| Uxbridge 10:18 - Jul 21 with 4458 views | swancity |
You have spent the last month trying to convince everyone to accept the offer on the table. Almost any other argument put forward has been shot down. Knowledgeable people have offered better alternatives and yet you've stuck to your guns. It's deplorable and unacceptable. Shame on you.
Remember what they did? The qc is telling you that there is a strong case. You have not put forward balanced views and opinions which should state in detail the positives and negatives of all options. You are like a dog with a bone. It's not a time for stubbornness.
And these are only your views that your forcing on people. You've dropped a bollock. The perpetrators of this scam are laughing at you and yes all the way to the bank. It's not too late to change your strategy or at least keep an open mind. Let the people decide, stop forcing your views on them.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Uxbridge on 19:11 - Jul 21 with 922 views | Uxbridge |
| Uxbridge on 19:02 - Jul 21 by monmouth |
The elephant in the room for me is that the Americans would never let it get to court and risk having to stump up £23m. By far the most likely outcome of a vote for legal action as Lisa says, is a better out of court settlement. THAT is the risk I would be prepared to take, and where I think my vote will end up. If it then does get to court, well so be it. |
Just my view, but I'm a fair bit less bullish on the prospects of that. All guesswork though. |  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:21 - Jul 21 with 903 views | Pacemaker |
| Uxbridge on 19:08 - Jul 21 by monmouth |
Yes but the risk I would bet on is that the Americans would never take the risk of it getting to court. And the judge anyway cannot evaluate this offer only that there has been one that has turned down so the Trust did all that was possible. He will evaluate only on unfair prejudice. That other argument is, in my eyes anyway, a total red herring. |
So what do we achieve if it doesn't get to court what is the agreement we after? Jenkins and Dinen out? Can't see them doing that under any circumstances. We would still have a huge legal bill and no further forward from where we are now.
This cannot be about payback to the old board this has to be all about what's best for the club and trust. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:29 - Jul 21 with 888 views | monmouth |
| Uxbridge on 19:21 - Jul 21 by Pacemaker |
So what do we achieve if it doesn't get to court what is the agreement we after? Jenkins and Dinen out? Can't see them doing that under any circumstances. We would still have a huge legal bill and no further forward from where we are now.
This cannot be about payback to the old board this has to be all about what's best for the club and trust. |
What?? I'm not interested in Jenkins and Dineen one iota. I literally couldn't give a shit.
I am after half the shares sold up front for cash now, and no drag. That is what I see as a fair compromise for dropping a 'good chance of success of the yanks having to pay 23m', and that is what I think the legal action should be conditional on not getting.
You obviously think that the current offer is worth negating the threat of legal action. I don't. If we go for what's on the table, I think the trust is finished anyway.
edit: Lisa's said it better below. [Post edited 21 Jul 2017 19:34]
|  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 19:31 - Jul 21 with 886 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Uxbridge on 19:21 - Jul 21 by Pacemaker |
So what do we achieve if it doesn't get to court what is the agreement we after? Jenkins and Dinen out? Can't see them doing that under any circumstances. We would still have a huge legal bill and no further forward from where we are now.
This cannot be about payback to the old board this has to be all about what's best for the club and trust. |
Speaking for myself, there is no part of my decision that will be in anyway influenced by the futures of Huw Jenkins and Leigh Dineen.
No part that will be influenced by any thought of 'revenge'.
For me, that will come in the way history is written.
The agreement I would accept is simple. The current deal, but with a guarantee of 10.5% sale irrespective of division (I don't mind a stagger of payment to facilitate that although full sale of the 10.5% in the event of an exit by the Americans if the Trust choose not to exercise tag rights ) and the removal of drag rights together with a specific reference to the tag rights applying in the event of a sale of the American Holding company (or any part of it).
Any future dilution to be value neutral at worst. Guaranteed seat on the board unless tag rights are exercised, irrespective of % holding. Seat for Trust on any future stadium management company. | | | |
| Uxbridge on 20:05 - Jul 21 with 845 views | Pacemaker |
| Uxbridge on 19:31 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
Speaking for myself, there is no part of my decision that will be in anyway influenced by the futures of Huw Jenkins and Leigh Dineen.
No part that will be influenced by any thought of 'revenge'.
For me, that will come in the way history is written.
The agreement I would accept is simple. The current deal, but with a guarantee of 10.5% sale irrespective of division (I don't mind a stagger of payment to facilitate that although full sale of the 10.5% in the event of an exit by the Americans if the Trust choose not to exercise tag rights ) and the removal of drag rights together with a specific reference to the tag rights applying in the event of a sale of the American Holding company (or any part of it).
Any future dilution to be value neutral at worst. Guaranteed seat on the board unless tag rights are exercised, irrespective of % holding. Seat for Trust on any future stadium management company. |
I think that sounds like a good deal, but how do we get there now is the question? It would appear the trusts options are presumably as a result of serious negotiation.
We can't go into litigation half hearted we are either in or not and it would appear that there is no possibility of further negotiation.
I hope the other trust members are considering the implications as seriously as most posters on here appear to be. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Uxbridge on 00:16 - Jul 22 with 766 views | pikeypaul |
| Uxbridge on 19:08 - Jul 21 by Uxbridge |
I found the last sentence a tad unnecessary to be honest, but maybe I'm reading too much into it after a long week.
Anyway, drink to be drunk. I suspect the forums will make interesting reading when I resurface now the forms are out eh. |
"Drink to be Drunk"
In Morgans by any chance? |  |
| |
| Uxbridge on 08:18 - Jul 22 with 694 views | Uxbridge |
| Uxbridge on 00:16 - Jul 22 by pikeypaul |
"Drink to be Drunk"
In Morgans by any chance? |
Good God no. Horrific place. Would imagine that place is much more your scene. | |
| |
| Uxbridge on 08:48 - Jul 22 with 675 views | Uxbridge |
| Uxbridge on 19:31 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
Speaking for myself, there is no part of my decision that will be in anyway influenced by the futures of Huw Jenkins and Leigh Dineen.
No part that will be influenced by any thought of 'revenge'.
For me, that will come in the way history is written.
The agreement I would accept is simple. The current deal, but with a guarantee of 10.5% sale irrespective of division (I don't mind a stagger of payment to facilitate that although full sale of the 10.5% in the event of an exit by the Americans if the Trust choose not to exercise tag rights ) and the removal of drag rights together with a specific reference to the tag rights applying in the event of a sale of the American Holding company (or any part of it).
Any future dilution to be value neutral at worst. Guaranteed seat on the board unless tag rights are exercised, irrespective of % holding. Seat for Trust on any future stadium management company. |
That'd be great. It isn't happening any time soon IMO.
Nobody can know if there's a better offer out there before it gets to court. There's been much talk about the Americans fearing it getting that far, however I'm not entirely convinced of that. They have deeper pockets to roll the dice.
The whole PR side of this is ignored in that debate, the argument seems to be we have this offer solely because it's a hedge against legal action. Well, to a point, I'd agree. However it's also about getting the members and an awkward shareholder onside. Being seen as good partners. After all, there's nothing legally compelling an offer at all. Turning down the offer doesn't mean there'll be another one, it just means (and I'll try and guess their PR strategy here) they'll argue that they tried, they didn't have to, so they'll concentrate on running the club and let the lawyers sort it out. That'd be a bluff to a point, but we can only guess how they'd react.
I can perfectly understand voting against the deal in its current form. I can perfectly understand voting for legal action in the hope it results in a better deal in the future. However the members need to understand there is simply no guarantee of that, and there are lots of factors to consider when predicting the likelihood of that. I guess where we fundamentally differ is the likelihood of that.
Predicting in general is fraught anyway. I've no idea how this election will go. I'm half expecting both options to be turned down by the members. PS simply isn't representative of the members from the feedback I'm personally getting offline. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
