| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 17:46 - Jun 3 with 2545 views | DafyddHuw |
Two questions -
(1) have the Trust looked into the legality of the yanks buying the club in the way that they have - i.e. without the board giving first refusal to the Trust
and
(2) " the Trust has been repeatedly assured that the purchase of the shares by the new owners will be paid for from the consortium’s own funds, and there is no intent to subsequently add new debt to the club’s balance sheet to fund the transaction."
As soon as the ink is dry on the buyout, is there anything to stop the yanks from taking out a loan of £100M and pay themselves back for the money they've laid out, whist using the club as collateral? |  | |  |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:04 - Jun 3 with 2487 views | monmouth |
There's no legal need for a new shareholders agreement is there? Don't the articles hold sway without which is why they are protected by a need for special resolution to change? |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:17 - Jun 3 with 2431 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:04 - Jun 3 by monmouth |
There's no legal need for a new shareholders agreement is there? Don't the articles hold sway without which is why they are protected by a need for special resolution to change? |
As ever more questions raised than answered by the statement.
Really want to avoid criticism, but keep coming back to why the Trust are not asserting any of their statutory rights and are instead standing to one side and allowing themselves to be treated with contempt?
Any shareholders agreement worth its salt has an express clause that Shareholders who are party to that agreement can only sell to others who are then bound by the existing agreement unless all parties agree to vary. If this is not in place then the current shareholders agreement is worthless.
Why haven't the Trust explored selling shares (doesn't matter if no express offer, it can be forced if necessary under minority protection rights). Why haven't they enforced a right of first refusal? Etc etc etc.
Bored of banging the same drum. But statements saying 'we have no clue what is going on' are not brilliant when every single major news outlet has obviously been given a leaked story by either existing or new shareholders. |  | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:28 - Jun 3 with 2396 views | airedale |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 17:46 - Jun 3 by DafyddHuw |
Two questions -
(1) have the Trust looked into the legality of the yanks buying the club in the way that they have - i.e. without the board giving first refusal to the Trust
and
(2) " the Trust has been repeatedly assured that the purchase of the shares by the new owners will be paid for from the consortium’s own funds, and there is no intent to subsequently add new debt to the club’s balance sheet to fund the transaction."
As soon as the ink is dry on the buyout, is there anything to stop the yanks from taking out a loan of £100M and pay themselves back for the money they've laid out, whist using the club as collateral? |
What assets do the club own, is it the players plus the Landore site? |  | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:39 - Jun 3 with 2361 views | tomdickharry |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:28 - Jun 3 by airedale |
What assets do the club own, is it the players plus the Landore site? |
All set out in that latest audited accounts which are in the public domain. One fact is certain no responsible lender would lend £100M unless there was easily realisable security in place supporting the loan coupled with an appropriate up to date forced sale valuation of that security. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 22:07 - Jun 3 with 2127 views | SwansNZ |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:28 - Jun 3 by airedale |
What assets do the club own, is it the players plus the Landore site? |
I would guess a guaranteed £100M from PL TV money for the next year would be listed as an asset. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 22:24 - Jun 3 with 2088 views | max936 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:17 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
As ever more questions raised than answered by the statement.
Really want to avoid criticism, but keep coming back to why the Trust are not asserting any of their statutory rights and are instead standing to one side and allowing themselves to be treated with contempt?
Any shareholders agreement worth its salt has an express clause that Shareholders who are party to that agreement can only sell to others who are then bound by the existing agreement unless all parties agree to vary. If this is not in place then the current shareholders agreement is worthless.
Why haven't the Trust explored selling shares (doesn't matter if no express offer, it can be forced if necessary under minority protection rights). Why haven't they enforced a right of first refusal? Etc etc etc.
Bored of banging the same drum. But statements saying 'we have no clue what is going on' are not brilliant when every single major news outlet has obviously been given a leaked story by either existing or new shareholders. |
Well the Trust is a major shareholder if haven't got a clue as to what's going on then we are doomed, surely its their business to find out what the fuk is going on, all this is starting to annoy the fuk out of me, Jenkins needs to come out and say what the story so far is, no legal detail or sensitive stuff obviously, but paint some kind of picture gin forward.
Ux said about some at the club behaving disgracefully in a thread earlier in the week, if that's true they should be named forthwith in my opinion. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 00:19 - Jun 4 with 1967 views | swanstillidai |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:17 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
As ever more questions raised than answered by the statement.
Really want to avoid criticism, but keep coming back to why the Trust are not asserting any of their statutory rights and are instead standing to one side and allowing themselves to be treated with contempt?
Any shareholders agreement worth its salt has an express clause that Shareholders who are party to that agreement can only sell to others who are then bound by the existing agreement unless all parties agree to vary. If this is not in place then the current shareholders agreement is worthless.
Why haven't the Trust explored selling shares (doesn't matter if no express offer, it can be forced if necessary under minority protection rights). Why haven't they enforced a right of first refusal? Etc etc etc.
Bored of banging the same drum. But statements saying 'we have no clue what is going on' are not brilliant when every single major news outlet has obviously been given a leaked story by either existing or new shareholders. |
"allowing themselves to be treated with contempt? "
Why change now?
They've been experts at this since they were formed.
Toothless 👠|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 00:44 - Jun 4 with 1937 views | gazza_1234 |
The trust dont say much tbf. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 09:50 - Jun 4 with 1756 views | jackonicko |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:17 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
As ever more questions raised than answered by the statement.
Really want to avoid criticism, but keep coming back to why the Trust are not asserting any of their statutory rights and are instead standing to one side and allowing themselves to be treated with contempt?
Any shareholders agreement worth its salt has an express clause that Shareholders who are party to that agreement can only sell to others who are then bound by the existing agreement unless all parties agree to vary. If this is not in place then the current shareholders agreement is worthless.
Why haven't the Trust explored selling shares (doesn't matter if no express offer, it can be forced if necessary under minority protection rights). Why haven't they enforced a right of first refusal? Etc etc etc.
Bored of banging the same drum. But statements saying 'we have no clue what is going on' are not brilliant when every single major news outlet has obviously been given a leaked story by either existing or new shareholders. |
Some fair questions Lisa. The current SHA will bind the new shareholders in the same way as the old ones until a new version is agreed.
On the rest, there is a question of what Is gained from exerting first refusal. All this would achieve is delay, but won't stop it, if you dont have the funds to follow through and actually purchase those shares. Bearing in mind the summer transfer window is open, how much more uncertainty do you want to have in the boardroom - rather than getting down to the business of getting ready for next season? What is in the best interests of the football club? It's a delicate balance.
As predicted a long time ago, this is a complicated transaction with a bunch of different motivations for each of the parties involved. The structure of the deal has changed continually since it was first announced as a "done deal" many months ago :)
Those negotiations are going on between multiple parties and multiple sets of lawyers. This is long winded and results in constant changes over what the final outcome will be. The constant press leaking doesn't help, especially when they continue to be highly inaccurate. According to Sky, the deal was completed last Wednesday!
The statement does not say anywhere that it doesn't know what is going on. It just says it is not involved in the detailed negotiations over who gets what, who sells what, how much, who is keeping what, and all the rest of it, as the Trust is not selling its shares. It is impossible to get into a detailed negotiation over a future SHA when it constantly changes who may or may not be a party to that agreement! And what the balance of future share holdings might look like.
its not that the media is better informed. Indeed far from it, if the accuracy of the media reports to date are anything to go by. Otherwise you would have seen a photo of Jason holding a scarf above his head at the Liberty last week! |  | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 10:41 - Jun 4 with 1683 views | max936 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 09:50 - Jun 4 by jackonicko |
Some fair questions Lisa. The current SHA will bind the new shareholders in the same way as the old ones until a new version is agreed.
On the rest, there is a question of what Is gained from exerting first refusal. All this would achieve is delay, but won't stop it, if you dont have the funds to follow through and actually purchase those shares. Bearing in mind the summer transfer window is open, how much more uncertainty do you want to have in the boardroom - rather than getting down to the business of getting ready for next season? What is in the best interests of the football club? It's a delicate balance.
As predicted a long time ago, this is a complicated transaction with a bunch of different motivations for each of the parties involved. The structure of the deal has changed continually since it was first announced as a "done deal" many months ago :)
Those negotiations are going on between multiple parties and multiple sets of lawyers. This is long winded and results in constant changes over what the final outcome will be. The constant press leaking doesn't help, especially when they continue to be highly inaccurate. According to Sky, the deal was completed last Wednesday!
The statement does not say anywhere that it doesn't know what is going on. It just says it is not involved in the detailed negotiations over who gets what, who sells what, how much, who is keeping what, and all the rest of it, as the Trust is not selling its shares. It is impossible to get into a detailed negotiation over a future SHA when it constantly changes who may or may not be a party to that agreement! And what the balance of future share holdings might look like.
its not that the media is better informed. Indeed far from it, if the accuracy of the media reports to date are anything to go by. Otherwise you would have seen a photo of Jason holding a scarf above his head at the Liberty last week! |
I agree with what you are saying, but the Trust are looking like they have been frozen out of any negotiations and as a major shareholder that's extremely worrying, its clear that a lot of the negotiations were kept from up until Christmas at least, its doesn't look good from the Clubs ongoing future does it.
Some of the shithouses in the Board stipulated that the Trust be kept out, Club run by fans for the fans until the pounds shillings and pence start twinkling. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 10:52 - Jun 4 with 1655 views | monmouth |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 10:41 - Jun 4 by max936 |
I agree with what you are saying, but the Trust are looking like they have been frozen out of any negotiations and as a major shareholder that's extremely worrying, its clear that a lot of the negotiations were kept from up until Christmas at least, its doesn't look good from the Clubs ongoing future does it.
Some of the shithouses in the Board stipulated that the Trust be kept out, Club run by fans for the fans until the pounds shillings and pence start twinkling. |
Which to be fair backs up Jackos point about speed. We have old shark or new shark. There are no other animals in the game. Might as well get new shark in asap.
To me,the only question is what strategy is best to extract the most future protections for the club. Thats where (implied) threats of delay, awkwardness and a brexit type pr campaign may play a part.
I fear it makes no difference though and any protections are nil and any trust influence is history, whatever the cosmetic outcomes. [Post edited 4 Jun 2016 11:07]
| |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:09 - Jun 4 with 1601 views | max936 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 10:52 - Jun 4 by monmouth |
Which to be fair backs up Jackos point about speed. We have old shark or new shark. There are no other animals in the game. Might as well get new shark in asap.
To me,the only question is what strategy is best to extract the most future protections for the club. Thats where (implied) threats of delay, awkwardness and a brexit type pr campaign may play a part.
I fear it makes no difference though and any protections are nil and any trust influence is history, whatever the cosmetic outcomes. [Post edited 4 Jun 2016 11:07]
|
Your last sentence looks more and more true, they'll just do what they want and tell the Trust this is what's happening Trust could then challenge things through the courts and it all gets messy and expensive, that's a doomsday scenario though, but the way they seem to have been excluded suggests that Levein and his shysters are just paying the Trust lip service, with the full intention of doing what they want.
If this does go tits up, the would be former shareholders can all go and fuk themselves, legacy be fuked.
JVZ showing his true colours when the money is on offer after confessing his undying love for SCFC, its not just him though in fairness, but I remember a programme about the Swans on around the time of the Playoff Final and him having the camera's at his " Swans Museum" at his house. [Post edited 4 Jun 2016 15:42]
| |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:16 - Jun 4 with 1584 views | Loyal |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 10:52 - Jun 4 by monmouth |
Which to be fair backs up Jackos point about speed. We have old shark or new shark. There are no other animals in the game. Might as well get new shark in asap.
To me,the only question is what strategy is best to extract the most future protections for the club. Thats where (implied) threats of delay, awkwardness and a brexit type pr campaign may play a part.
I fear it makes no difference though and any protections are nil and any trust influence is history, whatever the cosmetic outcomes. [Post edited 4 Jun 2016 11:07]
|
If the trust had any influence they would have had some with this deal. Once the yanks get in its as you say. Bet East won't bother them either you can only get on the site if you are living in Manilla. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:30 - Jun 4 with 1548 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:17 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
As ever more questions raised than answered by the statement.
Really want to avoid criticism, but keep coming back to why the Trust are not asserting any of their statutory rights and are instead standing to one side and allowing themselves to be treated with contempt?
Any shareholders agreement worth its salt has an express clause that Shareholders who are party to that agreement can only sell to others who are then bound by the existing agreement unless all parties agree to vary. If this is not in place then the current shareholders agreement is worthless.
Why haven't the Trust explored selling shares (doesn't matter if no express offer, it can be forced if necessary under minority protection rights). Why haven't they enforced a right of first refusal? Etc etc etc.
Bored of banging the same drum. But statements saying 'we have no clue what is going on' are not brilliant when every single major news outlet has obviously been given a leaked story by either existing or new shareholders. |
Don't stop banging on tho Lis.
You've been asking the Trust why they haven't enforced any of their rights since the takeover news borke, fair play.
I can't remember any Trust spokesperson coming on here to explain that to you. Baffling. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:36 - Jun 4 with 1533 views | max936 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:30 - Jun 4 by DafyddHuw |
Don't stop banging on tho Lis.
You've been asking the Trust why they haven't enforced any of their rights since the takeover news borke, fair play.
I can't remember any Trust spokesperson coming on here to explain that to you. Baffling. |
I very much doubt their views differ much from ours to be honest, their legal obligations are probably preventing them from saying to much as well.
What should be asked is as to why the club aren't saying much, we all know how much Jenkins likes to be seen on SSN's | |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:44 - Jun 4 with 1506 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:36 - Jun 4 by max936 |
I very much doubt their views differ much from ours to be honest, their legal obligations are probably preventing them from saying to much as well.
What should be asked is as to why the club aren't saying much, we all know how much Jenkins likes to be seen on SSN's |
Well, if their legal obligations prevent them from saying anything, then telling us that would help a lot. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:52 - Jun 4 with 1474 views | max936 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 11:44 - Jun 4 by DafyddHuw |
Well, if their legal obligations prevent them from saying anything, then telling us that would help a lot. |
Can't argue with that, although I will say that the transparency has to come from the club, all we've got is snippets from the media and that's extremely poor from a club that's run by "fans" for the fans, | |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 12:41 - Jun 4 with 1410 views | eddie71 |
I have long been under the impression (perhaps unfairly) that the Trust see themselves as the PR arm of the board and I expect that to continue whoever owns the club. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 12:45 - Jun 4 with 1400 views | Lightning |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 18:17 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
As ever more questions raised than answered by the statement.
Really want to avoid criticism, but keep coming back to why the Trust are not asserting any of their statutory rights and are instead standing to one side and allowing themselves to be treated with contempt?
Any shareholders agreement worth its salt has an express clause that Shareholders who are party to that agreement can only sell to others who are then bound by the existing agreement unless all parties agree to vary. If this is not in place then the current shareholders agreement is worthless.
Why haven't the Trust explored selling shares (doesn't matter if no express offer, it can be forced if necessary under minority protection rights). Why haven't they enforced a right of first refusal? Etc etc etc.
Bored of banging the same drum. But statements saying 'we have no clue what is going on' are not brilliant when every single major news outlet has obviously been given a leaked story by either existing or new shareholders. |
Hello, first post here (I think).
Which statutory rights are you referring to?
It is actually not particularly common for a shareholders' agreement to provide that share transferees will be bound by the agreement, as it makes a shares a far less attractive investment option. However, I am not saying the agreement could not contain such a provision. Does anyone really have any idea of the terms of the agreement?
You are right to say that a shareholders' agreement, drafted to properly protect all parties, should contain a right of refusal or pre-emption on sale, but again it is really up to the parties what they choose to include.
Also in relation to what somebody else said, shareholders' agreements do not automatically bind share transferees. In order for Levein, Kaplan, etc., to be bound by the agreement, they would have to expressly agree to be bound. The transferors could make the transfer conditional on the transferees becoming party to the agreement. Otherwise, the transferees cannot be compelled to agree.
Sorry for the boring legalese but I hope it adds clarity. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 13:51 - Jun 4 with 1315 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 12:45 - Jun 4 by Lightning |
Hello, first post here (I think).
Which statutory rights are you referring to?
It is actually not particularly common for a shareholders' agreement to provide that share transferees will be bound by the agreement, as it makes a shares a far less attractive investment option. However, I am not saying the agreement could not contain such a provision. Does anyone really have any idea of the terms of the agreement?
You are right to say that a shareholders' agreement, drafted to properly protect all parties, should contain a right of refusal or pre-emption on sale, but again it is really up to the parties what they choose to include.
Also in relation to what somebody else said, shareholders' agreements do not automatically bind share transferees. In order for Levein, Kaplan, etc., to be bound by the agreement, they would have to expressly agree to be bound. The transferors could make the transfer conditional on the transferees becoming party to the agreement. Otherwise, the transferees cannot be compelled to agree.
Sorry for the boring legalese but I hope it adds clarity. |
Yes, it does. Thanks.
Is it not possible for the Trust to publish the shareholders agreement? | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 13:59 - Jun 4 with 1302 views | Lightning |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 13:51 - Jun 4 by DafyddHuw |
Yes, it does. Thanks.
Is it not possible for the Trust to publish the shareholders agreement? |
Glad to hear it.
Again, it depends on the terms of the agreement itself. Unfortunately for us fans, it is a standard clause in such agreements that the terms be kept confidential. The parties could agree to waive that confidentiality by mutual agreement. That would be extremely beneficial in helping us to understand the limits of what the Trust can and cannot do and what rights they do and do not have. It is unlikely that the current shareholders would agree to that as it is unclear what exactly they would stand to gain from it. | | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 14:06 - Jun 4 with 1281 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 13:51 - Jun 4 by DafyddHuw |
Yes, it does. Thanks.
Is it not possible for the Trust to publish the shareholders agreement? |
From many miles away so would need to check but I would imagine that there would be no ability to publish the document without the express permission of all the other shareholders.
As for Lisa's comment about the provisions, this was answered by jackonicko (who is working with/for us in these situations) in that right now we could push for that (and we may still do) but a summer of turmoil is not what this football club needs and whilst we have every right to be offered first refusal it is just a delaying tactic to what has been pretty much inevitable since we were first presented with terms several months after they were issued
Legal counsel advice last time around also reminded us that partial sale is a dangerous game as it makes any future claims that we may try and bring as a minority shareholder look weaker (I cannot remember the exact wording without being back at home) and we were excluded from the deal because last time around we did not want to sell
I will now let the people who like to pick (not including you or Lisa who are both constructive in your comments) take the bones out of this one and do their usual name calling from behind a PC whilst I go and enjoy the remainder of my holiday (not paid for from this website or trust dividends sadly) but hope that does help a little in answering the questions |  | | |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 14:37 - Jun 4 with 1229 views | max936 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 14:06 - Jun 4 by Phil_S |
From many miles away so would need to check but I would imagine that there would be no ability to publish the document without the express permission of all the other shareholders.
As for Lisa's comment about the provisions, this was answered by jackonicko (who is working with/for us in these situations) in that right now we could push for that (and we may still do) but a summer of turmoil is not what this football club needs and whilst we have every right to be offered first refusal it is just a delaying tactic to what has been pretty much inevitable since we were first presented with terms several months after they were issued
Legal counsel advice last time around also reminded us that partial sale is a dangerous game as it makes any future claims that we may try and bring as a minority shareholder look weaker (I cannot remember the exact wording without being back at home) and we were excluded from the deal because last time around we did not want to sell
I will now let the people who like to pick (not including you or Lisa who are both constructive in your comments) take the bones out of this one and do their usual name calling from behind a PC whilst I go and enjoy the remainder of my holiday (not paid for from this website or trust dividends sadly) but hope that does help a little in answering the questions |
I know you haven't got a crystal ball Phil, but how do you feel how things will go with the new owners, have you and the trust had any guarantees on the clubs future etc.? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 17:20 - Jun 4 with 1122 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Statement on media stories reporting US takeover nearing completion on 09:50 - Jun 4 by jackonicko |
Some fair questions Lisa. The current SHA will bind the new shareholders in the same way as the old ones until a new version is agreed.
On the rest, there is a question of what Is gained from exerting first refusal. All this would achieve is delay, but won't stop it, if you dont have the funds to follow through and actually purchase those shares. Bearing in mind the summer transfer window is open, how much more uncertainty do you want to have in the boardroom - rather than getting down to the business of getting ready for next season? What is in the best interests of the football club? It's a delicate balance.
As predicted a long time ago, this is a complicated transaction with a bunch of different motivations for each of the parties involved. The structure of the deal has changed continually since it was first announced as a "done deal" many months ago :)
Those negotiations are going on between multiple parties and multiple sets of lawyers. This is long winded and results in constant changes over what the final outcome will be. The constant press leaking doesn't help, especially when they continue to be highly inaccurate. According to Sky, the deal was completed last Wednesday!
The statement does not say anywhere that it doesn't know what is going on. It just says it is not involved in the detailed negotiations over who gets what, who sells what, how much, who is keeping what, and all the rest of it, as the Trust is not selling its shares. It is impossible to get into a detailed negotiation over a future SHA when it constantly changes who may or may not be a party to that agreement! And what the balance of future share holdings might look like.
its not that the media is better informed. Indeed far from it, if the accuracy of the media reports to date are anything to go by. Otherwise you would have seen a photo of Jason holding a scarf above his head at the Liberty last week! |
Thanks Jacko for this (and Phil S for the later response as well).
The reason for the exploration of first refusal in my mind was not to stop the deal (I have seen nothing to suggest that the deal should indeed be stopped - can't tell at the moment) but more as a way of finding out details (as the statements seemed to imply that details were not being shared). Perhaps it is just a function of the wording of the statements and the Trust knows the details it needs to in which case fair enough.
On the partial sale Phil alluded to, again - fair enough if counsel have suggested that it could lead to issues - again, my question was more if full sale had been explored (keeping the money for a rainy day). Again, I don't make any suggestion that this is the right thing to do at all - it was more a reaction to repetition of statements that the Trust has not received an offer so can't sell up whereas in practice this could possibly be forced if the Trust wished to do so through exercise of minority shareholders' rights or even quasi partnership provisions.
Completely agree that it is a delicate balance between protecting the Trust and protecting the football club. I asked some weeks ago about the Trust's overall aim and concluded that it is to preserve the club rather than its share in the club if push came to shove - only you guys know whether the question as to how this can be best achieved (getting as involved as possible now or cashing in in case it is needed in future). Depends on the influence you think the Trust will have in a new structure - the difficulty from the outside is that it looks as though influence will be minimal given the lack of involvement in the deal to date.
I don't blame the press for these stories by the way - it is an obvious leak to them - the only question being who is leaking.
Anyway - glad to hear that the current SA is binding on new shareholders, although without knowing provisions of that it is difficult to judge its value.
I want to view this deal in a positive light. It is hard to not show frustration when the Trust is not being kept as fully involved as possible - doesn't bode well, but fingers crossed and we all hope that the future will be bright for the club and the Trust. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
