Stan A. Einstein wrote:
So tell me, who do you think are the owners of the club?

Now as for reading might I suggest you go to Google and type in 'Can a beneficiary be a trustee?' Or Yahoo or duckduckgo or Ask Jeeves. And then enlightened you might not make such an idiot of yourself, or for that matter Colin Jones. Unless of course the Antipodean winder was laughing not with you but at you.

Naw, I know Colin, he doesn't do nuance.

If you were capable of reading what people actually write, rather than what you want it to say, you will see that I wrote a "settlor" cannot also be a beneficiary. I have no idea if legally that is the case, it just makes the whole exercise pointless; why establish a trust for the benefit of yourself? You'd just keep the money, and if it were for IHT purposes that would surely be seen as tax evasion.

At no point in my message did I use the word trustee; settlors, trustees and beneficiaries all have different roles to play in a trust. Go and dust off those old books Kardashian, you're losing your touch.

Amber Exile

Made me think and to confirm I have never received any certificate for my £50 Shares.
Not that I want one but as per your comments previously.
What does it state on their.
Cheers

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Amber Exile

Made me think and to confirm I have never received any certificate for my £50 Shares.
Not that I want one but as per your comments previously.
What does it state on their.
Cheers

£50 share certificate
Non-voting, non-redeemable share (unless for sandwiches)

rncfc wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Amber Exile

Made me think and to confirm I have never received any certificate for my £50 Shares.
Not that I want one but as per your comments previously.
What does it state on their.
Cheers

£50 share certificate
Non-voting, non-redeemable share (unless for sandwiches)

Was the question to you?
I believe Amber stated there was something on the certificate that he thought odd?
Seriously get a life as I think sandwich jokes are a bit of old news now

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

rncfc wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Amber Exile

Made me think and to confirm I have never received any certificate for my £50 Shares.
Not that I want one but as per your comments previously.
What does it state on their.
Cheers

£50 share certificate
Non-voting, non-redeemable share (unless for sandwiches)

Was the question to you?
I believe Amber stated there was something on the certificate that he thought odd?
Seriously get a life as I think sandwich jokes are a bit of old news now

I'll try and think of a butter joke for next time.

rncfc wrote:
If you were capable of reading what people actually write, rather than what you want it to say, you will see that I wrote a "settlor" cannot also be a beneficiary.

A settlor can be a beneficiary of a Trust.. He can't be a sole beneficiary.

Silly you.

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

rncfc wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Amber Exile

Made me think and to confirm I have never received any certificate for my £50 Shares.
Not that I want one but as per your comments previously.
What does it state on their.
Cheers

£50 share certificate
Non-voting, non-redeemable share (unless for sandwiches)

Was the question to you?
I believe Amber stated there was something on the certificate that he thought odd?
Seriously get a life as I think sandwich jokes are a bit of old news now

I agree , they are past their expiry date

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:
If you were capable of reading what people actually write, rather than what you want it to say, you will see that I wrote a "settlor" cannot also be a beneficiary.

A settlor can be a beneficiary of a Trust.. He can't be a sole beneficiary.

Silly you.

Well Googled.

So therefore, your point is still irrelevant. The settlor of Newport County Trust (i.e. the fans), cannot also be the sole beneficiary as is your argument.

And for the further edification of our abusive friend above.

Gavin Foxhall is just such a person. He has shares in the Trust and is a director. If owning shares makes him a settlor then of course he can use the club funds for the benefit of himself as a County supporter if he is doing so to the benefit not only of himself but for the benefit of himself and every other County Supporter.(Or at least trust member) What he can't do is use trust assets for his own benefit.

I should add I have no reason to believe that Gavin or any other director has behaved in an inappropriate way. I merely wish to satisfy myself that this is the case. As any responsible shareholder would.

I do not know why my reasonable question of how club funds are distributed and how contracts involving club funds are awarded has been so rebuffed.

rncfc wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:
If you were capable of reading what people actually write, rather than what you want it to say, you will see that I wrote a "settlor" cannot also be a beneficiary.

A settlor can be a beneficiary of a Trust.. He can't be a sole beneficiary.

Silly you.

Well Googled.

So therefore, your point is still irrelevant. The settlor of Newport County Trust (i.e. the fans), cannot also be the sole beneficiary as is your argument.

No I looked up Knight v Knight and read it. Do you want the citation?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:And for the further edification of our abusive friend above.

Gavin Foxhall is just such a person. He has shares in the Trust and is a director. If owning shares makes him a settlor then of course he can use the club funds for the benefit of himself as a County supporter if he is doing so to the benefit not only of himself but for the benefit of himself and every other County Supporter.(Or at least trust member) What he can't do is use trust assets for his own benefit.

I should add I have no reason to believe that Gavin or any other director has behaved in an inappropriate way. I merely wish to satisfy myself that this is the case. As any responsible shareholder would.

I do not know why my reasonable question of how club funds are distributed and how contracts involving club funds are awarded has been so rebuffed.

They do not benefit from the trust account, because the trust account is set up to benefit the club, and the club alone. That is really the end of the discussion; any money the trust and/or the club receives belongs to the club.

You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but them is the facts.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
No I looked up Knight v Knight and read it. Do you want the citation?

No thanks. It's not my field, and I'm not especially interested.

AGB

This 3 embedded nonsense is very frustrating.

I salute you as that was very clever.

That is genuine humour well thought sir

rncfc wrote:
They do not benefit from the trust account, because the trust account is set up to benefit the club, and the club alone. That is really the end of the discussion; any money the trust and/or the club receives belongs to the club.

You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but them is the facts.

I am sure you're right. And just as soon as I know whether a tendering process is used to award contracts and the name of County's caterer I shall be happy to move on.

By the way old chap your complete inability to understand Trust law is not your fault. It is a very complicated subject.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:
They do not benefit from the trust account, because the trust account is set up to benefit the club, and the club alone. That is really the end of the discussion; any money the trust and/or the club receives belongs to the club.

You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but them is the facts.

I am sure you're right. And just as soon as I know whether a tendering process is used to award contracts and the name of County's caterer I shall be happy to move on.

By the way old chap your complete inability to understand Trust law is not your fault. It is a very complicated subject.

You're the one who thinks customers/settlors should be the beneficiaries of a trust established with the sole purpose of funding a football club.

I'll leave others to decide who's failing to understand the basics.