| Uxbridge 10:18 - Jul 21 with 3745 views | swancity |
You have spent the last month trying to convince everyone to accept the offer on the table. Almost any other argument put forward has been shot down. Knowledgeable people have offered better alternatives and yet you've stuck to your guns. It's deplorable and unacceptable. Shame on you.
Remember what they did? The qc is telling you that there is a strong case. You have not put forward balanced views and opinions which should state in detail the positives and negatives of all options. You are like a dog with a bone. It's not a time for stubbornness.
And these are only your views that your forcing on people. You've dropped a bollock. The perpetrators of this scam are laughing at you and yes all the way to the bank. It's not too late to change your strategy or at least keep an open mind. Let the people decide, stop forcing your views on them.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Uxbridge on 13:46 - Jul 21 with 943 views | plasjack |
| Uxbridge on 13:27 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
Well, what an interesting thread.What's the adage about the only thing worse than people talking about you is not talking about you? Anyway, weird.
Anyway, a few points:
Whilst appreciating the rest of her post, I'm not sure where Lisa got the idea I'm the designated poster for the Trust on here. I'd thought I'd stated enough times that my views are my own but I'll do it again for the record. Phil and Matt can post for themselves, and do. As for the rest of the board, I wish they would post on here although given the often personal nature of such things I can't blame anyone who doesn't.
It's probably true the majority of my posts have been arguing the toss with some people advocating legal action. However that's largely because of what I see as falsehoods surrounding that (particularly when some people are guaranteeing success) and also ignoring the risks, which are real and could have a devastating effect on the Trust.
I've explained my rationale for voting in favour of the deal enough times so I'm not going to go through that again. However I've frequently outlined the pros and cons of the deal also. Monny has said pretty much the same thing, and if he thinks that's the case then that's good enough for me .... that's the thing with nerdboarding, you quickly learn to judge whose opinion is worth listening to. When the likes of Monny or Clasey think I've gone off piste is the time I'll start worrying.
As for the OP, of course it was a personal attack at me. Stop wriggling mun. However, I really couldn't care less.
I see the bundles have started dropping on doorsteps. A rather soggy envelope arrived in SA2 earlier. For anyone unsure how to vote, I'd suggest reading the documents detailing the pros and cons of each option, plus there's an abridged matrix which summarises that.
That's the great thing about the Trust. One member, one vote. Not a member? No vote, no say. For anyone questioning the board's view on that, just remember that this vote didn't actually need to happen, at least from a legal perspective. Only right the members get to decide the future of the Trust though. [Post edited 21 Jul 2017 13:29]
|
How do I vote without a return envelope Ux?. |  | | |
| Uxbridge on 13:48 - Jul 21 with 942 views | max936 |
| Uxbridge on 12:50 - Jul 21 by swanforthemoney |
Accept the offer
- Get some money in the Bank.
- Also keep a place on the board
A five million quid warchest gives a good basis for the regenerating the club if we ever fall victim to a Postsmouth type scenario.
Legal action will be long and drawn out and has uncertain outcome.
- If you want Legal Action what redress are you hoping for in event of a win ?
--- Is it that KapLev be forced to buy all the shares?
----In that case we concede any board influence, albeit with a fat bank balance
--------- why does the Trust need 20 mills, rather than 5 mills rising to a possible 10 mills, anyway?
- Lose and we lose everything.
I'd say dont vote for legal action just because your are angry and want to think you're 'getting at' someone. You're not. Ultimately this needs a cool, dispassionate head. |
I'm all for a deal [despite my anger towards the sellouts] but the deal has to be right and in my opinion this one isn't, its basically a peace offering imho and we seem to be to keen to accept, I'm not. [Post edited 21 Jul 2017 13:55]
|  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 13:54 - Jul 21 with 929 views | Watchman |
What I got in the post this morning was informative and well structured and far more detailed than what has been said/reported on line |  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 13:56 - Jul 21 with 924 views | Watchman |
| Uxbridge on 13:05 - Jul 21 by plasjack |
Are they sending return freepost envelope separately again because it's not in my letter?. |
its in mine | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 13:57 - Jul 21 with 923 views | Uxbridge |
| Uxbridge on 13:46 - Jul 21 by plasjack |
How do I vote without a return envelope Ux?. |
Email scrutineer@swanstrust.co.uk. That's the address for the independent scrutineer for the vote. He'd be able to ensure your vote is registered. |  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 14:07 - Jul 21 with 912 views | Watchman |
| Uxbridge on 13:57 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
Email scrutineer@swanstrust.co.uk. That's the address for the independent scrutineer for the vote. He'd be able to ensure your vote is registered. |
How dare the trust organise an independent scrutineer | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 14:56 - Jul 21 with 882 views | felixstowe_jack |
I have received my voting papers and information sheet with gives a clear picture of all three options.
The QC has said a couple of things. " The Trust has a strong case for unfair prejudice, should the matter go to court"
He also says "that legal action should be a last resort only if we cannot negotiate a settlement"
Even if we win legal action all that will happen it the Trust will sell its entire holding.
If we accept the current offer the Trust will sell half it's holding over 5 years.
Option 1 Accept offer
Option 2 Pursue legal action
Option 3 Do not pursue legal action and continue as we are.
I urge you all to consider what is best for our club and out aside any personal views of current board members before you vote. | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 15:36 - Jul 21 with 847 views | swancity |
| Uxbridge on 13:27 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
Well, what an interesting thread.What's the adage about the only thing worse than people talking about you is not talking about you? Anyway, weird.
Anyway, a few points:
Whilst appreciating the rest of her post, I'm not sure where Lisa got the idea I'm the designated poster for the Trust on here. I'd thought I'd stated enough times that my views are my own but I'll do it again for the record. Phil and Matt can post for themselves, and do. As for the rest of the board, I wish they would post on here although given the often personal nature of such things I can't blame anyone who doesn't.
It's probably true the majority of my posts have been arguing the toss with some people advocating legal action. However that's largely because of what I see as falsehoods surrounding that (particularly when some people are guaranteeing success) and also ignoring the risks, which are real and could have a devastating effect on the Trust.
I've explained my rationale for voting in favour of the deal enough times so I'm not going to go through that again. However I've frequently outlined the pros and cons of the deal also. Monny has said pretty much the same thing, and if he thinks that's the case then that's good enough for me .... that's the thing with nerdboarding, you quickly learn to judge whose opinion is worth listening to. When the likes of Monny or Clasey think I've gone off piste is the time I'll start worrying.
As for the OP, of course it was a personal attack at me. Stop wriggling mun. However, I really couldn't care less.
I see the bundles have started dropping on doorsteps. A rather soggy envelope arrived in SA2 earlier. For anyone unsure how to vote, I'd suggest reading the documents detailing the pros and cons of each option, plus there's an abridged matrix which summarises that.
That's the great thing about the Trust. One member, one vote. Not a member? No vote, no say. For anyone questioning the board's view on that, just remember that this vote didn't actually need to happen, at least from a legal perspective. Only right the members get to decide the future of the Trust though. [Post edited 21 Jul 2017 13:29]
|
To reiterate it was not a personal attack, I don't know you. And we are all entitled to an opinion. You have yours. But your views on behalf of the Trust have been rigid with no room for manoeuvre. You are too keen to accept scraps being thrown to you. There is a lot to be gained from legal action as you know you have a strong legal case. At the very least, go back to them to get a much improved offer. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Uxbridge on 15:47 - Jul 21 with 824 views | Darran |
| Uxbridge on 15:36 - Jul 21 by swancity |
To reiterate it was not a personal attack, I don't know you. And we are all entitled to an opinion. You have yours. But your views on behalf of the Trust have been rigid with no room for manoeuvre. You are too keen to accept scraps being thrown to you. There is a lot to be gained from legal action as you know you have a strong legal case. At the very least, go back to them to get a much improved offer. |
Which way will you be voting? lol |  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 16:08 - Jul 21 with 806 views | Witneyjack |
| Uxbridge on 15:47 - Jul 21 by Darran |
Which way will you be voting? lol |
Anybody who is not a Trust member is entitled to an opinion on the choices available, however they have no right to criticise members over their thoughts on the matter. In reality they should think it and then stfu.
This is Trust business for Trust members! |  | | |
| Uxbridge on 16:20 - Jul 21 with 791 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Uxbridge on 12:50 - Jul 21 by oh_tommy_tommy |
It doesnt work like that ,millions voted Tory and had no idea what they were voting for
 |
It don't work like that millions of students voted for Corbyn because he said he would abolish their student loads. Only he meant it was one of his aspirations. It is one of life learning points ALL politicians lie which you realise after a couple of elections. | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 17:25 - Jul 21 with 725 views | Pacemaker |
| Uxbridge on 15:36 - Jul 21 by swancity |
To reiterate it was not a personal attack, I don't know you. And we are all entitled to an opinion. You have yours. But your views on behalf of the Trust have been rigid with no room for manoeuvre. You are too keen to accept scraps being thrown to you. There is a lot to be gained from legal action as you know you have a strong legal case. At the very least, go back to them to get a much improved offer. |
Anyone who includes the line there is a lot to be gained from legal action has never been involved in legal action. A fair agreement obtained via democratic means should always be the way forward.
Too many people here are looking to get even with the old board, it will cost a huge amount of money and result in an agreement settled out of court. I.e. We will be a lot poorer and no further forward. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Uxbridge on 17:53 - Jul 21 with 687 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Uxbridge on 13:27 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
Well, what an interesting thread.What's the adage about the only thing worse than people talking about you is not talking about you? Anyway, weird.
Anyway, a few points:
Whilst appreciating the rest of her post, I'm not sure where Lisa got the idea I'm the designated poster for the Trust on here. I'd thought I'd stated enough times that my views are my own but I'll do it again for the record. Phil and Matt can post for themselves, and do. As for the rest of the board, I wish they would post on here although given the often personal nature of such things I can't blame anyone who doesn't.
It's probably true the majority of my posts have been arguing the toss with some people advocating legal action. However that's largely because of what I see as falsehoods surrounding that (particularly when some people are guaranteeing success) and also ignoring the risks, which are real and could have a devastating effect on the Trust.
I've explained my rationale for voting in favour of the deal enough times so I'm not going to go through that again. However I've frequently outlined the pros and cons of the deal also. Monny has said pretty much the same thing, and if he thinks that's the case then that's good enough for me .... that's the thing with nerdboarding, you quickly learn to judge whose opinion is worth listening to. When the likes of Monny or Clasey think I've gone off piste is the time I'll start worrying.
As for the OP, of course it was a personal attack at me. Stop wriggling mun. However, I really couldn't care less.
I see the bundles have started dropping on doorsteps. A rather soggy envelope arrived in SA2 earlier. For anyone unsure how to vote, I'd suggest reading the documents detailing the pros and cons of each option, plus there's an abridged matrix which summarises that.
That's the great thing about the Trust. One member, one vote. Not a member? No vote, no say. For anyone questioning the board's view on that, just remember that this vote didn't actually need to happen, at least from a legal perspective. Only right the members get to decide the future of the Trust though. [Post edited 21 Jul 2017 13:29]
|
"I'm not sure where Lisa got the idea I'm the designated poster for the Trust on here. I'd thought I'd stated enough times that my views are my own but I'll do it again for the record. Phil and Matt can post for themselves, and do. As for the rest of the board, I wish they would post on here although given the often personal nature of such things I can't blame anyone who doesn't. "
Um, because it's obvious that despite protestations you are speaking for the Trust Board. If you were not, others would step in to make that clear. Whether the designation is official, or simply de facto, is somewhat irrelevant. Their silence implies agreement. | | | |
| Uxbridge on 17:53 - Jul 21 with 685 views | tomdickharry |
Why not option 3 ? The Trust still own 21% of the club and having built bridges with the current owners why the rush to sell. | | | |
| Uxbridge on 17:57 - Jul 21 with 674 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Uxbridge on 17:25 - Jul 21 by Pacemaker |
Anyone who includes the line there is a lot to be gained from legal action has never been involved in legal action. A fair agreement obtained via democratic means should always be the way forward.
Too many people here are looking to get even with the old board, it will cost a huge amount of money and result in an agreement settled out of court. I.e. We will be a lot poorer and no further forward. |
Completely agree with the sentence 'a fair agreement obtained by democratic means should always be the way forward'. It depends however, on your definition of a fair agreement.
Action resulting in a settlement agreed out of court, or actually, a long, long way before it gets anywhere near court will be ideal. | | | |
| Uxbridge on 18:35 - Jul 21 with 630 views | Uxbridge |
| Uxbridge on 17:53 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
"I'm not sure where Lisa got the idea I'm the designated poster for the Trust on here. I'd thought I'd stated enough times that my views are my own but I'll do it again for the record. Phil and Matt can post for themselves, and do. As for the rest of the board, I wish they would post on here although given the often personal nature of such things I can't blame anyone who doesn't. "
Um, because it's obvious that despite protestations you are speaking for the Trust Board. If you were not, others would step in to make that clear. Whether the designation is official, or simply de facto, is somewhat irrelevant. Their silence implies agreement. |
That's a bit of a leap. People will be in favour of various options for any number of reasons. Some people will favour legal action for differing reasons, so why wouldn't that be the case for people on the Trust board? Truth be told, I don't know why anyone else on the Trust board is in favour. I can guess, but I don't know their rationales for sure.
As for silence implying agreement, i can think of plenty of scenarios where that's a very unsafe assumption. | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 18:40 - Jul 21 with 620 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Uxbridge on 18:35 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
That's a bit of a leap. People will be in favour of various options for any number of reasons. Some people will favour legal action for differing reasons, so why wouldn't that be the case for people on the Trust board? Truth be told, I don't know why anyone else on the Trust board is in favour. I can guess, but I don't know their rationales for sure.
As for silence implying agreement, i can think of plenty of scenarios where that's a very unsafe assumption. |
"That's a bit of a leap. People will be in favour of various options for any number of reasons. Some people will favour legal action for differing reasons, so why wouldn't that be the case for people on the Trust board? Truth be told, I don't know why anyone else on the Trust board is in favour. I can guess, but I don't know their rationales for sure"
I meant about the decision not the reasons for it.
Although I had imagined that you may have all discussed it if I'm honest... | | | |
| Uxbridge on 18:45 - Jul 21 with 617 views | LeonWasGod |
| Uxbridge on 11:28 - Jul 21 by Darran |
It's clear which way the Trust are leaning but do people really need to be told to wipe their arses?
Read it and then decide which way you want to vote you fuçking idiots.
Fuçking hell no wonder this country's in such a state. |
Is it front to back, or back to front? I tried side to side once, but never again  |  | | |
| Uxbridge on 18:56 - Jul 21 with 604 views | Uxbridge |
| Uxbridge on 18:40 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
"That's a bit of a leap. People will be in favour of various options for any number of reasons. Some people will favour legal action for differing reasons, so why wouldn't that be the case for people on the Trust board? Truth be told, I don't know why anyone else on the Trust board is in favour. I can guess, but I don't know their rationales for sure"
I meant about the decision not the reasons for it.
Although I had imagined that you may have all discussed it if I'm honest... |
That's a bit of a cheap shot. | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:01 - Jul 21 with 593 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Uxbridge on 18:56 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
That's a bit of a cheap shot. |
Why? | | | |
| Uxbridge on 19:02 - Jul 21 with 593 views | monmouth |
| Uxbridge on 14:56 - Jul 21 by felixstowe_jack |
I have received my voting papers and information sheet with gives a clear picture of all three options.
The QC has said a couple of things. " The Trust has a strong case for unfair prejudice, should the matter go to court"
He also says "that legal action should be a last resort only if we cannot negotiate a settlement"
Even if we win legal action all that will happen it the Trust will sell its entire holding.
If we accept the current offer the Trust will sell half it's holding over 5 years.
Option 1 Accept offer
Option 2 Pursue legal action
Option 3 Do not pursue legal action and continue as we are.
I urge you all to consider what is best for our club and out aside any personal views of current board members before you vote. |
The elephant in the room for me is that the Americans would never let it get to court and risk having to stump up £23m. By far the most likely outcome of a vote for legal action as Lisa says, is a better out of court settlement. THAT is the risk I would be prepared to take, and where I think my vote will end up. If it then does get to court, well so be it. |  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:05 - Jul 21 with 584 views | Pacemaker |
| Uxbridge on 19:02 - Jul 21 by monmouth |
The elephant in the room for me is that the Americans would never let it get to court and risk having to stump up £23m. By far the most likely outcome of a vote for legal action as Lisa says, is a better out of court settlement. THAT is the risk I would be prepared to take, and where I think my vote will end up. If it then does get to court, well so be it. |
That assumption is a risky one particularly if the judge thinks that the board have made a fair offer and the trust have gone all hgung ho for court. It could end up costing us much more than the £800k we currently have in the bank. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:08 - Jul 21 with 577 views | monmouth |
| Uxbridge on 19:05 - Jul 21 by Pacemaker |
That assumption is a risky one particularly if the judge thinks that the board have made a fair offer and the trust have gone all hgung ho for court. It could end up costing us much more than the £800k we currently have in the bank. |
Yes but the risk I would bet on is that the Americans would never take the risk of it getting to court. And the judge anyway cannot evaluate this offer only that there has been one that has turned down so the Trust did all that was possible. He will evaluate only on unfair prejudice. That other argument is, in my eyes anyway, a total red herring. | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:08 - Jul 21 with 575 views | Uxbridge |
I found the last sentence a tad unnecessary to be honest, but maybe I'm reading too much into it after a long week.
Anyway, drink to be drunk. I suspect the forums will make interesting reading when I resurface now the forms are out eh. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
very good Tommy very good indeed 
