| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale 12:25 - Dec 22 with 13175 views | MattG |
|  | | |  |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 19:18 - Dec 22 with 2272 views | Phil_S |
|  | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 19:28 - Dec 22 with 2241 views | MattG |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 19:18 - Dec 22 by Phil_S |
|
Not sure why but the poll doesn't show up for me when I click through. | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 06:36 - Dec 23 with 2142 views | Shaky |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 15:56 - Dec 22 by Vetchfielder |
If I had been asked beforehand as to which way the Trust were going to go with this, I would have guessed that they would have opted for a second vote.
To me, it would have been easier and less risky for the Trust Board to state that some members feel the landscape had changed a little and we are going to put it back to the members for another vote. Then whatever result a second vote came up with, they could always claim justifiably that they had been completely democratic throughout the whole process.
In that second vote, the people who voted for the deal could still do so if they were still happy with it. The people who have changed their minds as a result of recent events could then join the others in voting against the deal.
By rejecting the call for 2nd vote, I think they are opening themselves up for a degree of criticism - a level of criticism greater than if they'd gone for a 2nd vote. Indeed, this thread is all about that - the SCSA stepping up and calling on the Trust to change their minds. It just feels to me that they've opted for an approach that is likely to give them more conflict and hassle. |
i agree.
Positive the SCSA has actually come out with some sort of stance, but regrettable that it is not really decisive.
Especially when individual board oracles like Uxbridge had indicated a willingness to see this finally resolved at the AGM.
As I have outlined that option provides a a very good chance of killing the deal off completely with not too much work required at all. Furthermore, although such an outcome would undoubtedly not have the same level of democratic legitimacy as another full consultation it would in my expert opinoin be the right decision for the fans.
It would also be quick and allow everybody to move forward. If one of the motivations behind the Trust board's actions is is to actually get something done rather than fannying about going round in circles, I'd have nothing but sympathy for that. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:19 - Dec 23 with 2068 views | Uxbridge |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 06:36 - Dec 23 by Shaky |
i agree.
Positive the SCSA has actually come out with some sort of stance, but regrettable that it is not really decisive.
Especially when individual board oracles like Uxbridge had indicated a willingness to see this finally resolved at the AGM.
As I have outlined that option provides a a very good chance of killing the deal off completely with not too much work required at all. Furthermore, although such an outcome would undoubtedly not have the same level of democratic legitimacy as another full consultation it would in my expert opinoin be the right decision for the fans.
It would also be quick and allow everybody to move forward. If one of the motivations behind the Trust board's actions is is to actually get something done rather than fannying about going round in circles, I'd have nothing but sympathy for that. |
More a Ceefax man myself.
Anyway, I'm hoping this develops into a proper debate in terms of what we want to see happen in the future. The options are still largely what we faced this summer, but the fixation is purely around stopping one of them. Without a broader strategy, paralysis beckons. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:23 - Dec 23 with 2061 views | Neath_Jack |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:19 - Dec 23 by Uxbridge |
More a Ceefax man myself.
Anyway, I'm hoping this develops into a proper debate in terms of what we want to see happen in the future. The options are still largely what we faced this summer, but the fixation is purely around stopping one of them. Without a broader strategy, paralysis beckons. |
Paralysis has been the order of the day with the Trust for years Ux, please don't try and make out any differently.
It is a complete non-entity of an organisation.
Instead of the SD supposedly being involved in the appointment of a new manager, how about he leaves that up to football people, and actually do what he's meant to be doing and listen to the fans on far more pressing issues. He's an absolute charlatan, who is no doubt the obligatory "lovely man". |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:29 - Dec 23 with 2053 views | Uxbridge |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:23 - Dec 23 by Neath_Jack |
Paralysis has been the order of the day with the Trust for years Ux, please don't try and make out any differently.
It is a complete non-entity of an organisation.
Instead of the SD supposedly being involved in the appointment of a new manager, how about he leaves that up to football people, and actually do what he's meant to be doing and listen to the fans on far more pressing issues. He's an absolute charlatan, who is no doubt the obligatory "lovely man". |
Biggest, most important, decision Trust has ever taken happened. That gave a direction if nothing else. Lots happened since obviously, particularly to the structure of the board. However, either way, that vote gave a direction. Whatever happens, we need to follow a direction regarding the shareholding and the working relationship.
That last paragraph would be flipped if he wasn't involved in the process, and you know it. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:40 - Dec 23 with 2029 views | chad |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 19:14 - Dec 22 by MattG |
Agree that is unlikely but it's not wholly dependent on us retaining PL status. |
True but I think unlikely is a generous estimation of the prospect
*The potential horrific consequences of the drag rights and the massive power over us it gives the buyers
*and the shocking (primary Trust objective defeating) self censorship (that has already taken place as a result of the deal)
*and the massive impact of your and Phil's resignation (Phil saying he would vote against the deal now and you saying the one thing that made the deal just about palatable to you has now been removed) on those who voted for trust in the Trust
aside
The fact that over 1/2 the share buying commitment of the deal by them, effectively means they are guaranteed to only need/can choose, to make those purchases in a position where they can buy the shares at less than they are currently worth - is another strong reason why the deal is very poor giving all the power to the buyers
Good to see this being pushed by the SCSA though, as however admirable the push to get rid of Jinx, it seemed to me a bit of fiddling whilst Rome burnt in the face of the pressing immediacy of the need for a re vote on the share sale (promised if conditions change and conditions have certainly changed) before it is pushed through at a cost of 3/4 of our share value, £15million thrown down the drain, against the outcome of successful legal action. |  | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:52 - Dec 23 with 2014 views | longlostjack |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:40 - Dec 23 by chad |
True but I think unlikely is a generous estimation of the prospect
*The potential horrific consequences of the drag rights and the massive power over us it gives the buyers
*and the shocking (primary Trust objective defeating) self censorship (that has already taken place as a result of the deal)
*and the massive impact of your and Phil's resignation (Phil saying he would vote against the deal now and you saying the one thing that made the deal just about palatable to you has now been removed) on those who voted for trust in the Trust
aside
The fact that over 1/2 the share buying commitment of the deal by them, effectively means they are guaranteed to only need/can choose, to make those purchases in a position where they can buy the shares at less than they are currently worth - is another strong reason why the deal is very poor giving all the power to the buyers
Good to see this being pushed by the SCSA though, as however admirable the push to get rid of Jinx, it seemed to me a bit of fiddling whilst Rome burnt in the face of the pressing immediacy of the need for a re vote on the share sale (promised if conditions change and conditions have certainly changed) before it is pushed through at a cost of 3/4 of our share value, £15million thrown down the drain, against the outcome of successful legal action. |
This |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:18 - Dec 23 with 1977 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:23 - Dec 23 by Neath_Jack |
Paralysis has been the order of the day with the Trust for years Ux, please don't try and make out any differently.
It is a complete non-entity of an organisation.
Instead of the SD supposedly being involved in the appointment of a new manager, how about he leaves that up to football people, and actually do what he's meant to be doing and listen to the fans on far more pressing issues. He's an absolute charlatan, who is no doubt the obligatory "lovely man". |
The Trust are involved in picking a manager???
 |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:23 - Dec 23 with 1970 views | Neath_Jack |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:29 - Dec 23 by Uxbridge |
Biggest, most important, decision Trust has ever taken happened. That gave a direction if nothing else. Lots happened since obviously, particularly to the structure of the board. However, either way, that vote gave a direction. Whatever happens, we need to follow a direction regarding the shareholding and the working relationship.
That last paragraph would be flipped if he wasn't involved in the process, and you know it. |
The way you lot presented the different "deals" pointed the uneducated (in events) members to vote in only one way, and for that alone a new vote should have been called.
He has no business in deciding what manager should be appointed, what experience does he have in that field? But in fairness, you are correct in that some would moan if he didn't have an input. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:34 - Dec 23 with 1951 views | Shaky |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:19 - Dec 23 by Uxbridge |
More a Ceefax man myself.
Anyway, I'm hoping this develops into a proper debate in terms of what we want to see happen in the future. The options are still largely what we faced this summer, but the fixation is purely around stopping one of them. Without a broader strategy, paralysis beckons. |
i sold Ingress into some key accounts on my gap year, and that's actually true!
Anyway I agree with the rest of that. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:40 - Dec 23 with 1931 views | Phil_S |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 10:19 - Dec 23 by Uxbridge |
More a Ceefax man myself.
Anyway, I'm hoping this develops into a proper debate in terms of what we want to see happen in the future. The options are still largely what we faced this summer, but the fixation is purely around stopping one of them. Without a broader strategy, paralysis beckons. |
For me this remains simple
The Trust should return to the members for a fresh vote - presenting probably the same three options as before with the terms of the sale as they will be the final ones and presumably will come with a recommendation based on the advice that has been given
As it stands its not about overturning the current vote but just ensuring that the final one given is the real mandate of the members at that point in time | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:44 - Dec 23 with 1925 views | Whiterockin |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:40 - Dec 23 by Phil_S |
For me this remains simple
The Trust should return to the members for a fresh vote - presenting probably the same three options as before with the terms of the sale as they will be the final ones and presumably will come with a recommendation based on the advice that has been given
As it stands its not about overturning the current vote but just ensuring that the final one given is the real mandate of the members at that point in time |
Agree 100%. |  | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:48 - Dec 23 with 1916 views | Shaky |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:40 - Dec 23 by Phil_S |
For me this remains simple
The Trust should return to the members for a fresh vote - presenting probably the same three options as before with the terms of the sale as they will be the final ones and presumably will come with a recommendation based on the advice that has been given
As it stands its not about overturning the current vote but just ensuring that the final one given is the real mandate of the members at that point in time |
I think this is debatable for the reasons I have already given.
But the problem is you have no hard leverage to put this on the agenda.
What if they just ignore you? You're stuffed is what. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:53 - Dec 23 with 1906 views | Phil_S |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:48 - Dec 23 by Shaky |
I think this is debatable for the reasons I have already given.
But the problem is you have no hard leverage to put this on the agenda.
What if they just ignore you? You're stuffed is what. |
Absolutely which is why there was guidance put on the article as to what members have to do.
Whilst the board will be entitled to ignore their members, it would always seem unwise to do so. | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:59 - Dec 23 with 1889 views | Shaky |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:53 - Dec 23 by Phil_S |
Absolutely which is why there was guidance put on the article as to what members have to do.
Whilst the board will be entitled to ignore their members, it would always seem unwise to do so. |
Too many ifs and buts for my liking.
I come from a results oriented background, and the bottom line is I think you are missing a golden opportunity that would clear the air so everybody can move forward. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:04 - Dec 23 with 1882 views | Uxbridge |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:53 - Dec 23 by Phil_S |
Absolutely which is why there was guidance put on the article as to what members have to do.
Whilst the board will be entitled to ignore their members, it would always seem unwise to do so. |
And therein lies the rub. What is the view of the overall membership. And why. I don't think the ignoring the members comment is fair TBH.
I suspect next month's AGM will be very interesting. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:13 - Dec 23 with 1851 views | Phil_S |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:04 - Dec 23 by Uxbridge |
And therein lies the rub. What is the view of the overall membership. And why. I don't think the ignoring the members comment is fair TBH.
I suspect next month's AGM will be very interesting. |
Whichever way this is looked at - the Trust board are answerable to their members. No membership then its no vote.
Polls, articles and pressure is one thing but it can only be the members that influence this. Which is a simple view that if a member believes that a second vote is needed then they should write in and request it.
TBF I didn't say you were ignoring members, more that if the ground swell was strong enough you couldn't? | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:28 - Dec 23 with 1822 views | chad |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 11:34 - Dec 23 by Shaky |
i sold Ingress into some key accounts on my gap year, and that's actually true!
Anyway I agree with the rest of that. |
Ingres? | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:33 - Dec 23 with 1817 views | Uxbridge |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:13 - Dec 23 by Phil_S |
Whichever way this is looked at - the Trust board are answerable to their members. No membership then its no vote.
Polls, articles and pressure is one thing but it can only be the members that influence this. Which is a simple view that if a member believes that a second vote is needed then they should write in and request it.
TBF I didn't say you were ignoring members, more that if the ground swell was strong enough you couldn't? |
On that I totally agree. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:36 - Dec 23 with 1813 views | Shaky |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:28 - Dec 23 by chad |
Ingres? |
RDBMS.
Thought Uxbridge would get the reference via Oracle (another RDBMS) | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:14 - Dec 23 with 1779 views | Uxbridge |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:36 - Dec 23 by Shaky |
RDBMS.
Thought Uxbridge would get the reference via Oracle (another RDBMS) |
I'd have said SAP but that really would have gone over people's heads 
Bane of my late 90s was Oracle. Mainly because no bugger else had a clue how to pull a consolidated P&L from it. Ah, happy days... | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:27 - Dec 23 with 1762 views | chad |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:36 - Dec 23 by Shaky |
RDBMS.
Thought Uxbridge would get the reference via Oracle (another RDBMS) |
Ah thanks Shakes, Sorry know its an RDBMS (as any good one time DBA should)
Just meant it was only spelt with one s not 2
Agree with Ux (for once) about happy days | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:40 - Dec 23 with 1745 views | Shaky |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:14 - Dec 23 by Uxbridge |
I'd have said SAP but that really would have gone over people's heads
Bane of my late 90s was Oracle. Mainly because no bugger else had a clue how to pull a consolidated P&L from it. Ah, happy days... |
Shit product, top salesmen. Valuable lesson in life there. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:55 - Dec 23 with 1722 views | Cooperman |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:40 - Dec 23 by Shaky |
Shit product, top salesmen. Valuable lesson in life there. |
Expensive and shit. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
