Only where they agree on policy etc. That is my point. Where they disagree the Board will be the first port of call and if that is constituted in line with share ownership the issue persists.Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 4:12 pmI agree, but for everyday running of the club they have the control that they require to determine policy, how money is spent, what on and even perhaps future investment the two parties could surely agree.Amberexile wrote: September 15th, 2023, 3:38 pmWhile there are obvious advantages to the Trust if the bids merge. The bidders would need to solve this problem - If the Trust hands over 52% of the shares split evenly between the 2 bidders, the shares would then be split 26% bidder 1, 26% bidder 2, 27% Trust, 21% other. This would mean that in any dispute between the bidders the Trust would hold the balance of power by siding with one bidder or the other. There would have to be very careful consideration of how the Board is constructed as it is numbers on the Board that carries day to day power. Otherwise one bidder could find themselves marginalised by the Trust always siding with the other bidder.Bangitintrnet wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:58 pm ........
I personnally hope the bids merge, and that as a result the trust financial backing can be reduced as a result, and hopefully trust elections are a thing of the past, with the new board simply co opting their chosen experience........
Huw Jenkins will know how the Biard was split at Swansea and how the acrimony thrre eventually came about.
With that in mind if eventually one wanted to dilute trust ownership by issuing new shares, and investing in them themselves, I.E. as a way of putting money into the club. How much do you calculate, one bidder would need to put in, in order to buy back overall control of the club in situations where the two parties disagreed?
Remember the Trust would have slightly more shares than either bidder so anything a bidder could do, so could the Trust should be in exchange for shares as they were in the Chris Blight days.
However one bidder couldn't issue themselves additional shares without voting through a resolution at a general meeting in the first place. The Trust and the other bidder could vote down that resolution.
All this plays into why any future funds coming from the Trust