| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale 08:14 - Dec 16 with 16954 views | Outsider |
Please can you collectively request in writing to the Trust chairman and existing board members that the proposed share sale be paused until you have had adequate time to review the proposal properly, with external specialist assistance as necessary, and decide on your considered opinions.
I would recommend that you also inform the chairman and other board members that if they do not agree to this request in writing, that you plan to resign immediately, which I believe would leave the board non-quorate again and therefore not able to legally proceed with the proposed share sale. Article 54 of the Trust Model Rules states “With effect from the society’s first annual general meeting, the society board is to have not less than 12 and not more than 15 members …”
With ex-chairman Phil Sumbler confirming in writing yesterday that he no longer believes the proposed share sale is in the best interests of the Swans Trust (which means the vote by Trust members in the summer was influenced by information that Phil Sumbler no longer supports), there are material grounds to insist that the Trust board does not proceed with the proposed share sale and re-examines its options, including legal action, and further consults with ordinary Trust members.
Without making your expectations to the chairman and other board members very clear and documenting them, there is risk that the existing Trust board will proceed to sign-off on the proposed share sale based on the mandate they received from the member vote in the summer. The opinions expressed by the Trust chairman and other board members at the Trust forum meeting last Thursday illustrates the reality of this risk.
Thank you for representing the ordinary members of the Trust and ensuring that the Trust board takes decisions that are in the best interests of the Trust. |  | | |  |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:14 - Dec 17 with 1947 views | whoflungdung |
Could someone explain why this grotesque scenario is not subject to significant press interest .
Seems enough material for a good film . | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:43 - Dec 17 with 1874 views | MattG |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:10 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
Not liking the original deal wouldn't be a reason in itself. That's a matter of record.
However if, as part of the structure of the deal, something else comes to light, or something that was included in the proposal to members isn't enforceable, is quite another. |
Andy - at the risk of going over old ground....
Assuming that the "material" terms of the deal can be taken back to what was presented during the consultation, what about a change to the underlying relationship between the Trust and the Yanks which formed a significant part of the basis for the vote that mandated acceptance of the deal?
You are already aware of my views that this relationship was presented (and rightly so at the time) as being positive and workable but has deteriorated significantly since the consultation. I firmly believe that the nature of that relationship may well have influenced a significant number of votes insofar as it will have persuaded some people that there was some sort of reasonable foundation behind those "material" terms of the deal.
I'm assuming, based on Alan's address on Thursday (which, admittedly, I have only seen in printed form) that this isn't seen as being a reason to re-consult with the membership. Is that correct? If so, can you confirm whether it has been discussed in those terms during recent Board meetings? |  | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:43 - Dec 17 with 1873 views | chad |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:11 - Dec 17 by MoscowJack |
Could someone explain what the insurance covers please? |
Not sure but it is for Directors and Officers
I imagine it might protect them against getting their ass sued and costing the organisation £M by their actions - possibly in misrepresenting a deal - not following their own rules
Or even pushing a deal through when it has been made clear to them verbally and in writing that their are serious evidenced issues that calls for an immediate stop on pushing this deal through
Hopefully the cover is over £20m |  | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:58 - Dec 17 with 1833 views | Shaky |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:43 - Dec 17 by MattG |
Andy - at the risk of going over old ground....
Assuming that the "material" terms of the deal can be taken back to what was presented during the consultation, what about a change to the underlying relationship between the Trust and the Yanks which formed a significant part of the basis for the vote that mandated acceptance of the deal?
You are already aware of my views that this relationship was presented (and rightly so at the time) as being positive and workable but has deteriorated significantly since the consultation. I firmly believe that the nature of that relationship may well have influenced a significant number of votes insofar as it will have persuaded some people that there was some sort of reasonable foundation behind those "material" terms of the deal.
I'm assuming, based on Alan's address on Thursday (which, admittedly, I have only seen in printed form) that this isn't seen as being a reason to re-consult with the membership. Is that correct? If so, can you confirm whether it has been discussed in those terms during recent Board meetings? |
Good post, Matt.
As you know I never bought into that happy families notion in the first place, but you are absolutely right it was vigorously presented as an important albeit incredibly soft benefit of the deal. |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:07 - Dec 17 with 1813 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:43 - Dec 17 by MattG |
Andy - at the risk of going over old ground....
Assuming that the "material" terms of the deal can be taken back to what was presented during the consultation, what about a change to the underlying relationship between the Trust and the Yanks which formed a significant part of the basis for the vote that mandated acceptance of the deal?
You are already aware of my views that this relationship was presented (and rightly so at the time) as being positive and workable but has deteriorated significantly since the consultation. I firmly believe that the nature of that relationship may well have influenced a significant number of votes insofar as it will have persuaded some people that there was some sort of reasonable foundation behind those "material" terms of the deal.
I'm assuming, based on Alan's address on Thursday (which, admittedly, I have only seen in printed form) that this isn't seen as being a reason to re-consult with the membership. Is that correct? If so, can you confirm whether it has been discussed in those terms during recent Board meetings? |
You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share.
Funnily enough, this isn't the real issue for me, and is probably where we deviate a little. My view isn't so much that the relationship has worsened (I can only take the view of the three who dealt at that level for that, and you'll know they were split on that question), but that the deal, and the relationship, is causing the Trust to act differently to how IMO it should be acting. It may amount to the same thing ultimately I agree.
Is it a reason, in itself, to re-consult? Probably not. FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.
PS Good luck with the new venture. You know my thoughts on the whole communications thing, so I'm sure you know that our goals are pretty aligned on that. |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:16 - Dec 17 with 1787 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:07 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share.
Funnily enough, this isn't the real issue for me, and is probably where we deviate a little. My view isn't so much that the relationship has worsened (I can only take the view of the three who dealt at that level for that, and you'll know they were split on that question), but that the deal, and the relationship, is causing the Trust to act differently to how IMO it should be acting. It may amount to the same thing ultimately I agree.
Is it a reason, in itself, to re-consult? Probably not. FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.
PS Good luck with the new venture. You know my thoughts on the whole communications thing, so I'm sure you know that our goals are pretty aligned on that. |
Since the next time the Trust board meet will be likely to be immediately prior to the AGM, Uxbridge, I would personally prefer that board meeting to be used to discuss the deal and what needs changing or indeed, whether the board could continue to support without a new vote, which would make ratification at the AGM nigh on impossible.
I understand that the need for the Trust board to review after the sub-committee has reviewed and reported has been accepted, which I welcome, in which case it would seem that the deal couldn't possibly be approved prior to the AGM. I think that is very positive. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:20 - Dec 17 with 1772 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:16 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
Since the next time the Trust board meet will be likely to be immediately prior to the AGM, Uxbridge, I would personally prefer that board meeting to be used to discuss the deal and what needs changing or indeed, whether the board could continue to support without a new vote, which would make ratification at the AGM nigh on impossible.
I understand that the need for the Trust board to review after the sub-committee has reviewed and reported has been accepted, which I welcome, in which case it would seem that the deal couldn't possibly be approved prior to the AGM. I think that is very positive. |
I disagree a little. I would hope and expect any discussions on areas of contention could be reviewed prior to that board meeting, so we are in the position to review the finalised document and give a Yay or Nay during the board meeting.
But, on the fundamental part of that happening on the January board and subsequent AGM meeting, I agree. I can't see how not. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:21 - Dec 17 with 1765 views | MattG |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:07 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share.
Funnily enough, this isn't the real issue for me, and is probably where we deviate a little. My view isn't so much that the relationship has worsened (I can only take the view of the three who dealt at that level for that, and you'll know they were split on that question), but that the deal, and the relationship, is causing the Trust to act differently to how IMO it should be acting. It may amount to the same thing ultimately I agree.
Is it a reason, in itself, to re-consult? Probably not. FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.
PS Good luck with the new venture. You know my thoughts on the whole communications thing, so I'm sure you know that our goals are pretty aligned on that. |
You know what they say - always try to ask questions that you already know the answers to! Still, it does seem that I was actually in an even smaller minority than I thought.
I must admit that I struggle with the idea that one side trying to change the terms of a deal at the 11th hour doesn't represent a worsening relationship but was already aware that there were other views on that. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:30 - Dec 17 with 1736 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:07 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share.
Funnily enough, this isn't the real issue for me, and is probably where we deviate a little. My view isn't so much that the relationship has worsened (I can only take the view of the three who dealt at that level for that, and you'll know they were split on that question), but that the deal, and the relationship, is causing the Trust to act differently to how IMO it should be acting. It may amount to the same thing ultimately I agree.
Is it a reason, in itself, to re-consult? Probably not. FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.
PS Good luck with the new venture. You know my thoughts on the whole communications thing, so I'm sure you know that our goals are pretty aligned on that. |
Ux - please can you clarity who are the 3 Trust board members you refer to who are the board sub-committee that are negotiating the share sale agreement with the majority shareholder? I did not see it in the minutes but could have missed it. Thanks.
Quote: “the three who dealt at that level” | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:37 - Dec 17 with 1716 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:07 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share.
Funnily enough, this isn't the real issue for me, and is probably where we deviate a little. My view isn't so much that the relationship has worsened (I can only take the view of the three who dealt at that level for that, and you'll know they were split on that question), but that the deal, and the relationship, is causing the Trust to act differently to how IMO it should be acting. It may amount to the same thing ultimately I agree.
Is it a reason, in itself, to re-consult? Probably not. FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.
PS Good luck with the new venture. You know my thoughts on the whole communications thing, so I'm sure you know that our goals are pretty aligned on that. |
Ux - I think you are very wise in taking the view I quote you on below. I would strongly encourage you to express this opinion in writing to the Trust chairman and secretary and legal affiliate, so there can be no doubts about your opinion. Do not underestimate the power you have as a fully-fledged Trust board member. Thank you.
Quote: “FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.“ | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:39 - Dec 17 with 1710 views | monmouth |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:21 - Dec 17 by MattG |
You know what they say - always try to ask questions that you already know the answers to! Still, it does seem that I was actually in an even smaller minority than I thought.
I must admit that I struggle with the idea that one side trying to change the terms of a deal at the 11th hour doesn't represent a worsening relationship but was already aware that there were other views on that. |
It wasn't the 11th hour was it? It was past midnight and specified beforehand as non negotiable. |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:40 - Dec 17 with 1701 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:21 - Dec 17 by MattG |
You know what they say - always try to ask questions that you already know the answers to! Still, it does seem that I was actually in an even smaller minority than I thought.
I must admit that I struggle with the idea that one side trying to change the terms of a deal at the 11th hour doesn't represent a worsening relationship but was already aware that there were other views on that. |
Guess it comes down to whether you think it was done deliberately or not. And, on that, we can't know. For me, it didn't matter anyway... I guess your issue was the cause, where my issue is the effect. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:45 - Dec 17 with 1678 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:37 - Dec 17 by Outsider |
Ux - I think you are very wise in taking the view I quote you on below. I would strongly encourage you to express this opinion in writing to the Trust chairman and secretary and legal affiliate, so there can be no doubts about your opinion. Do not underestimate the power you have as a fully-fledged Trust board member. Thank you.
Quote: “FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.“ |
Nobody on the Trust board is in any doubts on my views. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:46 - Dec 17 with 1672 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:30 - Dec 17 by Outsider |
Ux - please can you clarity who are the 3 Trust board members you refer to who are the board sub-committee that are negotiating the share sale agreement with the majority shareholder? I did not see it in the minutes but could have missed it. Thanks.
Quote: “the three who dealt at that level” |
SD, Chair and AD. In other words, Stu, Phil and Will. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:47 - Dec 17 with 1663 views | Uxbridge |
Oh and one final thing from me, I've seen no evidence to think that anyone on the Trust board is trying to fast track this deal. Theories that this'll be done in the next few days are way off the mark. That is all. | |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:50 - Dec 17 with 1637 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:45 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
Nobody on the Trust board is in any doubts on my views. |
Well done - I would keep working hard to make sure that your views continue to be clearly known and prevail over the opinions of some other Trust board members. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:52 - Dec 17 with 1610 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:46 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
SD, Chair and AD. In other words, Stu, Phil and Will. |
OK thanks, so who is the sub-committee now that 2 of the 3 have resigned because the deal terms materially changed? | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 20:01 - Dec 17 with 1587 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:47 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
Oh and one final thing from me, I've seen no evidence to think that anyone on the Trust board is trying to fast track this deal. Theories that this'll be done in the next few days are way off the mark. That is all. |
This would be a reassuring statement if the collective performance of the Trust board in terms of transparency and balanced recommendations to members were something to be proud of. The Trust forum on Thursday was hardly helpful in this regard. Do your best. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 22:53 - Dec 17 with 1472 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:07 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share.
Funnily enough, this isn't the real issue for me, and is probably where we deviate a little. My view isn't so much that the relationship has worsened (I can only take the view of the three who dealt at that level for that, and you'll know they were split on that question), but that the deal, and the relationship, is causing the Trust to act differently to how IMO it should be acting. It may amount to the same thing ultimately I agree.
Is it a reason, in itself, to re-consult? Probably not. FWIW, for everyone's sakes, I'd favour any finalised paperwork (if it gets to that point) being ratified at the forthcoming AGM, however that's not something I can force alone.
PS Good luck with the new venture. You know my thoughts on the whole communications thing, so I'm sure you know that our goals are pretty aligned on that. |
"""You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share."""
It's not up to the Board to decide that. This should be put to the Trust members ESPECIALLY in light of a handful of recent resignations.
The deal, as Matt put it so well, was very much piggy-backed on the blossoming relationship the Trust proclaimed they had with the Club. Phil was happy to support the deal pretty much on that basis. He was also one third of the sub group who "dealt at that level" so would have the first hand experience of what that working relationship also looked like. It's also important to note here that just after the Trust recommended the deal based on all of the above, they were then sending a letter of concern to all shareholders over the handling of the Siggy deal, and this because the chief American decision maker restricted lines of communication into him.
This isn't a good working relationship. This is the Trust, as it always has been, out in the cold and told only enough and no more.
So what do we know so far? The one person that dealt a lot with the Americans and would know them as well as any, apart from Mute Stu Macdonald, has resigned, and why? Because he feels the working relationship, as was promoted in the Summer as part of the deal to sell the Trust's shares, is not what it should be, both then, and with major concerns for the future.
The Board can think what they like. The facts of the matter, as outlined above, say differently, and this point means quite clearly, you do not have the mandate you think you have, no matter how many times you repeat it. |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:11 - Dec 17 with 1438 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 18:05 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
The way I understand the vote in the summer in the most favourable possible way, the members mandated the board to negotiate the agreement.
Implicit is the legally constituted board, not the chairman, and not him and a couple of cronies freelancing.
In my view there are adaquate contingecies in place to deal with them going off-piste, and that it is a far more urgent priority to properly prepare for the AGM which must happen by the end of January.
Because there is a lot of organisational work and coordination required to give this putsch the highest chance of succeding, and things have hardly got off to a good start certainly on the coordination front. [Post edited 17 Dec 2017 18:07]
|
Shaky - you are remarkably complacent given the repeated failures of Trust governance that have occurred.
There is a legally constituted board (still waiting to hear why you think this is not the case. With the mandate that exists, there are multiple ways the board or a sub-committee or a chairman can sign-off on the share sale. You may have seen earlier that the preference of Ux is for the board to give a yay/nay and not be too concerned about the details.
As said earlier in my view the first priority is to close the door on the risk of the share sale being signed-off before the AGM, and immediately after that work on AGM resolutions. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:13 - Dec 17 with 1433 views | Darran |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 22:53 - Dec 17 by TheResurrection |
"""You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share."""
It's not up to the Board to decide that. This should be put to the Trust members ESPECIALLY in light of a handful of recent resignations.
The deal, as Matt put it so well, was very much piggy-backed on the blossoming relationship the Trust proclaimed they had with the Club. Phil was happy to support the deal pretty much on that basis. He was also one third of the sub group who "dealt at that level" so would have the first hand experience of what that working relationship also looked like. It's also important to note here that just after the Trust recommended the deal based on all of the above, they were then sending a letter of concern to all shareholders over the handling of the Siggy deal, and this because the chief American decision maker restricted lines of communication into him.
This isn't a good working relationship. This is the Trust, as it always has been, out in the cold and told only enough and no more.
So what do we know so far? The one person that dealt a lot with the Americans and would know them as well as any, apart from Mute Stu Macdonald, has resigned, and why? Because he feels the working relationship, as was promoted in the Summer as part of the deal to sell the Trust's shares, is not what it should be, both then, and with major concerns for the future.
The Board can think what they like. The facts of the matter, as outlined above, say differently, and this point means quite clearly, you do not have the mandate you think you have, no matter how many times you repeat it. |
I have to say mind as much as I dislike this prick he does have a bit of a point here.
Has Stuart said anything whatsoever since he had his position? |  |
| |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:15 - Dec 17 with 1425 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 19:20 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
I disagree a little. I would hope and expect any discussions on areas of contention could be reviewed prior to that board meeting, so we are in the position to review the finalised document and give a Yay or Nay during the board meeting.
But, on the fundamental part of that happening on the January board and subsequent AGM meeting, I agree. I can't see how not. |
Well if the next board meeting is in say , 4 weeks or so and 2 and a half of those weeks are Christmas and New Year, you have a different experience to mine of how quickly any documents will get turned by legal teams in that timescale... | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:18 - Dec 17 with 1418 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 17:59 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't think I should speculate one way or the other on someone else's view.
I do know, however, that I have now arranged to meet with Dai in London in early January to discuss further and it's my understanding that people are generally very busy until then, so I'd be very surprised personally if anything happens before Dai and I meet.
Dai has been extremely receptive and responsive this week and I personally am very grateful to him for that. |
Lisa - it is reassuring that you feel the share sale will not be signed-off before you and Dai Little meet in early January, and that Dai Little has been receptive and responsive towards you this week.
I would urge you to be very vigilant over the coming weeks and please remember that Dai Little has been legal affiliate covering a period when there have been multiple Trust governance failures. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:24 - Dec 17 with 1405 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:18 - Dec 17 by Outsider |
Lisa - it is reassuring that you feel the share sale will not be signed-off before you and Dai Little meet in early January, and that Dai Little has been receptive and responsive towards you this week.
I would urge you to be very vigilant over the coming weeks and please remember that Dai Little has been legal affiliate covering a period when there have been multiple Trust governance failures. |
I'd be very surprised if Dai spends much of his time on governance. I may be wrong, but I think that's the remit of the Trust secretary. Certainly unlikely to be part of what Dai has looked at. | | | |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 23:32 - Dec 17 with 1383 views | Outsider |
| FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale on 22:53 - Dec 17 by TheResurrection |
"""You know the answer to this as well as I do old chap, and you certainly know as well as I do that the view that the underlying relationship between the Trust and Americans has worsened isn't one that the majority of the board share."""
It's not up to the Board to decide that. This should be put to the Trust members ESPECIALLY in light of a handful of recent resignations.
The deal, as Matt put it so well, was very much piggy-backed on the blossoming relationship the Trust proclaimed they had with the Club. Phil was happy to support the deal pretty much on that basis. He was also one third of the sub group who "dealt at that level" so would have the first hand experience of what that working relationship also looked like. It's also important to note here that just after the Trust recommended the deal based on all of the above, they were then sending a letter of concern to all shareholders over the handling of the Siggy deal, and this because the chief American decision maker restricted lines of communication into him.
This isn't a good working relationship. This is the Trust, as it always has been, out in the cold and told only enough and no more.
So what do we know so far? The one person that dealt a lot with the Americans and would know them as well as any, apart from Mute Stu Macdonald, has resigned, and why? Because he feels the working relationship, as was promoted in the Summer as part of the deal to sell the Trust's shares, is not what it should be, both then, and with major concerns for the future.
The Board can think what they like. The facts of the matter, as outlined above, say differently, and this point means quite clearly, you do not have the mandate you think you have, no matter how many times you repeat it. |
Ux said earlier that the negotiation on the share sale was being done by Stu, Phil and Will ... two have since resigned and only one of them is now left on the board ... Ux has been asked who is now negotiating the details of the share sale. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
