| Independent Supporters Group 16:42 - Dec 3 with 43495 views | Phil_S |
OK been some discussion on this but who thinks this is the way to go
Details are really on this thread
|  | | |  |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:58 - Dec 4 with 2152 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:54 - Dec 4 by TheResurrection |
And you tell us 3 months later...
Great stuff Matt.
Where were you when it mattered? Collective responsibility is it? But to what degree, your resignation and bleating all about it at a later date?
Please explain, as I'm clearly missing the point here, but what purpose has that served anyone? |
3 months later? I resigned on 12th November which is more like 3 weeks. The decision to continue negotiation was made at the Board meeting on 6th November which is also when the discussion around the "gagging clause" took place. So 4 weeks maximum. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:00 - Dec 4 with 2139 views | TheResurrection |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:58 - Dec 4 by MattG |
3 months later? I resigned on 12th November which is more like 3 weeks. The decision to continue negotiation was made at the Board meeting on 6th November which is also when the discussion around the "gagging clause" took place. So 4 weeks maximum. |
and the date of the clause you were so up in arms about?
When was that? |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:03 - Dec 4 with 2127 views | Wingstandwood |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:47 - Dec 4 by MattG |
I didn't resign so that I could tell you - I resigned because I was unhappy with the majority view of the Trust Board that we should (a) continue to negotiate and (b) tone down our statements so as not to jeopardise the negotiations that I didn't feel should be happening anyway. |
I may be reading inbetwwen the lines here, but I get the vibe if you treat Yanks, Jenkins and sell-outs with decency and kindness they'd take that as weakness. And? The end result?.... The trust being treated with contempt with double crossing i.e. the moving the goal posts.
Yep, the more amicable and cooperative the trust is toward them the worst it end up getting treated? |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:06 - Dec 4 with 2112 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:00 - Dec 4 by TheResurrection |
and the date of the clause you were so up in arms about?
When was that? |
I became aware on the same day as the meeting so 6th November. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:27 - Dec 4 with 2048 views | TheResurrection |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:06 - Dec 4 by MattG |
I became aware on the same day as the meeting so 6th November. |
I've just been informed you meant the gagging was to be in place AFTER the sale of shares, so the Trust would just take the money and sit quietly in the corner?
Is that right? | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:45 - Dec 4 with 1996 views | londonlisa2001 |
Couple of points here' that arise out of Matt's comments.
Firstly there is a sense of the Trust being concerned that if they rock the boat, the deal will go away.
It should be the other way round! The Americans should be bloody terrified that the deal will go away if THEY do anything. Not the reverse for Gods sake! What's the Trust board thinking of? That gaining £5m is somehow the goal? Why? What on earth do they've think they can do with it? It's utter nonsense.
And secondly, if they get the deal, the Trust then can't take legal action and can't criticise the ownership? What the hell?
What's the point of the Trust in that case? Have these people forgotten what the Trust is supposed to do? They can't negotiate away the very point of the Trust - they don't have ANY remit to do that.
What the hell are they interviewing people for? Go to the morgue and pick up a few bodies to plonk in a corner if the plan is to behave like this.
This gets worse and worse as news drips out.
Who is driving this at the Trust? What do they want? The odd pat on the head from the Americans?
This is increasingly pathetic. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:49 - Dec 4 with 1984 views | costalotta |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:45 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Couple of points here' that arise out of Matt's comments.
Firstly there is a sense of the Trust being concerned that if they rock the boat, the deal will go away.
It should be the other way round! The Americans should be bloody terrified that the deal will go away if THEY do anything. Not the reverse for Gods sake! What's the Trust board thinking of? That gaining £5m is somehow the goal? Why? What on earth do they've think they can do with it? It's utter nonsense.
And secondly, if they get the deal, the Trust then can't take legal action and can't criticise the ownership? What the hell?
What's the point of the Trust in that case? Have these people forgotten what the Trust is supposed to do? They can't negotiate away the very point of the Trust - they don't have ANY remit to do that.
What the hell are they interviewing people for? Go to the morgue and pick up a few bodies to plonk in a corner if the plan is to behave like this.
This gets worse and worse as news drips out.
Who is driving this at the Trust? What do they want? The odd pat on the head from the Americans?
This is increasingly pathetic. |
It's amazing what the sight of money does to some people. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:50 - Dec 4 with 1982 views | AngelRangelQS |
I'm all for a "noisy neighbour" organisation but My biggest question would be what we would we want to achieve from all this?
- Run the sell outs out of town? What does that do to help the club other than giving fans a sense of justice?
- Run the yanks out of town? They never come anyway... Who will they sell to? Will the new owners be any better? Could they be worse?
- Get rid of Jenkins? Who will the Yanks appoint instead? Does anyone have any faith in the Yanks to get someone decent in?
- Force a change of manager? Who will replace him? Do we have faith in the decision makers to appoint anyone else?
- Force the Yanks to spend cash? Will they just spend £16m on someone like Clucas again? Or an £8m loan fee for Sanches? Or £11m on Mesa?
What is the best case realistic scenario in all this in terms of this? From what I've seen, once you've boarded the "useless foreign owner train" you seem to be on it for quite some time with each driver being worse and madder than the last... |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:24 - Dec 4 with 1911 views | vetchonian |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:45 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Couple of points here' that arise out of Matt's comments.
Firstly there is a sense of the Trust being concerned that if they rock the boat, the deal will go away.
It should be the other way round! The Americans should be bloody terrified that the deal will go away if THEY do anything. Not the reverse for Gods sake! What's the Trust board thinking of? That gaining £5m is somehow the goal? Why? What on earth do they've think they can do with it? It's utter nonsense.
And secondly, if they get the deal, the Trust then can't take legal action and can't criticise the ownership? What the hell?
What's the point of the Trust in that case? Have these people forgotten what the Trust is supposed to do? They can't negotiate away the very point of the Trust - they don't have ANY remit to do that.
What the hell are they interviewing people for? Go to the morgue and pick up a few bodies to plonk in a corner if the plan is to behave like this.
This gets worse and worse as news drips out.
Who is driving this at the Trust? What do they want? The odd pat on the head from the Americans?
This is increasingly pathetic. |
oes anyone know if there will be an EGM as was discussed on here following Phil's resignation and revelations?
Did people write to the the Trust asking for one?
Summarising several threads.....
A change(s) in the terms of the deal led to key personnel resigning from the board.....it seems from Phil's posts that whilst the QC believed there was a strong case for legsal action the same QC recommended accepting the deal.
Following the boards recommendations the vote taken and resulted in deal to be accpeted.
The Yanks then changed terms of deal...some board members happy to continue/renegoiate but ithers namely Matt,Phil decide its not the way forwards....surely rthis should have come back to the membership?
As I see iot now Phil is advocating perhaps at that point the nuclear option should be considered?
NOw we are also talking about forming anoher Fans group which can be vocal....I see the pros and cons of this BUT where are we with getting the Trust to look after the club as pointed out in one of Lisa's posts last night.
Did enough of us write to the Trust board requesting an EGM? Is it too late to stop the deal? | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:32 - Dec 4 with 1898 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:24 - Dec 4 by vetchonian |
oes anyone know if there will be an EGM as was discussed on here following Phil's resignation and revelations?
Did people write to the the Trust asking for one?
Summarising several threads.....
A change(s) in the terms of the deal led to key personnel resigning from the board.....it seems from Phil's posts that whilst the QC believed there was a strong case for legsal action the same QC recommended accepting the deal.
Following the boards recommendations the vote taken and resulted in deal to be accpeted.
The Yanks then changed terms of deal...some board members happy to continue/renegoiate but ithers namely Matt,Phil decide its not the way forwards....surely rthis should have come back to the membership?
As I see iot now Phil is advocating perhaps at that point the nuclear option should be considered?
NOw we are also talking about forming anoher Fans group which can be vocal....I see the pros and cons of this BUT where are we with getting the Trust to look after the club as pointed out in one of Lisa's posts last night.
Did enough of us write to the Trust board requesting an EGM? Is it too late to stop the deal? |
To clarify. The QC DIDN't recommend accepting THE deal. In fact, it was confirmed on here that the QC hadn't seen the deal when the recommendation was made to members.
The QC seemingly recommended that a deal be negotiated that was acceptable if at all possible. Which they always do.
I think that's very different. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:33 - Dec 4 with 1895 views | TheResurrection |
The Americans wanted to have some guarantees in place that if they were kind enough to stump up the £5m the Trust would cease to comment on the goings on at the Football Club and basically just exist, in silence, and let them get on with whatever they pleased.
And still they negotiate??? | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:39 - Dec 4 with 1876 views | vetchonian |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:32 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
To clarify. The QC DIDN't recommend accepting THE deal. In fact, it was confirmed on here that the QC hadn't seen the deal when the recommendation was made to members.
The QC seemingly recommended that a deal be negotiated that was acceptable if at all possible. Which they always do.
I think that's very different. |
Sorry Lisa I thought I had read in on the threads...that this was the QCs recommendation
I must have misread | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:46 - Dec 4 with 1858 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 13:39 - Dec 4 by vetchonian |
Sorry Lisa I thought I had read in on the threads...that this was the QCs recommendation
I must have misread |
No, I don't think you did misread. I think that it's been couched in ambiguity to make people think that's what happened.
I asked Uxbridge outright (when the issue of when the offer was made etc came up as I questioned whether they could possibly have received QC's advice in a matter of hours between being offered the deal and recommending it was accepted), and he confirmed that the QC was not asked to comment in the deal.
It's a minor point in some ways, yet quite important I think. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:26 - Dec 4 with 1773 views | Nookiejack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:14 - Dec 4 by 34dfgdf54 |
Even if they are, this should still happen. |
I just think if the 3 of them are on the Board you won’t need an Independent Supporters Group.
However if they don’t get on the Board yet Nigel Hamer continues as unelected Secretary after more than 12 years then one has to look at other alternatives - for the supporters to have a voice. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:33 - Dec 4 with 1749 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:27 - Dec 4 by TheResurrection |
I've just been informed you meant the gagging was to be in place AFTER the sale of shares, so the Trust would just take the money and sit quietly in the corner?
Is that right? |
The clause was part of the terms attached to the sale of shares so yes.
EDIT to clarify - the clause was seen by all Board members as being unacceptable so I would be very surprised to see the deal progress without the clause being either removed entirely or severely diluted. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 14:35]
| | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:45 - Dec 4 with 1722 views | TheResurrection |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:33 - Dec 4 by MattG |
The clause was part of the terms attached to the sale of shares so yes.
EDIT to clarify - the clause was seen by all Board members as being unacceptable so I would be very surprised to see the deal progress without the clause being either removed entirely or severely diluted. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 14:35]
|
OK thanks for the clarification but I think you should've told us this the first minute you found out, not weeks later. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:50 - Dec 4 with 1709 views | Shaky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:33 - Dec 4 by MattG |
The clause was part of the terms attached to the sale of shares so yes.
EDIT to clarify - the clause was seen by all Board members as being unacceptable so I would be very surprised to see the deal progress without the clause being either removed entirely or severely diluted. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 14:35]
|
You sure this isn't one big misunderstanding?
Uxbridge has repeatedly stated that the original deal included a no ltigation clause.
That means the deal is a settlement for past grievances and as such the parties agree to wipe the slate and not sue each other over the past history.
From there to saying we will not whinge about past events is a tiny step.
Uxbridge repeatedly assured us that the clause would not prevent any future litigation.
Futhermore, it is a fact that shareholder agreements often state the parties agree not to slag each other off. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Kaplan's lawyers attempted to instert such a bog standard provision.
To which the Trust's reasonable response is sorry, we have to be able to inform out members. Case closed, unless the Americans presneted this as some sort of deal-breaker. Did they do that? [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 14:51]
|  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:02 - Dec 4 with 1670 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:50 - Dec 4 by Shaky |
You sure this isn't one big misunderstanding?
Uxbridge has repeatedly stated that the original deal included a no ltigation clause.
That means the deal is a settlement for past grievances and as such the parties agree to wipe the slate and not sue each other over the past history.
From there to saying we will not whinge about past events is a tiny step.
Uxbridge repeatedly assured us that the clause would not prevent any future litigation.
Futhermore, it is a fact that shareholder agreements often state the parties agree not to slag each other off. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Kaplan's lawyers attempted to instert such a bog standard provision.
To which the Trust's reasonable response is sorry, we have to be able to inform out members. Case closed, unless the Americans presneted this as some sort of deal-breaker. Did they do that? [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 14:51]
|
As far as I (and the rest of the Trust Board) understood it, the clause wasn't just related to past issues - it related to any criticism of the owners or (IIRC) the Club. It also referenced the Trust and / or its members rather than just the Trust Board.
I have no idea whether the Yanks have clung on to this clause during the negotiations but my understanding was that it would be a deal-breaker, from a Trust perspective. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:09 - Dec 4 with 1632 views | Shaky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:02 - Dec 4 by MattG |
As far as I (and the rest of the Trust Board) understood it, the clause wasn't just related to past issues - it related to any criticism of the owners or (IIRC) the Club. It also referenced the Trust and / or its members rather than just the Trust Board.
I have no idea whether the Yanks have clung on to this clause during the negotiations but my understanding was that it would be a deal-breaker, from a Trust perspective. |
As it should be, Matt.
But for me the interpretation of this hinges on whether they were just trying it on as invariably happens during any negotiation, especially if - as i expect - they were doing the drafting.
Also an interesting point of contention if they were trying to drag out negotiations; as i said it is customary to have provisions in shareholder agreements not to damage the reputation of partners so their position does not appear entirely unreasonable. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:23 - Dec 4 with 1593 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:02 - Dec 4 by MattG |
As far as I (and the rest of the Trust Board) understood it, the clause wasn't just related to past issues - it related to any criticism of the owners or (IIRC) the Club. It also referenced the Trust and / or its members rather than just the Trust Board.
I have no idea whether the Yanks have clung on to this clause during the negotiations but my understanding was that it would be a deal-breaker, from a Trust perspective. |
No Trust member can criticise the club?
Hahahaha.
Shall we call ourselves Stepford United ?
The Trust would have 10 members. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:25 - Dec 4 with 1580 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:09 - Dec 4 by Shaky |
As it should be, Matt.
But for me the interpretation of this hinges on whether they were just trying it on as invariably happens during any negotiation, especially if - as i expect - they were doing the drafting.
Also an interesting point of contention if they were trying to drag out negotiations; as i said it is customary to have provisions in shareholder agreements not to damage the reputation of partners so their position does not appear entirely unreasonable. |
The deal was supposed to be as a result of months of negotiations let's not forget, not the start.
We were told that quite explicitly. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:31 - Dec 4 with 1568 views | Shaky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:25 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
The deal was supposed to be as a result of months of negotiations let's not forget, not the start.
We were told that quite explicitly. |
Yes, on the basis of something resembling 1 or 2 page term sheets.
A few wrinkles always emerge when you are finalising full formal agreements. Always. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:43 - Dec 4 with 1531 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:31 - Dec 4 by Shaky |
Yes, on the basis of something resembling 1 or 2 page term sheets.
A few wrinkles always emerge when you are finalising full formal agreements. Always. |
Indeed. But not fundamental issues. Saying the Trust could never again criticise the majority owners or the club itself is fairly fundamental given the nature of the business.
We were also explicitly told that nothing about the deal precluded future legal action, for example, if the minority was prejudiced by the owners paying themselves management fees that were excessive to siphon money away. Taking legal action against them would be a pretty fundamental criticism of their behaviour. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:58 - Dec 4 with 1497 views | TheUnion |
| Independent Supporters Group on 14:50 - Dec 4 by Shaky |
You sure this isn't one big misunderstanding?
Uxbridge has repeatedly stated that the original deal included a no ltigation clause.
That means the deal is a settlement for past grievances and as such the parties agree to wipe the slate and not sue each other over the past history.
From there to saying we will not whinge about past events is a tiny step.
Uxbridge repeatedly assured us that the clause would not prevent any future litigation.
Futhermore, it is a fact that shareholder agreements often state the parties agree not to slag each other off. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Kaplan's lawyers attempted to instert such a bog standard provision.
To which the Trust's reasonable response is sorry, we have to be able to inform out members. Case closed, unless the Americans presneted this as some sort of deal-breaker. Did they do that? [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 14:51]
|
Since when has any shareholders agreement meant or had any value in this club. The trust accountant Andy I think his name is told us shareholders agreements arn’t worth anything when we questioned him about Jenkins breaking the original agreement. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 16:03 - Dec 4 with 1476 views | Swanjaxs |
| Independent Supporters Group on 10:01 - Dec 4 by Shaky |
Right. The new brush can sweep away a +£20 million asset. Moron. |
Where have i said to sweep away £20 million you trumpet! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
