Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:20 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 10:21 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:20 pm

Another 7000 views,

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:36 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 12:55 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 12:22 pm

I expect anybody who invests into the club by buying an equal number of shares to the Trust will get equal representation. Is there anybody looking to do that?

How likely is that? HJ didn't buy the trust's shares did he? Will he invest further than his initial £500k if not pushed?

His £500k was to be used to build up the commercial side and reduce waste. The voting trust membership believe it was to pay back existing debt. If it was, when asked the question "is the trust's annual funding vital to your plans?" Why not say yes? But he didn't did he?

So the trust's money is not vital, so it follows that the trust is not vital...........

So unless someone can actually come up with a reason that makes it vital, the answer IMO is to dissolve the Trust, create a new body to hold the trust's shares, and make it free to join. Then the new body is simply a skill set, rather than cash oriented, and open to all, not restricted to a gentleman's club where you have to pay a premium simply to get in.......

If as you say, "three quarters of the fans that go to RP are not in the trust ... and would therefore be happier for the two representatives to be just inverstor's [SIC] into the club..." surely their investment would need to be at least equal to that of the Trust to take over the representation that comes with the Trust's shareholding?

Why? The trust are not allowing investment into the club, it wants to do the exact opposite of investing money to save as HJ wants........

So disband the trust, and it makes it easier for investors to join, without having a big shareholding (which they can't obtain anyway)......

Or let the trust buy new shares, and encourage HJ to keep investing.............

But the Trust won't vote for change, so it wants representation based solely on shareholding, not helping by investing in the club, and what HJ is trying to achieve.........

How are the trust not allowing investment into the club when they no longer have any influence in that respect?

Because real investment is given to the club for the club to make best use of. The trust are happy to believe that they must invest in the community from now on, rather than the club.

The trust have no influence, it hasn't for years, and it won't in future, because its not interested in asking HJ what is required to be an important partner. Is it now?is it investment? Is it at some point in the future when the trust may have influence who takes over from HJ?

The problem is that change is required from a trust membership that is focused only on the past.

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other shareholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

Chris Davis wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:21 pm It was made clear that the Trust did not sell the shares to HJ, they transferred them. The principal consideration for this was the £500k cash infusion into the AFC by HJ. There may have been a number of reasons for a transfer instead of a sale but the 'control' impact was the same. The exact legal conditions around the contract is not known to the membership because they have not had access to the Share Transfer Agreement. However, it is likely that HJ has unfettered possession of them.

In another different post, it appeared to be asked how a minority of shareholders could wind up the Trust. The next sentence is based on the Trust being legally classified as a Community Benefit Society. The issue is governed by the Model Rules and the 2014 Act. They provide for the dissolution of the Trust. In essence, a majority of members can do this. However, on the dissolution, all the property of the Trust, including its shares in the AFC, must be given to another qualifying CBS or charity. Nothing can go to the membership.

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:36 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 12:55 pm

How likely is that? HJ didn't buy the trust's shares did he? Will he invest further than his initial £500k if not pushed?

His £500k was to be used to build up the commercial side and reduce waste. The voting trust membership believe it was to pay back existing debt. If it was, when asked the question "is the trust's annual funding vital to your plans?" Why not say yes? But he didn't did he?

So the trust's money is not vital, so it follows that the trust is not vital...........

So unless someone can actually come up with a reason that makes it vital, the answer IMO is to dissolve the Trust, create a new body to hold the trust's shares, and make it free to join. Then the new body is simply a skill set, rather than cash oriented, and open to all, not restricted to a gentleman's club where you have to pay a premium simply to get in.......

If as you say, "three quarters of the fans that go to RP are not in the trust ... and would therefore be happier for the two representatives to be just inverstor's [SIC] into the club..." surely their investment would need to be at least equal to that of the Trust to take over the representation that comes with the Trust's shareholding?

Why? The trust are not allowing investment into the club, it wants to do the exact opposite of investing money to save as HJ wants........

So disband the trust, and it makes it easier for investors to join, without having a big shareholding (which they can't obtain anyway)......

Or let the trust buy new shares, and encourage HJ to keep investing.............

But the Trust won't vote for change, so it wants representation based solely on shareholding, not helping by investing in the club, and what HJ is trying to achieve.........

How are the trust not allowing investment into the club when they no longer have any influence in that respect?

Because real investment is given to the club for the club to make best use of. The trust are happy to believe that they must invest in the community from now on, rather than the club.

The trust have no influence, it hasn't for years, and it won't in future, because its not interested in asking HJ what is required to be an important partner. Is it now?is it investment? Is it at some point in the future when the trust may have influence who takes over from HJ?

The problem is that change is required from a trust membership that is focused only on the past.

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:44 pm

Chris Davis wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:21 pm It was made clear that the Trust did not sell the shares to HJ, they transferred them. The principal consideration for this was the £500k cash infusion into the AFC by HJ. There may have been a number of reasons for a transfer instead of a sale but the 'control' impact was the same. The exact legal conditions around the contract is not known to the membership because they have not had access to the Share Transfer Agreement. However, it is likely that HJ has unfettered possession of them.

In another different post, it appeared to be asked how a minority of shareholders could wind up the Trust. The next sentence is based on the Trust being legally classified as a Community Benefit Society. The issue is governed by the Model Rules and the 2014 Act. They provide for the dissolution of the Trust. In essence, a majority of members can do this. However, on the dissolution, all the property of the Trust, including its shares in the AFC, must be given to another qualifying CBS or charity. Nothing can go to the membership.

I was questioning whether the £500k cash infusion was a donation, a loan, a share purchase or something else.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:36 pm

If as you say, "three quarters of the fans that go to RP are not in the trust ... and would therefore be happier for the two representatives to be just inverstor's [SIC] into the club..." surely their investment would need to be at least equal to that of the Trust to take over the representation that comes with the Trust's shareholding?

Why? The trust are not allowing investment into the club, it wants to do the exact opposite of investing money to save as HJ wants........

So disband the trust, and it makes it easier for investors to join, without having a big shareholding (which they can't obtain anyway)......

Or let the trust buy new shares, and encourage HJ to keep investing.............

But the Trust won't vote for change, so it wants representation based solely on shareholding, not helping by investing in the club, and what HJ is trying to achieve.........

How are the trust not allowing investment into the club when they no longer have any influence in that respect?

Because real investment is given to the club for the club to make best use of. The trust are happy to believe that they must invest in the community from now on, rather than the club.

The trust have no influence, it hasn't for years, and it won't in future, because its not interested in asking HJ what is required to be an important partner. Is it now?is it investment? Is it at some point in the future when the trust may have influence who takes over from HJ?

The problem is that change is required from a trust membership that is focused only on the past.

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 3:45 pm

Why? The trust are not allowing investment into the club, it wants to do the exact opposite of investing money to save as HJ wants........

So disband the trust, and it makes it easier for investors to join, without having a big shareholding (which they can't obtain anyway)......

Or let the trust buy new shares, and encourage HJ to keep investing.............

But the Trust won't vote for change, so it wants representation based solely on shareholding, not helping by investing in the club, and what HJ is trying to achieve.........

How are the trust not allowing investment into the club when they no longer have any influence in that respect?

Because real investment is given to the club for the club to make best use of. The trust are happy to believe that they must invest in the community from now on, rather than the club.

The trust have no influence, it hasn't for years, and it won't in future, because its not interested in asking HJ what is required to be an important partner. Is it now?is it investment? Is it at some point in the future when the trust may have influence who takes over from HJ?

The problem is that change is required from a trust membership that is focused only on the past.

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

How are the trust not allowing investment into the club when they no longer have any influence in that respect?

Because real investment is given to the club for the club to make best use of. The trust are happy to believe that they must invest in the community from now on, rather than the club.

The trust have no influence, it hasn't for years, and it won't in future, because its not interested in asking HJ what is required to be an important partner. Is it now?is it investment? Is it at some point in the future when the trust may have influence who takes over from HJ?

The problem is that change is required from a trust membership that is focused only on the past.

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Because real investment is given to the club for the club to make best use of. The trust are happy to believe that they must invest in the community from now on, rather than the club.

The trust have no influence, it hasn't for years, and it won't in future, because its not interested in asking HJ what is required to be an important partner. Is it now?is it investment? Is it at some point in the future when the trust may have influence who takes over from HJ?

The problem is that change is required from a trust membership that is focused only on the past.

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 6:45 pm

But they aren't stopping anybody who wants to be a representative on the Board from investing and gaining a place on the Board by doing so.

If I wanted to sit on the Board of a Company I would expect to have some skin in the game. Why do you think we should encourage freeloaders onto the Board?

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

To me I am the wrong age, simply a silver haired tw@t is not someone who SHOULD be the voice of those who now need to lead the trust into the future. Its as simple as that, forget the past, forget what drove people to be members, and start a completely blank page, and see what happens. Obviously I too have the baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 4th, 2024, 7:40 pm

A new investor can't invest in the existing club shares because there aren't enough. So it would be in new shares.
So to make it simple, say there are £2million in existing shares, HJ has 52%, Trust and others 48%. So just over £1 million and just under.
New shares issued will be £1 million thus diluting both holding percentage by a third. If HJ allowed a big investment he won't have control unless he matches it.

Thus if the trust was a real investor, it could force HJ to match the trust's £100k a year investment, or if he didn't, he would lose overall control if the other sha2reholders passed their shares to the Trust.

That's how the Trust could have influence, without actually deciding how to spend the money, other than buy new shares.

As it stands the trust are the freeloaders on the HJ board, sitting on existing shares that were given to them, but not investing in the future, because they choose to.

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

To me I am the wrong age, simply a silver haired tw@t is not someone who SHOULD be the voice of those who now need to lead the trust into the future. Its as simple as that, forget the past, forget what drove people to be members, and start a completely blank page, and see what happens. Obviously I too have the baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

So hardly in a position to moan about those who will shape the future for the trust or those who will undoubtedly seek to influence that from outside.

You, like me, have decided not to join the SG so maybe best to consider the output when available and act accordingly.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:06 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Amberexile wrote: March 4th, 2024, 8:38 pm

You may remember the Trust raising money through community shares during the takeover. When that money was invested in the club, the Trust received shares in return. Up until that point, previous money invested into the club was done so for shares in return. For some idiotic reason the BoD decided to not grant shares to the Trust in return for the Trust's investments after the take over.

In my view that was stupid and should be the first change the trust makes for all future investment.

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

To me I am the wrong age, simply a silver haired tw@t is not someone who SHOULD be the voice of those who now need to lead the trust into the future. Its as simple as that, forget the past, forget what drove people to be members, and start a completely blank page, and see what happens. Obviously I too have the baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

So hardly in a position to moan about those who will shape the future for the trust or those who will undoubtedly seek to influence that from outside.

You, like me, have decided not to join the SG so maybe best to consider the output when available and act accordingly.

I understand entirely what you are saying, but it is not the SG that will shape anything, just the questions. And as we have heard a few times from the new darling, it is framed by what can be delivered. That is just how it is, not his fault as such, but without a mindset change, there is no change.......

I am not the one to lead that, but hopefully I can inspire those who can to ignore the problems of a membership who think ignore is the best policy to keep control. But control of what?

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:18 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:06 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:32 am

Was it simply because the trust were both investing and running the club, that purchasing shares would only limit those available for others to purchase? Or possibly because by continuing to make new shares available, the original shareholders would have their holdings effectively reduced?

Whatever the reason, I agree entirely that now the trust is not running the club, that any money should be given in return for shares.

That obviously differs from the voting trust membership who "have other things to spend trust money on".

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

To me I am the wrong age, simply a silver haired tw@t is not someone who SHOULD be the voice of those who now need to lead the trust into the future. Its as simple as that, forget the past, forget what drove people to be members, and start a completely blank page, and see what happens. Obviously I too have the baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

So hardly in a position to moan about those who will shape the future for the trust or those who will undoubtedly seek to influence that from outside.

You, like me, have decided not to join the SG so maybe best to consider the output when available and act accordingly.

I understand entirely what you are saying, but it is not the SG that will shape anything, just the questions. And as we have heard a few times from the new darling, it is framed by what can be delivered. That is just how it is, not his fault as such, but without a mindset change, there is no change.......

I am not the one to lead that, but hopefully I can inspire those who can to ignore the problems of a membership who think ignore is the best policy to keep control. But control of what?

Controlling the questions is key. If you ask the right questions you won't get the "wrong" answers. Getting the answers you want shapes the future your way.

Any good consultant works back from the answers the client wants to develop a terms of reference from which to work in order to get those answers. This is the same thing, once the questions are set, the outcome is inevitable.