| FAO Will 21:18 - Nov 19 with 19612 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 21:30 - Nov 20 with 1844 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will on 21:28 - Nov 20 by Nookiejack |
But any amendments they don't appear to have been registered with the PRA? |
Indeed. They’ll have to be creative with their reasoning. |  |
| |
| FAO Will on 21:31 - Nov 20 with 1834 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? |
Do you have any idea on what the costs would be?
if you won who would then pay the costs? Would Will have to himself if court found he was flouting the rules? |  | | |
| FAO Will (n/t) on 21:33 - Nov 20 with 1810 views | QJumpingJack |
[Post edited 20 Nov 2017 21:36]
| | | |
| FAO Will on 21:34 - Nov 20 with 1804 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will (n/t) on 21:33 - Nov 20 by QJumpingJack |
[Post edited 20 Nov 2017 21:36]
|
To be honest, I don’t think that kind of comment is helpful or appropriate. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 21:38 - Nov 20 with 1772 views | QJumpingJack |
It was not meant in an offensive way. | | | |
| FAO Will on 21:41 - Nov 20 with 1755 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Will on 21:38 - Nov 20 by QJumpingJack |
It was not meant in an offensive way. |
I didn’t think it was. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 21:51 - Nov 20 with 1722 views | Shaky |
| 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. |
As i suggested elsewhere, rather than make more or less educated guesses about the background to this issue, somebody should try to phone up Supporters Direct and get some facts.
That person should be you, and i bet you would have no trouble getting the real deal. People in those types of organisations always love to talk. |  |
| |
| FAO Will on 21:55 - Nov 20 with 1716 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 21:31 - Nov 20 by Nookiejack |
Do you have any idea on what the costs would be?
if you won who would then pay the costs? Would Will have to himself if court found he was flouting the rules? |
No idea how much it would cost.
But I do recall the Trust board recently took out some kind of insurance cover, so that would probably cover any costs awarded against them. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Will on 21:56 - Nov 20 with 1709 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 21:55 - Nov 20 by Shaky |
No idea how much it would cost.
But I do recall the Trust board recently took out some kind of insurance cover, so that would probably cover any costs awarded against them. |
Would the insurance - cover an individual who is breaking the rules though? | | | |
| FAO Will on 21:58 - Nov 20 with 1688 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 21:56 - Nov 20 by Nookiejack |
Would the insurance - cover an individual who is breaking the rules though? |
That's why I said probably. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 22:25 - Nov 20 with 1610 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO Will on 21:30 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy |
Indeed. They’ll have to be creative with their reasoning. |
Hence the silence from their side at the moment, I guess.
I would expect, based on what we know so far, that they are deciding what their options are and what they think they can get away with.
You don't go behind people's backs for 18-24 months to get the 'top job' just to give it up without a fight.
Even though they're quite obviously 'snookered', I don't think they'll hold up their hands, admit fault and walk away. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 22:32 - Nov 20 with 1563 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 20:45 - Nov 20 by 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? |
Perhaps ECB can confirm where in the Trust Board minutes the Board voted in favour of the recommendation to accept the Yank's offer?
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-board-and-agm-minutes/
Who argued the case for it? Who voted for it? Was it a 12-0 and 8-0 in favour of the deal?
As Lisa mentioned below were there a minimum of 12 members there? 8 of whom ever elected and were they all able to serve under the rules at the time of the vote? | | | |
| FAO Will on 12:10 - Nov 21 with 1352 views | Vetchfielder |
| FAO Will on 17:27 - Nov 20 by Vetchfielder |
LD's 1% sold ?
I assume you mean Bulk Vending System's 1%?
I haven't seen that announced anywhere. Where have you seen that Nick?
I've looked at the latest confirmation statement and I'm confused by it. It's not the same as previous years' versions and doesn't hold a list of shareholders. The words made me believe that there were no changes from the previous year's version but it looks like I was wrong on that. Could somebody with a bit of knowledge explain the brevity of latest confirmation statement for the holding company? |
I didn't want to bump this yesterday because I didn't want to disrupt the epic flow of the thread.
Anyway.... bump please |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| FAO Will on 13:01 - Nov 21 with 1272 views | swanforthemoney |
| FAO Will on 22:32 - Nov 20 by Nookiejack |
Perhaps ECB can confirm where in the Trust Board minutes the Board voted in favour of the recommendation to accept the Yank's offer?
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-board-and-agm-minutes/
Who argued the case for it? Who voted for it? Was it a 12-0 and 8-0 in favour of the deal?
As Lisa mentioned below were there a minimum of 12 members there? 8 of whom ever elected and were they all able to serve under the rules at the time of the vote? |
Is it just me, or do the minutes always look very sparse? |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| FAO Will on 13:02 - Nov 21 with 1267 views | swanforthemoney |
Old story isn't it ? | |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| FAO Will on 13:09 - Nov 21 with 1256 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 12:10 - Nov 21 by Vetchfielder |
I didn't want to bump this yesterday because I didn't want to disrupt the epic flow of the thread.
Anyway.... bump please |
The confirmation statement was at 16/10/2017
From the link it suggests there were no updates since the last confirmation statement. Hence why everything is blank.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04305508/filing-history
Maybe LD's 1% stake (from Moscow's intelligence) was sold after the 16/10/2017? | | | |
| FAO Will on 13:14 - Nov 21 with 1241 views | Vetchfielder |
Great, thanks for the response Nookie, makes sense. | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| FAO Will on 13:19 - Nov 21 with 1228 views | MoscowJack |
Actually, someone else mentioned LD's sale first, but apparently it was last week. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 13:44 - Nov 21 with 1167 views | Shaky |
I am just going to say one more thing about this then I will shut up.
On reflection the absence of a filing on the new articles doesn't alter my opinion one bit, based on the facts as we know them.
The resolution passed at the 2015 Trust AGM lawfully agreed to bin the 12 term limit imposed under the original rules, in accordance with all applicable law and custom. Like it or not it was agreed.
The FCA then for unknown reasons rejected the new rules in their entirety. However, in so doing they are - as far as I can see - guilty of fundamental overreach by dismissing all element of the new bylaws, rather than only those they specifically objected to.
This appears to contravene the fundamental doctrine of severability, and as I explained that seems to me to be unlawful and highly unlikely to be upheld were this to go to court.
That said I am in complete agreement that there should be a term limit and why not 12 years.
However, for me the right way to put this to bed is with due respect for the law; table a resolution at the forthcoming AGM (no board member shall ever serve for more than 12 years) and then this is done in a transparent and permanent way in accordance with all applicable law.
Otherwise it is just a mob rule. Things already seem to be headed well in that direction, and I want no part of that.
And BTW IF the Trust board survive into January, they will almost certainly also seek to have new rules confirmed once again, so gearing up for that proxy fight makes perfect sense anyway. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 14:01 - Nov 21 with 1131 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 13:44 - Nov 21 by Shaky |
I am just going to say one more thing about this then I will shut up.
On reflection the absence of a filing on the new articles doesn't alter my opinion one bit, based on the facts as we know them.
The resolution passed at the 2015 Trust AGM lawfully agreed to bin the 12 term limit imposed under the original rules, in accordance with all applicable law and custom. Like it or not it was agreed.
The FCA then for unknown reasons rejected the new rules in their entirety. However, in so doing they are - as far as I can see - guilty of fundamental overreach by dismissing all element of the new bylaws, rather than only those they specifically objected to.
This appears to contravene the fundamental doctrine of severability, and as I explained that seems to me to be unlawful and highly unlikely to be upheld were this to go to court.
That said I am in complete agreement that there should be a term limit and why not 12 years.
However, for me the right way to put this to bed is with due respect for the law; table a resolution at the forthcoming AGM (no board member shall ever serve for more than 12 years) and then this is done in a transparent and permanent way in accordance with all applicable law.
Otherwise it is just a mob rule. Things already seem to be headed well in that direction, and I want no part of that.
And BTW IF the Trust board survive into January, they will almost certainly also seek to have new rules confirmed once again, so gearing up for that proxy fight makes perfect sense anyway. |
The Trust had plenty of time to challenge the FCA ruling though Shaky?
The detailed Trust review a year later would also have identified that the new rules had not yet been adopted by the FCA? | | | |
| FAO Will on 14:06 - Nov 21 with 1118 views | Shaky |
| FAO Will on 14:01 - Nov 21 by Nookiejack |
The Trust had plenty of time to challenge the FCA ruling though Shaky?
The detailed Trust review a year later would also have identified that the new rules had not yet been adopted by the FCA? |
As i said i will shut up about this now.
But it is obvious that the broad PS consensus has already accepted the very wort interpretation of the Trust board's motives, on the basis of very, very few facts. | |
| |
| FAO Will on 14:18 - Nov 21 with 1101 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 14:06 - Nov 21 by Shaky |
As i said i will shut up about this now.
But it is obvious that the broad PS consensus has already accepted the very wort interpretation of the Trust board's motives, on the basis of very, very few facts. |
It isn't good governance though Shaky to have indefinite terms in office.
Why would you argue for this and vote to take them out of the rule book?
It might not be a conspiracy but it is poor governance.
Interesting to know also what the feedback from the FCA was at the time. | | | |
| FAO Will on 14:21 - Nov 21 with 1093 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 14:18 - Nov 21 by Nookiejack |
It isn't good governance though Shaky to have indefinite terms in office.
Why would you argue for this and vote to take them out of the rule book?
It might not be a conspiracy but it is poor governance.
Interesting to know also what the feedback from the FCA was at the time. |
PS respecting your view here Shaky and mindful that Will and rest of them teaminjng Trust Board could actually be the good guys | | | |
| FAO Will on 14:23 - Nov 21 with 1085 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Will on 14:21 - Nov 21 by Nookiejack |
PS respecting your view here Shaky and mindful that Will and rest of them teaminjng Trust Board could actually be the good guys |
Edit : Will and the remaining Trust Board (post the recent resignations) could actually be the good guys | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
