| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 140509 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 09:21 - Jul 2 with 1849 views | Jinxy |
For me, this is a very much a lesser of two evils. Simplistically, I think the Americans came to value the Trust's input last season after possibly being told initially that the trust were insignificant - my assumption is that the sellers portrayed this in order for a sale to take place (the sellers probably felt that the Trust would oppose etc.). So, I think they now appreciate the Trust as having input, but not control, because they now "trust" where we are coming from (they know we love the club and only want what's best for it and have no selfish motives unlike others potentially!). Also, we largely articulate ourselves well, and have pretty good judgement in football related matters, as was evident last season.
Secondly, I think if the court found in our favour and a full sale of Trust shares were to occur, I think we would actually initiate and perhaps cause the future need for the "rainy day" by not being involved at all.
At the meeting, I was 95% in favour of acceptance and despite some excellent informed information on this thread I am still very much in favour (but still regret this whole situation of course, like us all). Just my opinion of course. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:21 - Jul 2 with 1843 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:20 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Of course they don't want to go to court. People seem to think it's because they'd lose, but I'd think the upheaval is as likely a reason. It's an offer to keep the peace as much as anything I'd wager.
The Trust have done little but assess offers and discuss what it could and couldn't accept. I don't think not understanding the offer is a factor here. |
I didn't suggest you dont understand the offer, just that it seems that there may be scope to get a better one. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jul 2 with 1836 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:15 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
I mean fair compared to the power of the legal option risk to the Americans Ux. I'm not expecting these fackers to have an intrinsically equitable bone in their money obsessed bodies. |
There may still be money on the table. However, if the current offer was rejected, the Americans may think the PR battle will swing their way as they've tried to be all reasonable and its the Trust members who are dragging the club through this. It'll split the fanbase, no question. To a degree, so would any decision i guess, but legal more than any other. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:26 - Jul 2 with 1825 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:21 - Jul 2 by exiledclaseboy |
I didn't suggest you dont understand the offer, just that it seems that there may be scope to get a better one. |
Maybe. Maybe not. It's only the Americans who can truly know. I'm in risk and reward mode here though, and I'm not convinced. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:29 - Jul 2 with 1808 views | swancity |
It seems that Uxbridge has decided what the best course of action is and is now trying to convince everyone else that it's right. Instead he should at this stage be outlining the pros and cons of all possibilities instead of just concentrating on the negative aspects in relation to the legal route. It's obvious ( as clear cut as it can be ) that the case is there to be won. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:30 - Jul 2 with 1807 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:20 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Regarding your penultimate paragraph, isn't this the same as if we force the Americans to buy our shares through legal action? In either scenario, the Americans could sell 100% of the Club to whoever they wanted with no consultation.
As things stand now, they can sell a controlling stake without any need to consult the Trust but at least crying foul while still a shareholder might carry some weight, at least in PR terms. |
It is the same thing - likely temporarily - in terms of relinquishing the Trust's shareholding.
The difference is banking a known quantity; £23 million.
Now Uxbridge seems to me to be implying he fancies a flutter with that money in the hope of accumulating through speculation on the managmeent fortunes of Kaplan & Co.
I disagree. A bird in the hand and all that. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:30 - Jul 2 with 1799 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:15 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
I mean fair compared to the power of the legal option risk to the Americans Ux. I'm not expecting these fackers to have an intrinsically equitable bone in their money obsessed bodies. |
I know it's been said (and argued against) many times in this thread but the risk of a legal route is not just on the Americans' side.
I've been involved in two Adjudications (OK, not the same but still a process reliant on contractual arguments by legal advisors in front of an impartial third party) and neither have gone the way we, our Clients or their legal advisors expected. In one, our Client actually made a sizeable offer to settle during the Adjudication hearing itself which the Contractor rejected, preferring to rely on the Adjudicator's decision. He decided in favour of our Client so the Contractor got nothing and even had to pay the Adjudicator's costs.
Yes, it may be that the threat of legal action will illicit a better offer from the Americans. However, it may not and we would then have to take our chances in court - there would be no way of rowing back even to the deal we have now.
There are aspects of this deal that I'm not particularly comfortable with but, on balance, I genuinely do feel it's the better option. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:32 - Jul 2 with 1786 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:30 - Jul 2 by MattG |
I know it's been said (and argued against) many times in this thread but the risk of a legal route is not just on the Americans' side.
I've been involved in two Adjudications (OK, not the same but still a process reliant on contractual arguments by legal advisors in front of an impartial third party) and neither have gone the way we, our Clients or their legal advisors expected. In one, our Client actually made a sizeable offer to settle during the Adjudication hearing itself which the Contractor rejected, preferring to rely on the Adjudicator's decision. He decided in favour of our Client so the Contractor got nothing and even had to pay the Adjudicator's costs.
Yes, it may be that the threat of legal action will illicit a better offer from the Americans. However, it may not and we would then have to take our chances in court - there would be no way of rowing back even to the deal we have now.
There are aspects of this deal that I'm not particularly comfortable with but, on balance, I genuinely do feel it's the better option. |
Nonsense my friend, nonsense. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:33 - Jul 2 with 1777 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:29 - Jul 2 by swancity |
It seems that Uxbridge has decided what the best course of action is and is now trying to convince everyone else that it's right. Instead he should at this stage be outlining the pros and cons of all possibilities instead of just concentrating on the negative aspects in relation to the legal route. It's obvious ( as clear cut as it can be ) that the case is there to be won. |
Forgive me for having an option and also thinking that if someone posts something that isn't actually true or the whole picture that all potential scenarios are disclosed. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:36 - Jul 2 with 1762 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:30 - Jul 2 by Shaky |
It is the same thing - likely temporarily - in terms of relinquishing the Trust's shareholding.
The difference is banking a known quantity; £23 million.
Now Uxbridge seems to me to be implying he fancies a flutter with that money in the hope of accumulating through speculation on the managmeent fortunes of Kaplan & Co.
I disagree. A bird in the hand and all that. |
Nah I'm not the gambling sort. Although I do have a background in statistics. That was my point with all that really.. Lisa was comparing two ends of a spectrum, but I don't think that's accurate.
I'm surprised at the last comment though. It's not a bird in the hand by any means. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:37 - Jul 2 with 1758 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:30 - Jul 2 by Shaky |
It is the same thing - likely temporarily - in terms of relinquishing the Trust's shareholding.
The difference is banking a known quantity; £23 million.
Now Uxbridge seems to me to be implying he fancies a flutter with that money in the hope of accumulating through speculation on the managmeent fortunes of Kaplan & Co.
I disagree. A bird in the hand and all that. |
I was looking more at your statement that "the majority of acquirors will want 100% so they can fully control cash-flows". You may have gathered from my previous posts that I'm no financial expert but I assume this is a big deal for a buyer.
Retaining a stake means that we at least get sight of (and the opportunity to challenge) financial decisions. A full sale, regardless of how it happens, would remove that. I can see your point about "a bird in the hand" but I'm not 100% sure that's what the legal option gives us. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:37 - Jul 2 with 1757 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:36 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Nah I'm not the gambling sort. Although I do have a background in statistics. That was my point with all that really.. Lisa was comparing two ends of a spectrum, but I don't think that's accurate.
I'm surprised at the last comment though. It's not a bird in the hand by any means. |
Oh yes you are  | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:38 - Jul 2 with 1755 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:32 - Jul 2 by swancity |
Nonsense my friend, nonsense. |
Care to elaborate? I've just given a personal example of how these sorts of process might not play out in the way you expect. How is that nonsense? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:39 - Jul 2 with 1751 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
There may still be money on the table. However, if the current offer was rejected, the Americans may think the PR battle will swing their way as they've tried to be all reasonable and its the Trust members who are dragging the club through this. It'll split the fanbase, no question. To a degree, so would any decision i guess, but legal more than any other. |
Then make a counter offer and if they reject then the PR battle swings back to the Trust.
It's simple. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:39 - Jul 2 with 1750 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:32 - Jul 2 by swancity |
Nonsense my friend, nonsense. |
Whatever your views, this type of response is worthless. This must not turn into a Brexit, my 'side' must win battle. Debate the actual issues.
Where I disagree with Matt is that this offer is good enough compared with the upside of a legal victory for the Trust and the downside of a defeat for the Americans. Based on the probability of the QCs actual wording outlined at the meeting. Of course there's a chance the Trust could lose, or a higher chance (qc opinion) of a win. The current offer does not, in my opinion reflect that position. I don't want legal action....I know it's Russian roulette. So mMatt, I don't believe there is a 'best' option at all, I believe there are two pretty miserable ones, and the least worst is the legal one. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:41 - Jul 2 with 1742 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:37 - Jul 2 by MattG |
I was looking more at your statement that "the majority of acquirors will want 100% so they can fully control cash-flows". You may have gathered from my previous posts that I'm no financial expert but I assume this is a big deal for a buyer.
Retaining a stake means that we at least get sight of (and the opportunity to challenge) financial decisions. A full sale, regardless of how it happens, would remove that. I can see your point about "a bird in the hand" but I'm not 100% sure that's what the legal option gives us. |
Don't forget I played some role in the formulation of the legal case, which involves 3 separate lines of attack.
It is very, very strong indeed, with 2 strands backed up by important multi-layered precedent, and the final one supported by the still relevant European Court of Justice.
Seems to me it's as good as it gets. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:44]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:42 - Jul 2 with 1736 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:37 - Jul 2 by Shaky |
Oh yes you are |
Ha. I'm really not.
Every decision on the table is a gamble. If I was truly gambling on the financial value increasing I'd go down the do nothing approach and see if we could wangle tag and drag on that.
Funnily enough I'd see legal action as the biggest gamble of all, by quite some distance. The scope of the gamble and who it affects is certainly much greater. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:45 - Jul 2 with 1712 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:39 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
Whatever your views, this type of response is worthless. This must not turn into a Brexit, my 'side' must win battle. Debate the actual issues.
Where I disagree with Matt is that this offer is good enough compared with the upside of a legal victory for the Trust and the downside of a defeat for the Americans. Based on the probability of the QCs actual wording outlined at the meeting. Of course there's a chance the Trust could lose, or a higher chance (qc opinion) of a win. The current offer does not, in my opinion reflect that position. I don't want legal action....I know it's Russian roulette. So mMatt, I don't believe there is a 'best' option at all, I believe there are two pretty miserable ones, and the least worst is the legal one. |
I respect that position, absolutely - there are no certainties on either side of the equation.
One question that I don't think has been asked in this thread. Hypothetically, what if we were aware that the Americans had obtained a QC opinion that they also had a strong case? They have heard that from our side but not vice versa. If we knew that they had that advice, would views be different? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:45 - Jul 2 with 1708 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:39 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Then make a counter offer and if they reject then the PR battle swings back to the Trust.
It's simple. |
They could just say that the Trust is being too unreasonable and that the two sides are too far away so there's no point, and they'll just get on with the business of running the club. Equally simple. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:48 - Jul 2 with 1692 views | Vetchfielder |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:03 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
Yes, I realised and understood the reasons, I'm speculating why no one put their hand up for legal on the night and the consequent reliability of that flash vote. Not that it matters. We'll soon see. I expect the majority to vote deal. I would too, if I thought it was a genuinely fair deal, as I want proper fan involvement. I just don't think it is. |
I was there on Thursday and I chose not to put my hand up at all. That vote that the end should not have been taken because it seemed it was only designed so that it could publicised and added as a further "persuader" for the people not present to vote for the offer.
Also most of the presentation related to the offer rather than the option of legal action; this was commented on by one person who said that more details should be given to members regarding that option, ironically though for the purpose of highlighting the downside of legal action rather than for the reasons of fairness and objectivity. That's how I heard it.
So on the night, I had heavy doubts on the HJ factor and there were I think 4 comments/questions on that, one from me, but I thought the rest of it sounded OK on the night.
But I didn't know enough about the legal course to put my hand up for that and I didn't agree with taking the vote anyway, so I abstained.
Since the meeting I've changed my view on this and am now pro litigation.
I'm sure the Trust Board know this but I will say it anyway. People voting for legal action fall into 2 camps:
(a) those that want legal action, come what may
(b) those that want a better deal and conditions and are prepared to vote for legal action as a route to try and get that better offer
I really don't envy the Trust Board in sorting this out, there are no winners , a horrible , horrible position we've put in by the sell-outs, but I again thank Phil and Ux for their work on this. Whichever way it goes I'll still support you and the Trust. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:48 - Jul 2 with 1686 views | fbreath |
For balance at the next forum shouldn't there be one person representing the case for accepting and another person suitably qualified to outline reasons for court action.
The original information from the trust came across biased to taking the offer. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:52 - Jul 2 with 1666 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:45 - Jul 2 by MattG |
I respect that position, absolutely - there are no certainties on either side of the equation.
One question that I don't think has been asked in this thread. Hypothetically, what if we were aware that the Americans had obtained a QC opinion that they also had a strong case? They have heard that from our side but not vice versa. If we knew that they had that advice, would views be different? |
Knowing the type pretty well (I had a difficult experience with GE capital once) I would be surprised that they weren't even more hawkish in that case.
I've no doubt they would be saying that was the opinion they had though, as a tactic, whatever the reality. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:56 - Jul 2 with 1643 views | monmouth |
Re vetchfielders point above, I think it is important to say that I too value the work of Phil, Ux, Matt et al, and I will also support the Trust whatever the outcome. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:57 - Jul 2 with 1639 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:45 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
They could just say that the Trust is being too unreasonable and that the two sides are too far away so there's no point, and they'll just get on with the business of running the club. Equally simple. |
Well then why doesn't that statement stand in response to them saying we rejected their offer?
For some reason you seem to believe that what they say has more clout than you?
PR really is a simple game if you are in the right. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:58]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:58 - Jul 2 with 1629 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:52 - Jul 2 by monmouth |
Knowing the type pretty well (I had a difficult experience with GE capital once) I would be surprised that they weren't even more hawkish in that case.
I've no doubt they would be saying that was the opinion they had though, as a tactic, whatever the reality. |
Course they would. Both sides will say they have a strong case.
I don't think fear of losing the case is the only factor for the Americans though. They want everything to run smoothly. This is a hedge against uncertainty, and being seen to be working with the Trust, as much as anything IMO. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
