| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 138849 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 06:12 - Jun 30 with 2548 views | JacktheCork |
My first reaction to to this is the same as NOTRAC's. I'll have to read it all again and have a think about it really, but my first instinct is to settle.
As time goes on I care less about the snake Jenkins getting his. He will, but there's no point harming the club to do it, the majority shareholders will eventually tire of him and he'll be on his way.
When is the vote, please?
Some good work gone on by the Trusts reps, very redemptive for me - I was becoming g very skeptical, but will probably join again. I would like to know more about how "locked away" the rainy day fund is and how much say members will have in what it is used for in future. Thanks. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:18 - Jun 30 with 2545 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:53 - Jun 29 by londonlisa2001 |
There are many details that we don't have sight of, and many questions that I wôuld raise about aspects of the deal.
However, I think, having read the information we do have sight of, I would summarise it rather differently.
The Trust have been offered £5m (or whatever it, I don't think we've been told because we don't know the 'extra staying up' element) to:
- drop the threat of legal action
- shut up about Jenkins
The other relevant bit is the tag rights, which are already in place I believe for all other shareholders. So the Trust can get out if the Americans can which is the biggest positive of the deal. (Incidentally, on the drag fights, I assume there are protections about who the club is sold to).
The rest is all in favour of the Americans. They''ll only exercise their call option if it's a cheap way of getting the shares (by definition the Trust lose on this), and the extra 0.5% is pretty much the same as it only applies if we stay up.
There are two option - we go down, in which case the Trust have anything from £5m to £11m depending on timing - will that be enough? Who knows. Suspect not, but better than it has at present.
We stay up - we've sold out on the cheap. Although it doesn't much matter, as the Trust can't do anything with the money anyway.
Couple of asides - if in the successful for a bit then go down scenario happens, it could be that the Trust reinvest to maintain, say a 10% holding, the money all goes that way, and then we go down and the share is worth a lot less, the money has gone, and the Trust have 10% rather than the current 21%. Secondly, the is an impact on dividends of course that should be considered when looking at the figures. |
Of course, without money in the pot, we're much more open to dilution than we would be.
You're spot on of course... This offer is a hedge against legal action.
On the valuation side, this'll be covered in due course. As was said last night, we don't have the complete visibility of the pricing yet, or how those stage valuations work. That mitigates the future valuation part to some degree but yes, you would expect the club to be worth more in the future. Which is good news for those wanting the Trust to sell everything, as the rump 10% would be worth much more in a future sale if we are in the PL.
That's the crux for me. What is in the Trust’s best interests... Accept this deal or go down the legal route, ultimately attempting to force a full sale. There are bits I would rather were more in the Trust’s favour, but that's negotiations for you. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:23 - Jun 30 with 2531 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:12 - Jun 30 by JacktheCork |
My first reaction to to this is the same as NOTRAC's. I'll have to read it all again and have a think about it really, but my first instinct is to settle.
As time goes on I care less about the snake Jenkins getting his. He will, but there's no point harming the club to do it, the majority shareholders will eventually tire of him and he'll be on his way.
When is the vote, please?
Some good work gone on by the Trusts reps, very redemptive for me - I was becoming g very skeptical, but will probably join again. I would like to know more about how "locked away" the rainy day fund is and how much say members will have in what it is used for in future. Thanks. |
The answer is probably "very" based on previous legal advice, but with everything going on, we've not investigated how exactly we could use the funds. If accepted, that would be next thing to do.
Either way, we'd need a mandate from the members for anything major.
On the vote, probably try and tie in with the board elections mid July. Exact date TBC. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:27 - Jun 30 with 2526 views | Jinxy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:05 - Jun 30 by Dr_Winston |
The Trust have been in a difficult position since they got f*cked over in the first place. There's not much you can do about a betrayal that large, even if certain individuals should have been on the look out for one rather than allowing themselves to become a pet. That's where the mistakes were made.
I'll give them credit for getting from where we were to here. A death or glory legal battle could be fought yeah, but what would be the outcome? Chances are Jenkins would still be sitting pretty at the end of it no matter what, as Uxy says above.
I get the desire for vengeance. In an ideal world the arrogant big nosed c*nt and that useless tosser Dineen would be out on their arses tomorrow, but it's not an ideal world.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I said as much last night. We have to deal with the here and now, and try and take the emotion out of it. The only other desired outcome was to have achieved 25% of the shares, but sadly to no avail, despite the best efforts of the Trust. So, moving forward we have to and need to work WITH our new owners, who, let's face it, will look for a return on their investment. To me, that probably means a successful football club. My view is that despite what they may have been originally led to believe, they value the input and involvement of the Trust (e.g. Trust increased involvement last season in managerial matters with positive outcomes). If we fought a legal battle, which carries risk and expense that jeopardises our financial standing, in my view this would not be a good platform for a working relationship with them (win or lose). For me, we ensure we squeeze as much as possible within the deal, accept, learn from it (yes, all of us), provide a war chest for a rainy day that we all know is quite possible given the sometimes cruel nature of football (!), stay involved and respected (we would still have a vote on the board, also retain the additional member albeit only one vote), work together for success on the pitch for the club we love. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:11 - Jun 30 with 2475 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:11 - Jun 29 by max936 |
I asked Phil if the Trust could now work with Jenkins, but he hasn't answered which is disappointing, the whole thing makes my blood boil to be honest, time to log off. |
Was that on this thread? Phil didn't answer if that was the case as I went to bed after my last reply.
As a shareholder in the club whether that is 10 or 20% we have no choice but to work with the management structure that is put in place by the majority owners
There seems to be a generic viewpoint that if we stand ground, do nothing, allow our shares to be diluted with no sale or even take the legal action and lose what money we do have then things will change and he will leave.
News is he already owns more than 5% of the football club and is the Chairman. The majority owners have no desire to change that no matter what the Trust decide to do. The address references all of that Max.
The simplistic point is here we can get to a situation (thanks to the hard work and time of many that basically)
* Gives the Trust a strong fighting fund for any future share issue/doomsday scenarios
* Retains an input into the football club that gives us key rights to see key information to ensure the club is being managed/operated in a way that we would want and a voice (two) in the boardroom to express the views of the fans
* Protects the future value of the shareholding which is absolutely key given the ever increasing TV revenues of the club
We have seen quite clearly since the turn of the year what can be achieved with everyone working together and whilst I fully accept and represent the view that many of our members have stamping our feet and giving it all away over a matter of principle is madness and completely against QC advice.
And for the question elsewhere about why spend £30k advice and ignore it the answer is simple. We haven't. A strong case does not mean a guaranteed win and the advice was first and foremost to negotiate. As Uxbridge says when the legal person you consult says the litigation is the last resort then you have to read into that and act accordingly.
And finally as a Trust member you of course have the option to vote against the opinion of the board |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:12 - Jun 30 with 2475 views | AnotherJohn |
This is a very difficult decision. The litigation option is important as a bargaining lever, but going to court is unattractive because of likely collateral damage and risk of failure. Yet I find the cash settlement, which seems to involve an initial £6m and a lot of uncertainty, to be deeply underwhelming and something which effectively reduces long-term trust influence at a bargain price for the owners. The 'war chest' might help in League 2, but is a tiny % of the annual TV revenue of an EPL club. I would want to explore whether there really is no prospect of maintaining the current shareholding, while mitigating the risk of dilution. If there is going to be a dilution of influence whatever we do, then the big question may be: which option slows that the most? [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:15]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:14 - Jun 30 with 2467 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:01 - Jun 29 by max936 |
The Trust future side of things are on a better footing and the financial side is a comfort, but Jenkins and his gang have seemingly got away with the bigger Sting, it stinks. |
Sorry now replying to posts as I go - to a large extent on this you are right but that happened the moment completion of the deal happened on July 21st last year. We cannot turn the clock back and rewrite the history that happened to that - the complete focus has been trying to get to the best conclusion we can.
As I said last night at the members forum to the 100 people that were there - HJ could be in the middle of this deal and we could easily know nothing about it but it has been requested (and honoured by us) that we are open and transparent with his presence
And even last night after the forum I reiterated the reaction of the room (a cross section of the membership ) to that part | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:19 - Jun 30 with 2455 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:09 - Jun 29 by Swanzay |
Sorry but "£11" million is FA these days unless we go really tits up, no legal opportunity for redress. Plus selling to the very hunts who created this issue.
No wonder Brian Katzan is in town to take his share of this new opportunity. |
£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.
£11m alone at 1% interest would create a £110k income that the Trust could use to further the community, links from the club to the community or even community projects that will benefit our members and families of our members (for example maybe more football facilities) - we haven't looked into yet what we do with the money and whilst the capital should remain secure I see no reason why the interest/returns should not be considered for this kind of thing
We can stand still on a point of principle and try the legal route and (as members) you are entitled to vote that way and we will honour the results of that vote but we ask you to consider a key factor in that in that would a moral victory against the sellers/buyers far outweigh the fact that the football club (and it will be seen as that) been dragged through the mire very publically and the fans (Trust) will be seen in the eyes of the large majority as the bad guys especially as we turned down a potential £10m nest egg along the way.
If I had a perfect world we would have been involved on Day 1 but we weren't - ever since December I have been fully focused on getting the best possible result for us given the circumstances we have been dealt and I believe that we now have it despite a couple of uncomfortable (but certainly not insurmountable) terms | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:26 - Jun 30 with 2432 views | Shaky |
Questions:
What was the process for the Trust board to arrive at its recommendation?
Was a vote unanimous, if not what was the split?
What was the recommendation of Dai Little?
And of Noclue?
What contractual guarantees are on offer to underpin the Trust's role in the decision making process? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:26 - Jun 30 with 2431 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:53 - Jun 29 by londonlisa2001 |
There are many details that we don't have sight of, and many questions that I wôuld raise about aspects of the deal.
However, I think, having read the information we do have sight of, I would summarise it rather differently.
The Trust have been offered £5m (or whatever it, I don't think we've been told because we don't know the 'extra staying up' element) to:
- drop the threat of legal action
- shut up about Jenkins
The other relevant bit is the tag rights, which are already in place I believe for all other shareholders. So the Trust can get out if the Americans can which is the biggest positive of the deal. (Incidentally, on the drag fights, I assume there are protections about who the club is sold to).
The rest is all in favour of the Americans. They''ll only exercise their call option if it's a cheap way of getting the shares (by definition the Trust lose on this), and the extra 0.5% is pretty much the same as it only applies if we stay up.
There are two option - we go down, in which case the Trust have anything from £5m to £11m depending on timing - will that be enough? Who knows. Suspect not, but better than it has at present.
We stay up - we've sold out on the cheap. Although it doesn't much matter, as the Trust can't do anything with the money anyway.
Couple of asides - if in the successful for a bit then go down scenario happens, it could be that the Trust reinvest to maintain, say a 10% holding, the money all goes that way, and then we go down and the share is worth a lot less, the money has gone, and the Trust have 10% rather than the current 21%. Secondly, the is an impact on dividends of course that should be considered when looking at the figures. |
Taking two of the points raised by Lisa
The Trust have been offered £5m (or whatever it, I don't think we've been told because we don't know the 'extra staying up' element) to:
- drop the threat of legal action
- shut up about Jenkins
The figure was given last night and we don't have the exact figure but have requested a copy of the SPA but we are talking for that 5% a figure a little North of £5m. The reason I won't give exact is I won't have it until such point we get that SPA
The rest is all in favour of the Americans. They''ll only exercise their call option if it's a cheap way of getting the shares (by definition the Trust lose on this), and the extra 0.5% is pretty much the same as it only applies if we stay up.
I don't disagree but they are the terms on the table and for me it is better to take the chance that we get the sale then to leave it. You know as well as anyone that leaving a 21% shareholding with no protections at all is not really an option that we should pursue so whilst we talk three options the harsh reality is there is probably only 2 that have any merit at all? I do disagree in that we lose - the only time this would be the case is if there was someone else prepared to pay a higher price for those particular shares.
Couple of asides - if in the successful for a bit then go down scenario happens, it could be that the Trust reinvest to maintain, say a 10% holding, the money all goes that way, and then we go down and the share is worth a lot less, the money has gone, and the Trust have 10% rather than the current 21%. Secondly, the is an impact on dividends of course that should be considered when looking at the figures.
The dividend question was raised last night and answered. We didn't have a dividend last year and dividends this year are not anticipated. They were received at circa £210k per annum when we got them - even if you doubled that amount it would take 12 years worth of dividends at £420k to make up to the £5m+ we would bank from a sale now during which that shareholding could have been diluted far more than the 5% sale we realise now.
Your summary is actually no different to what was presented last night at the end of the Q&A I don't believe - the simple question is do we want to take what is on offer or do we want to proceed with costly, damaging and potentially unsuccessful legal action. Thankfully that's not my decision | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:31 - Jun 30 with 2411 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:38 - Jun 30 by pikeypaul |
Slimy Knut Jenkins can not stay,his father must be turning in his grave.
If in the very unlikely case we lose a court case what difference would it make
since if we accept what the slimy knuts have done and are still prepared to work
with them the trust may aswell be dead anyway.Its 100% sure the sellout knuts and the Americans
will do similar in the future if we let them get away with screwing us over this time,a leopard does not change its spots.
It has to be legal action and all my household will be voting for it and we WILL win and they know it.
Time for the Trust to grow a set of balls. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 0:40]
|
Take the last point first, not sure how many times it has to be repeated but it is not the Trust balls that are relevant - the decision will be that of our members, if the vote says "litigate" then we litigate. We have made that perfectly clear.
To your second paragraph which reads If in the very unlikely case we lose a court case what difference would it make then the answer for me is clear. We would have a 21% shareholding in the football club that would have a value that would be extremely difficult to materialise at any point (remember the majority voting rights are already against us) and certainly we would have no welcome or influence in the football club. As it stands now despite the loss of the voting rights we do have an opinion and it is listened to on key major decisions (I keep referring back to Paul Clement) - as a 21% shareholder we would always have the voice but take a court case and lose and that voice will never be listened to.
I do find it incredible that we would bypass the chance of a sizeable payday and a fighting fund in the future that would almost protect us against the last part of your second paragraph. If you believe that they will screw the club over then at some point millions of pounds earmarked to try and correct some of that has to be better than the point of principle.
And unless something has happened that I don't know about Gordon Jenkins is very much alive | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:33 - Jun 30 with 2400 views | 3swan |
The detail will be in the wording of any contractual agreement, but on the face of it imo I think it is the best solution for the Trust.
I don’t think any outcome would get rid of H.J.
There is talk that by dropping our ownership down to 10.5% we will also lose out on half of the dividend payments. (Look over the last weeks and months and there will be many post saying that money will go out of the club ahead of any small dividend payments) Who knows?
No guarantee of winning a court case, but if it was won, what would the real outcome be? A total sale of their shares by the owners? Who takes over?
This deal may not be all that many have called for but reality and balance to me says take the money and be very vigilant and prepared for the future.
Any hint of things happening without the Trust involvement should be in the open immediately.
The Trust have taken a fair bit of stick over the last few months, some warranted due to lack of communication, others on a more personal basis which wasn’t warranted.
An outcome is needed and a court case could drag on, so again as I’ve said not ideal but a guarded yes from me | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:37 - Jun 30 with 2389 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:11 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Was that on this thread? Phil didn't answer if that was the case as I went to bed after my last reply.
As a shareholder in the club whether that is 10 or 20% we have no choice but to work with the management structure that is put in place by the majority owners
There seems to be a generic viewpoint that if we stand ground, do nothing, allow our shares to be diluted with no sale or even take the legal action and lose what money we do have then things will change and he will leave.
News is he already owns more than 5% of the football club and is the Chairman. The majority owners have no desire to change that no matter what the Trust decide to do. The address references all of that Max.
The simplistic point is here we can get to a situation (thanks to the hard work and time of many that basically)
* Gives the Trust a strong fighting fund for any future share issue/doomsday scenarios
* Retains an input into the football club that gives us key rights to see key information to ensure the club is being managed/operated in a way that we would want and a voice (two) in the boardroom to express the views of the fans
* Protects the future value of the shareholding which is absolutely key given the ever increasing TV revenues of the club
We have seen quite clearly since the turn of the year what can be achieved with everyone working together and whilst I fully accept and represent the view that many of our members have stamping our feet and giving it all away over a matter of principle is madness and completely against QC advice.
And for the question elsewhere about why spend £30k advice and ignore it the answer is simple. We haven't. A strong case does not mean a guaranteed win and the advice was first and foremost to negotiate. As Uxbridge says when the legal person you consult says the litigation is the last resort then you have to read into that and act accordingly.
And finally as a Trust member you of course have the option to vote against the opinion of the board |
Of course you should always aim to negotiate and settle out of court as I have said from the very outset, but the trouble is you clearly don't know how to do that.
They have in effect anted up, and you have declared victory on that basis.
Looks good to the to those who had convinced themselves the Trust's stake was worthless, but the reality is you leave waaaaaaay too much on the table, without securing the kind of money that can really safeguard the future of the club.
And BTW the drag along means you are just postponing the day of reckoning. Of course that will be exercised at some time in the not too distant future; anybody who thinks Levin and Kaplan are LT owners are deluded.
Similarly those who operate under the assumption that Kaplan, principal of famed Vulture investor Oaktree Capital, has been diddled in a deal by Jenkins and his Swansea mates haven't got a fcuking clue. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:44]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:40 - Jun 30 with 2375 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:12 - Jun 30 by AnotherJohn |
This is a very difficult decision. The litigation option is important as a bargaining lever, but going to court is unattractive because of likely collateral damage and risk of failure. Yet I find the cash settlement, which seems to involve an initial £6m and a lot of uncertainty, to be deeply underwhelming and something which effectively reduces long-term trust influence at a bargain price for the owners. The 'war chest' might help in League 2, but is a tiny % of the annual TV revenue of an EPL club. I would want to explore whether there really is no prospect of maintaining the current shareholding, while mitigating the risk of dilution. If there is going to be a dilution of influence whatever we do, then the big question may be: which option slows that the most? [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:15]
|
Answering your end points
There is no prospect of maintaining the current shareholding mitigating the risk of dilution. We will get no protections against that - its been made clear to us - so the door is closed on that front (outside of the litigation option discussed)
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
I think my personal view (and that is what it is) is a simple one. We can continue to beat the drum against the sellers and fight a public battle but the simple fact is
1. We may lose. Indeed we will lose. We may win the case but we will lose any impact we could have at the football club.
2. The football club will lose by being dragged through the courts.
The deal could be so much better - it could be 50% up front, it could be 75% up front, it could be a full sale but the harsh reality is on 21st July last year, everything that was needed was sold to the new majority owners and it is worth remembering that technically as they have majority voting rights etc technically they don't need to buy our shares but this is them trying to work with us to right as much of our perceived wrongs as they can do.
If the club does well then we will be sat here in 5 years potentially with £11m+ in the bank. If the club starts to fail and drop the divisions then we could be sat here with £5m in the bank that would make a big difference.
Fan influence in the money driven world of the Premier League is rare (remember we are almost unique in English football as a whole) so benefitting from that and protecting against future issues to me seems bang in line with some of the Trust's original aims in 2001 | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:42 - Jun 30 with 2364 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:26 - Jun 30 by Shaky |
Questions:
What was the process for the Trust board to arrive at its recommendation?
Was a vote unanimous, if not what was the split?
What was the recommendation of Dai Little?
And of Noclue?
What contractual guarantees are on offer to underpin the Trust's role in the decision making process? |
Dai was there last night arguing in favour of the deal. Our mutual friend has much more important priorities running him ragged on the other side of the world these days. As for the Trust board, most were there last night.. Nobody in attendance last night expressed a preference for going down the legal action.
We're only at the heads of terms stage at the moment. Going forward, plenty of work to ensure the SPA and any new SHA enshrine the current working relationship.
As for the process, it's largely documented in the address. Negotiations between key Trust officers and the Americans over last two months. Trust board has deliberated at various stages. As ever with negotiations, what is arrived at is never the starting point. However, we're now at a point where the offer is acceptable to the Trust board. Not everything is ideal, but the fundamentals are there. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:46 - Jun 30 with 2328 views | 3swan |
"Looks good to the to those who had convinced themselves the Trust's stake was worthless, but the reality is you leave waaaaaaay too much on the table, without securing the kind of money that can really safeguard the future of the club. "
Which is an opinion. Relegation which is always a real threat would dilute the share price in the future.
No crystal ball to know what the future could be, we have to make a decision on today. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:47]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jun 30 with 2311 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:42 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Dai was there last night arguing in favour of the deal. Our mutual friend has much more important priorities running him ragged on the other side of the world these days. As for the Trust board, most were there last night.. Nobody in attendance last night expressed a preference for going down the legal action.
We're only at the heads of terms stage at the moment. Going forward, plenty of work to ensure the SPA and any new SHA enshrine the current working relationship.
As for the process, it's largely documented in the address. Negotiations between key Trust officers and the Americans over last two months. Trust board has deliberated at various stages. As ever with negotiations, what is arrived at is never the starting point. However, we're now at a point where the offer is acceptable to the Trust board. Not everything is ideal, but the fundamentals are there. |
So what is the timetable on the shareholders agreement? Will the final terms be put to the members?
What is the process? Keep going until you have the decision you want? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jun 30 with 2305 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:46 - Jun 30 by 3swan |
"Looks good to the to those who had convinced themselves the Trust's stake was worthless, but the reality is you leave waaaaaaay too much on the table, without securing the kind of money that can really safeguard the future of the club. "
Which is an opinion. Relegation which is always a real threat would dilute the share price in the future.
No crystal ball to know what the future could be, we have to make a decision on today. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:47]
|
Fcuk off, you little stooge.
I in fact have a crystal ball that enabled me to see the future. It is called experience in these matters
News flash: the Trust are fcuking up again. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:51]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:50 - Jun 30 with 2293 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jun 30 by Shaky |
Fcuk off, you little stooge.
I in fact have a crystal ball that enabled me to see the future. It is called experience in these matters
News flash: the Trust are fcuking up again. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:51]
|
Is that the best you can come up with?
I don't speak for the Trust or anyone else.
Maybe your posts don't need to be questioned? [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:51]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:52 - Jun 30 with 2284 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jun 30 by Shaky |
Fcuk off, you little stooge.
I in fact have a crystal ball that enabled me to see the future. It is called experience in these matters
News flash: the Trust are fcuking up again. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 7:51]
|
Good to know you know every detail of the discussions. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:59 - Jun 30 with 2250 views | swan_si |
I thought this was about what's best for the Trust, if so, then the recommendations of the Trust ( not 100% ideal) is the best way forward, taking the legal route is a big gamble, we could end up losing our representative on the board and cause untold damage to our club, not worth risking that just to try and get Huw out, which wont happen in either case. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:02 - Jun 30 with 2238 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jun 30 by Shaky |
So what is the timetable on the shareholders agreement? Will the final terms be put to the members?
What is the process? Keep going until you have the decision you want? |
Interesting question. If the members vote for legal action then we go down that route. That probably means we end up in court. It could lead to a different offer, but I wouldn't see that being likely.. If an offer is rejected, tinkering with it isn't going to get a different result in a second vote. Swexit likely means Swexit. There won't be a second referendum for substantially the same deal, and we see no likelihood there would be a massively different deal.
The principles regarding the future agreement needs to be outlined now, which ultimately is an enshrinement of the current relationship that has been hammered out. If that materially changes during that process, then we'd have no choice to go to the members again. Neither side would want that.
Timetable? The last sale took about 8 months I believe from heads of terms to contracts being signed. I wouldn't expect it to take that long, but anyone with any experience of such things tell me it'll take a couple of months at least. Our own experience with lawyers backs that up. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:12 - Jun 30 with 2203 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:02 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Interesting question. If the members vote for legal action then we go down that route. That probably means we end up in court. It could lead to a different offer, but I wouldn't see that being likely.. If an offer is rejected, tinkering with it isn't going to get a different result in a second vote. Swexit likely means Swexit. There won't be a second referendum for substantially the same deal, and we see no likelihood there would be a massively different deal.
The principles regarding the future agreement needs to be outlined now, which ultimately is an enshrinement of the current relationship that has been hammered out. If that materially changes during that process, then we'd have no choice to go to the members again. Neither side would want that.
Timetable? The last sale took about 8 months I believe from heads of terms to contracts being signed. I wouldn't expect it to take that long, but anyone with any experience of such things tell me it'll take a couple of months at least. Our own experience with lawyers backs that up. |
No, I mean what is the process (/timetable) for getting a decision from Trust members. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:14 - Jun 30 with 2188 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:12 - Jun 30 by Shaky |
No, I mean what is the process (/timetable) for getting a decision from Trust members. |
Vote this coming month. Mid July I would expect. Plan is to send the ballot for Trust board at the same time (costly exercise to do twice). Exact Date TBC | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:25 - Jun 30 with 2151 views | Yossarian |
How does everyone feel about Jenkins, Morgan, Van Zweeden etc now? |  |
| "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) |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.