Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:53 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:49 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 7:29 am

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:03 pm

On what basis do you imagine the preferred bidder is being chosen?

I am agreeing with your methodology, and suggesting that Colin Everett would use it, as he is responsible for bidder choice very frequently in his job.

However it is a method suitable as the basis of a choosing a preferred bidder, not voting............

The opposite in fact to voting for trust directors, for instance. I believe voting is the big weakness, in how to select a board to run a football club.................

Surely the greatest weakness in selecting our board is the lack of people coming forward to do the job either because they are not prepared to or are put off from doing so. I would put allowing those board members to select seconded board members a close second.

I don’t agree with your second sentence due to the impact that having seconded members had. Don't forget we started with in effect an unelected board, and struggled on with that board, electing replacements particularly for chairman.

Then in 2017 just after the great escape, we started Co opting directors to help. The the bank ballance then built up, and two playoff finals and covid - but mostly planning to overspend the budget in order to be competitive - ate it away.

IMO what will happen next is that a new paid board will be assembled by the winning bidder, that may go well, it may not. However they would do well to look at the existing board, and chose who they think have the most suitable skills to run a football club that will remain in the same low L2 budget category.............

I think you are confusing causation with correlation there.

You may do, I don't. I believe signing Podge from the just relagated Hartlepool was a foundation for change, and again signing Omar Bogle from the to be relegated Hartlepool............

However, I don't believe that the trust is the way forward and you do, so we differ, which is natural.

Amond was signed 13 days after Madigan and Crook were appointed to the Board, what part do you say Madigan and Crook played in us signing Amond?

You do like to tell people what they believe without seemingly reading what they actually say. So let me put you right. I would far prefer to club to be run by the Trust in the short-term. I recognise that the current Board is not capable or do not feel capable of doing that. I don't see that as a reason for the firesale that is now going on. The sales strategy of telling the world the club is on the brink and then trying to sell it is madness, it is akin to trying to sell your car while broken down on the hard shoulder of the M1.

I recognise that the majority of fans who express an opinion on social media want "investors" to come into the club without being able to define what that means but I would much prefer the Board seek help through the election of new members and seeking volunteer assistance within the supporter base to put in the hard work to get the finances back on an even keel first.

To continue the car analogy, let's get the car towed home, get a mate to fix it, give it a good clean and polish, climb into the back seat with the Mrs one more time if only for the memories and then think about whether we really do want to get rid of it.

I find the way the Board are railroading this firesale through objectionable and unecessary.

You also believe that younger people in the 3000 will replace and expand the 1000 I don't, it's a simple as that. I understand that you believe it is a fire sale, but it appears to me that both Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins have had time to look at the club from the inside to assess what is required, and to formulate a bid that the trust membership would see as possible, and positive. That is not a fire sale..........

The other factor involved is RP, and until very recently that has been owned by the WRU who wanted it as an asset to sell the Dragon's.........

All in all, that is very different from what normally happens, were owners choose the next owner on the basis of what money they personally get back, not on what is best for the club........

To me at least, in essence if it is Jon Pratt v Huw Jenkins then HJ is selling a vision of trust helped funding, and JP outside funding wanting assets and savings to produce profits.

For me I don't particularly want either vision, but I accept that the trust model of 8 years ago is no longer fit for purpose, simply because the opposition has changed. That has been compounded by clubs coming up with big resources, which in the past didn't particularly happen.

I would prefer if we didn't need to change, but I accept that we do, not because of the past, but because of the likely future.........

You should stop telling me what I believe, you get it wrong every time.

That may be the case, but if you are basing what you think on the club having a fire sale, then there are too many factors at play at the same time for that to be true. So the basis of your argument is clearly flawed.....

JonD wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:01 pm Oh gawd. I'm agreeing with almost everything being written. I'm anxious about the consequences of a "no" vote. I feel sure the current Board see this change of ownership as their "out". If, as I suspect, the change of ownership is rejected, what is the fallback position?

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:13 pm

JonD wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:01 pm Oh gawd. I'm agreeing with almost everything being written. I'm anxious about the consequences of a "no" vote. I feel sure the current Board see this change of ownership as their "out". If, as I suspect, the change of ownership is rejected, what is the fallback position?

I'm quoting here from todays's update by the BOD under "What happens next"

"....If the resolutions are not approved then the Trust will need to consider its options. These options would include renegotiating with the current bidders, inviting new bids, and raising its own funds to retain the ownership of the football club as is...."

Also

"A handover between the Board and the new owner: Once the new owner has taken over then the current Board of Directors will stand down from the football club as one"

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:13 pm

JonD wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:01 pm Oh gawd. I'm agreeing with almost everything being written. I'm anxious about the consequences of a "no" vote. I feel sure the current Board see this change of ownership as their "out". If, as I suspect, the change of ownership is rejected, what is the fallback position?

I'm quoting here from todays's update by the BOD under "What happens next"

"....If the resolutions are not approved then the Trust will need to consider its options. These options would include renegotiating with the current bidders, inviting new bids, and raising its own funds to retain the ownership of the football club as is...."

Also

"A handover between the Board and the new owner: Once the new owner has taken over then the current Board of Directors will stand down from the football club as one"

JonD wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:01 pm Oh gawd. I'm agreeing with almost everything being written. I'm anxious about the consequences of a "no" vote. I feel sure the current Board see this change of ownership as their "out". If, as I suspect, the change of ownership is rejected, what is the fallback position?

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:24 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:13 pm

JonD wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:01 pm Oh gawd. I'm agreeing with almost everything being written. I'm anxious about the consequences of a "no" vote. I feel sure the current Board see this change of ownership as their "out". If, as I suspect, the change of ownership is rejected, what is the fallback position?

I'm quoting here from todays's update by the BOD under "What happens next"

"....If the resolutions are not approved then the Trust will need to consider its options. These options would include renegotiating with the current bidders, inviting new bids, and raising its own funds to retain the ownership of the football club as is...."

Also

"A handover between the Board and the new owner: Once the new owner has taken over then the current Board of Directors will stand down from the football club as one"

Standing down from the football club they won't get to choose, but clearly the preferred bidder doesn't want them. Is it telling that they don't say that they will stand down from the Trust board?

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:36 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:24 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:13 pm

JonD wrote: September 19th, 2023, 8:01 pm Oh gawd. I'm agreeing with almost everything being written. I'm anxious about the consequences of a "no" vote. I feel sure the current Board see this change of ownership as their "out". If, as I suspect, the change of ownership is rejected, what is the fallback position?

I'm quoting here from todays's update by the BOD under "What happens next"

"....If the resolutions are not approved then the Trust will need to consider its options. These options would include renegotiating with the current bidders, inviting new bids, and raising its own funds to retain the ownership of the football club as is...."

Also

"A handover between the Board and the new owner: Once the new owner has taken over then the current Board of Directors will stand down from the football club as one"

Standing down from the football club they won't get to choose, but clearly the preferred bidder doesn't want them. Is it telling that they don't say that they will stand down from the Trust board?

Almost certainly. I assume the time scale is relevant also, as I presume a Trust AGM will still have to be held before the end of DEC if the takeover goes ahead, and how the decision of whom would continue to represent the Trust members on the Club Board and the Trust Board will need to be determined.

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 10:48 pm I have long put forward my belief that the Trust must cease to exist as a Community Benefit Society at the moment they lose control by virtue of the loss of its majority shareholdingl. I put that directly to Colin Everett. I put it directly to the FSA and this is the response that I got from Andy Walsh, Head of National Game and Community ownership:

"Thank you for contacting the FSA. The society can continue operating after the takeover of the football club.
In approving any sale, the members would need to agree how the society would continue to meet its legal responsibilities including those set out in the society rules.
Colleagues at the Football Supporters’ Association are advising the society’s directors, which, if needed, includes access to our legal advisors.
I hope this answers your query.
best wishes "

I forwarded that response to the board by email via Joe Crocker. My interpretation of Andy's response is this. It is perfectly possible for the society (aka the Trust) to continue as a CBS But in order to do so it must continue to meet it's legal responsibilities, including those set out in the society rules. The fundamental legal responsibility is that it must carry out a 'business, industry or commerce'. It was possible to fill that obligation by means of a majority holding in the AFC. While some other form of 'unintentional trust' might exist as a matter of law, when it loses that majority holding then the current Trust ceases to meet the requirements of the legislation and ceases to exist at law. This means it cannot hold the shares because it has no legal status. That's my opinion, anyway.

Andy also makes clear in approving a salethat the members must need to agree on the legal responsibilities etc. Well, the update does say this "The Trust will remain as a Community Benefit Society as is the case with trusts who are minority shareholders in other football clubs in the EFL and the non-league pyramid." So, I don't know how they have come to this conclusion but what is certain to me is that that statement does not constitute a way for members to agree the status of the Trust in approving the sale.

To be frank, I am fed up of flogging that apparantly dead horse to the BOD.

The problem to me is that the Trust is not being seperately and independently advised. It is relying on the same directors who are directors of the AFC to act for it. In the matter that I have outlined and possibly others there is a clear conflict of interest. Nobody is condidering the Trust's position a if it were an independent third party.

But let's take the position that I am wrong. So, nothing in the Trusts Model Rules will change per se because it sells its interest in the AFC. The directors have indicated that they will resign en masse from the AFC. They have said nothing about the directorships of the Trust. They may well hang on to see if any of them are offered a seat on the new AFC board. However, what should be clear is that this represents an opportunity for the Trust to stand further back from the AFC and consider it's own position more.

landinho wrote: September 19th, 2023, 10:53 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 10:48 pm I have long put forward my belief that the Trust must cease to exist as a Community Benefit Society at the moment they lose control by virtue of the loss of its majority shareholdingl. I put that directly to Colin Everett. I put it directly to the FSA and this is the response that I got from Andy Walsh, Head of National Game and Community ownership:

"Thank you for contacting the FSA. The society can continue operating after the takeover of the football club.
In approving any sale, the members would need to agree how the society would continue to meet its legal responsibilities including those set out in the society rules.
Colleagues at the Football Supporters’ Association are advising the society’s directors, which, if needed, includes access to our legal advisors.
I hope this answers your query.
best wishes "

I forwarded that response to the board by email via Joe Crocker. My interpretation of Andy's response is this. It is perfectly possible for the society (aka the Trust) to continue as a CBS But in order to do so it must continue to meet it's legal responsibilities, including those set out in the society rules. The fundamental legal responsibility is that it must carry out a 'business, industry or commerce'. It was possible to fill that obligation by means of a majority holding in the AFC. While some other form of 'unintentional trust' might exist as a matter of law, when it loses that majority holding then the current Trust ceases to meet the requirements of the legislation and ceases to exist at law. This means it cannot hold the shares because it has no legal status. That's my opinion, anyway.

Andy also makes clear in approving a salethat the members must need to agree on the legal responsibilities etc. Well, the update does say this "The Trust will remain as a Community Benefit Society as is the case with trusts who are minority shareholders in other football clubs in the EFL and the non-league pyramid." So, I don't know how they have come to this conclusion but what is certain to me is that that statement does not constitute a way for members to agree the status of the Trust in approving the sale.

To be frank, I am fed up of flogging that apparantly dead horse to the BOD.

The problem to me is that the Trust is not being seperately and independently advised. It is relying on the same directors who are directors of the AFC to act for it. In the matter that I have outlined and possibly others there is a clear conflict of interest. Nobody is condidering the Trust's position a if it were an independent third party.

But let's take the position that I am wrong. So, nothing in the Trusts Model Rules will change per se because it sells its interest in the AFC. The directors have indicated that they will resign en masse from the AFC. They have said nothing about the directorships of the Trust. They may well hang on to see if any of them are offered a seat on the new AFC board. However, what should be clear is that this represents an opportunity for the Trust to stand further back from the AFC and consider it's own position more.

I think I can only envisage the board making the case that the Trust continues to fulfils its legal responsibility by serving as a minority presence on the board and representing fans. But I think your interpretation of the Model Rules is stricter than mine and only allows modification of rules in a limited sense

Crazy that Supporters Direct did not set out a framework for closing of a Trust imo. Maybe they thought that would protect trusts but it just throws insecure clubs into even more crisis

I’m also not sure there is any expectation the trust must fold immediately? Is there any provision for closing if no longer purposeful in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act? I’d assume it would leave that decision up to the society on its own terms

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:18 pm

landinho wrote: September 19th, 2023, 10:53 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 10:48 pm I have long put forward my belief that the Trust must cease to exist as a Community Benefit Society at the moment they lose control by virtue of the loss of its majority shareholdingl. I put that directly to Colin Everett. I put it directly to the FSA and this is the response that I got from Andy Walsh, Head of National Game and Community ownership:

"Thank you for contacting the FSA. The society can continue operating after the takeover of the football club.
In approving any sale, the members would need to agree how the society would continue to meet its legal responsibilities including those set out in the society rules.
Colleagues at the Football Supporters’ Association are advising the society’s directors, which, if needed, includes access to our legal advisors.
I hope this answers your query.
best wishes "

I forwarded that response to the board by email via Joe Crocker. My interpretation of Andy's response is this. It is perfectly possible for the society (aka the Trust) to continue as a CBS But in order to do so it must continue to meet it's legal responsibilities, including those set out in the society rules. The fundamental legal responsibility is that it must carry out a 'business, industry or commerce'. It was possible to fill that obligation by means of a majority holding in the AFC. While some other form of 'unintentional trust' might exist as a matter of law, when it loses that majority holding then the current Trust ceases to meet the requirements of the legislation and ceases to exist at law. This means it cannot hold the shares because it has no legal status. That's my opinion, anyway.

Andy also makes clear in approving a salethat the members must need to agree on the legal responsibilities etc. Well, the update does say this "The Trust will remain as a Community Benefit Society as is the case with trusts who are minority shareholders in other football clubs in the EFL and the non-league pyramid." So, I don't know how they have come to this conclusion but what is certain to me is that that statement does not constitute a way for members to agree the status of the Trust in approving the sale.

To be frank, I am fed up of flogging that apparantly dead horse to the BOD.

The problem to me is that the Trust is not being seperately and independently advised. It is relying on the same directors who are directors of the AFC to act for it. In the matter that I have outlined and possibly others there is a clear conflict of interest. Nobody is condidering the Trust's position a if it were an independent third party.

But let's take the position that I am wrong. So, nothing in the Trusts Model Rules will change per se because it sells its interest in the AFC. The directors have indicated that they will resign en masse from the AFC. They have said nothing about the directorships of the Trust. They may well hang on to see if any of them are offered a seat on the new AFC board. However, what should be clear is that this represents an opportunity for the Trust to stand further back from the AFC and consider it's own position more.

I think I can only envisage the board making the case that the Trust continues to fulfils its legal responsibility by serving as a minority presence on the board and representing fans. But I think your interpretation of the Model Rules is stricter than mine and only allows modification of rules in a limited sense

Crazy that Supporters Direct did not set out a framework for closing of a Trust imo. Maybe they thought that would protect trusts but it just throws insecure clubs into even more crisis

I’m also not sure there is any expectation the trust must fold immediately? Is there any provision for closing if no longer purposeful in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act? I’d assume it would leave that decision up to the society on its own terms

My understanding, having done some research into this is that it cannot have a 'business industry or commerce' by virtue of a minority shareholding in a third party. As soon as it loses that majority holding it fails in a necessary legal contituent as required under that Act you mention. I don't know to what extent the FSA ( including the former Supporters Direct) would have thought about it. Generally, as a matter of law, legal status is extinguished at the moment a 'vital legal constituent' is lost. However, it is possible to remain on the register of legal societies maintained by the FCA but still no longer be a lawful CBS. They may have had thoughts about dissolving or winding up a Trust but not in this particular set of circumstances. In the News update it states that the FSA have been assisting the BOD but it is clear that it is the BOD of the AFC that is being advised. From the fact that the BODs are the same, effectively, it has been impossible to get independent legal advice for the Trust I accept that I could be wrong but I might not and I think it vital that the Trust gets independent legal advise. But I believe that I am crying in the wilderness on this.