| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action 16:13 - Jul 21 with 21965 views | Vetchfielder |
I’ve reviewed the Consultation Papers that arrived today and they are well presented and clear. Personally I could have added a couple more lines to the Pro’s section for legal action but it is specifically it is the aspect of legal fees in the Consultation Papers has left me with major gripes.
The first thing is that we don’t seem to have got a quotation or even an estimate of the legal costs of going ahead with legal action. If we did get a quotation or estimate then it has not been included in the documentation. Has the Trust Board asked for an estimate, was one provided and what are the details ?
What about a "No-Win / No-Fee" type of legal engagement— mentioned by Dai Little in the first Trust meeting yet I can see no mention of this in the documentation?
Regarding the magnitude of legal costs, the words we are given are:
(a) In the Options Matrix, Impact on Trust Funds section: “Likely substantial reduction, possibly wiped out completely, or worse”.
(b) In the Cons section of Option 2: “Legal action is costly and unpredictable. There is a real chance the Trust could lose, in which case the existing funds of over £800,000 could be wiped out or even lead to the Trust being in debt. If legal costs were to exceed the current Trust funds, which is a likely scenario, it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs — which may impact the Trust’s ability to proceed beyond that point”.
Regarding (a), no detail is provided as to exactly what “worse” means in practical terms and how we would deal with it.
Also, there is a big contradiction between funds “possibly” wiped out in (a) and a “likely” scenario of debt in (b) which means it’s probable. So I don’t know whether the Trust Board thinks it’s just possible or that it's probable and exactly on what that judgement is based.
For me, the really disappointing words here in (b) are “it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs”. The Trust Board has known about the potential for legal action for many many months so has had more than ample time to take advice, have a clear view, have a plan and identify a proposed approach if the funds aren’t sufficient for legal action.
On the basis of these Papers, I feel that not enough effort has gone into establishing what litigation really means in £ terms of legal costs and how the Trust could/would fund it, possibly because we have been distracted by what the Trust Board consider an acceptable offer. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |  |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:07 - Jul 22 with 1498 views | Dewi1jack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:20 - Jul 22 by Vetchfielder |
Brilliant post, thank you, and exactly the sort of information I was hoping to receive.
 |
This
A huge Thank you to A guy called Jack
Very clear, concise and am guessing pretty easily checkable facts for those who aren't prepared to take what you say at face value.
I'm still stuck between option 2 and 3
Option 1 looks bad on face value.
Reading and re-reading the options numerous times now I'm worried about how pushy the pack is written trying to force through the option to take the deal.
Option 1 is really ringing alarm bells.
Especially the fact there are no guarantees on any number of shares bought except for the first purchase and the Merrycans control Drag rights.
They have a history of setting up shell companies to get around ownership problems.
We were warned when they originally purchased by American fans of clubs they've been involved in |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:32 - Jul 22 with 1475 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:27 - Jul 22 by everytimeref |
The question of who pays the legal costs if the Trust loses any litigation needs clarification before the vote. If the members are personally liable for the costs then that is a huge factor in the decision.
If I remember correctly there have been cases in the past where golf clubs have lost court cases and the members have been personally liable for the costs.
Whatever the Q.C has advised there are no guarantees in any litigation.
As for no win, no fee, good luck getting any Q.C.
worth their salt to agree to that. |
Yanks and Selling Shareholders are really getting worried.
The more you see posts like this the more you think they have received their own QC advice that they have a weak case - so then resort to other tactics. |  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:40 - Jul 22 with 1460 views | Darran |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:32 - Jul 22 by Nookiejack |
Yanks and Selling Shareholders are really getting worried.
The more you see posts like this the more you think they have received their own QC advice that they have a weak case - so then resort to other tactics. |
You do have to question some of the usernames that have been registered on here for several years and have something to say. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:43 - Jul 22 with 1458 views | everytimeref |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:32 - Jul 22 by Nookiejack |
Yanks and Selling Shareholders are really getting worried.
The more you see posts like this the more you think they have received their own QC advice that they have a weak case - so then resort to other tactics. |
Not sure why you quoted my post when you talk about other tactics | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:44 - Jul 22 with 1453 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:27 - Jul 22 by everytimeref |
The question of who pays the legal costs if the Trust loses any litigation needs clarification before the vote. If the members are personally liable for the costs then that is a huge factor in the decision.
If I remember correctly there have been cases in the past where golf clubs have lost court cases and the members have been personally liable for the costs.
Whatever the Q.C has advised there are no guarantees in any litigation.
As for no win, no fee, good luck getting any Q.C.
worth their salt to agree to that. |
Why isn't the Trust going to win a legal case?
The club operated as a quasi partnership since it was set-up to the day it was sold to the Yanks.
The Trust was left then in a minty position with no liquidity for its shares.
It has not received same offer for its shares as the other selling shareholders?
So a Judge is going to rule in favour of the Yanks and Selling Shareholders?
If you owned shares in say BP or Apple and these companies were bought out - but you received an offer for your shares than all the other shareholders - then you wouldn't do anything about it? | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:45 - Jul 22 with 1450 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:44 - Jul 22 by Nookiejack |
Why isn't the Trust going to win a legal case?
The club operated as a quasi partnership since it was set-up to the day it was sold to the Yanks.
The Trust was left then in a minty position with no liquidity for its shares.
It has not received same offer for its shares as the other selling shareholders?
So a Judge is going to rule in favour of the Yanks and Selling Shareholders?
If you owned shares in say BP or Apple and these companies were bought out - but you received an offer for your shares than all the other shareholders - then you wouldn't do anything about it? |
If you owned shares in say BP or Apple and these companies were bought out - but you received a lower offer for your shares than all the other shareholders - then you wouldn't do anything about it? | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:45 - Jul 22 with 1448 views | NeathJack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:27 - Jul 22 by everytimeref |
The question of who pays the legal costs if the Trust loses any litigation needs clarification before the vote. If the members are personally liable for the costs then that is a huge factor in the decision.
If I remember correctly there have been cases in the past where golf clubs have lost court cases and the members have been personally liable for the costs.
Whatever the Q.C has advised there are no guarantees in any litigation.
As for no win, no fee, good luck getting any Q.C.
worth their salt to agree to that. |
The members are not personally liable. That has been made clear on several occasions. It begs the question why are you trying to imply that it may be the case? [Post edited 22 Jul 2017 23:47]
|  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:47 - Jul 22 with 1443 views | monmouth |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:45 - Jul 22 by NeathJack |
The members are not personally liable. That has been made clear on several occasions. It begs the question why are you trying to imply that it may be the case? [Post edited 22 Jul 2017 23:47]
|
Right so that particular scare tactic is put to bed, I await the next one. It's certainly hardening my viewpoint. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:48 - Jul 22 with 1442 views | everytimeref |
There are no guarantees in any litigation. You may think you have a strong case but you can never 100% predict what decision a court will make. Therefore you have to have certainty as to who pays the costs if you lose. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:51 - Jul 22 with 1435 views | everytimeref |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:45 - Jul 22 by NeathJack |
The members are not personally liable. That has been made clear on several occasions. It begs the question why are you trying to imply that it may be the case? [Post edited 22 Jul 2017 23:47]
|
It's not made clear in the consultation pack which is why I raised the question | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:51 - Jul 22 with 1433 views | NeathJack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:48 - Jul 22 by everytimeref |
There are no guarantees in any litigation. You may think you have a strong case but you can never 100% predict what decision a court will make. Therefore you have to have certainty as to who pays the costs if you lose. |
"you" | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:53 - Jul 22 with 1429 views | everytimeref |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:51 - Jul 22 by NeathJack |
"you" |
"You" as in any individual not as in you personally [Post edited 22 Jul 2017 23:54]
| | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:56 - Jul 22 with 1417 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:37 - Jul 21 by PozuelosSideys |
Hard to tell what the overall cost impact will be isnt it? Corporates hold up cases in courts for years and years so that the other party runs out of money and have to jack it in.
Id have thought the only ways to deal with excessive costs would be to stop the process, or require the Trust Membership to step in and pay for it out of their own pockets. Im sure all the moaners at the Trust on here would love that. [Post edited 21 Jul 2017 18:38]
|
You don't think that the Yanks should make the same offer for the Trust's shares as the selling shareholders received? | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:08 - Jul 23 with 1388 views | Gowerjack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:30 - Jul 21 by DazzaJack |
I feel that the first time any mention of "preferred option" by the Trust should have been at the very end of the pros and cons. Not last month, not at the start of this document. Anyway, hasn't won my vote regardless, legal action please. |
The Trust...
Complicit
Timid
Weak
In the process of being royally f ucked over and actually thinking this is a good thing
Fit for purpose?
Please vote for legal action.
Thank you. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:11 - Jul 23 with 1378 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:43 - Jul 22 by everytimeref |
Not sure why you quoted my post when you talk about other tactics |
Apologies I will take that back.
Darren has stated you are a well know poster who has been registered for years.
I haven't come across you in respect of the various threads.
I thought you were trying to spread fear tactics - trying to get members worried that they would be held accountable for the legal costs.
When it has been stated a number of times that they won't.
I understand you only wanted the pack to explicitly confirm this. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:12 - Jul 23 with 1373 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:56 - Jul 22 by Nookiejack |
You don't think that the Yanks should make the same offer for the Trust's shares as the selling shareholders received? |
Yep, i do. But until they are legally bound to do so, i dont think they will.
My concern is that this whole thing gets drawn out in court for months (maybe more). The Trusts entire funding gets wiped out and then a decision has to be made to halt proceedings unless the Membership will stump up to continue.
Then the Trust loses. The scenario to me doesnt bear thinking about [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 0:13]
|  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:14 - Jul 23 with 1365 views | Gowerjack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:12 - Jul 23 by PozuelosSideys |
Yep, i do. But until they are legally bound to do so, i dont think they will.
My concern is that this whole thing gets drawn out in court for months (maybe more). The Trusts entire funding gets wiped out and then a decision has to be made to halt proceedings unless the Membership will stump up to continue.
Then the Trust loses. The scenario to me doesnt bear thinking about [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 0:13]
|
I don't believe it will come to this.
Please vote for legal action.
Thank you. | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:15 - Jul 23 with 1364 views | everytimeref |
No problem. I only usually post if someone asks a question and I happen to know the answer. Having read the consultation pack it wasn't clear to me who pays if the Trust were to lose on there isn't enough in the pot to meets the legal costs.
If it has been made clear elsewhere then I haven't seen it. If is clear there is no chance of personal liability then that makes a decision easier. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 0:16]
| | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:19 - Jul 23 with 1351 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:14 - Jul 23 by Gowerjack |
I don't believe it will come to this.
Please vote for legal action.
Thank you. |
Im undecided thus far
Need to remember who we're dealing with here though. The likes of Kaplan will have seen all this time and again through his day job. If we call their bluff, we're balls out and all in. Litigation is all or nothing - and as cliched as it is, dont bet what you cant afford to lose.
Then again, im risk averse to everything. Many arent. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:26 - Jul 23 with 1338 views | Gowerjack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:19 - Jul 23 by PozuelosSideys |
Im undecided thus far
Need to remember who we're dealing with here though. The likes of Kaplan will have seen all this time and again through his day job. If we call their bluff, we're balls out and all in. Litigation is all or nothing - and as cliched as it is, dont bet what you cant afford to lose.
Then again, im risk averse to everything. Many arent. |
Yep.
Steve & Jase have seen this all before....
Oor football club is being f ucked over big style and the body that's meant to look after it is supine and witless.
Please vote for legal action.
Thank you. | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:29 - Jul 23 with 1331 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:12 - Jul 23 by PozuelosSideys |
Yep, i do. But until they are legally bound to do so, i dont think they will.
My concern is that this whole thing gets drawn out in court for months (maybe more). The Trusts entire funding gets wiped out and then a decision has to be made to halt proceedings unless the Membership will stump up to continue.
Then the Trust loses. The scenario to me doesnt bear thinking about [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 0:13]
|
Yes I fully understand this.
But that's what they are relying on.
Litigation doesn't suit the Yanks either. It will be a distraction for them as well.
If litigation is handing over the club they wont be able to make strategic decisions - such as if a buyer comes out of the woodwork and makes a lucrative offer for their shares. It is likely to put potential buyers off. What happens then for their plans for stadium expansion - would the council agree to it if legal case was then going on?
If the money runs out - the Trust still has a 21% holding. Yes the stake would be totally illiquid so that would be a downside.
My view is you have got to fight otherwise you just get walked over.
If vote for litigation is taken - Trust Board in my view is likely to be in a better negotiating position. I wouldn't be surprised if Yanks then came back with a better offer. I really don't think the Yanks want legal action hanging over the club. Will create a lot of negative PR for them as well in UK and US. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:30 - Jul 23 with 1326 views | Dewi1jack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 23:51 - Jul 22 by everytimeref |
It's not made clear in the consultation pack which is why I raised the question |
The only thing really clear in the pack is the fact that someone wants and is heavily pushing option 1. | |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:32 - Jul 23 with 1323 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:29 - Jul 23 by Nookiejack |
Yes I fully understand this.
But that's what they are relying on.
Litigation doesn't suit the Yanks either. It will be a distraction for them as well.
If litigation is handing over the club they wont be able to make strategic decisions - such as if a buyer comes out of the woodwork and makes a lucrative offer for their shares. It is likely to put potential buyers off. What happens then for their plans for stadium expansion - would the council agree to it if legal case was then going on?
If the money runs out - the Trust still has a 21% holding. Yes the stake would be totally illiquid so that would be a downside.
My view is you have got to fight otherwise you just get walked over.
If vote for litigation is taken - Trust Board in my view is likely to be in a better negotiating position. I wouldn't be surprised if Yanks then came back with a better offer. I really don't think the Yanks want legal action hanging over the club. Will create a lot of negative PR for them as well in UK and US. |
Typo above - If litigation is 'hanging' over the club. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:38 - Jul 23 with 1312 views | Gowerjack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 00:30 - Jul 23 by Dewi1jack |
The only thing really clear in the pack is the fact that someone wants and is heavily pushing option 1. |
Yep.
Which is poor.
Really really shockingly poor.
We have a one off opportunity to amass a significant amount of cash to put away to safeguard OUR football club and yet the body charged with looking after the clubs long term future would prefer to buddy up with the very people who f ucked them over last year...
Astonishing.
Please vote for legal action.
Thank you. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 0:48]
| |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 01:47 - Jul 23 with 1270 views | NeathJack |
Ever since I read the voting paper earlier something has been bugging me about it but I couldn't work out what.
I've worked it out.
The offer is given unfair prominence?
The questions given have been staged as two fold. firstly do you accept the offer and secondly, if you don't, what do you want to do.
Now for me this puts more emphasis on the offer than the other two options.
The ballot paper could quite easily have asked:
1) Do you wish to pursue legal action and if the majority of members vote against this would you:
2) accept the offer or keep the status quo?
It should have been a simple A, B, or C option imho with the lower of the 3 when votes are cast being removed and then a revote on the remaining 2 options. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
