| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action 16:13 - Jul 21 with 28980 views | Vetchfielder |
I’ve reviewed the Consultation Papers that arrived today and they are well presented and clear. Personally I could have added a couple more lines to the Pro’s section for legal action but it is specifically it is the aspect of legal fees in the Consultation Papers has left me with major gripes.
The first thing is that we don’t seem to have got a quotation or even an estimate of the legal costs of going ahead with legal action. If we did get a quotation or estimate then it has not been included in the documentation. Has the Trust Board asked for an estimate, was one provided and what are the details ?
What about a "No-Win / No-Fee" type of legal engagement— mentioned by Dai Little in the first Trust meeting yet I can see no mention of this in the documentation?
Regarding the magnitude of legal costs, the words we are given are:
(a) In the Options Matrix, Impact on Trust Funds section: “Likely substantial reduction, possibly wiped out completely, or worse”.
(b) In the Cons section of Option 2: “Legal action is costly and unpredictable. There is a real chance the Trust could lose, in which case the existing funds of over £800,000 could be wiped out or even lead to the Trust being in debt. If legal costs were to exceed the current Trust funds, which is a likely scenario, it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs — which may impact the Trust’s ability to proceed beyond that point”.
Regarding (a), no detail is provided as to exactly what “worse” means in practical terms and how we would deal with it.
Also, there is a big contradiction between funds “possibly” wiped out in (a) and a “likely” scenario of debt in (b) which means it’s probable. So I don’t know whether the Trust Board thinks it’s just possible or that it's probable and exactly on what that judgement is based.
For me, the really disappointing words here in (b) are “it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs”. The Trust Board has known about the potential for legal action for many many months so has had more than ample time to take advice, have a clear view, have a plan and identify a proposed approach if the funds aren’t sufficient for legal action.
On the basis of these Papers, I feel that not enough effort has gone into establishing what litigation really means in £ terms of legal costs and how the Trust could/would fund it, possibly because we have been distracted by what the Trust Board consider an acceptable offer. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |  |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 13:49 - Jul 28 with 2138 views | QJumpingJack |
What time is the result being announced? |  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:01 - Jul 28 with 2102 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 11:04 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
First Past the Post v Alternate Vote System
First Past the Post
----------------------
34% Litigation
33% Do Nothing
33% Accept Yanks Offer
Results in Litigation being taken
Alternate Vote System
----------------------------
Stage 1 - Accept the Yanks Offer or Reject
Do Nothing and Litigation = 33% + 34% = 67% v (33% Accept the Yanks Offer )results in offer being rejected.........which then leads on to.......
Stage 2 Take Litigation or Do Nothing
Do Nothing and Accept Yanks Offer 33% + 33% = 66% v 34% (Litigation) results in Litigation not being taken.
By the Trust Board choosing the Alternate Vote System they have indicated they don't want to take litigation. They would prefer to do Nothing.
The only way Litigation can be taken is by over 50% voting for it in both stages.
Trust Board didn't make this clear at the outset. Uxbridge trying to spin them out of it (saying how important the Do Nothing camp is, how important their Vote is etc) - given Spratty has found them out. |
Just to keep this simple but youre wrong.
I know you're wrong because last night I took the time to attend the forum and ask a board member whether my belief was right
For the record I have voted no to question one and take legal action
But it is possible to answer yes to question 1 and take legal action to question 2
There are too many whinging people on here who snipe from the sidelines, are even afraid to join the trust and criticise those who want to make a difference. read the comments from the pikey one who is effectively classing these people in line with Jenkins and Dineen thats pathetic pal and you are lower than any of them for even doing so.
the trust board for me have got this wrong but that doesn't make them bad people and for those that are members we make the decision reversed if we do so
for e20, nookie, pikey, shaky, meraki and the rest then basically put up or shut up
And for anyone that hasn't received the papers I would imagine contacting the trust on the email addresses given would be the best thing you can do rather than trying to come across all big on here with your keyboard warrior attitude | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:31 - Jul 28 with 2082 views | Uxbridge |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 11:04 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
First Past the Post v Alternate Vote System
First Past the Post
----------------------
34% Litigation
33% Do Nothing
33% Accept Yanks Offer
Results in Litigation being taken
Alternate Vote System
----------------------------
Stage 1 - Accept the Yanks Offer or Reject
Do Nothing and Litigation = 33% + 34% = 67% v (33% Accept the Yanks Offer )results in offer being rejected.........which then leads on to.......
Stage 2 Take Litigation or Do Nothing
Do Nothing and Accept Yanks Offer 33% + 33% = 66% v 34% (Litigation) results in Litigation not being taken.
By the Trust Board choosing the Alternate Vote System they have indicated they don't want to take litigation. They would prefer to do Nothing.
The only way Litigation can be taken is by over 50% voting for it in both stages.
Trust Board didn't make this clear at the outset. Uxbridge trying to spin them out of it (saying how important the Do Nothing camp is, how important their Vote is etc) - given Spratty has found them out. |
I mean this in the nicest possible way Stu. That's bonkers.
Under FPTP you can have a scenario where the majority have voted against a particular option. That suits nobody.
As for the rest, your entire post makes no sense.
For your accusation to make any sense, the election would be rigged to get the result the Trust board have recommended, which is the offer. However that option needs to get more combined votes than those favouring the other two options (ironically something you've outlined in your post but glossed over). It's a much tougher threshold than FPTP.
If the Trust actually did want to give legal action the worst chance, it would have made it the first question, forcing that to require the 50% against the two other options.
These conspiracy theories are getting pretty tedious. The ballot was signed off by an independent scrutineer who will also be overseeing the ballot and counting process. But no, they're obviously rigged. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:00 - Jul 28 with 2038 views | vetchonian |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 13:46 - Jul 28 by Meraki |
You're not very bright are you. |
I think yoyu will find I am | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:23 - Jul 28 with 2009 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:31 - Jul 28 by Uxbridge |
I mean this in the nicest possible way Stu. That's bonkers.
Under FPTP you can have a scenario where the majority have voted against a particular option. That suits nobody.
As for the rest, your entire post makes no sense.
For your accusation to make any sense, the election would be rigged to get the result the Trust board have recommended, which is the offer. However that option needs to get more combined votes than those favouring the other two options (ironically something you've outlined in your post but glossed over). It's a much tougher threshold than FPTP.
If the Trust actually did want to give legal action the worst chance, it would have made it the first question, forcing that to require the 50% against the two other options.
These conspiracy theories are getting pretty tedious. The ballot was signed off by an independent scrutineer who will also be overseeing the ballot and counting process. But no, they're obviously rigged. |
My claim above is that by choosing the Alternate voting system the Trust Board would prefer either to accept the offer or Do Nothing - rather than litigation.
First Past the Post works at each general election - that is our UK voting system at every General Election.
The Trust Board has conciously chosen the Alternate voting system - which means there is a higher threshold needed for litigation.
The Trust Board could have chosen the First Past the Post.
Do the members decide on First Past the Post or the Alternate method or is that a decision for the Trust Board? | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:38 - Jul 28 with 1985 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:23 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
My claim above is that by choosing the Alternate voting system the Trust Board would prefer either to accept the offer or Do Nothing - rather than litigation.
First Past the Post works at each general election - that is our UK voting system at every General Election.
The Trust Board has conciously chosen the Alternate voting system - which means there is a higher threshold needed for litigation.
The Trust Board could have chosen the First Past the Post.
Do the members decide on First Past the Post or the Alternate method or is that a decision for the Trust Board? |
PS
I assume the independent scrutineer would also sign off First Past the Post | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:08 - Jul 28 with 1941 views | felixstowe_jack |
It looks a simple first past the post vote to me.
Q1 Yes or No to accepting the offer
Q2 if No then Legal action Yes or No | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:16 - Jul 28 with 1929 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:08 - Jul 28 by felixstowe_jack |
It looks a simple first past the post vote to me.
Q1 Yes or No to accepting the offer
Q2 if No then Legal action Yes or No |
Trust Board has put on the table 2 options
1. Accept Offer
2. Do Nothing
3. Litigation
Each option has merits in their own rights.
So why isn't there a straight shoot out between each option.
Why is for Uxbridge to decide that
'Under FPTP you can have a scenario where the majority have voted against a particular option. That suits nobody.'
If each option has a merits in its own right then most convincing one wins. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:17 - Jul 28 with 1926 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:16 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
Trust Board has put on the table 2 options
1. Accept Offer
2. Do Nothing
3. Litigation
Each option has merits in their own rights.
So why isn't there a straight shoot out between each option.
Why is for Uxbridge to decide that
'Under FPTP you can have a scenario where the majority have voted against a particular option. That suits nobody.'
If each option has a merits in its own right then most convincing one wins. |
Typo
Trust Board has put on the table 3 options | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:32 - Jul 28 with 1908 views | tomdickharry |
The potential ramifications of the result of the forthcoming vote are of course at this point in time indeterminable, including the cost of legal action. Given hindsight why couldn't the Trust board had decided the way forward,after all they are elected to act on and on behalf of the membership. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:33 - Jul 28 with 1889 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:17 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
Typo
Trust Board has put on the table 3 options |
Are you even a member you tiresome c*nt?
change the record you have made your point, you dont have a vote so let those who actually have the ability to make the decision make it. bet you spent the weeks before Brexit moaning about the in vote and the way it was going before you saw the result
w*nker | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:36 - Jul 28 with 1888 views | waynekerr55 |
Could anyone explain why we would want to maintain the status quo as we are? Do shares attract a 'hope value' as freehold titles acquired by means of an acquisition order? |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:47 - Jul 28 with 1836 views | vetchonian |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:08 - Jul 28 by felixstowe_jack |
It looks a simple first past the post vote to me.
Q1 Yes or No to accepting the offer
Q2 if No then Legal action Yes or No |
SImply put FJ
Its what I was trying to say earlier | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:48 - Jul 28 with 1834 views | E20Jack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:33 - Jul 28 by JENKINSOUT |
Are you even a member you tiresome c*nt?
change the record you have made your point, you dont have a vote so let those who actually have the ability to make the decision make it. bet you spent the weeks before Brexit moaning about the in vote and the way it was going before you saw the result
w*nker |
Why is he a w*anker and a c*nt? |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:58 - Jul 28 with 1813 views | cockneyswan |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:33 - Jul 28 by JENKINSOUT |
Are you even a member you tiresome c*nt?
change the record you have made your point, you dont have a vote so let those who actually have the ability to make the decision make it. bet you spent the weeks before Brexit moaning about the in vote and the way it was going before you saw the result
w*nker |
A bit Unnecessary name calling here. [Post edited 28 Jul 2017 17:44]
|  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:59 - Jul 28 with 1812 views | vetchonian |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:16 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
Trust Board has put on the table 2 options
1. Accept Offer
2. Do Nothing
3. Litigation
Each option has merits in their own rights.
So why isn't there a straight shoot out between each option.
Why is for Uxbridge to decide that
'Under FPTP you can have a scenario where the majority have voted against a particular option. That suits nobody.'
If each option has a merits in its own right then most convincing one wins. |
it is a staright shoot out.
Those who want litigation will vote no to the deal...then yes to litigation
those who dont want litigation will either be in the accept offer or do nothing camp
At a guess if the majority vote against the offer then it would show how the memebrship feels about taking on the fight
But this has all been done to death | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 17:16 - Jul 28 with 1786 views | Nookiejack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:59 - Jul 28 by vetchonian |
it is a staright shoot out.
Those who want litigation will vote no to the deal...then yes to litigation
those who dont want litigation will either be in the accept offer or do nothing camp
At a guess if the majority vote against the offer then it would show how the memebrship feels about taking on the fight
But this has all been done to death |
What you just described is an alternate vote system. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 17:43 - Jul 28 with 1739 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:59 - Jul 28 by vetchonian |
it is a staright shoot out.
Those who want litigation will vote no to the deal...then yes to litigation
those who dont want litigation will either be in the accept offer or do nothing camp
At a guess if the majority vote against the offer then it would show how the memebrship feels about taking on the fight
But this has all been done to death |
indeed it has but you wont let it go - even get your wingmen to do the work for you
do you realise its possible to vote yes to question one and also yes to litigation? | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:24 - Jul 28 with 1698 views | MattG |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 11:04 - Jul 28 by Nookiejack |
First Past the Post v Alternate Vote System
First Past the Post
----------------------
34% Litigation
33% Do Nothing
33% Accept Yanks Offer
Results in Litigation being taken
Alternate Vote System
----------------------------
Stage 1 - Accept the Yanks Offer or Reject
Do Nothing and Litigation = 33% + 34% = 67% v (33% Accept the Yanks Offer )results in offer being rejected.........which then leads on to.......
Stage 2 Take Litigation or Do Nothing
Do Nothing and Accept Yanks Offer 33% + 33% = 66% v 34% (Litigation) results in Litigation not being taken.
By the Trust Board choosing the Alternate Vote System they have indicated they don't want to take litigation. They would prefer to do Nothing.
The only way Litigation can be taken is by over 50% voting for it in both stages.
Trust Board didn't make this clear at the outset. Uxbridge trying to spin them out of it (saying how important the Do Nothing camp is, how important their Vote is etc) - given Spratty has found them out. |
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that everyone who votes to accept the deal would vote for no change in the event that the deal fails.
I've taken a small straw poll and can confirm that your assumption is 100% wrong. [Post edited 28 Jul 2017 18:49]
|  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:32 - Jul 28 with 1676 views | QJumpingJack |
when do we find out the result? | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:46 - Jul 28 with 1656 views | monmouth |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:24 - Jul 28 by MattG |
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that everyone who votes to accept the deal would vote for no change in the event that the deal fails.
I've taken a small straw poll and can confirm that your assumption is 100% wrong. [Post edited 28 Jul 2017 18:49]
|
Everyone needs to just vote now. Everything's been rehearsed to death, the voting structure is set and the options are on the table. Let's get it over with and accept and deal with the outcome. Irrevocable and momentous for the future for sure, but I think I'm just about past caring which way it pans out. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:50 - Jul 28 with 1642 views | raynor94 |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:46 - Jul 28 by monmouth |
Everyone needs to just vote now. Everything's been rehearsed to death, the voting structure is set and the options are on the table. Let's get it over with and accept and deal with the outcome. Irrevocable and momentous for the future for sure, but I think I'm just about past caring which way it pans out. |
It's almost as yawn inducing as the Siggy saga |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 19:03 - Jul 28 with 1622 views | Shaky |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 22:38 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge |
Thing is Shaky, anyone there tonight will know there's a significant amount of members against selling any %. We can think what we want about that, but that's the reality.
As such, it has to be an option on the ballot. |
As I predicted.
And frankly not an altogether surprising situation given the Trust have spent the last god knows how many years hammering in to peoples' heads the need to increase the shareholding.
But the situation has now fundamentally changed, regardless of the old discussion about the - in reality - not so magic 25% level.
Stay as you are is objectively catastrophic for the long term position of the Trust. If you felt able to recommend the proposed deal why were you unable to put stay as you are on the ballot with a firm Trust board recommendation against voting for it?
However, in the final analysis I guess it comes down to an examination of the pros (sic) and cons of that option outlined in your document. Of course I have no way of knowing whether these are adequately explained given you have kept the document under lock and key!
I might also reflect that it is a shame I didn't discuss that option in the mega thread, but frankly assumed people understood it was so fcuking stupid as to not be worth spending any time on. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 19:05 - Jul 28 with 1614 views | Shaky |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:01 - Jul 28 by JENKINSOUT |
Just to keep this simple but youre wrong.
I know you're wrong because last night I took the time to attend the forum and ask a board member whether my belief was right
For the record I have voted no to question one and take legal action
But it is possible to answer yes to question 1 and take legal action to question 2
There are too many whinging people on here who snipe from the sidelines, are even afraid to join the trust and criticise those who want to make a difference. read the comments from the pikey one who is effectively classing these people in line with Jenkins and Dineen thats pathetic pal and you are lower than any of them for even doing so.
the trust board for me have got this wrong but that doesn't make them bad people and for those that are members we make the decision reversed if we do so
for e20, nookie, pikey, shaky, meraki and the rest then basically put up or shut up
And for anyone that hasn't received the papers I would imagine contacting the trust on the email addresses given would be the best thing you can do rather than trying to come across all big on here with your keyboard warrior attitude |
Go fcuk yourself  | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 19:16 - Jul 28 with 1593 views | Shaky |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 19:03 - Jul 28 by Shaky |
As I predicted.
And frankly not an altogether surprising situation given the Trust have spent the last god knows how many years hammering in to peoples' heads the need to increase the shareholding.
But the situation has now fundamentally changed, regardless of the old discussion about the - in reality - not so magic 25% level.
Stay as you are is objectively catastrophic for the long term position of the Trust. If you felt able to recommend the proposed deal why were you unable to put stay as you are on the ballot with a firm Trust board recommendation against voting for it?
However, in the final analysis I guess it comes down to an examination of the pros (sic) and cons of that option outlined in your document. Of course I have no way of knowing whether these are adequately explained given you have kept the document under lock and key!
I might also reflect that it is a shame I didn't discuss that option in the mega thread, but frankly assumed people understood it was so fcuking stupid as to not be worth spending any time on. |
. . .and just to spell out the bleeding obvious, the problem with the voting mechanism as set out is this.
Many people are seemingly taking the view that it is all too complicated so they just go with the recommendation of the Trust on the accepting the deal.
If that goes against the wishes of the board, those same people are likely to go with what they assume is the position of the Trust board; no change in the shareholding as was the bull-horned strategy for so long.
And if that happens you are fcuking screwed. Or more correctly you and the rest of Team Phil will have royally screwed up. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.