lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:11 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:39 am

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:32 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:09 am

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am

G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.

If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.

I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.

I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.

Very well said Stan, you’d have to be a special sort of idiot not to learn from your life experiences. Sadly, some never learn anything at all.

None of this is relevant to you and Stan constantly lying, it's just about hiding behind the moral high ground.
Stop lying is the answer, not hiding, stop lying......

Well you appear to be an expert at both those activities

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:05 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:11 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:39 am

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:32 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:09 am

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am

G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.

If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.

I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.

I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.

Very well said Stan, you’d have to be a special sort of idiot not to learn from your life experiences. Sadly, some never learn anything at all.

None of this is relevant to you and Stan constantly lying, it's just about hiding behind the moral high ground.
Stop lying is the answer, not hiding, stop lying......

Well you appear to be an expert at both those activities

Stop posting lies is the answer, attacking me isn't getting you anywhere, so stop posting things that you can't substantiate.

It should be a piece of piss, but the fact that it isn't for you, shows how far you have been swimming in amongst the scum, and turds, and away from the truth.......

Exile 1976 wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:02 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:05 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:11 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:39 am

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:32 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:09 am

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 1:30 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 12:19 am

G Guest wrote: September 17th, 2023, 11:35 pm

That's a clever thought which, not surprisingly, had not occurred to me. There is no doubt that the Argus must have been very certain of their ground when they named Huw Jenkins and there has been no denial. So Jenkins himself is the obvious source.

If I had to pick I'd choose of the three options that the board leaked the story. I think it unlikely Mr Jenkins did, at least not by himself. I would not rule out a board member wanting to stop Huw Jenkins doing the deed.

I tend to agree with you on your knowledge on these matters. As a self confessed grass, you would know the ins and outs on these types of things.

I get you don't like people who grass.

You know a lot of people propogate the idea that it's wrong to grass. Like if your best mate drinks and drives only a scumbag like me would grass him up.

Now I am in no position to take the moral high ground. In my younger days I often saw my friends drink drive and did nothing about it. Indeed although I didn't drive I was happy to get into cars driven by friends well over the limit. I was a idiot. A fool. And would no doubt have gone along with nobody likes a grass.

25 years at the bar altered that. You see when you have talked to the mother of a twenty three year old woman whose life was ended by a drunk driver you get to realize that. When you have been to a big city morgue on a Monday morning and realize it smells like a brewery you realize that.

So if I'm no longer an idiot I suppose I should be grateful. I have never had to scrape up the remains of a drunk drivers victim up off the road. Or break the news to some old widow that she no longer has a son. Many policemen and women have.

Ever have to deal with family of a teenager found dead in a public toilet. Drowned in their own vomit, needle in their arm. Do you really think we shouldn't grass up the person who supplied the heroin?

Whoareya said there's nothing worse than a snitch. You said the people of Newport don't like a grass. Who are you to judge who we should and should not grass up?

I don't think you are a bad person. I don't think Whoareya is. But I do think in propgating the line that nobody likes a grass you help people are do terrible things.

I said on another thread I had touched a raw nerve. Good. I genuinely hope you learn from the experience of others just how stupid that remark was. I pray to whatever God there is you never have to learn the hard way just how stupid that remark was.

Oh and it's three in the morning and I can't sleep thinking about a mother I met before a sentencing hearing.

Very well said Stan, you’d have to be a special sort of idiot not to learn from your life experiences. Sadly, some never learn anything at all.

None of this is relevant to you and Stan constantly lying, it's just about hiding behind the moral high ground.
Stop lying is the answer, not hiding, stop lying......

Well you appear to be an expert at both those activities

Stop posting lies is the answer, attacking me isn't getting you anywhere, so stop posting things that you can't substantiate.

It should be a piece of piss, but the fact that it isn't for you, shows how far you have been swimming in amongst the scum, and turds, and away from the truth.......

He doesn’t attack you, he responds to your utter bullshit and nonsense you spout on here.
You are a liar, a coward and a fantasist. The biggest knobhead on this message board by a country mile.

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:13 pm Paul I agree. So does virtually everyone else. For whatever reason three posters on this board seem determined to sabotage the debate. They have failed. Everyone gets the argument and if anything their constant accusations of eveyone conspiring to tell lies has ensured that the issue is fully aired.

It is not too late for the board of directors to actually face up to their responsibilities. Explain why the financial disparities occurred and make sure all options are put before the supporter owners.

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:08 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

I agree with much of what you write in relation to an objective approach as far as is possible should have been undertaken to properly rank prospective bidders. However, it is not always possible to objectively evaluate and score 'soft' factors such as 'alignment to the Clubs' values' Although, without being too contrived, you could work towards even that. I would also say that your description of a tendering process seems very public sector or very large corporation orientated. There is nothing necessarily wrong in trying to emulate that but I think it is unlikely to lead to the legal risks that you point out as often the public sector in particular has statutory duties in respect of tendering, which would not apply to this process. However, in my opinion, it is legally conceivable that the Trust members could launch an action against the decision if it could be shown that the Directors had not fulfilled their responsibilities to the Trust, to consider primarily its best interests, in only allowing a vote on one prefrred bidder.

Also, in respect of your comment that " ...but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place....", In the Notice of the meeting, the BOD has said this "...At the meeting Trust members will be given an update on the process of engaging with potential investors in the Club..."

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:23 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:57 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm

excessbee wrote: September 17th, 2023, 4:48 pm It is also a major concern that some would possibly wish to vote for the 'non- preferred' bidder merely because it is the one NOT selected by Colin/the board as the better of the two. That sort of logic is unfathomable.

You may find it unfathomable but the Trust members are voting in the best interests of NCAFC. And they may think the preferred bidder may not represent that...

I think the issue is that we will not be given the information to know what is in the best interests of NCAFC. It seems that we have 2 bidders one of whom presumably has eventually making a profit as the main objective while the other may well have a slightly different objective of providing long term sustainability for the club while a possible third option of the Trust managing the club effectively, while the default, is being ignored. There has been little, if any, proper discussion of what happens next if the 75% threshold is not reached. There are a number of options at that stage but again, unless members are told what those options are, it comes across as they are being coerced into voting based on blind faith.

I can't imagine for one second that the bids are simple, as in we are offering X they are offering Y

So comparing the bids is probably a complex process, and would involve indicating were both bidders have problems. The benefits might be easy to get across to an audience, but I can see all sorts of issues with we think this bit is a problem, while not pissing off possible investor's.

To me sustainability is key, but how do you show that in a bid? To others it will be something else that's important, but how do you assess the priorities that both bids are making on a whole range of key issue's?

How can you say this one is better for this, but that one is better for that, and then hope to reach a 75% majority?

Money wise they have probably been guided by supporters direct, as we didn't pay for the shares, it could be an issue that the trust recieves funds, that the club should have etc etc.

The way to do it is simple, you prescribe the format of the response you want from the bidders. You tell them to give you their answers to a set number of specific topics in a specific format (e,g populate this spreadsheet), you explain to them how their responses will be marked and the weighting for each section. Then you mark each of their replies. While the marking will at times become subjective, the bid with the largest final score wins. You can publish the markings and share feedback with losing bidders on why their bid failed.

This is a very standard approach.

There should be an Invitation To Tender (ITT) document that was issued to prospective bidders where all of this was laid out accompanied by a clarifications process. There is no reason whatsoever why this document can't be shared with Trust members. as most ITTs are openly published. That document will show members what the Trust was looking for from a bidder, how the Trust intended to judge bids, what was important to the Trust and how they weighted sections of the document.

I can't believe we would be so amateurish to just allow adhoc bids to be submitted. It is always possible for a losing bidder to challenge the decision so you have to be able to make a like for like comparison to avoid the possibility of challenge, court cases, judicial review etc.

When run properly a bid is a simple process, I have faith in Colin running this well.

I can understand why the Board want to put a single bid to the vote as that gives them the best chance of reaching the 75% threshold but they do need to explain how they got there in the first place.

That’s right and it would satisfy most if not all, I would have thought. I remember that even when interviewing job applicants 30 years or more ago, I adopted a similar format to ensure all were asked the same questions and were fairly treated. It’s not a lot to ask and in any case is a good aid to select the best bid.