| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN 19:51 - Jul 14 with 2160 views | TheResurrection |
His 250 words
------------------------
Since being co-opted to the Trust’s board in December 2017 I believe I have contributed significantly to the board and, in particular, to the ongoing legal matter with the Club’s owners and its previous owners. As part of my role as a corporate solicitor I have worked on a large number of deals with US parties and in particular private equity / venture capitalist houses. I therefore believe I am well placed to continue to provide assistance to this matter and I am fully committed to helping the Trust obtain a successful resolution. I also believe my experience will also assist the Trust in its ongoing relationship with the owners given their background.
In addition to this, I am very keen to continue assisting the Trust in its efforts to engage more effectively with its members as I believe this is an aspect that can be greatly improved. Following on from the disappointment of relegation I see this as a vital time for both the Trust and the Club and Trust members should be central to how the Club moves forward. It is therefore imperative that the opinions of Trust members are not just canvassed but also effectively communicated to the Club’s owners. The Trust must be at the forefront of this process and I will do all that I can to ensure this is done effectively.
|  |
| |  |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 20:45 - Jul 16 with 1943 views | ajmcglashan |
Given we only had 250 words I can understand that people may have some questions in respect of my nomination. I am happy to answer questions if people have any to clear up anything. In respect of the legal matter, I would like to add that I have already spent a significant amount of the past few months trying to get a just resolution for Trust members (together with several other board members I add). I am of the opinion that there is a process to follow but I remain open to all options if we cannot resolve matters outside of a court. Of course the members would need to decide on any such matters but I am determined that the wrongs that have occurred are set right. Apologies I maybe should have been clear on this in my statement. As to being slimey or not I will leave that for others to comment on... |  | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 22:21 - Jul 16 with 1846 views | AguycalledJack |
If mediation fails, what would be your next move? | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 08:35 - Jul 17 with 1733 views | E20Jack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 20:45 - Jul 16 by ajmcglashan |
Given we only had 250 words I can understand that people may have some questions in respect of my nomination. I am happy to answer questions if people have any to clear up anything. In respect of the legal matter, I would like to add that I have already spent a significant amount of the past few months trying to get a just resolution for Trust members (together with several other board members I add). I am of the opinion that there is a process to follow but I remain open to all options if we cannot resolve matters outside of a court. Of course the members would need to decide on any such matters but I am determined that the wrongs that have occurred are set right. Apologies I maybe should have been clear on this in my statement. As to being slimey or not I will leave that for others to comment on... |
It concerns me greatly you use the broad term “resolution”. It gives very little away as to what that resolution is. It may mean you are striving hard and working towards taking an apocoplyptic deal, one mans resolution is another mans worst nightmare.
If memory serves you are for the deal and against legal action right? In which case your idea of a resolution is the complete opposite to what others would describe it as.
Can you confirm what this resolution you are seeking is? This can be answered incredibly vaguely so I do ask it is answered absolutely specifically. As it is an essential point. |  |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 08:48 - Jul 17 with 1718 views | Nookiejack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 08:35 - Jul 17 by E20Jack |
It concerns me greatly you use the broad term “resolution”. It gives very little away as to what that resolution is. It may mean you are striving hard and working towards taking an apocoplyptic deal, one mans resolution is another mans worst nightmare.
If memory serves you are for the deal and against legal action right? In which case your idea of a resolution is the complete opposite to what others would describe it as.
Can you confirm what this resolution you are seeking is? This can be answered incredibly vaguely so I do ask it is answered absolutely specifically. As it is an essential point. |
Could I add to this how are you defining ‘just’?
Is this to recoup the minimum £21m of value at the time of the sale - which has now been lost? | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:24 - Jul 17 with 1660 views | Shaky |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 08:35 - Jul 17 by E20Jack |
It concerns me greatly you use the broad term “resolution”. It gives very little away as to what that resolution is. It may mean you are striving hard and working towards taking an apocoplyptic deal, one mans resolution is another mans worst nightmare.
If memory serves you are for the deal and against legal action right? In which case your idea of a resolution is the complete opposite to what others would describe it as.
Can you confirm what this resolution you are seeking is? This can be answered incredibly vaguely so I do ask it is answered absolutely specifically. As it is an essential point. |
Of course he can't confirm what the resolution is, dumbass, that would be a any deal negotiated at mediation which would then subsequently be put to members. |  |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:39 - Jul 17 with 1641 views | Nookiejack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:24 - Jul 17 by Shaky |
Of course he can't confirm what the resolution is, dumbass, that would be a any deal negotiated at mediation which would then subsequently be put to members. |
I read the post that he is trying to determine what resolution is he looking for?
ie
Maintaining the Trust’s stake and reversing the current articles?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £21m?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £16m and keeping 5% stake to keep a seat on the Board?
What just resolution is he aiming for?
I don’t want to vote anyone in who just wants to maintain 21% stake at all costs, like Barbara Cook, as Trust will be diluted away anyway, as soon as you have a future rights issue. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:44 - Jul 17 with 1633 views | Shaky |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:39 - Jul 17 by Nookiejack |
I read the post that he is trying to determine what resolution is he looking for?
ie
Maintaining the Trust’s stake and reversing the current articles?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £21m?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £16m and keeping 5% stake to keep a seat on the Board?
What just resolution is he aiming for?
I don’t want to vote anyone in who just wants to maintain 21% stake at all costs, like Barbara Cook, as Trust will be diluted away anyway, as soon as you have a future rights issue. |
Yes, those are indeed among the subject matters for negotiation at the mediation.
The operative term being "at the mediation" | |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 10:20 - Jul 17 with 1592 views | E20Jack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:24 - Jul 17 by Shaky |
Of course he can't confirm what the resolution is, dumbass, that would be a any deal negotiated at mediation which would then subsequently be put to members. |
Oh be quiet you embarrassingly tedious moron.
Or failing that, at least learn to understand even to a basic level what is being said before you start jumping up and down for attention.
As another poster has succinctly told you, what I am asking is quite clear. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 10:26 - Jul 17 with 1577 views | E20Jack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:39 - Jul 17 by Nookiejack |
I read the post that he is trying to determine what resolution is he looking for?
ie
Maintaining the Trust’s stake and reversing the current articles?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £21m?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £16m and keeping 5% stake to keep a seat on the Board?
What just resolution is he aiming for?
I don’t want to vote anyone in who just wants to maintain 21% stake at all costs, like Barbara Cook, as Trust will be diluted away anyway, as soon as you have a future rights issue. |
Spot on.
Anyone who read that as me asking him what the outcome of the mediation is, is either someone that should not be allowed near the internet or a troll looking for attention on a subject he is still trying to claim some kind of credit for. In this case it is probably both.
Not that it needs clarifying of course, but my question is regarding Andrew and his view of what a desired resolution would be. If they revert back to the original terms would he see that as a successful resolution considering his initial stance. If so, pushing for that is not the resolution that many of us would see as a “resolution” at all.
All pretty simple for the sane of mind. | |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 11:01 - Jul 17 with 1542 views | Shaky |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 10:26 - Jul 17 by E20Jack |
Spot on.
Anyone who read that as me asking him what the outcome of the mediation is, is either someone that should not be allowed near the internet or a troll looking for attention on a subject he is still trying to claim some kind of credit for. In this case it is probably both.
Not that it needs clarifying of course, but my question is regarding Andrew and his view of what a desired resolution would be. If they revert back to the original terms would he see that as a successful resolution considering his initial stance. If so, pushing for that is not the resolution that many of us would see as a “resolution” at all.
All pretty simple for the sane of mind. |
Yah, Dim.
All you are asking for is for the only lawyer on the Trust board to outline his bottom line negotiating position heading into negotiations with Kaplan.
You don't need to have any particular experience of these things to see how incredibly stupid that is, only just a little bit of common sense. Alas you fall into neither of those categories.
Oooooh, but do want to make yourself sound like a experienced man of considerable sagacity on these sorts of matters, don't you, Dim?
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." | |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 11:16 - Jul 17 with 1520 views | E20Jack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 11:01 - Jul 17 by Shaky |
Yah, Dim.
All you are asking for is for the only lawyer on the Trust board to outline his bottom line negotiating position heading into negotiations with Kaplan.
You don't need to have any particular experience of these things to see how incredibly stupid that is, only just a little bit of common sense. Alas you fall into neither of those categories.
Oooooh, but do want to make yourself sound like a experienced man of considerable sagacity on these sorts of matters, don't you, Dim?
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." |
I love how defensive you get when anyone takes a hard line of questioning on these matters. Frightfully entertaining considering the reason is blindingly obvious.
I am not asking what his strategic negotiating position is you utter imbecile. I am asking what his view of a succesful resolution is. The old deal, a better deal or legal action. Not difficult, well not for normal people anyway. This answer has to be specific, the numbers do not.
Now stop getting your only gay in the village knickers in a twist that others dare talk about this subject as you pine for any kind of misguided recognition for stating the obvious, and if you wish to continue seeking attention without adding anything of any note, please create a separate thread titling it appropriately so we can all chose to not click into it instead of regularly infecting important ones.
Thanks in advance.
Oh I forgot a quote...
“There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 11:20]
| |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:15 - Jul 17 with 1442 views | ajmcglashan |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 22:21 - Jul 16 by AguycalledJack |
If mediation fails, what would be your next move? |
If mediation fails then in my mind there is only one viable option and that is to proceed with formal legal action through the courts (subject to approval of members). The Trust can't just down tools and let what has happened before slide. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:25 - Jul 17 with 1420 views | londonlisa2001 |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 09:39 - Jul 17 by Nookiejack |
I read the post that he is trying to determine what resolution is he looking for?
ie
Maintaining the Trust’s stake and reversing the current articles?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £21m?
Selling the Trust’s stake for £16m and keeping 5% stake to keep a seat on the Board?
What just resolution is he aiming for?
I don’t want to vote anyone in who just wants to maintain 21% stake at all costs, like Barbara Cook, as Trust will be diluted away anyway, as soon as you have a future rights issue. |
By ‘diluted’ you are referring to reduction of percentage holding not reduction of value of holding.
The two are different things. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:41 - Jul 17 with 1399 views | E20Jack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:15 - Jul 17 by ajmcglashan |
If mediation fails then in my mind there is only one viable option and that is to proceed with formal legal action through the courts (subject to approval of members). The Trust can't just down tools and let what has happened before slide. |
So what is your ideal resolution you are striving for?
Would you see the initial offer being reinstated as a successful resolution? | |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:41 - Jul 17 with 1399 views | ajmcglashan |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 08:35 - Jul 17 by E20Jack |
It concerns me greatly you use the broad term “resolution”. It gives very little away as to what that resolution is. It may mean you are striving hard and working towards taking an apocoplyptic deal, one mans resolution is another mans worst nightmare.
If memory serves you are for the deal and against legal action right? In which case your idea of a resolution is the complete opposite to what others would describe it as.
Can you confirm what this resolution you are seeking is? This can be answered incredibly vaguely so I do ask it is answered absolutely specifically. As it is an essential point. |
I appreciate your question and it is a fair one. I also know that there is a high likelihood that members of the current / previous owners probably trawl through these forums so that has to be factored in.
What I will say is that mediation allows for a number of potential outcomes given the flexibility of negotiations. Do I think the purchase of all of the shares @ £100m valuation is likely to be offered - highly doubtful to say the least. Could a part sale with the Trust having its some of its rights restored be an option - potentially depending on the rights. Can all of the shareholding be maintained and the comprehensive set of previous protections the Trust had be re-incorporated - more likely although the owners will not want anything that restricts there ability to (i) attract investors; and (ii) ultimately exit the Company on their own terms.
There will undoubtedly be a number of moving parts in any of the above negotiations so it is difficult for me to say which one is the only possible "just" outcome. I don't think we can look at this though thinking that we must either sell the shares or maintain the shares at any cost. Things have definitely moved on since the members' vote and I believe that authority to do the deal is no longer valid.
We have to be flexible and it will be down to the board to try and negotiate and see if a deal can be struck that they think is in the best interests of the Trust. Remember that there won't be just 2/3 defined options to choose from as each potential option will have different caveats that the other side will want which may not be acceptable. The decision will then be that of the members ultimately however as to whether it is the right one - and rightfully so. If a deal can't be struck or backed by members then court proceedings have to be considered by the Trust and its members - again rightfully so (although the remedies available from the court are much more limited than what can be achieved in Court).
So I know this will annoy you potentially but I can't say which option is best currently given I don't know what the specific terms and conditions of the options will be. What I am saying is that my experience of such corporate negotiations, including dealings with US investors, means I believe I can be of use to the Trust in such negotiations and have knowledge of what may trip the Trust up from a corporate perspective etc.
I can also say however that if mediation isn't fruitful then court proceedings have to be on the table and would need to be signed off by members and rightfully so. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:42 - Jul 17 with 1392 views | AguycalledJack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:15 - Jul 17 by ajmcglashan |
If mediation fails then in my mind there is only one viable option and that is to proceed with formal legal action through the courts (subject to approval of members). The Trust can't just down tools and let what has happened before slide. |
Thank you for your response. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 20:20 - Jul 17 with 1294 views | ajmcglashan |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:42 - Jul 17 by AguycalledJack |
Thank you for your response. |
For the record also I am of the opinion that ties with HJ at director level should have been cut already. Those who listen to Radio Wales would have heard me being interviewed on behalf of the Trust on two occasions stating the same. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 20:53 - Jul 17 with 1262 views | Wingstandwood |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 20:20 - Jul 17 by ajmcglashan |
For the record also I am of the opinion that ties with HJ at director level should have been cut already. Those who listen to Radio Wales would have heard me being interviewed on behalf of the Trust on two occasions stating the same. |
Out of curiosity (sorry if asked before by someone else) when is this mediation period likely to end?
I'm just (after first and second betrayal) rather cynical/suspicious that the untrustworthy Yanks/Jenkins and sell-ous will blatetly exploit proceedings to avoid paying any money? Is there a now or never, pay up or be damned deadline date? Filibuster-esque and conniving bunch of lowlifes the Yanks/Jenkins and sellouts truly are cos if there was any genuine intent to honour the deal to pay up it would have been concluded months before now! [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 21:19]
|  |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 21:08 - Jul 17 with 1240 views | Dippy |
It'd be nice to get information on the latest Swans accounts.. and see how much money we've been pumping into average pockets.
Just for my/and possibly others amusement | |
| |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 22:02 - Jul 17 with 1174 views | AguycalledJack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 20:53 - Jul 17 by Wingstandwood |
Out of curiosity (sorry if asked before by someone else) when is this mediation period likely to end?
I'm just (after first and second betrayal) rather cynical/suspicious that the untrustworthy Yanks/Jenkins and sell-ous will blatetly exploit proceedings to avoid paying any money? Is there a now or never, pay up or be damned deadline date? Filibuster-esque and conniving bunch of lowlifes the Yanks/Jenkins and sellouts truly are cos if there was any genuine intent to honour the deal to pay up it would have been concluded months before now! [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 21:19]
|
Mediation would usually take place over a 1-2 day period. Discussions being entered into face to face. In Tony Soprano terms - a sit down.
However, offers of settlement can be made in writing during the lead up to and sebsequent to the mediation meeting. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 01:08 - Jul 18 with 1111 views | Nookiejack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:25 - Jul 17 by londonlisa2001 |
By ‘diluted’ you are referring to reduction of percentage holding not reduction of value of holding.
The two are different things. |
Yes I understand your point and I was referring to dilution of holding and not value. It might be irrelevant if you have a rights issue and value is remains same - even though headline stake is reduced
i.e.
21% of £100m = £21m
5% of £420m = £21m
You do then become a passive investor instead of one with significant influence so have more ability to protect the stake.
Do you think the Trust’s strategy assumed - that when the Yanks came to making their future investment - they would conduct future rights issues to raise the funds for the investment and therefore realised their headline stake would be diluted away - even though value would buy e maintained?
I think Barbara at the moment just wants to keep the 21% headline stake - that is my reading of her statement. I am not sure whether she realises the headline stake will be reduced if the Yanks make future investment. I am not sure she is that concerned of the value of the stake.
That could lead to her accepting the new articles - as the 21% stake would be maintained - even though they make the Trust’s shares totally illiquid (your argument from previous posts) and worthless. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 01:24 - Jul 18 with 1107 views | Nookiejack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 14:41 - Jul 17 by ajmcglashan |
I appreciate your question and it is a fair one. I also know that there is a high likelihood that members of the current / previous owners probably trawl through these forums so that has to be factored in.
What I will say is that mediation allows for a number of potential outcomes given the flexibility of negotiations. Do I think the purchase of all of the shares @ £100m valuation is likely to be offered - highly doubtful to say the least. Could a part sale with the Trust having its some of its rights restored be an option - potentially depending on the rights. Can all of the shareholding be maintained and the comprehensive set of previous protections the Trust had be re-incorporated - more likely although the owners will not want anything that restricts there ability to (i) attract investors; and (ii) ultimately exit the Company on their own terms.
There will undoubtedly be a number of moving parts in any of the above negotiations so it is difficult for me to say which one is the only possible "just" outcome. I don't think we can look at this though thinking that we must either sell the shares or maintain the shares at any cost. Things have definitely moved on since the members' vote and I believe that authority to do the deal is no longer valid.
We have to be flexible and it will be down to the board to try and negotiate and see if a deal can be struck that they think is in the best interests of the Trust. Remember that there won't be just 2/3 defined options to choose from as each potential option will have different caveats that the other side will want which may not be acceptable. The decision will then be that of the members ultimately however as to whether it is the right one - and rightfully so. If a deal can't be struck or backed by members then court proceedings have to be considered by the Trust and its members - again rightfully so (although the remedies available from the court are much more limited than what can be achieved in Court).
So I know this will annoy you potentially but I can't say which option is best currently given I don't know what the specific terms and conditions of the options will be. What I am saying is that my experience of such corporate negotiations, including dealings with US investors, means I believe I can be of use to the Trust in such negotiations and have knowledge of what may trip the Trust up from a corporate perspective etc.
I can also say however that if mediation isn't fruitful then court proceedings have to be on the table and would need to be signed off by members and rightfully so. |
Your following statement concerns me:-
“Can all of the shareholding be maintained and the comprehensive set of previous protections the Trust had be re-incorporated - more likely although the owners will not want anything that restricts there ability to (i) attract investors; and (ii) ultimately exit the Company on their own terms. “
If the Trust’s Holding is maintained - that would be a fantastic result for the Yanks - they wouldn’t have to cough up anything. Especially if no rights of first refusal, so they could exit on their own terms.
The Trust though would have lost £21m (Less £5m residual stake which Yanks wouldn’t have to buy - similar to Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan’s residual stakes ) now being worth zero after relegation. But then again it is the 21% headline stake that has always been the most important thing, to the Trust Board - not the value of the stake.
Headline stake but couldn’t save the club, if got into a Leyton Orient situation. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 10:23 - Jul 18 with 1024 views | ajmcglashan |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 01:24 - Jul 18 by Nookiejack |
Your following statement concerns me:-
“Can all of the shareholding be maintained and the comprehensive set of previous protections the Trust had be re-incorporated - more likely although the owners will not want anything that restricts there ability to (i) attract investors; and (ii) ultimately exit the Company on their own terms. “
If the Trust’s Holding is maintained - that would be a fantastic result for the Yanks - they wouldn’t have to cough up anything. Especially if no rights of first refusal, so they could exit on their own terms.
The Trust though would have lost £21m (Less £5m residual stake which Yanks wouldn’t have to buy - similar to Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan’s residual stakes ) now being worth zero after relegation. But then again it is the 21% headline stake that has always been the most important thing, to the Trust Board - not the value of the stake.
Headline stake but couldn’t save the club, if got into a Leyton Orient situation. |
I am not sure where you have got "But then again it is the 21% headline stake that has always been the most important thing, to the Trust Board - not the value of the stake." from but all I can say is that from my 7 months on the Board this certainly hasn't been the case.
The only way retaining all of the 21% would work is that the terms are acceptable to the trust (this would cover all manner of things including dilution rights, drag and tag, board rep etc). I'm not sure if both sides would be able to come to an agreement on it that would work for everyone but that is the point of the mediation process. If we can't find a common ground on that then that won't be an option to put to members. The other options would still be explored at the same time lets not forget but no one on the Board will have an interest in just keeping the 21% for the sake of it. | | | |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 11:24 - Jul 18 with 983 views | Nookiejack |
| WHO TO VOTE INTO THE TRUST - Candidate 4 ANDREW MCGLASHAN on 10:23 - Jul 18 by ajmcglashan |
I am not sure where you have got "But then again it is the 21% headline stake that has always been the most important thing, to the Trust Board - not the value of the stake." from but all I can say is that from my 7 months on the Board this certainly hasn't been the case.
The only way retaining all of the 21% would work is that the terms are acceptable to the trust (this would cover all manner of things including dilution rights, drag and tag, board rep etc). I'm not sure if both sides would be able to come to an agreement on it that would work for everyone but that is the point of the mediation process. If we can't find a common ground on that then that won't be an option to put to members. The other options would still be explored at the same time lets not forget but no one on the Board will have an interest in just keeping the 21% for the sake of it. |
Thanks Andrew for taking the time to respond | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
