In the Notice of the meeting, there is nothing about taking questions at the meeting itself. That is neither by the BOD or the preferred bidder. So, it may not necessarily be assumed that any questions will be allowed to either party on the night. They have said in the same Notice that there will be drop in sessions on the previous two home match Saturdays at which "We will be available to provide updates and answer your questions". I find that strange because, if details of the propsed bidder and his bid are made known no later than three days before the SGM, what relevant questions could be asked?

Further, to support my suspicion that questions at the meeting may not be directly asked, the BOD in the Notice has indicated that "We will also issue a Frequently Asked Questions note, based on the questions we are already beginning to receive, in due course.". They do not specify what will be in this note and specifically when it will be issued but obviously it may include answers they have prepared in advance to these FAQ's. They may then say that in this note or at the SGM that they have dealt with all the FAQs and they are not going to allocate more time at the meeting reanswering or expanding upon those FAQs or answering any other questions put to them or the preferred bidder on the night. Of course, they would also decide arbitrarily what those FAQs are worth including in the note and those which they think not.

Some might believe that this method, if it is employed, helps manage out questions the BOD might consider 'awkward' or 'hostile' or, in their view, 'irrelevant and restricts a full and open discussion on the matters before the meeting'.

Such a strategy would allow the BOD to keep a tight control of both the matters set out in the Notice and what may be the legitimate concern of the Trust members. It may not be what the Trust members imagine will happen or will want to happen. However, some might consider it as effective management of the meeting.

There again I could have got this interpretation entirely wrong.

All that’s ever been asked for is transparency…
The board would have been forgiven almost anything if they’d communicated openly and often over the years and even if they’d been open in the last few years and told us that we were struggling to keep our heads above water, who knows what efforts the fans may have made to remedy the situation?
Ah well! It’d be folly to expect matters to improve now and but for a bit of communication and transparency all this lack of confidence and trust in the process could have been easily avoided.

I did wonder about the 'not less than three days' statement and it possibly conflicting with the chance to ask questions of the board in the marquee, and posted my concern on this forum. My assumption was that the details of the bidder and the bid would actually be produced ahead of the three days. If no information comes out until next Monday, then surely it will be essential to have a Q and A opportunity in the meeting, even if the voting option is only accept or reject.

lowandhard wrote: September 18th, 2023, 10:16 pm All that’s ever been asked for is transparency…
The board would have been forgiven almost anything if they’d communicated openly and often over the years and even if they’d been open in the last few years and told us that we were struggling to keep our heads above water, who knows what efforts the fans may have made to remedy the situation?
Ah well! It’d be folly to expect matters to improve now and but for a bit of communication and transparency all this lack of confidence and trust in the process could have been easily avoided.

exactly

New advice from the board gives two important changes.

All the bidders will be named. Not just the preferred bidder.
The preferred bidder will answer questions at the EGM.

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 2:24 pm New advice from the board gives two important changes.

All the bidders will be named. Not just the preferred bidder.
The preferred bidder will answer questions at the EGM.

Let's examine this.

On the 28th September the only candidate will be Huw Jenkins. Huw Jenkins will address you. You can then either vote for him or not. The board will then tell you the name of the other candidate. Who won't address you and who you can't in any case vote for.

I'll save them the trouble. The other candidate is/was Jon Pratt.

I'm buggered if I can can see the 'important changes'.

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 2:24 pm
The preferred bidder will answer questions at the EGM.

And now let's exsmine this.

If the board of directors know the preferred bidder will answer questions on 28th September then they must have checked the availability of the preferred bidder.

We know there are two bidders. We know those two bidders are Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins. I know that Jon Pratt's availability has not been checked.

Now as the board have already decided who the preferred bidder is, why dear readers do you think they are keeping it under wraps until it's too late for you to do anything?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:48 pm

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 2:24 pm
The preferred bidder will answer questions at the EGM.

And now let's exsmine this.

If the board of directors know the preferred bidder will answer questions on 28th September then they must have checked the availability of the preferred bidder.

We know there are two bidders. We know those two bidders are Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins. I know that Jon Pratt's availability has not been checked.

Now as the board have already decided who the preferred bidder is, why dear readers do you think they are keeping it under wraps until it's too late for you to do anything?

I don’t have any sense of whether this is the reason why, but it’s not implausible that JP’s availability is assumed, in his capacity as a co-opted director, and as having the capacity to attend virtually?

This all assumes your source is reliable, too

JP has been conspicuous by his absence since he was appointed to the board, both absent in person and in writing. He has never presented himself to the fans nor communicated in any way. Whether he is a bidder or not, I expect that absence to continue next week. He does, after all, live in America.

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:07 pm JP has been conspicuous by his absence since he was appointed to the board, both absent in person and in writing. He has never presented himself to the fans nor communicated in any way. Whether he is a bidder or not, I expect that absence to continue next week. He does, after all, live in America.

That's a valid opinion. It doesn't alter the fact that a decision has been made. There can be no excuse for delaying communicating that decision.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:28 pm

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:07 pm JP has been conspicuous by his absence since he was appointed to the board, both absent in person and in writing. He has never presented himself to the fans nor communicated in any way. Whether he is a bidder or not, I expect that absence to continue next week. He does, after all, live in America.

That's a valid opinion. It doesn't alter the fact that a decision has been made. There can be no excuse for delaying communicating that decision.

And it follows that as soon as a preferred bidder has been chosen , details should be made available of the offer for our perusal. What would have been better is an earlier meeting with both bids presented when a simple majority could have decided the winning bid.
I’m sure Mr Everett is honest, truthful and talented but he’s not the font of all knowledge : in any case it shouldn’t be his choice, it should be the members’ !

landinho wrote: September 19th, 2023, 5:55 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 3:48 pm

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 2:24 pm
The preferred bidder will answer questions at the EGM.

And now let's exsmine this.

If the board of directors know the preferred bidder will answer questions on 28th September then they must have checked the availability of the preferred bidder.

We know there are two bidders. We know those two bidders are Jon Pratt and Huw Jenkins. I know that Jon Pratt's availability has not been checked.

Now as the board have already decided who the preferred bidder is, why dear readers do you think they are keeping it under wraps until it's too late for you to do anything?

I don’t have any sense of whether this is the reason why, but it’s not implausible that JP’s availability is assumed, in his capacity as a co-opted director, and as having the capacity to attend virtually?

This all assumes your source is reliable, too

If Jon Pratt could attend virtually then should exiled Trust members be allowed similar access?

lowandhard wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:46 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:28 pm

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:07 pm JP has been conspicuous by his absence since he was appointed to the board, both absent in person and in writing. He has never presented himself to the fans nor communicated in any way. Whether he is a bidder or not, I expect that absence to continue next week. He does, after all, live in America.

That's a valid opinion. It doesn't alter the fact that a decision has been made. There can be no excuse for delaying communicating that decision.

And it follows that as soon as a preferred bidder has been chosen , details should be made available of the offer for our perusal. What would have been better is an earlier meeting with both bids presented when a simple majority could have decided the winning bid.
I’m sure Mr Everett is honest, truthful and talented but he’s not the font of all knowledge : in any case it shouldn’t be his choice, it should be the members’ !

Why? It doesn't make any sense at all, unless you have a son linked to a bid by Jon Pratt.............

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:51 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:46 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:28 pm

G Guest wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:07 pm JP has been conspicuous by his absence since he was appointed to the board, both absent in person and in writing. He has never presented himself to the fans nor communicated in any way. Whether he is a bidder or not, I expect that absence to continue next week. He does, after all, live in America.

That's a valid opinion. It doesn't alter the fact that a decision has been made. There can be no excuse for delaying communicating that decision.

And it follows that as soon as a preferred bidder has been chosen , details should be made available of the offer for our perusal. What would have been better is an earlier meeting with both bids presented when a simple majority could have decided the winning bid.
I’m sure Mr Everett is honest, truthful and talented but he’s not the font of all knowledge : in any case it shouldn’t be his choice, it should be the members’ !

Why? It doesn't make any sense at all, unless you have a son linked to a bid by Jon Pratt.............

Of course it makes sense…..just not to someone deep throating the current Board like you.

Exile 1976 wrote: September 19th, 2023, 6:59 pm


Of course it makes sense…..just not to someone deep throating the current Board like you.

There's a thought to put you off your breakfast. Thinking of Bangit kissing @rse is bad enough.

That said it might be more a familial telationship. Remember Jimmy Exile? Who was in pretty much in the same vein as Bangit. Carl Johnson was his real name, brother of Shaun.

Just saying.