| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 138852 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:14 - Jul 2 with 1825 views | UplandsJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:00 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
Well, unless I've missed some shattering announcement, given that the Trust has never come out and called for his removal, despite him shitting all over them for all the world to see, plus loads of self justifying utter turd from him in the press, and some criticism of him in various trust communiques, I think it's self evident the Trust position is that they are happy for him to remain. I can't really see what other conclusion can be drawn from actions to date.
They might not like him, they might even detest him, but they don't actively want him out, or they would say so, publicly, clearly and unambiguously. |
That's a fantastic point Monny.
Considering the anger vented towards HJ & the sellouts as they've become known, how come the trust Chair and heirarch where not shouting from the rooftops, for the removal of them all?
I truely believe the answer lies in the wrong doings carried out by both the club & trust over the last couple of years. The fear of the skeletons coming out to the normal fans has probably reeled them in and continues to do so, hence the recommendation. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:23 - Jul 2 with 1786 views | dobjack2 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:14 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
That's a fantastic point Monny.
Considering the anger vented towards HJ & the sellouts as they've become known, how come the trust Chair and heirarch where not shouting from the rooftops, for the removal of them all?
I truely believe the answer lies in the wrong doings carried out by both the club & trust over the last couple of years. The fear of the skeletons coming out to the normal fans has probably reeled them in and continues to do so, hence the recommendation. |
Sorry but as far as conspiracy theories go don't go with it.
The very unpleasant fact of life is that the majority owners want him there and unless we make the atmosphere toxic every game that won't change. Clearly the offer reiterates how much they want him on board with a chance to make himself more money.
The only way we would have got rid of the b*stard is if we had f*cked up in January. He didn't, we got out the mess so his sh*t smells of roses.
Legal action won't get rid of him either. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:29 - Jul 2 with 1778 views | Borojack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:14 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
That's a fantastic point Monny.
Considering the anger vented towards HJ & the sellouts as they've become known, how come the trust Chair and heirarch where not shouting from the rooftops, for the removal of them all?
I truely believe the answer lies in the wrong doings carried out by both the club & trust over the last couple of years. The fear of the skeletons coming out to the normal fans has probably reeled them in and continues to do so, hence the recommendation. |
Do the Trust have the authority to shout from the rooftops for his removal.
There are 18000 fans at every home game only 10% are Trust members.
The vast majority don't seem to give a toss if he goes or not as long as the team is performing.
If it goes to legal action and the Board start getting awkward and the team starts going downhill the Trust as well as the owners may feel the backlash. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:34 - Jul 2 with 1759 views | Meraki |
Can this thread be made a sticky please? If Phil allows it? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:36 - Jul 2 with 1753 views | UplandsJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:29 - Jul 2 by Borojack |
Do the Trust have the authority to shout from the rooftops for his removal.
There are 18000 fans at every home game only 10% are Trust members.
The vast majority don't seem to give a toss if he goes or not as long as the team is performing.
If it goes to legal action and the Board start getting awkward and the team starts going downhill the Trust as well as the owners may feel the backlash. |
Well if that happens Boro they will only have themselves to blame for the Piss Poor PR that they have oversawon over the last couple of years... They've admitted as much themselves on that front, so no point arguing that.
And another thought. If they push through the vote theyve recommended and in 2 or 3 years time it all goes tits up and yanks bale forcing sale for peanuts as has been suggested by others, i dare say it might not just be the sellouts looking over their shoulders. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:38 - Jul 2 with 1733 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:34 - Jul 2 by Meraki |
Can this thread be made a sticky please? If Phil allows it? |
Why does it need to be made a sticky?
For what reason? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:38 - Jul 2 with 1734 views | SoberBaker |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:14 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
That's a fantastic point Monny.
Considering the anger vented towards HJ & the sellouts as they've become known, how come the trust Chair and heirarch where not shouting from the rooftops, for the removal of them all?
I truely believe the answer lies in the wrong doings carried out by both the club & trust over the last couple of years. The fear of the skeletons coming out to the normal fans has probably reeled them in and continues to do so, hence the recommendation. |
I reckon Jenkins has got something on the Trust.
Maybe this is why the legal route is unpalatable? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:40 - Jul 2 with 1715 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:29 - Jul 2 by Borojack |
Do the Trust have the authority to shout from the rooftops for his removal.
There are 18000 fans at every home game only 10% are Trust members.
The vast majority don't seem to give a toss if he goes or not as long as the team is performing.
If it goes to legal action and the Board start getting awkward and the team starts going downhill the Trust as well as the owners may feel the backlash. |
So the Trust gets the blame for taking legal action given - they have not not received the same offer for their shares as Huw Jenkins, Martin Morgan, Leigh Dineen, Brian Katzen, and JVZ?
I would have thought the 18,000 fans anger would be vented at them - rather than the Trust.
If performance on the field goes downhill - it is normally the manager who first receives the fans anger then the chairman.
If the 18,000 fans anger is turned on Huw Jenkins as chairman then they find out that the Trust has been short changed - won't he receive the backlash? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:40 - Jul 2 with 1715 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:38 - Jul 2 by Darran |
Why does it need to be made a sticky?
For what reason? |
Because its one of the most important decisions in recent club history?
You know like US tour information? and Alan Tates Testimonial ?
What you reckon? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:41 - Jul 2 with 1713 views | SoberBaker |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:40 - Jul 2 by Meraki |
Because its one of the most important decisions in recent club history?
You know like US tour information? and Alan Tates Testimonial ?
What you reckon? |
To be fair, I don't think this thread will be dropping off the front page any time soon  | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:42 - Jul 2 with 1705 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:40 - Jul 2 by Meraki |
Because its one of the most important decisions in recent club history?
You know like US tour information? and Alan Tates Testimonial ?
What you reckon? |
It's been at the top of the board for three days you thick twát. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 23:43 - Jul 2 with 1705 views | Uxbridge |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:42 - Jul 2 by londonlisa2001 |
Ux. You can't have people voting on a deal without knowing if it can be achieved.
But that aside, it's not a case of assuming it's going to go to pot, or hoping it will, or being optimistic or pessimistic. It's the duty of the Trust to PLAN as if it will all go to pot. We wouldn't need a Trust otherwise. |
I'm really not getting why you think this isn't enforceable. The Trusts legal advisor hasn't expressed any such concern. For the interests of knocking this on the head I'll speak with him in the morning just to confirm he has actually considered it (which I'd be amazed is not the case) , but saying that I don't know it's enforceable is a bit spurious |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:43 - Jul 2 with 1691 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:42 - Jul 2 by Darran |
It's been at the top of the board for three days you thick twát. |
Whats that got to do with it being a sticky you intelligent sage? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:46 - Jul 2 with 1677 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:43 - Jul 2 by Meraki |
Whats that got to do with it being a sticky you intelligent sage? |
Eh nothing but if you keep posting in it it'll stay there you prick. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:46 - Jul 2 with 1678 views | Borojack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:42 - Jul 2 by Darran |
It's been at the top of the board for three days you thick twát. |
Have you ever considered working for the United Nations.
Your diplomatic skills are wasted on here😀 | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:47 - Jul 2 with 1670 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:46 - Jul 2 by Darran |
Eh nothing but if you keep posting in it it'll stay there you prick. |
I havent got the time, im working Wednesday. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:49 - Jul 2 with 1664 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:46 - Jul 2 by Darran |
Eh nothing but if you keep posting in it it'll stay there you prick. |
And f*ck off you know what I mean. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:49 - Jul 2 with 1668 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:50 - Jul 2 by Nookiejack |
I don't quite understand that post.
So you think there is a high chance of relegation in next 5 years but think the Yanks will sell before we are relegated - so the £21m will be safe? |
I think everything is a risk. Legal action is a risk, of 21m or bust. Accepting the offer is a risk, from 6m to upwards of 40m.
This whole premise that the 21m is as good as in the bank, or it isn't a risk, really is disingenuous. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:49 - Jul 2 with 1656 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:46 - Jul 2 by Borojack |
Have you ever considered working for the United Nations.
Your diplomatic skills are wasted on here😀 |
It's called saying it as it is.  | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:49 - Jul 2 with 1653 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:49 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
I think everything is a risk. Legal action is a risk, of 21m or bust. Accepting the offer is a risk, from 6m to upwards of 40m.
This whole premise that the 21m is as good as in the bank, or it isn't a risk, really is disingenuous. |
You need to stop talking man. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:50 - Jul 2 with 1651 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:38 - Jul 2 by SoberBaker |
I reckon Jenkins has got something on the Trust.
Maybe this is why the legal route is unpalatable? |
I remember this being mentioned a few years ago and laughed away.. brushed under carpet.
I am sure it is all above board. The contracts given. The jobs to family members etc
Some decisions being made are becoming harder and harder to explain and justify but I am sure all above board and Trust would not get involved with nepotism or favours being given. Trust would not leave themselves open like that. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:53 - Jul 2 with 1637 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:00 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
Well, unless I've missed some shattering announcement, given that the Trust has never come out and called for his removal, despite him shitting all over them for all the world to see, plus loads of self justifying utter turd from him in the press, and some criticism of him in various trust communiques, I think it's self evident the Trust position is that they are happy for him to remain. I can't really see what other conclusion can be drawn from actions to date.
They might not like him, they might even detest him, but they don't actively want him out, or they would say so, publicly, clearly and unambiguously. |
True enough the Trust has never called a vote of no confidence. To say that means it has confidence in him doesn't automatically follow though.
Maybe it should have. The overarching concern since December has been to just get through this season, and then come to an agreement in the summer. Given the American backing for Jenkins, it never got to the point of being the most important thing to deal with. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:58 - Jul 2 with 1618 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:06 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
For someone who works in the top odds trading firm in Europe I can say quite categorically that bookmakers odds most certainly do represent reality. We have experts in the field of every decisions made. Some people tend to think if something doesn't happen and it is priced at 1/2 - then the bookies got it wrong, that premise couldn't be further from the truth. If we gave odds of 5/6 on "heads" to represent 50% chance (plus our overround) of that happening and it landed in tails ... we would still be correct.
To say that there is a high chance of us getting relegated and then in the same breath say they think we should take the deal almost dependant on the opposite shows what level of understanding these volunteers have of business, statistics and relevant decision making. It is frightening they are in a position to make recommendations.
I appreciate the Trusts work but they really do need to understand their place and limitations. |
mmmm, surely there is a large amount of the bookies odds are also stacked in what and how much people are betting on events, so their odds cover them making losses against the bet coming true.
Doesn't necessarily mean they believe we will get relegated or we will get relegated. It's just that enough people are prepared to bet on that happening, and if it came true they make big losses if they didn't alter the odds accordingly. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:58 - Jul 2 with 1613 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:53 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
True enough the Trust has never called a vote of no confidence. To say that means it has confidence in him doesn't automatically follow though.
Maybe it should have. The overarching concern since December has been to just get through this season, and then come to an agreement in the summer. Given the American backing for Jenkins, it never got to the point of being the most important thing to deal with. |
That's fair. I was going by the most recent statement I could remember 'not calling for his removal at this time'?.
I think it is pretty important to most trust members though. It would be quite nice to know unequivocally whether the Trust believes Huw Jenkins is fit and proper to be the chairman of this football club, or whether he should be removed. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:05 - Jul 3 with 1594 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:49 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
I think everything is a risk. Legal action is a risk, of 21m or bust. Accepting the offer is a risk, from 6m to upwards of 40m.
This whole premise that the 21m is as good as in the bank, or it isn't a risk, really is disingenuous. |
So what probabilities are you attaching to the outcomes with associated risks and returns?
Bearing in mind from the Bookies odds (which is an objective assessment) club has an 83% chance of being relegated in 5 years.
1. Accepting the offer the club is relegated and only receives £5m (plus £1m already in the bank)
2. Accepting the offer the club is relegated - the Trust receives 16% of net assets after parachute money is paid = say £10m?
3. Accepting the offer the club is relegated - the Trust receives 16% of net assets after parachute money is paid = say £15m?
4. Accepting the offer the club thrives in PL - TV money goes up and the Yanks sell - drags rights are taken up and Trust receives £40m?
Verses
Taking legal action
(a) What is the range of probability of success (75% to 90%? for example) £21m plus legal fees would be recouped
(b) What is the range of probability of Losing the case 10% to 25% for example)? Trust loses £1m in legal fees. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
