| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 139044 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 09:35 - Jun 30 with 2808 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:17 - Jun 30 by Starsky |
My heart says, legal action
Our club got raped and it feels like we're getting hush money to stop us going to court.
It feels wrong accepting this deal. If we do accept, who's to say that the Americans will continue to work with the trust as they have done, under the threat of legal action.
When the legal action threat taken away, we could be more vulnerable in the event of the whims of The Americans and Huw Jenkins.
For me, time has not lessened the treacherous act of the sell outs and if we accept this deal and have to suffer the continued involvement of Jenkins, Dineen & Jiffy with his Dutch Match day experience enterprises. Then it's really not our club anymore. Every match day will feel like a slap to our faces.
My head says go legal and that's what I will be voting for. |
"If we accept this deal and have to suffer the continued involvement of Jenkins, Dinesen and Jiffy..."
If we litigate and even win we still have to suffer the continued involvement of Jenkins, Dinesen and Jiffy. We're a very wealthy Trust which has absolutely no influence in the football club any more. We may have very limited influence and involvement in running the club now but some is better than none at all. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:36 - Jun 30 with 2804 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
"It is noticeable that at no point do the owners/management like the Trust saying "We weren't consulted" so that now happens less and less (and certainly not at all on major decisions) so I don't believe that consultation/involvement will be reduced as a result of this deal. Hit the litigate button and it may happen. Sorry make that it will happen "
That's just not true Phil. Unless you are saying that the insistence on Jenkins as chairman isn't a major decision. The person at the top of the football club?
And you have to anticipate that consultation and involvement will stop the minute the threat of litigation is removed from over their heads. If you don't assume that, then nothing has been learned from last year. |
You're right when you say it is possible that, after all this is put to bed, the Americans could turn around and be less approachable than they are now. Course it is. And ultimately, just as with Jenkins (although I think you're on slightly dodgy ground where you say that the majority of the fanbase want him gone - a lot do, but some don't), they don't have to listen. That's the case when you have a majority shareholder, as you do now.
Lessons have to be learned from past experience. I think the tag along clause is a good example of that - it ensures our inclusion going forward. Similarly, when the detailed paperwork is drawn up, the existing relationships need to be codified to ensure they continue going forward. It's no small thing having access to things like the management accounts, forecasts, regular and scheduled access to key personnel, being involved in key decisions etc. I'm a bit concerned how easily some people want to toss that away. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:39 - Jun 30 with 2791 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:15 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
"£11m in any stretch of the imagination is not FA unless you are a football club in the Premier League or a player playing at that level earning crazy money. "
It's £5m not £11m - the rest is only a possibility. I think it's quite important that we don't get into the habit straightaway of referring to this as £11m. The difference between the two things is, for me, a crucial one. |
The £11m was a direct reference to the point I was replying to - taking one sentence out of context of the full discussion that was being had is just not fair or right |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:40 - Jun 30 with 2780 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:29 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, and the likelihood is that it will precede a win. The QC has told you that.
On the second point - it's them having a higher price mun, not you. By definition, if it's a one way call option, they will only exercise it if they buy the shares from you at a lower price than they then sell them for. |
First point - likelihood. No certainties. We must always remember that.
Second point - I half agree, particularly if they're purchasing the shares themselves, however Phil's point has merit. Remember that there are numerous stakeholders behind Kaplan/Levien. As we know a sale of shares is important to a section of the members, this could also be seen as a way of them trying to address that, to at least get to a 50% sale position. Ideally there's be a put option, but there isn't. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jun 30 with 2770 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:29 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, and the likelihood is that it will precede a win. The QC has told you that.
On the second point - it's them having a higher price mun, not you. By definition, if it's a one way call option, they will only exercise it if they buy the shares from you at a lower price than they then sell them for. |
You have clearly seem difference QC advice to me then as he has - at no stage said - that the likelihood is that it will precede a win. If he had then the negotiations would have been very different. Again, you cant put words into peoples mouths with your own assumptions. There are no certainties, he says the case is strong but that doesnt mean it cannot be lost
On the second point mun (just thought I would add to the patronising reply) then again you have taken it out of context, if you read through the whole conversation and not just the one reply then you will see what the context of that statement was about although you have clarified your initial point far more clearly in the post I have just quoted then in the original one which has led to the discussion taking a tangent that meant we were talking about two completely different scenarios
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jun 30 with 2767 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:53 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Thanks for your kind words. It's appreciated. It's been an experience!
On the Jenkins point, it's worth noting two things here IMO. Firstly, Jenkins currently holds a shareholding of around 5-7% (we don't know the exact numbers) and the Americans are backing him to continue, regardless of anything that will happen. Legal action regarding the Trust shareholding doesn't impact that at all.
Secondly, while we don't have the figures, the initial information we received was that his input would be a relatively minor % of the money coming in. As a result of this, he's not going to overtake the Trust’s shareholding %.
As has been said a few times now, this has been a negotiation. Terms have changed over that time. Interestingly, this has been something the Americans has been rather firm on. This isn't a situation where we can pick and choose the elements... It's all or nothing. If Jenkins raising his stake from 5-7 to 6-8 is a showstopper, then absolutely you can reject the deal. I suspect you won't be alone. I also suspect many will hold their noses and put up with it, for the benefits of the deal. |
Before a narrative starts Ux. I would like to make the point that it is quite possible to decide that this deal is not one that the Trust should pursue without that decision being in anyway related to the Jenkins bit of it, which is frankly, unimportant in the longer term.
The Trust board should, of course, state its position and preference, but it needs to be careful not to start intimating that anyone who would decide after reflection to say no to this deal, is in someway acting like a spurned teenager.
For me, that aspect of what's on the table is a complete irrelevance other than (possibly) an indicator of how much the Americans really care what the fans and Trust think. And even then, i don't mind. I assume they don't give a crap to be honest, and unless you start believing that as well, the lessons that should have been learnt last year haven't been.
When I see comments saying 'the Americans have really changed how they engage with the Trust and really care about what the Trust think" it makes me want to scream to be honest. The Trust was completely screwed over by people from Swansea who'd been part of the Trust themselves, had worked with the Trust for years and were personal friends of Trust members. Please make the assumption that a few American businessmen who have zero affinity for anything other than making money will do the same as soon as they feel safe. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:46 - Jun 30 with 2743 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Before a narrative starts Ux. I would like to make the point that it is quite possible to decide that this deal is not one that the Trust should pursue without that decision being in anyway related to the Jenkins bit of it, which is frankly, unimportant in the longer term.
The Trust board should, of course, state its position and preference, but it needs to be careful not to start intimating that anyone who would decide after reflection to say no to this deal, is in someway acting like a spurned teenager.
For me, that aspect of what's on the table is a complete irrelevance other than (possibly) an indicator of how much the Americans really care what the fans and Trust think. And even then, i don't mind. I assume they don't give a crap to be honest, and unless you start believing that as well, the lessons that should have been learnt last year haven't been.
When I see comments saying 'the Americans have really changed how they engage with the Trust and really care about what the Trust think" it makes me want to scream to be honest. The Trust was completely screwed over by people from Swansea who'd been part of the Trust themselves, had worked with the Trust for years and were personal friends of Trust members. Please make the assumption that a few American businessmen who have zero affinity for anything other than making money will do the same as soon as they feel safe. |
The Trust board should, of course, state its position and preference, but it needs to be careful not to start intimating that anyone who would decide after reflection to say no to this deal, is in someway acting like a spurned teenager.
It is worth noting that there has been no intimation. We said clearly last night on many occasions it is the decision of the members and one that they can only make informed with the facts. The Trust board will recommend a course of action but at no point do the members have to abide by that recommendation
When I see comments saying 'the Americans have really changed how they engage with the Trust and really care about what the Trust think" it makes me want to scream to be honest. The Trust was completely screwed over by people from Swansea who'd been part of the Trust themselves, had worked with the Trust for years and were personal friends of Trust members. Please make the assumption that a few American businessmen who have zero affinity for anything other than making money will do the same as soon as they feel safe.
Where have you seen those comments and who have made them? HAd you been able to be in attendance last night then you would have heard us talk about mistakes of the past and complacency. It is probably easier not to mix the comments of people on a forum with comments attributed to members of the Trust board. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:53 - Jun 30 with 2714 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Before a narrative starts Ux. I would like to make the point that it is quite possible to decide that this deal is not one that the Trust should pursue without that decision being in anyway related to the Jenkins bit of it, which is frankly, unimportant in the longer term.
The Trust board should, of course, state its position and preference, but it needs to be careful not to start intimating that anyone who would decide after reflection to say no to this deal, is in someway acting like a spurned teenager.
For me, that aspect of what's on the table is a complete irrelevance other than (possibly) an indicator of how much the Americans really care what the fans and Trust think. And even then, i don't mind. I assume they don't give a crap to be honest, and unless you start believing that as well, the lessons that should have been learnt last year haven't been.
When I see comments saying 'the Americans have really changed how they engage with the Trust and really care about what the Trust think" it makes me want to scream to be honest. The Trust was completely screwed over by people from Swansea who'd been part of the Trust themselves, had worked with the Trust for years and were personal friends of Trust members. Please make the assumption that a few American businessmen who have zero affinity for anything other than making money will do the same as soon as they feel safe. |
I'm a bit puzzled by your second paragraph Lisa. With the exception of one poster with previous, I've really tried to stick to the detail here, and what are actually the options we have, not what we'd like to see happen.
I completely agree with you on the Jenkins element. It's a complete sideshow. I'd much rather it wasn't there, for this very reason.
I also completely agree with the rest. The deal should be judged on its merits. If you feel the offer is underpriced, and the positives don't swing it, then quite valid not to accept it. Quite plausible, that some might feel that retaining the shareholding in its entirety and hoping the value of it will increase over time (even factoring potential dilution) is the right course of action. That's fair enough too. It's up to each individual member to choose accordingly. However, as we're talking about misrepresentations, I'm going to continue pointing out where I think the debate is moving away from things that are actually potential outcomes, and I'm not going to apologise for that. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:53 - Jun 30 with 2706 views | NOTRAC |
Could I ask what the Trusts position would have been to the sale of their shares if they had had been involved in the original transactions.
From what has been said previously and surmising what is being said now, I would have been very surprised if the Trust would have wanted a full sale. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:58 - Jun 30 with 2677 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
You have clearly seem difference QC advice to me then as he has - at no stage said - that the likelihood is that it will precede a win. If he had then the negotiations would have been very different. Again, you cant put words into peoples mouths with your own assumptions. There are no certainties, he says the case is strong but that doesnt mean it cannot be lost
On the second point mun (just thought I would add to the patronising reply) then again you have taken it out of context, if you read through the whole conversation and not just the one reply then you will see what the context of that statement was about although you have clarified your initial point far more clearly in the post I have just quoted then in the original one which has led to the discussion taking a tangent that meant we were talking about two completely different scenarios
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I'm going on the email that I was sent. It says quite clearly that the QC has said there is a strong case for unfair prejudice?
That means that there is more chance than not of it being successful. That is a likelihood.
If you thought that a QC would tell you what would definitely happen and guarantee a win, you are being naive.
The Americans have quite obviously been told the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to make a deal,
And it wasn't patronising Phil. If the Trust tactic is going to be assuming any points or questions that don't say 'this is great' are being patronising, and are going to react defensively, then what is the point of having any consultation? The only forum for us having a discussion is on here, as the Trust organised a midweek meeting in Swansea with not much notice, so, as we said at the time, some of us who would have liked the opportunity to question, could not attend in person. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:59 - Jun 30 with 2669 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:53 - Jun 30 by NOTRAC |
Could I ask what the Trusts position would have been to the sale of their shares if they had had been involved in the original transactions.
From what has been said previously and surmising what is being said now, I would have been very surprised if the Trust would have wanted a full sale. |
I cannot give you a trust position as to do that would mean that I have to ask that very question to the membership to create that position
I can give you a personal view which would be I would have wanted us to be able to participate in the sale subject to membership approval at the terms that were laid in front of us. Somethng that pretty much we told the selling shareholders on 28th March 2016 - two days after we were first told there was a deal on the table.
My personal view would be a 50% sale/50% retain would be a good balance to strike but that would purely depend on the terms back then.
Right now as I see it we have a deal that could get us almost to that position (subject to conditions and opportunity) but a £6m rainy day fund is a position that had we been offered that 12 months ago I suspect the membership would have voted for. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:01 - Jun 30 with 2651 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:53 - Jun 30 by NOTRAC |
Could I ask what the Trusts position would have been to the sale of their shares if they had had been involved in the original transactions.
From what has been said previously and surmising what is being said now, I would have been very surprised if the Trust would have wanted a full sale. |
It really is impossible to say, and frankly so much has happened over the last 12 months the mindsets of the members, and indeed the Americans, will have changed so much.
I suspect a number of options would have been on the table for the Members to choose. I honestly couldn't say how the Trust board would have gone with a recommendation, as it would entirely depend on the options on the table. One thing I doubt is that the Trust board could have recommended no sale ... if we look back to last July, once it became clear that there was too much water between the two parties in terms of protections, the Trust wanted to look into the sale options. So, either full or partial. I could guess, but it'd be entirely theoretical. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:04 - Jun 30 with 2608 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:58 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm going on the email that I was sent. It says quite clearly that the QC has said there is a strong case for unfair prejudice?
That means that there is more chance than not of it being successful. That is a likelihood.
If you thought that a QC would tell you what would definitely happen and guarantee a win, you are being naive.
The Americans have quite obviously been told the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to make a deal,
And it wasn't patronising Phil. If the Trust tactic is going to be assuming any points or questions that don't say 'this is great' are being patronising, and are going to react defensively, then what is the point of having any consultation? The only forum for us having a discussion is on here, as the Trust organised a midweek meeting in Swansea with not much notice, so, as we said at the time, some of us who would have liked the opportunity to question, could not attend in person. |
Lisa the point that was patronising was your clear use of the word mun - read it back it is as patronising as it comes in my book - it was stated as part of a clear put down and added in for effect
And - as was stated last night - we do anticipate another forum as part of the consultation/voting process
Nobody said they were expecting guarantees but for me the fact that he is only saying legal action should be the last resort also suggests that the "strong" case may not be any stronger than 51% likelihood if you want to use that logic.
The rest of your last paragraph is just a continuation including a dig of a midweek forum in Swansea and hence why it was stated clearly at the start as "it is the start of the consultation process" and why nothing has been decided.
6 weeks of pretty much no time to myself resulted in last night, I'm sorry if you think that this makes me over defensive but - as everyone who was there last night will testify - I will answer every question but I do think that last nights were asked in the manner that deserves a reply
Hence why I have already ignored the posts in this thread of those that can only resort to name calling or those that feel that my current weight is relevant to the discussion...
As a member then everyone is entitled to their view and opinion and then ultimately form their vote based on that. The Trust board will stand by and work with what that vote tells us. But the three options that we outlined last night are unlikely to change. I suspect that from reading your posts then legal action is your preferred choice which is completely your view.
The Trust board have presented what I believe to be a balanced view with our recommendation. It will now be handed over to the members to make their decisions based on the information we will present them in detail
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:05 - Jun 30 with 2597 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Before a narrative starts Ux. I would like to make the point that it is quite possible to decide that this deal is not one that the Trust should pursue without that decision being in anyway related to the Jenkins bit of it, which is frankly, unimportant in the longer term.
The Trust board should, of course, state its position and preference, but it needs to be careful not to start intimating that anyone who would decide after reflection to say no to this deal, is in someway acting like a spurned teenager.
For me, that aspect of what's on the table is a complete irrelevance other than (possibly) an indicator of how much the Americans really care what the fans and Trust think. And even then, i don't mind. I assume they don't give a crap to be honest, and unless you start believing that as well, the lessons that should have been learnt last year haven't been.
When I see comments saying 'the Americans have really changed how they engage with the Trust and really care about what the Trust think" it makes me want to scream to be honest. The Trust was completely screwed over by people from Swansea who'd been part of the Trust themselves, had worked with the Trust for years and were personal friends of Trust members. Please make the assumption that a few American businessmen who have zero affinity for anything other than making money will do the same as soon as they feel safe. |
Spot on Lisa.
Especially para 2. And 1. And 3 and 4. In that order. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:09 - Jun 30 with 2567 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:05 - Jun 30 by DafyddHuw |
Spot on Lisa.
Especially para 2. And 1. And 3 and 4. In that order. |
As arrogant and patronising as ever.
They say they don't want to intimate their position, yet they are shooting anyone down who wants legal action and clearly are in favour of jumping into bed with the Americans (already happened actually) and taking the deal.
"Steve" and "Jason" running a mockery. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:12 - Jun 30 with 2549 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:46 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The Trust board should, of course, state its position and preference, but it needs to be careful not to start intimating that anyone who would decide after reflection to say no to this deal, is in someway acting like a spurned teenager.
It is worth noting that there has been no intimation. We said clearly last night on many occasions it is the decision of the members and one that they can only make informed with the facts. The Trust board will recommend a course of action but at no point do the members have to abide by that recommendation
When I see comments saying 'the Americans have really changed how they engage with the Trust and really care about what the Trust think" it makes me want to scream to be honest. The Trust was completely screwed over by people from Swansea who'd been part of the Trust themselves, had worked with the Trust for years and were personal friends of Trust members. Please make the assumption that a few American businessmen who have zero affinity for anything other than making money will do the same as soon as they feel safe.
Where have you seen those comments and who have made them? HAd you been able to be in attendance last night then you would have heard us talk about mistakes of the past and complacency. It is probably easier not to mix the comments of people on a forum with comments attributed to members of the Trust board. |
Edited - taken offline to avoid misunderstanding [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 10:17]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:16 - Jun 30 with 2514 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:12 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Edited - taken offline to avoid misunderstanding [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 10:17]
|
So for the second paragraph - that is their view, not mine. If it wasnt clear that is their view, not that of mine
I appreciate not everyone could be there - you have a PM on that very subject - and we may well hold another forum as part of the consultation process but it was key to get one in the diary before the end of June and midweek unfortunately was the only time it could be done. And we will never be able to get to a position where everyone can attend which isn't what you are saying but you also know how difficult it would be to get one done at all otherwise
And the last sentence is basically words you have put in my mouth because of my first statement which was either taken out of context or badly worded on my behalf
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:24 - Jun 30 with 2478 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:09 - Jun 30 by Meraki |
As arrogant and patronising as ever.
They say they don't want to intimate their position, yet they are shooting anyone down who wants legal action and clearly are in favour of jumping into bed with the Americans (already happened actually) and taking the deal.
"Steve" and "Jason" running a mockery. |
Well that's just wrong. The Trust board has clearly stated its position. It's recommended the deal.
Any posts I've been making have to been to either a) answer questions (of which there have been many) or b) giving my view on whether some of the things people want to see are even options on the table (which often isn't the case). | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:29 - Jun 30 with 2447 views | swanforthemoney |
Would anyone who advocates going for the legal option please be clear what remedy they would seek and from whom.
It seems to me that if a case is brought for 'unfair prejudice' (whether against buyers or sell outs) you get one of the following options
- lose the case. Consumes the Trusts existing funds. Leaves the Trust with a shareholding that could be diluted. Consigns the club to permanent internal stable.
- win the case. What happens, Court orders them tto buy the Trusts shares on the same terms? We already have that. It would cost money and time to get there.
- more likely the court sees the offer that's on the table and says, this is a good offer why are you wasting everyone's time. The judge would recommend this compromise settlement rather than continuing the case.
What real upside does anyone see in taking legal action. If you want to do it to 'get at Jenkins' it would be counterproductive. Even if you decided to take action against him, and won, he could probably put a lot of his assets out of reach of the courts.
There is no upside to taking legal action
The offer is reasonable and put the issue to bed and allows us to concentrate on matters on the pitch. I'm voting to take the offer. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 10:30]
|  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:41 - Jun 30 with 2406 views | Highjack |
For me the trusts numero uno job is to safeguard the long term future of the club and professional football in Swansea . So I think we have to take this cash, so if the worst happens and we do a Blackpool or Portsmouth those funds will be there to either wrest control of the club back or start up a new club. 21% makes no difference to having 10% in real terms of influence. Could get a new trust helicopter because the old one is starting to make strange noises too. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:01 - Jun 30 with 2351 views | NeathJack |
In regards to the voting process and given the will be 3 options on the table, how is it going to work?
Will simply the highest number win even if it is below 50% despite more people choosing against that option?
e.g. if there is a split as follows:
Take offer 40%
Legal action 35%
Do nothing 25%
Is that considered a mandate from the members to take the offer or will the least voted off the 3 options then be taken off the table and the other 2 revoted on, or will an alternative vote preference system be in play where people are asked to rank their preference 1, 2 & 3 and on elimination of the least popular, it's second preference votes are redistributed£
I hope that makes sense. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:08 - Jun 30 with 2322 views | pikeypaul |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:01 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
In regards to the voting process and given the will be 3 options on the table, how is it going to work?
Will simply the highest number win even if it is below 50% despite more people choosing against that option?
e.g. if there is a split as follows:
Take offer 40%
Legal action 35%
Do nothing 25%
Is that considered a mandate from the members to take the offer or will the least voted off the 3 options then be taken off the table and the other 2 revoted on, or will an alternative vote preference system be in play where people are asked to rank their preference 1, 2 & 3 and on elimination of the least popular, it's second preference votes are redistributed£
I hope that makes sense. |
It makes perfect sense.
Huw and the trust board will decide when the results are in. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:11 - Jun 30 with 2303 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:01 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
In regards to the voting process and given the will be 3 options on the table, how is it going to work?
Will simply the highest number win even if it is below 50% despite more people choosing against that option?
e.g. if there is a split as follows:
Take offer 40%
Legal action 35%
Do nothing 25%
Is that considered a mandate from the members to take the offer or will the least voted off the 3 options then be taken off the table and the other 2 revoted on, or will an alternative vote preference system be in play where people are asked to rank their preference 1, 2 & 3 and on elimination of the least popular, it's second preference votes are redistributed£
I hope that makes sense. |
A very good question. Will need to confirm. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:15 - Jun 30 with 2298 views | Highjack |
Apologies if this has already been answered but if the trust were to reinvest in any future stadium expansion would that therefore mean the trust would own part of the stadium and would gain part of the income? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:18 - Jun 30 with 2286 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:15 - Jun 30 by Highjack |
Apologies if this has already been answered but if the trust were to reinvest in any future stadium expansion would that therefore mean the trust would own part of the stadium and would gain part of the income? |
Without an actual proposal it's impossible to say. All that is asked at this time is a commitment to think about it in the future. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
