the Americans are so loyal to Jenkins et al that it's beyond consideration that there can be a deal involving them being booted? Genuine question. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:29 - Jul 4 with 1819 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:21 - Jul 4 by budegan |
Trust member here with a question.
Apologies if it's been dealt with further up the thread but I've not had the time to read every single post sorry, even a nutshell answer would be much appreciated :)
Do we know why the Americans are so loyal to Jenkins et al that it's beyond consideration that there can be a deal involving them being booted? Genuine question. |
Simple answer is that they see him as the best man for the job, and want him to continue overseeing the football side of the business. They think his record, going back to the early 2000's, backs that up. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:34 - Jul 4 with 1802 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:10 - Jul 4 by QJumpingJack |
Before I vote, I want to know on how communication works between the Trust and the club.
Do they Americans listen to the Trust or just tell them how things are going to play out?
Is information withheld from the Trust?
And why can't the Trust influence the pricing decision on pre-season friendlies?
Charging £20 for Sampdoria/training session is not best for the loyal fans. [Post edited 4 Jul 2017 10:11]
|
Usually yes. Clearly that didn't happen for the Sampdoria game and they apologised for that. However the likes of Stu are usually well aware of what is happening well in advance, are involved in the decision making process etc. Apart from that game pricing, I can't recall anything over the last 7 months that has come as a total surprise to the Trust.
Is information withheld? It doesn't seem that way at least - the Trust has sight of the financials, has regular meetings with the key people at the club, is engaged in the decision making process. Ensuring this continues is the main reason I'm in favour of the part sale option - it maintains that, at the very least during the current ownership structure. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:47 - Jul 4 with 1768 views | Algorfajack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:34 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
Usually yes. Clearly that didn't happen for the Sampdoria game and they apologised for that. However the likes of Stu are usually well aware of what is happening well in advance, are involved in the decision making process etc. Apart from that game pricing, I can't recall anything over the last 7 months that has come as a total surprise to the Trust.
Is information withheld? It doesn't seem that way at least - the Trust has sight of the financials, has regular meetings with the key people at the club, is engaged in the decision making process. Ensuring this continues is the main reason I'm in favour of the part sale option - it maintains that, at the very least during the current ownership structure. |
Apart from that game pricing, I can't recall anything over the last 7 months that has come as a total surprise to the Trust.
Is information withheld? It doesn't seem that way at least - the Trust has sight of the financials, has regular meetings with the key people at the club, is engaged in the decision making process.
So, obviously not engaged in all the decision making then? |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:51 - Jul 4 with 1759 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:29 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
Simple answer is that they see him as the best man for the job, and want him to continue overseeing the football side of the business. They think his record, going back to the early 2000's, backs that up. |
So if Huw Jenkins gets run over by a bus tomorrow morning they lose all their money because the club folds then?
What load of bollox. (From them not you) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
