| FAO Will 21:18 - Nov 19 with 19589 views | Neath_Jack |
As your role as associate director, did you used to attend the directors box at home games? I'm not talking about your role as Trust observer now, as i believe these are two completely different roles? |  |
| |  |
| FAO Will on 20:17 - Nov 20 with 1859 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will on 20:07 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
I am +90% confident if this came before a court of law they would hold that the new rules apply in majority.
There is a legal doctrine called severability that applies in all sorts of areas of the law including contract. This for example ensures that if a court strikes down a piece of legislation the whole Act isn't thrown out of the window, just the bit they object to.
Most of the articles are inoffensive standard things that I doubt very much the FCA would object to. Those objections would have been specific. The way I read uxbridge's comments there was an objection to specific points but i would have thought the rest remains valid thanks to severability. |
“...the registering of the model rules become (sic) compliant when we register them with the Financial Conduct Authority.”
That’s from the minutes of the 2015 AGM. Legal principles notwithstanding (although I’m not sure it’s relevant here anyway) if that registration with the FCA didn’t happen (as Ux seemed to confirm) then I can’t see how those rules can be currently applying. I fully expect the Trust to claim they are mind. |  |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:19 - Nov 20 with 1840 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 20:11 - Nov 20 by londonlisa2001 |
That's a huge leap.
And one that isn't consistent with Uxbridge's statement that the Trust should adopt the 2016 rules instead. |
Not at all inconsistent.
Like it or not this issue is a technicality, that nobody in or outside the Trust had ever considered would become even the slightest bit relevant or urgent until you stumbled over it on Friday.
There were were plenty of other significantly more important things going on. it is perfectly reasonable to kick the whole thing into touch and deal with it in one insignificant resolution sometime in the future. |  |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:22 - Nov 20 with 1809 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Will on 20:17 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy |
“...the registering of the model rules become (sic) compliant when we register them with the Financial Conduct Authority.”
That’s from the minutes of the 2015 AGM. Legal principles notwithstanding (although I’m not sure it’s relevant here anyway) if that registration with the FCA didn’t happen (as Ux seemed to confirm) then I can’t see how those rules can be currently applying. I fully expect the Trust to claim they are mind. |
I agree with you.
This isn't a situation (from what Uxbridge says) of rules adopted that are later found to have a clause that doesn't or shouldn't apply (in which case the rest would continue as Shaky said). It's instead a situation where they are never accepted in the first place due to the existence of an issue. In that case, none of it applies unless a separate filing is made without the offending clause. [Post edited 20 Nov 2017 20:22]
|  | | |
| FAO Will on 20:23 - Nov 20 with 1796 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 20:17 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy |
“...the registering of the model rules become (sic) compliant when we register them with the Financial Conduct Authority.”
That’s from the minutes of the 2015 AGM. Legal principles notwithstanding (although I’m not sure it’s relevant here anyway) if that registration with the FCA didn’t happen (as Ux seemed to confirm) then I can’t see how those rules can be currently applying. I fully expect the Trust to claim they are mind. |
It all hinges on the interpretation of Uxbridge's comments.
He says there are issues, not that they haven't been filed. And to be clear, the competent authority for approving the statutes is a members meeting, not the FCA. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:25 - Nov 20 with 1780 views | Garyjack |
| FAO Will on 19:10 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy |
I hate the thought of Saturday 7.45pm games. I hope they’re a massive flop. |
They won't be in the U.S.  |  | | |
| FAO Will on 20:25 - Nov 20 with 1772 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Will on 20:19 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
Not at all inconsistent.
Like it or not this issue is a technicality, that nobody in or outside the Trust had ever considered would become even the slightest bit relevant or urgent until you stumbled over it on Friday.
There were were plenty of other significantly more important things going on. it is perfectly reasonable to kick the whole thing into touch and deal with it in one insignificant resolution sometime in the future. |
lol.
I suspect that this 'insignificant issue' is causing quite a few headaches at present. | | | |
| FAO Will on 20:27 - Nov 20 with 1754 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will on 20:23 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
It all hinges on the interpretation of Uxbridge's comments.
He says there are issues, not that they haven't been filed. And to be clear, the competent authority for approving the statutes is a members meeting, not the FCA. |
Uxy’s view on it seemed clear to me, especially as he talked about adopting the 2016 rules at the next AGM. I’m sure he’ll clarify if the 2014 rules were filed and thus apply now but it seems clear from what he said that they weren’t.
The competent authority for approving the rules is indeed the AGM, but according to those minutes those rules don’t apply until they are filed with the FCA. [Post edited 20 Nov 2017 20:28]
| |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:28 - Nov 20 with 1747 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Will on 20:23 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
It all hinges on the interpretation of Uxbridge's comments.
He says there are issues, not that they haven't been filed. And to be clear, the competent authority for approving the statutes is a members meeting, not the FCA. |
Not when there is a caveat saying that they won't be adopted until filed with the FCA and then they are not. It doesn't matter why not. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Will on 20:34 - Nov 20 with 1707 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 20:28 - Nov 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Not when there is a caveat saying that they won't be adopted until filed with the FCA and then they are not. It doesn't matter why not. |
1) The FCA can not make up statutes
2) Again, Uxbridge does not say the new statutes were not filed! Incredible. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:36 - Nov 20 with 1701 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will on 20:34 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
1) The FCA can not make up statutes
2) Again, Uxbridge does not say the new statutes were not filed! Incredible. |
Shakes, mun. Ux said that the 2014 rules “couldn’t be formally adopted”. How much clearer does it need to be? | |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:39 - Nov 20 with 1685 views | Shaky |
That's more convincing. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:40 - Nov 20 with 1678 views | londonlisa2001 |
Quelle surprise. | | | |
| FAO Will on 20:43 - Nov 20 with 1652 views | plasjack |
Well said Madame, or is it Mademoiselle ? |  | | |
| FAO Will on 20:44 - Nov 20 with 1640 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 20:39 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
That's more convincing. |
Note though:-
'The documents listed below are available for purchase online and can be downloaded following confirmation of payment. Other public documents may be available for this society. Details of how to order these as either electronic or paper copies are given on the Home page.'
So potentially other public documents may be available but not reported on that link.
But then again why would all the Report and Accountsand the Original Rules be reported but not an amendment to the original rules. | | | |
| FAO Will on 20:45 - Nov 20 with 1635 views | MoscowJack |
Just got to say, regardless of your disagreements, that you're all interesting to read and I'm loving this thread.
It's a million miles over my head at times but it's good to read interesting debates like this. All of you should be on the Trust Board !
Thank you! | |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:45 - Nov 20 with 1622 views | londonlisa2001 |
Now, moving on.
If the 'new' rules were not adopted, the old rules apply. In which case, if Will or any other is not able to serve, they are not able to serve. No resignation is needed. They are not able to serve.
The question is whether the 'other' rule, I.e, the board needs to be a minimum of 12 members, 8 if whom are elected, was met at the date of the vote and the recommendation for the vote? | | | |
| FAO Will on 20:50 - Nov 20 with 1593 views | monmouth |
That actually made me laugh because I can just imagine the roll of the eyes that went with it. I see that quite often when Mrs M is proved right. Ta for that. |  |
| |
| FAO Will on 20:56 - Nov 20 with 1562 views | plasjack |
| FAO Will on 20:50 - Nov 20 by monmouth |
That actually made me laugh because I can just imagine the roll of the eyes that went with it. I see that quite often when Mrs M is proved right. Ta for that. |
Us mere males are an afterthought. | | | |
| FAO Will on 21:02 - Nov 20 with 1527 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 20:50 - Nov 20 by monmouth |
That actually made me laugh because I can just imagine the roll of the eyes that went with it. I see that quite often when Mrs M is proved right. Ta for that. |
Courts determine rights and wrongs in legal matters.
And if positions have hardened to the extent currently in evidence, who is going to front the legal fees to test Lisa's opinion? | |
| |
| FAO Will on 21:22 - Nov 20 with 1471 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will on 21:02 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
Courts determine rights and wrongs in legal matters.
And if positions have hardened to the extent currently in evidence, who is going to front the legal fees to test Lisa's opinion? |
It’s not going to get that far though is it? The Trust has two options from what I can tell. Accept that the 2001 rules still apply and that the chairman and maybe other board members can no longer hold those positions, or backtrack on Uxy’s post and retroactively claim that the 2014 rules were adopted after all and that all board members are legitimate according to those rules. I expect them to do the latter because the former would be a disaster for them. No one would believe them but I doubt anyone would take it to court. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 21:27 - Nov 20 with 1441 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 21:02 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
Courts determine rights and wrongs in legal matters.
And if positions have hardened to the extent currently in evidence, who is going to front the legal fees to test Lisa's opinion? |
Given the Trust seems to be governed by the PRA and the rules are register there - wouldn't an appeal be made to the PRA? | | | |
| FAO Will on 21:28 - Nov 20 with 1427 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 21:22 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy |
It’s not going to get that far though is it? The Trust has two options from what I can tell. Accept that the 2001 rules still apply and that the chairman and maybe other board members can no longer hold those positions, or backtrack on Uxy’s post and retroactively claim that the 2014 rules were adopted after all and that all board members are legitimate according to those rules. I expect them to do the latter because the former would be a disaster for them. No one would believe them but I doubt anyone would take it to court. |
But any amendments they don't appear to have been registered with the PRA? | | | |
| FAO Will on 21:29 - Nov 20 with 1418 views | monmouth |
| FAO Will on 21:22 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy |
It’s not going to get that far though is it? The Trust has two options from what I can tell. Accept that the 2001 rules still apply and that the chairman and maybe other board members can no longer hold those positions, or backtrack on Uxy’s post and retroactively claim that the 2014 rules were adopted after all and that all board members are legitimate according to those rules. I expect them to do the latter because the former would be a disaster for them. No one would believe them but I doubt anyone would take it to court. |
And they’d be outed as cheats liars and charlatans in public. Sweet. Let all the poisons hatch out of the mud. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
