| Trust members’ forum tonight. 20:00 - Dec 14 with 31137 views | exiledclaseboy |
Chairman’s opening remarks reproduced below.
Prior to the start of tonight’s Forum. Nigel Hamer, Secretary to the Swans Trust Board announced that current Trust Vice Chairman, Alan Lewis will be taking up the vacant position of Trust Chairman with immediate effect. Alan will also take on the position of Associate Director of the Club previously held by Will Morris.
Alan Lewis then addressed the Members Forum
Tonight’s Forum is as much an opportunity for members to ask questions as it is for us as a Trust Board to update you on recent events. We will open up the floor for questions after providing the update but first I thought it would be helpful to introduce you to those members of the Trust Board who have been able to join us tonight. It is particularly pleasing to welcome some of the new co-opted members who joined the Board earlier this week. There has been criticism that all the Trust Board are not known to members and one of the things we will be implementing shortly is to update the ‘Meet the Trust Board’area of the website with a short profile on each Board Members and a photo.
Just to go back over the events of the last few months; a period which has been something of a turbulent one both for the Trust off the field and the team on the pitch.
We have to start back in the Summer when members who voted in our consultation exercise provided a clear mandate to the Trust Board to pursue the sale of some shares to the majority shareholders on the terms outlined in the consultation pack which was sent to all members. We have to remember that this was the most comprehensive consultation exercise ever carried out by this organisation and yes there was a clear recommendation from the Trust Board but equally the alternative options were comprehensively covered in the documentation sent out to members.
Discussions then started with the majority shareholders legal team on drawing up the detailed paperwork to formalise the whole deal into a share purchase agreement. Progress was initially slow and it was not until October that questions emerged around some of the detailed aspects of the deal. There were a number of clarifications which were required around the wording of various clauses in the draft agreement we were considering. These clauses were still under discussion however and the main focus at that point was around the financial features of the deal. Whilst the gross figures quoted in the consultation exercise were confirmed, details emerged of a payment structure which, whilst in line with that payable to the previous shareholders in 2016, contained further detail which we had been unaware of. The payment structure was not therefore consistent with the figures featured in the consultation documents.
Questions around the payment structure were raised with the majority shareholders who pointed out that it was in line with the original deal with the previous shareholders. The debate around how we should then move forward led to a difference of views amongst the Trust Board with the majority view being that discussions should continue but always on the understanding that if terms could not be brought back in line with the consultation exercise we would go back to our members. Phil Sumbler felt at that point that in view of the information that had already been communicated to our members, he could not lead the Trust down that path. In his view the working relationship with the Majority Shareholders had broken down. Matt Griffiths also resigned for similar reasons.
Whilst disappointed to lose Phil and Matt the rest of the Trust Board agreed that the discussions between the legal teams should continue. As highlighted in our statement to members of 24 November there has been positive progress, with the majority owners being receptive in helping to find an amenable solution to allow the deal to move forward. The concerns around the financial aspects of the deal have been resolved and the payments are now fully in line with the detail provided to members in our consultation documentation
Discussions on the wording of various clauses comprising the proposed Share Holders Agreement have continued between the Legal Teams. One area of discussion has been around the original proposal, contained in the consultation papers, to consider providing 20% of the proceeds of the sale for stadium improvement/expansion. The important element, being set into the agreement is that any decision will be taken by members once detailed proposals have been made available. Other ways in which the proceeds from this sale can be used are governed to some extent by our rules and supporting legislation and this also needs to be covered. Other areas of discussion have been around the ability of the Trust Board as shareholders, to raise concerns around the actions of other shareholders etc. The Trust Board is conscious of its role as a shareholder and Director in the Football Club and its obligations around confidentiality and collective responsibility. At the same time it needs to reserve the right to voice the concerns of its members in an appropriate manner and we want to ensure that is clear in any agreement.
As a Trust Board we would have liked to have had this finalised by now but we have always acknowledged the need to ensure that the final product is in line with the detail provided to members in the Summer. Despite some of the queries that have arisen during this negotiation period, we now feel that we are close to finalising an agreement which will be fully in line with the detail provided in the members consultation documents. We are not quite there yet however and the commitment remains that if the final paperwork does not reflect the detail in the consultation documents then we will consult further with members.
We have another topic of general interest which we would like to update you on but perhaps before I mention that we can pause at this point and open up the floor for questions around what has been said so far.
School’s Enterprise Challenge
For some time now the Swans Trust board has been looking at ways to engage with the younger generation of Swans fans so that they are aware of its origins, purpose and ongoing work. Trust Board Members have been working with the Welsh Joint Examining Committee (WJEC) to develop an optional Enterprise Challenge as part of the Welsh Baccalaureate Qualification for 14-16 year olds. That qualification is a compulsory part of the curriculum for pupils of that age and the Trust’s Challenge would be an option within that. The WJEC have recently approved the Challenge, meaning that youngsters will in the future have the opportunity to come into contact and work with the Trust as part of their everyday studies. Hopefully this will lead to some of them having a greater ongoing involvement in the years to come.
The task now facing the board is to gradually roll out the challenge to schools in order to give pupils the opportunity to participate.
If any member would like further information about the Enterprise Challenge they can contact info@swanstrust.co.uk
Please mark the email for the attention of Sian Davies (Schools in Neath Port Talbot and to the East) or Roger Goodwin (Schools in Swansea and to the West) |  |
| |  |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:50 - Dec 15 with 2702 views | ATFV |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:01 - Dec 15 by Neath_Jack |
Is this Viv chap another retired teacher?
I feel sorry for all you mugs that are paying your £10 to that totally corrupt organisation, you are being taken for the same fools that the Americans are taking the Trust for.
They do not give a flying f*ck what your opinions are, as was demonstrated last night. It's all about the kudos of being able to tell their mates that they are part of a Premier League football club.
Mugs, supported by mugs, in cahoots with mugs. |
On the contrary - £10 was a cheap price to pay for the pleasure of telling Mr Williams how far he could cram his tail wagging dog up his arse 
Cheap at half the price  |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:58 - Dec 15 with 2671 views | Neath_Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:50 - Dec 15 by ATFV |
On the contrary - £10 was a cheap price to pay for the pleasure of telling Mr Williams how far he could cram his tail wagging dog up his arse
Cheap at half the price |
Nige, i admire you going there and standing up and giving them what they deserve, but they are just going to carry on regardless.
I've no idea what the answers are as i have no proper understanding how these things work, but a vote of no confidence in the lot of them is needed to get them all horsed off there. That vote of no confidence keeps getting mentioned on here, but i don't think anyone knows how to get it in place. That's what you members need to do, but i can't see anyone having the gumption to do it? |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:35 - Dec 15 with 2580 views | Shaky |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 23:15 - Dec 14 by ATFV |
Just a few comments...
There were about 60 members present at the meeting tonight. Many of them shared my disquiet over the deal going through as we don’t trust the Americans, we are uneasy that Phil Sumbler felt things had changed enough to make his position untenable if negotiations continued and our desperate League position makes the original deal struck look a lot less appetising.
Alas the collective Trust Board do not share these views and some acted very petulantly that Members even dared question proceedings. After much heated debate one Trust Board member did indeed deliver a speech in which he decried the criticism by the ungrateful wretches in the room, and did indeed make the accusation that the “tail was attempting to wag the dog”.
I took this badly...and after delivering a few solid “how dare yous” I pointed out that he and the others were bloody well elected by the people in that room. I also pointed out that I wasn’t there to criticise him, for his existence has never even registered with me, I was there to fight for the future of my football club.
I think the penny dropped later on. Maybe someone reminded a few Board Members of impending elections? I also hope that all there will really think about the reaction in the room tonight because the mood of the membership should always be in their thoughts.
That’s as much as I can post right now as I’m too worked up to outline any more! |
"Many of them shared my disquiet over . . .our desperate League position makes the original deal struck look a lot less appetising. "
Congratulations, you have just seriously undermined the case for receiving full value for the Trust's shares in an unfair prejudice claim.
These are meant to address wrongs done to shareholders, not to compensate those who a take a punt on an ownership stake and try to weasel out of it when the speculation goes wrong.
I strongly suggest you delete that comment right now. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:43 - Dec 15 with 2560 views | Shaky |
As for the business about the Trust reinvesting some of the proceeds into the stadium deal, as long as this is on an equity basis broadly as described it is a right and not an obligation.
That right has genuine option value to the Trust, primarily as an anti-dilution protection, and it is simply wrong to view this as some sort ot penalty. The opposite is in fact true. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:43 - Dec 15 with 2556 views | Shaky |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:58 - Dec 15 by Neath_Jack |
Nige, i admire you going there and standing up and giving them what they deserve, but they are just going to carry on regardless.
I've no idea what the answers are as i have no proper understanding how these things work, but a vote of no confidence in the lot of them is needed to get them all horsed off there. That vote of no confidence keeps getting mentioned on here, but i don't think anyone knows how to get it in place. That's what you members need to do, but i can't see anyone having the gumption to do it? |
You're on the right track. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:53 - Dec 15 with 2526 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:12 - Dec 15 by Nookiejack |
The deal they are signing away will mean the Trust will receive £3m (£5m for fist tranche 5% - £2m Stadium reinvestment) for its 21% stake?
The remaining 16% will be sold for a few pence when we get relegated.
£3m for 21% stake
What mugs or they are receiving back handers? |
It is all hideously frustrating. I have asked Phil on several occasions now, as someone who has admitted he would be all for this deal had the Americans not attempted to renegotiate, can you explain the positives of this deal to try and understand the motivation behind it. I also pointed out that drag rights negate any argument of a continued voice as it is pretty certain these are not long term owners. Complete silence on it.
Something really is not right here. I am more convinced than ever that things are being hidden and a deal rushed through in order to bury them. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:10 - Dec 15 with 2484 views | Neath_Jack |
mart6 is going to be tamping when he wakes up and reads this thread. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:15 - Dec 15 with 2471 views | NeathJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:30 - Dec 15 by Banosswan |
On the right |
That's the scrote who grabbed me by the shoulder from behind at the forum where Phil was outlining the offer from the Yanks as he saw me on my phone and told me if i was tweeting the proceedings, to stop.
I didn't stop.
I also haven't been to a meeting since. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:24 - Dec 15 with 2452 views | SkettyJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:07 - Dec 15 by Landore_Jack |
Viv Williams should stand down immediately. I urge the Trust board members to call for his resignation. |
Agreed. He needs to go. NOW
As do the retired public servant brigade who did the interviewing. It's like the bloody masons down there. I ask myself why do they do It? What perks do they get? It certainly isn't for the supporters or the good of the club
This deal will go through Mark my words, and they don't want anyone posting on it on here.
Wagging the dog dear me. Supports trust the nodding dog more like |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:38 - Dec 15 with 2414 views | Landore_Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:24 - Dec 15 by SkettyJack |
Agreed. He needs to go. NOW
As do the retired public servant brigade who did the interviewing. It's like the bloody masons down there. I ask myself why do they do It? What perks do they get? It certainly isn't for the supporters or the good of the club
This deal will go through Mark my words, and they don't want anyone posting on it on here.
Wagging the dog dear me. Supports trust the nodding dog more like |
Couldn't agree more. They are too incompetent. I wish the new members well but I feel it will make little difference. Too many bad apples amongst the cart. As soon as that deal is signed the Trust will become a non-entity. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:42 - Dec 15 with 2397 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:15 - Dec 15 by NeathJack |
That's the scrote who grabbed me by the shoulder from behind at the forum where Phil was outlining the offer from the Yanks as he saw me on my phone and told me if i was tweeting the proceedings, to stop.
I didn't stop.
I also haven't been to a meeting since. |
Hope you told him in no uncertain terms to f*ck off. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 13:03 - Dec 15 with 2353 views | NeathJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:42 - Dec 15 by Dr_Winston |
Hope you told him in no uncertain terms to f*ck off. |
Words of a similar nature were offered in response. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 13:08 - Dec 15 with 2334 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:53 - Dec 15 by E20Jack |
It is all hideously frustrating. I have asked Phil on several occasions now, as someone who has admitted he would be all for this deal had the Americans not attempted to renegotiate, can you explain the positives of this deal to try and understand the motivation behind it. I also pointed out that drag rights negate any argument of a continued voice as it is pretty certain these are not long term owners. Complete silence on it.
Something really is not right here. I am more convinced than ever that things are being hidden and a deal rushed through in order to bury them. |
Do they understand the Drag Rights they are conceding in current relegation situation
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dragalongrights.asp
“What does 'Drag-Along Rights' mean
A drag-along right is a right that enables a majority shareholder to force a minority shareholder to join in the sale of a company. The majority owner doing the dragging must give the minority shareholder the same price, terms and conditions as any other seller. Drag-along rights are designed to protect the majority shareholder.
Read more: Drag-Along Rights https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dragalongrights.asp#ixzz51KnyUNrV | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 13:16 - Dec 15 with 2303 views | Nookiejack |
What will a fair price for the Trust’s shares be next season with the Yanks still in charge.
Look where DC United are and look where we are.
They simply do not know how to run a football club. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 13:44 - Dec 15 with 2249 views | Dewi1jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:10 - Dec 15 by Neath_Jack |
mart6 is going to be tamping when he wakes up and reads this thread. |
He./she/ maybe both must have an awfully sore finger from down arrowing everyone on so many threads.
Pity that person offers no opinion or thought to try and convince us that they are right and we wrong.
Just another no-mark really. Or is it Viv?
On a more serious note.
As the Trust board are ignoring letters and EMails from members uneasy about the way they seem to shoving this p1sspoor deal through, let alone letters regarding an EGM/ votes of no confidence,
How exactly can we get a vote of no confidence going?
Viv Williams certainly has to go.
And go immediately.
Arrogant, Ignorant pr1ck has no right to be REPRESENTING the fan base. |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 14:51 - Dec 15 with 2123 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 23:15 - Dec 14 by ATFV |
Just a few comments...
There were about 60 members present at the meeting tonight. Many of them shared my disquiet over the deal going through as we don’t trust the Americans, we are uneasy that Phil Sumbler felt things had changed enough to make his position untenable if negotiations continued and our desperate League position makes the original deal struck look a lot less appetising.
Alas the collective Trust Board do not share these views and some acted very petulantly that Members even dared question proceedings. After much heated debate one Trust Board member did indeed deliver a speech in which he decried the criticism by the ungrateful wretches in the room, and did indeed make the accusation that the “tail was attempting to wag the dog”.
I took this badly...and after delivering a few solid “how dare yous” I pointed out that he and the others were bloody well elected by the people in that room. I also pointed out that I wasn’t there to criticise him, for his existence has never even registered with me, I was there to fight for the future of my football club.
I think the penny dropped later on. Maybe someone reminded a few Board Members of impending elections? I also hope that all there will really think about the reaction in the room tonight because the mood of the membership should always be in their thoughts.
That’s as much as I can post right now as I’m too worked up to outline any more! |
Great post Thanks, bet that was from a board member that's been lording it up for the past 12yrs of more too, not fit for purpose for someone who was voted onto the board to ACT on the FAN'S behalf to come out with that mouthful of bile needs to be shown the door asap, a vote of no confidence has to be sought and now, before they force through this deal. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 14:55 - Dec 15 with 2103 views | thornabyswan |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 14:51 - Dec 15 by max936 |
Great post Thanks, bet that was from a board member that's been lording it up for the past 12yrs of more too, not fit for purpose for someone who was voted onto the board to ACT on the FAN'S behalf to come out with that mouthful of bile needs to be shown the door asap, a vote of no confidence has to be sought and now, before they force through this deal. |
Spot on agree with every word | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 14:56 - Dec 15 with 2095 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 23:37 - Dec 14 by Joe_bradshaw |
It is clear he has no idea that his brief is to serve the membership of the Trust.
He obviously thinks the great unwashed should hang on his every thought and deed.
He’d make an excellent MP. |
He'd look great being dragged out of the room by his ear to, the utter tw@t disgraceful and people are still paying their tenners into the trust, I'm sorry to say and no disrespect to the people who have chucked their tenners in, but that's like the blind leading the blind. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:13 - Dec 15 with 2073 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 07:57 - Dec 15 by Vetchfielder |
I don't suppose we'll get minutes of the meeting, so this is my account of last night's meeting:
Announced that Alan Lewis has taken over as Chairman. All Trust Board Members asked to stand up and show their faces, including 2 newly elected Rhys and William. Alan then read out the statement that's in the OP.
Started off with a great speech from Nige regarding why we should reject the deal that's now back on the table and go for a 2nd vote. I think about 3 of us supported this and some more questions. Lots of responses mainly from Stuart and Alan. I twice requested that the Chair call for a show of hands as to whether the people at the meeting supported this view but that was refused because "it had no validity".
Lots of vociferous anti-Jenkins and anti-Owner sentiments by almost all those that spoke.
There was also one particularly articulate speech from one guy having a real go at HJ and then , around the share deal, suggesting a final "endorsement vote" by members at a meeting. This was rejected by the Chair.
There was a very good case placed for a second vote placed by a lady at the back, partly around the bias of the recommendation statements around the first vote (I'm guessing this was Chad?).
A few more points raised by members and lots of talk about having a mandate from members around the original offer and that they were now back on track to deliver that with a probable sign-off in January 2018. Ron in particular promoting the Trust Board's actions in getting to this point.
We than had Viv Williams complaining that the members shouldn't be so critical of the Board's activities. Wide outbursts from the ordinary members at his and superbly put in his place in no uncertain terms by Nige. The Chairman also acknowledged that the questions and points raised by the meeting should not be considered criticism by Board Members.
I don't remember any "ordinary" members speaking on behalf of carrying on negotiating on the share deal, only from people against it, but my own impression from the amount of clapping and "hear, hears" was that the general view was not in favour of a second vote. We didn't get a show of hands so can't be sure about this - it would be interesting to hear others' views on this.
A good question as to what the views of the newly appointed Board Members was on the sale. I think Alan said he didn't know what their views were. There were then more points made around Phil and Matt's views and also Lisa's opposition to it.
In relation to the sale conditions, I asked whether it would be possible for the American shareholder company could be sold to another American company for $1, us getting dragged along and receiving almost nothing for our remaining shareholding. Stuart said that the legal terms would be written such that this would not be possible and that a fair and reasonable price would have to be paid by a prospective purchaser.
At the end there was a point made by a member around HJ's position and whether we could push for him to be removed and that this was the view of ordinary members. There was a definite anti-Jenkins feeling at the point and a lot more reaction from members. Basically this was rejected by Stuart - I can't remember how he worded it.
There was then a request from NIge to look into the sudden reduction in takings from the Flyer in the Man City game and Alan agreed to enquire about this.
That was probably a bit biased but that's my account; I have to admit to have been completely demoralised by that meeting and was in a bit of a daze driving home. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 8:15]
|
I don't get this thing about elected board members rejecting proposals out of hand off their own backs, what right as one board member got to reject things that members have put forward ffs.
I don't know or ever heard of this McDonald bloke, but I don't like him one bit Supporters Director be fuked we've never heard a thing from him. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:19 - Dec 15 with 2060 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 08:13 - Dec 15 by ATFV |
That’s a fair summing up of events, dude. But I’ll add one thing: the Viv Williams outburst came just after an animated discussion on Leigh Dineen’s continued presence at the club and on the payroll.
It was confirmed he’s sold his shares and is now being employed as a “consultant”. I queried this as the Americans whole USP was they could fix a failing, underperforming commercial operation that was run by Dineen.
The panel responded by saying a lot of new commercial staff had been employed and Dineen was required to provide expertise and advice such as providing his contacts - I immediately replied by asking if Dineen was supplying contact names one letter at a time as it’s over a year since the takeover!
It was at this point that Viv Williams’ head went and he revealed the contempt that us ordinary members are held in for having an opinion.... |
All butties together aren't they its obvious, that's why nothing will ever be done that might upset the apple cart. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:41 - Dec 15 with 2014 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
If someone would be kind enough to explain the steps needed to initiate a vote of no confidence I will be happy to play my part. The tail wagging comment last night was enough to tip me over the edge so to speak.
It is clear this needs to be done sooner rather than later. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:43 - Dec 15 with 2013 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 09:00 - Dec 15 by TheResurrection |
Lisa, Cudey,
This is not the time for reflective silence.
We need to hear your views and where you stand on last night and also what seems the quite remarkable behaviour of your colleagues in dismissing out of sight the views and requests of the members.
On the request for a show of hands the Board should be actively encouraging this to sense check the important decisions they seem to be making against the will of a large percentage of the members they're supposed to be serving, even if some of them have totally lost sight of this, lost in their self importance.
On the Viv Williams comment I'd like you to ask this person to stand down immediately. Who is he, Who does he think he is, how long has he been on the Trust Board and who does he think he serves by being on there.
We need to hear your thoughts on this and the possibility of motioning a vote of no confidence in the Trust Board to be raised in next months AGM.
Please don't sit on the fence now, we'd all appreciate your usual frank and honest thoughts. |
Chris,
I'm not being reflective, I've been silent today because I've been in a meeting since 8am (one of the reasons I couldn't get to last nights meeting) and haven't had chance to say anything until now.
I wasn't there, so I don't know what did and didn't happen outside what's been posted on here but to reiterate.
Earlier this week I sent a detailed note to Dai about issues I have with the deal (irrespective of the whole good faith bit, the deal itself as agreed). We have agreed to meet up as soon as possible after Christmas. Andrew McG as well.
In addition, I received the announcement that was going to be made about an hour or so before last nights meeting. I responded to the Trust board as a whole, again noting issues that I had, exaplining why they were issues, and requesting that nothing was agreed until I'd had a chance to explain these issues in the next Trust board meeting. Dai and I will meet before then, and I think we are both intending to be at the next board meeting. I've also made myself available anytime for a call prior to that with any Trust board member to explain my grave concerns.
I very much hope that I will be able to air my views before anything happens that commits the Trust. To be perfectly frank, there is absolutely no point in asking me to be an affiliate if that doesn't happen. My expertise is certainly not required in arranging events.
Alan or any others, may not have received or read my mail before the meeting, which is why they may have said that they don't know my views. They will certainly know them once they read my mail as I couldn't have been more explicit. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:54 - Dec 15 with 1971 views | vetchonian |
Although unable to attend last nights forum I was disappointed to hear that one of the Trust board made a statement "attacking " the membership. This board member needs to be reminded that he as part of the board are the elected representatives of the Trust's members. As such he is there to represent and be an enabler of the memberships wishes....he sshould he made to publicly apologise for the statement and reminded in fact that the membership are the dog who should wag the tail being the board.
Whilst originally voting in favour of the deal in light of recent revelations ,resignations and the unfolding of the current dismissal case I am not sure the deal should continue as I no longer believe a meaningful working relationship can exist with the club owners. I would ask that an EGM be held ASAP for this to be discussed and a vote taken to poll the members feelings before pen is put to paper.
Copy of the email I sent to the Trust earlier today.....be interesting to see what if any response I receive | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:11 - Dec 15 with 1922 views | MoscowJack |
Public apology? No chance, but even if there was I would question the sincerity of one. The arrogance of the man is truly shocking but sadly quite a strong reflection of how I see the Trust at the moment.
We need to rid the Trust of people like this asap, or we'll just continue to have the same results over and over again. They've already forced the likes of Phil and Matt out of the Trust so we need to stop them before more good people are pushed!
Nigel Hamer and Viv Williams - get your coats now please! | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:01 - Dec 15 with 1836 views | dobjack2 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:41 - Dec 15 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
If someone would be kind enough to explain the steps needed to initiate a vote of no confidence I will be happy to play my part. The tail wagging comment last night was enough to tip me over the edge so to speak.
It is clear this needs to be done sooner rather than later. |
I don’t know whether you could use rule 32b of the trust model rules along with a carefully worded requisition to achieve that. What would the consequences of the vote be though?
Possibly that same rule could be used to trigger a vote on a second ballot in relation to the share sale - I don’t know. Similarly don’t know whether the sale could go through with a EGM on the subject outstanding.
Rule 63 could potentially be utilised in conjunction with rule 32b regarding the tail wagging the dog comment but it is only a short lived punishment at best.
Best thing to do is read the rules and organise away from public scrutiny. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
