| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale 12:25 - Dec 22 with 14877 views | MattG |
|  | | |  |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 12:30 - Dec 22 with 7469 views | bonymine |
Excellent post again the momentum and public awareness is growing day by day. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:11 - Dec 22 with 7382 views | Whiterockin |
I would now like all the details to be made public and a fresh vote to take place. I voted for the sale, so it is not the case of a member being outvoted seeking a fresh vote. |  | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 13:45 - Dec 22 with 7325 views | Bobby_Fischer |
Yes yes! |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 14:46 - Dec 22 with 7229 views | Yossarian |
Excellent. I would also like the SCSA to campaign to persuade the Council not to go ahead with the sale of the Liberty Stadium leas3 to these Corporate monsters. It might help to persuade them that they should look to plunder and asset strip elsewhere |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 15:06 - Dec 22 with 7200 views | Kilkennyjack |
Great idea.
Always good to have a second vote.
Thats democracy.
Feck the will of the people. Things change. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 15:20 - Dec 22 with 7170 views | Oldjack |
Don't wag the head with tail remember ,it's a non starter according to some of the hierarchy within the Trust ,the untouchables some call them |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 15:56 - Dec 22 with 7082 views | Vetchfielder |
If I had been asked beforehand as to which way the Trust were going to go with this, I would have guessed that they would have opted for a second vote.
To me, it would have been easier and less risky for the Trust Board to state that some members feel the landscape had changed a little and we are going to put it back to the members for another vote. Then whatever result a second vote came up with, they could always claim justifiably that they had been completely democratic throughout the whole process.
In that second vote, the people who voted for the deal could still do so if they were still happy with it. The people who have changed their minds as a result of recent events could then join the others in voting against the deal.
By rejecting the call for 2nd vote, I think they are opening themselves up for a degree of criticism - a level of criticism greater than if they'd gone for a 2nd vote. Indeed, this thread is all about that - the SCSA stepping up and calling on the Trust to change their minds. It just feels to me that they've opted for an approach that is likely to give them more conflict and hassle. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:27 - Dec 22 with 7005 views | Whiterockin |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 15:56 - Dec 22 by Vetchfielder |
If I had been asked beforehand as to which way the Trust were going to go with this, I would have guessed that they would have opted for a second vote.
To me, it would have been easier and less risky for the Trust Board to state that some members feel the landscape had changed a little and we are going to put it back to the members for another vote. Then whatever result a second vote came up with, they could always claim justifiably that they had been completely democratic throughout the whole process.
In that second vote, the people who voted for the deal could still do so if they were still happy with it. The people who have changed their minds as a result of recent events could then join the others in voting against the deal.
By rejecting the call for 2nd vote, I think they are opening themselves up for a degree of criticism - a level of criticism greater than if they'd gone for a 2nd vote. Indeed, this thread is all about that - the SCSA stepping up and calling on the Trust to change their minds. It just feels to me that they've opted for an approach that is likely to give them more conflict and hassle. |
Spot on.
How can the trust claim to represent us if it doesn't do what the majority of members now want them to do. [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 16:28]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:37 - Dec 22 with 6971 views | monmouth |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:27 - Dec 22 by Whiterockin |
Spot on.
How can the trust claim to represent us if it doesn't do what the majority of members now want them to do. [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 16:28]
|
The majority didn't even vote did they?
I agree though. They will face some searching personal questions without a second vote - without the recommendation and arm twisting spin - that will turn their lives upside down when they are laughed at by the YeeHah's, and the drag rights are enforced for pennies after they've signed away the only barfgaining chip they have for less than a quarter of the actual value of the shares.
I think it would still go through, much as I would personally prefer it didn't. I guess it depends muchly on whatever Lisa, Andrew and Dai turn up. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:46 - Dec 22 with 6945 views | Whiterockin |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:37 - Dec 22 by monmouth |
The majority didn't even vote did they?
I agree though. They will face some searching personal questions without a second vote - without the recommendation and arm twisting spin - that will turn their lives upside down when they are laughed at by the YeeHah's, and the drag rights are enforced for pennies after they've signed away the only barfgaining chip they have for less than a quarter of the actual value of the shares.
I think it would still go through, much as I would personally prefer it didn't. I guess it depends muchly on whatever Lisa, Andrew and Dai turn up. |
Speaking to the trust members that I know, who voted for the sale originally, ALL now feel a second vote is required with the facts put forward. These are all trust members, who did vote and voted for the sale. | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:54 - Dec 22 with 6915 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:46 - Dec 22 by Whiterockin |
Speaking to the trust members that I know, who voted for the sale originally, ALL now feel a second vote is required with the facts put forward. These are all trust members, who did vote and voted for the sale. |
Yes. Details have varied so a new vote is justified. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:03 - Dec 22 with 6891 views | max936 |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 14:46 - Dec 22 by Yossarian |
Excellent. I would also like the SCSA to campaign to persuade the Council not to go ahead with the sale of the Liberty Stadium leas3 to these Corporate monsters. It might help to persuade them that they should look to plunder and asset strip elsewhere |
Unfortunately its to late for that one, that deal has been completed. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:06 - Dec 22 with 6876 views | AguycalledJack |
Surely if the dynamics of the proposed sale (as previously voted on) have changed then there has to be a second vote. |  | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:18 - Dec 22 with 6848 views | exiledclaseboy |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 16:37 - Dec 22 by monmouth |
The majority didn't even vote did they?
I agree though. They will face some searching personal questions without a second vote - without the recommendation and arm twisting spin - that will turn their lives upside down when they are laughed at by the YeeHah's, and the drag rights are enforced for pennies after they've signed away the only barfgaining chip they have for less than a quarter of the actual value of the shares.
I think it would still go through, much as I would personally prefer it didn't. I guess it depends muchly on whatever Lisa, Andrew and Dai turn up. |
To be honest, I'm in a favour of a second vote anyway because the mood of the fanbase seems to have shifted significantly in recent weeks. But the findings of the people you've named will be crucial in deciding whether that eventually happens. [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 17:28]
|  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:31 - Dec 22 with 6774 views | longlostjack |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:18 - Dec 22 by exiledclaseboy |
To be honest, I'm in a favour of a second vote anyway because the mood of the fanbase seems to have shifted significantly in recent weeks. But the findings of the people you've named will be crucial in deciding whether that eventually happens. [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 17:28]
|
It would be good if Lisa could get a copy of the current management accounts too. I'm no lawyer but surely a shareholder with a 21% stake has access to those? [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 17:32]
|  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:32 - Dec 22 with 6765 views | Vetchfielder |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:18 - Dec 22 by exiledclaseboy |
To be honest, I'm in a favour of a second vote anyway because the mood of the fanbase seems to have shifted significantly in recent weeks. But the findings of the people you've named will be crucial in deciding whether that eventually happens. [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 17:28]
|
Are you aware of the current number of members that have made a request for a second vote? | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:33 - Dec 22 with 6764 views | monmouth |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:18 - Dec 22 by exiledclaseboy |
To be honest, I'm in a favour of a second vote anyway because the mood of the fanbase seems to have shifted significantly in recent weeks. But the findings of the people you've named will be crucial in deciding whether that eventually happens. [Post edited 22 Dec 2017 17:28]
|
The virtual certainty of relegation rather than a possibility changes the ‘expected’ payment values anyway doesn’t it? I can’t remember the figures because I was so disgusted by the deal. But that in itself could be seen as a material change because it has been caused by the actions of the Yanks and their hapless employee training ground expert failed roofer, the very people the deal insists we can trust. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:35 - Dec 22 with 6754 views | exiledclaseboy |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:32 - Dec 22 by Vetchfielder |
Are you aware of the current number of members that have made a request for a second vote? |
I'm not, no. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:36 - Dec 22 with 6745 views | MattG |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:33 - Dec 22 by monmouth |
The virtual certainty of relegation rather than a possibility changes the ‘expected’ payment values anyway doesn’t it? I can’t remember the figures because I was so disgusted by the deal. But that in itself could be seen as a material change because it has been caused by the actions of the Yanks and their hapless employee training ground expert failed roofer, the very people the deal insists we can trust. |
The price for the initial 5% was fixed at the same level as the original sale - circa £5.2m for 5%.
The only thing that changes with relegation is the obligation on the Yanks / Jenkins to purchase an additional 0.5% per year which only applies when we are in the PL. | | | |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:39 - Dec 22 with 6736 views | monmouth |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:36 - Dec 22 by MattG |
The price for the initial 5% was fixed at the same level as the original sale - circa £5.2m for 5%.
The only thing that changes with relegation is the obligation on the Yanks / Jenkins to purchase an additional 0.5% per year which only applies when we are in the PL. |
Thanks Matt | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:52 - Dec 22 with 6684 views | Vetchfielder |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:36 - Dec 22 by MattG |
The price for the initial 5% was fixed at the same level as the original sale - circa £5.2m for 5%.
The only thing that changes with relegation is the obligation on the Yanks / Jenkins to purchase an additional 0.5% per year which only applies when we are in the PL. |
And also, if we are relegated, that the Americans are unlikely to want to take up the option of the further 3% ? | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 18:10 - Dec 22 with 6615 views | longlostjack |
Liar liar the pants are well and truly on fire. | |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 18:23 - Dec 22 with 6585 views | Wingstandwood |
God! Ain't there now arf a snowballing sh#tload of hard hitting evidence about that would be absolutely fab ammo to use in a courtroom situation to expose Jenkins. Thats if more dynamic legal action is ever deceided upon! What with that 'FAKE' boardmeeting etc.
My worry despite that now is? Despite being presented with a tap-in open goal the (new appointments not included) Trojan horse impostors within the current Trust board are hell bent in wanting to put a bunch of low-life scumbag filth way before the trust and supporters. |  |
| |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 19:14 - Dec 22 with 6494 views | MattG |
| SCSA Demand Second Vote on Trust Share Sale on 17:52 - Dec 22 by Vetchfielder |
And also, if we are relegated, that the Americans are unlikely to want to take up the option of the further 3% ? |
Agree that is unlikely but it's not wholly dependent on us retaining PL status. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
