| Independent Supporters Group 16:42 - Dec 3 with 43229 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 20:57 - Dec 4 with 1910 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:56 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
You seem to think there's a good consequence of any action here, or there ever was, or that the thinking of people have changed. |
Try that again, I don’t get it. And I speak fluent civil servant.  |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:00 - Dec 4 with 1894 views | TheUnion |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:02 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
You're completely ignoring the context of that conversation, which related to the ability of the Trust to stop the original sale. |
No it was in relation to the legality of a shareholders agreement. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:03 - Dec 4 with 1879 views | donkonky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:48 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Yes. Will it? Not unless the board and the members change their minds, or the deal is different to that previously presented. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:48]
|
Well we’re in much weaker position now as to when the original vote was conducted. The deal seems be far less attractive now that relegation is a major possibility. Surely the remaining board members can see this? Can’t the deal be put on ice until further notice? Surely it can be thrashed out further at an emergency AGM! |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:04 - Dec 4 with 1875 views | max936 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:48 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Yes. Will it? Not unless the board and the members change their minds, or the deal is different to that previously presented. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:48]
|
It will go through no matter what, if what a poster on the Lampter thread said is true that a Trust board member was hanging on every word Jenkins said at that Forum, well crawling up his arse was the words used I think, short memory's from a 18months ago then, or are they........... |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:08 - Dec 4 with 1855 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:57 - Dec 4 by exiledclaseboy |
Try that again, I don’t get it. And I speak fluent civil servant. |
Sorry, should have realised
Some people will have changed their minds. Some will not have. I don't think that's anything to do with some perverse sort of pride as some seem to think though, but then I know the personalities I guess. People ultimately do what they think is best, nothing more. It's still a choice of three unpalatable options after all. I hope you get to find out for yourself all that soon enough |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:09 - Dec 4 with 1841 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:00 - Dec 4 by TheUnion |
No it was in relation to the legality of a shareholders agreement. |
No it wasn't. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:19 - Dec 4 with 1801 views | ATFV |
Correct me if I’m wrong but won’t our “strong” legal case be even stronger now if we tried to reach agreement only for the Americans to screw around with the deal? Coupled with the ruling against Blackpool’s Oyston family I’d say our chances in court have been somewhat strengthened. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:24 - Dec 4 with 1781 views | max936 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:40 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Cheers. So, in order:
Do I think it needs fresh impetus? Absolutely. I've said as much.
Would I have sent that email to Res? Not in that wording, no, and certainly not at that time. Although feelings are high for a number of reasons, and people don't like being accused of stuff. I'm not excusing anything though, really I'm not.
Do I regret the recommendation? Not really, I think it was logical based on the circumstances at the time. That's all any of us could have done. Despite some rewriting of history on here, particularly from failed insurance salesmen, I always said it was a choice of least worst. I'm far from convinced the members would have voted for legal action though, if you attended the forums you would have seen how little appetite there was for that. The do nothing option was a bigger threat outside these pages, whether anyone thinks that a viable course of action or not. The biggest battle out there was convincing anyone to lose any part of the stake.
Should the deal have been stopped the moment there was any difference in the documentation to what was originally agreed. Now, there's a question, and I think the answer often depends on your viewpoint on why there's a difference or whether you think there was always going to be some things crop up as you go through the detail. Whether I like it or not, I find it difficult to argue against the line that, if the terms don't change from what the members voted on, then the board has a mandate to proceed with the deal. If they change, even slightly, it's a no-brainer. If they don't, well then we're into subjectives.
I understand your view, and mine isn't so different albeit for maybe different reasons. I don't think another vote would go a different way as it goes, the membership are generally risk averse as is the board in the main. PS isn't representative, we saw that clearly in the summer. Tensions are much higher now though. But nothing is signed yet. |
You're right the vote won't go any differently, because very few people outside this forum and maybe little snitbits from others are aware at what truly went on surrounding the sale and until they do most of the vote for deal voters will mostly remain oblivious to what went on, I know I keep saying it, but the circumstances and the injustice of the Sale should have been sung from the rooftops.  | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:29 - Dec 4 with 1760 views | TheUnion |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:09 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
No it wasn't. |
Will you stop lying the conversation I had with you was questioning Jenkins breaking the original shareholders agreement and why the trust didn’t take legal action. You said that he hadn’t done anything legally wrong. I then questioned you about the legality of shareholders agreements seeing as you informed me you were an accountant. Your answers sent alarm bells ringing for in regards to my own businesses to the extent I actually contacted my accountant on the Monday who actually told me our shareholders agreement is legally binding. Don’t know what legal firm you’ve been using. How much has the trust spent on legal fees? | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:35 - Dec 4 with 1729 views | donkonky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:24 - Dec 4 by max936 |
You're right the vote won't go any differently, because very few people outside this forum and maybe little snitbits from others are aware at what truly went on surrounding the sale and until they do most of the vote for deal voters will mostly remain oblivious to what went on, I know I keep saying it, but the circumstances and the injustice of the Sale should have been sung from the rooftops. |
Agreed! Stall the deal ..Trust..come out and give the full facts to everyone. A statement to the press, radio and a tv drive. Then let members decide. We’ve been stitched up good n proper..as you say sing it from the rooftops. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:35 - Dec 4 with 1729 views | Wingstandwood |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:19 - Dec 4 by ATFV |
Correct me if I’m wrong but won’t our “strong” legal case be even stronger now if we tried to reach agreement only for the Americans to screw around with the deal? Coupled with the ruling against Blackpool’s Oyston family I’d say our chances in court have been somewhat strengthened. |
Yeah, aggree with that!.... B@llocks to the passive 'bend over backwards to be shafted' diplomatic route. IMO the Trust now could really have the Yanks well and truly on the run.
There is an open goal to be scored but maybe the trust is still looking to do a Sanchez and aim towards a advertising hoarding instead. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:39 - Dec 4 with 1712 views | chad |
| 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. |
You corrected Phil on this recently and he apologised - but yet again 2 days ago Phil said:
"All we know there is what the QC said, the same QC that also suggested the deal should be recommended (or more importantly taken without consultation). "
Again and again when the Trust was trying to push the deal both on here and at the pre-vote meeting it was implied that Counsel had recommended the deal / we would be going against Counsel's advice if we rejected the deal.
This was the biggest fed misconception of all - and pretty shocking
To take the standard advice of Counsel to settle if possible and repeatedly imply it meant settle for this poor deal is reprehensible.
Of course it seems for whatever reason the Trust were desperate to settle and of course as Phil kept reminding us they could have done this without a vote.
Oh no they couldn't because Phil himself as Chair of the Trust had promised a vote long before.
The above quote shows why Vetch thought this though |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:44 - Dec 4 with 1685 views | swancity |
Uxbridge : How about refraining from the snide remarks and trying to give a balanced view on things. It'll make a refreshing change. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:46 - Dec 4 with 1668 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:29 - Dec 4 by TheUnion |
Will you stop lying the conversation I had with you was questioning Jenkins breaking the original shareholders agreement and why the trust didn’t take legal action. You said that he hadn’t done anything legally wrong. I then questioned you about the legality of shareholders agreements seeing as you informed me you were an accountant. Your answers sent alarm bells ringing for in regards to my own businesses to the extent I actually contacted my accountant on the Monday who actually told me our shareholders agreement is legally binding. Don’t know what legal firm you’ve been using. How much has the trust spent on legal fees? |
Well, one of us is lying, or more likely you misunderstood what I said, assuming this was the conversation before the Brighton game?
Was it you who asked why the Trust didn't take Jenkins to court because he committed a criminal act by ignoring the shareholders agreement? Fact is it wasn't a criminal act. Of course shareholders agreements are legally binding, that's a fair chunk of the whole bloody point! If you can find one post on here where I've said otherwise then you'll be doing well. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:47 - Dec 4 with 1658 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:44 - Dec 4 by swancity |
Uxbridge : How about refraining from the snide remarks and trying to give a balanced view on things. It'll make a refreshing change. |
Sometimes a bit in return is called for, old chap. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:00 - Dec 4 with 1576 views | Yossarian |
I think this is the time we will look back on as the point the supporters eff3ctively lost all influence in the club. All ai hope is that the Council get second thoughts and Paul out of any deal with the Yanks over the Liberty. At least we’ll then have a ground we can cling to when we’re back 8n L2 with some feckin ‘ consortium’ in control. What an epic ballsup- pitiful. |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:03 - Dec 4 with 1564 views | TheUnion |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:46 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Well, one of us is lying, or more likely you misunderstood what I said, assuming this was the conversation before the Brighton game?
Was it you who asked why the Trust didn't take Jenkins to court because he committed a criminal act by ignoring the shareholders agreement? Fact is it wasn't a criminal act. Of course shareholders agreements are legally binding, that's a fair chunk of the whole bloody point! If you can find one post on here where I've said otherwise then you'll be doing well. |
That’s quite easy you tried accusing me of a conversation we had regarding the share sale LIE. Our aim in the union is to get Jenkins removed. What the trust did with the shares at that time was of no relevance to our mission. I did question why the trust was bowing down to the yanks and Jenkins and what hold they have on the trust but that’s just my opinion. From where we’re looking the whole lot seem corrupt so before you drivel on that nobody has any grip on anybody we’ve had this conversation already and nothing has changed mine or The Union’s mind. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:12 - Dec 4 with 1527 views | swancity |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:47 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Sometimes a bit in return is called for, old chap. |
Indeed. I'm not the one trying to cajole members into accepting a deal that's not in their best interests. I'm not the one on the Trust Board. You spent weeks doing your best to get members to accept a deal when you're role was to remain impartial IMO. Stick to the facts, I know that will go against the grain for you but do your best old chap. 👠| |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:28 - Dec 4 with 1449 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:12 - Dec 4 by swancity |
Indeed. I'm not the one trying to cajole members into accepting a deal that's not in their best interests. I'm not the one on the Trust Board. You spent weeks doing your best to get members to accept a deal when you're role was to remain impartial IMO. Stick to the facts, I know that will go against the grain for you but do your best old chap. 👠|
This impartiality thing I find a bit baffling. I'm not allowed my own opinion? I don't represent any more than that. Although I find it rather hypocritical that everyone else is allowed an opinion, and God forbid anyone should disagree with theirs eh.
True, I'm on the Trust board, and true the board put out a recommendation that coincided with my view. You can disagree all you want on whether the Trust board should have done that, but I think the members would have expected it to do so. I know many did. The impartiality came with the presentation of chapter and verse of the pros and cons. There didn't have to be a vote, but there was.
This is all old, well trodden ground that is pointless going over. You crack on though. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:34 - Dec 4 with 1421 views | swancity |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:28 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
This impartiality thing I find a bit baffling. I'm not allowed my own opinion? I don't represent any more than that. Although I find it rather hypocritical that everyone else is allowed an opinion, and God forbid anyone should disagree with theirs eh.
True, I'm on the Trust board, and true the board put out a recommendation that coincided with my view. You can disagree all you want on whether the Trust board should have done that, but I think the members would have expected it to do so. I know many did. The impartiality came with the presentation of chapter and verse of the pros and cons. There didn't have to be a vote, but there was.
This is all old, well trodden ground that is pointless going over. You crack on though. |
You're too slippery and slimy for words mate. I wouldn't mind betting you could crawl under a snakes belly with a top hat on. A word of advice, in future stick to the facts. And we'll all be happy. 👠| |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 4 with 1413 views | chad |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:28 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
This impartiality thing I find a bit baffling. I'm not allowed my own opinion? I don't represent any more than that. Although I find it rather hypocritical that everyone else is allowed an opinion, and God forbid anyone should disagree with theirs eh.
True, I'm on the Trust board, and true the board put out a recommendation that coincided with my view. You can disagree all you want on whether the Trust board should have done that, but I think the members would have expected it to do so. I know many did. The impartiality came with the presentation of chapter and verse of the pros and cons. There didn't have to be a vote, but there was.
This is all old, well trodden ground that is pointless going over. You crack on though. |
There it goes again
There didn't have to be a vote
Yes there did, the Trust Chair promised this months before
Was it your opinion that Counsel recommended we accept this particular deal?
and we were going against Counsel advice if we rejected it?
Neither of those are correct are they?
But it is the implication that kept being put out by you and Phil | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:57 - Dec 4 with 1358 views | max936 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 4 by chad |
There it goes again
There didn't have to be a vote
Yes there did, the Trust Chair promised this months before
Was it your opinion that Counsel recommended we accept this particular deal?
and we were going against Counsel advice if we rejected it?
Neither of those are correct are they?
But it is the implication that kept being put out by you and Phil |
Of course there had to be a vote the Trust Board were acting on its members behalf, stupid thing to say on such an important issue such as selling the shares, its no wonder we are were we are ffs. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:07 - Dec 4 with 1320 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 4 by chad |
There it goes again
There didn't have to be a vote
Yes there did, the Trust Chair promised this months before
Was it your opinion that Counsel recommended we accept this particular deal?
and we were going against Counsel advice if we rejected it?
Neither of those are correct are they?
But it is the implication that kept being put out by you and Phil |
That's just untrue Spratty. Helpfully Lisa commented earlier on what I said regarding the QC opinion and what it did and didn't relate to.
I'm not going to get involved in the ongoing argument between Phil and yourself. But don't misrepresent what I said, thanks. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 23:09]
| |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:15 - Dec 4 with 1288 views | Alarch |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:34 - Dec 4 by swancity |
You're too slippery and slimy for words mate. I wouldn't mind betting you could crawl under a snakes belly with a top hat on. A word of advice, in future stick to the facts. And we'll all be happy. 👠|
One question. Have you ever met Uxbridge & actually spoken to him in person? Actually, make that two. What gives you the right to your opinion but not him to his? | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:15 - Dec 4 with 1288 views | whoflungdung |
Look at the state we re in.
Fans squabbling with each other
Power games,back stabbing and Machiavellian plots.
Clearly ,Ux is now the bete noir of the moment
No wonder the Yanks are working us one so maybe we should unite or at least quit the poison posts | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
