E-Mail from the Trust

This whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. The one sentance that jumped out when reading the trusts statement was that they agree to accept no further shares from MP.

I can't help thinking that JF is using the trust as a tool to get one over on MP.

Quoted from siy2k5

This whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. The one sentance that jumped out when reading the trusts statement was that they agree to accept no further shares from MP.

I can't help thinking that JF is using the trust as a tool to get one over on MP.

no sh!t sherlock

Quoted from siy2k5

This whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. The one sentance that jumped out when reading the trusts statement was that they agree to accept no further shares from MP.

I can't help thinking that JF is using the trust as a tool to get one over on MP.

Or perhaps he's ensuring that the balance of power can't sit outside the boardroom.  Then again he's 'open' to the idea of the Trust having a place on the board so it's a needless clause.  Unless of course he isn't open to the idea at all and it's just flannel, I mean, there's a huge difference between being open to and actually letting it happen!

Call his bluff I say, let's see what his true agenda is.

i speak as a life member and someone who had a very minor role in setting up the trust in the first place.
firstly it's a relief to find so many different and generally well balanced,well argued points of view.
secondly i'd urge those sniping from the sidelines to pay up their tenner and then snipe and vote on something that you're obviously concerned about
thirdly i feel a little uncomfortable that this is the first we have heard of the share movements over 2 weeks after the events.

finally i have to say that despite being pro fenty and pro trust i'm very much in 2 minds about this, and think that someone posted some very good advice i.e. that they would not be voting until they'd read the q & a's from the trust in a couple of weeks time.
my initial view was that i should vote yes and support the trust board and fenty, that the shares were gifted in the first place (you don't miss what you haven't got etc) and that fenty back on board and helping out with funding wasn't a bad deal.in other words the trust hed got the club an extra £200k for doing very little!
but the more i've thought the more i'm thinking of voting no. seems to me like jf has been negotiating with the trust for some while.it also seems clear to me that the bennett transfer was not a bolt from the blue (the story about fry offering jf a pay off predated it by several weeks) and that jf probably guessed ,if not knew, that summat was in the offing either in jan or the summer. then suddenly 2 days before deadline day he apparently tells the trust that 'we've got to sort this out NOW or Hearn gets sold on deadline day'.bet he didn't tell the trust board about the possiblilty of bennett being sold......
be also interested to know why we can't maintain the staus quo until at least the summer, as someone suggested. Why couldn't we give up the voting rights, but retain the shares on a rolling 6 month basis? jf gets the security he needs but knows that he has to retain the 'trust of the trust' to renew that agreement every 6 months.
if that's not possible then voting no and going back to the negotiating table gives jf summat to think about, and now the pressure is off somewhat, the trust board may well be able to get a better settlement. if we are to give up voting rights and shares then a place on the board should be a minimum. after all i find it difficult to believe that if chapman and elsom are suitable board members the same opportunity should not be given to the trust

Quoted from forza ivano

i speak as a life member and someone who had a very minor role in setting up the trust in the first place.
firstly it's a relief to find so many different and generally well balanced,well argued points of view.
secondly i'd urge those sniping from the sidelines to pay up their tenner and then snipe and vote on something that you're obviously concerned about
thirdly i feel a little uncomfortable that this is the first we have heard of the share movements over 2 weeks after the events.

finally i have to say that despite being pro fenty and pro trust i'm very much in 2 minds about this, and think that someone posted some very good advice i.e. that they would not be voting until they'd read the q & a's from the trust in a couple of weeks time.
my initial view was that i should vote yes and support the trust board and fenty, that the shares were gifted in the first place (you don't miss what you haven't got etc) and that fenty back on board and helping out with funding wasn't a bad deal.in other words the trust hed got the club an extra £200k for doing very little!
but the more i've thought the more i'm thinking of voting no. seems to me like jf has been negotiating with the trust for some while.it also seems clear to me that the bennett transfer was not a bolt from the blue (the story about fry offering jf a pay off predated it by several weeks) and that jf probably guessed ,if not knew, that summat was in the offing either in jan or the summer. then suddenly 2 days before deadline day he apparently tells the trust that 'we've got to sort this out NOW or Hearn gets sold on deadline day'.bet he didn't tell the trust board about the possiblilty of bennett being sold......
be also interested to know why we can't maintain the staus quo until at least the summer, as someone suggested. Why couldn't we give up the voting rights, but retain the shares on a rolling 6 month basis? jf gets the security he needs but knows that he has to retain the 'trust of the trust' to renew that agreement every 6 months.
if that's not possible then voting no and going back to the negotiating table gives jf summat to think about, and now the pressure is off somewhat, the trust board may well be able to get a better settlement. if we are to give up voting rights and shares then a place on the board should be a minimum. after all i find it difficult to believe that if chapman and elsom are suitable board members the same opportunity should not be given to the trust

Excellent post.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Or perhaps he's ensuring that the balance of power can't sit outside the boardroom.  Then again he's 'open' to the idea of the Trust having a place on the board so it's a needless clause.  Unless of course he isn't open to the idea at all and it's just flannel, I mean, there's a huge difference between being open to and actually letting it happen!

Call his bluff I say, let's see what his true agenda is.

You could be right. However the more i think about it, the more I smell a rat.

It may or may not have been mentioned but if the proposal was to go through what happens to the £200k for the shares?

The proposal is that Mariner Trust would GIVE 200k of their current shareholding to JF.
JF would then invest £200k of his money purchasing additional (presumably unissued) GTFC shares.

JF would NOT be purchasing the 200k shares from Mariners Trust.

That all being said and having just read todays cod almighty diary, this just further reinforces my view that the trust have been emotionally blackmailed by John Fenty. What a mess this situation is.

Just to add why isn't there any mention of this on the official website?

Quoted from forza ivano

i speak as a life member and someone who had a very minor role in setting up the trust in the first place.
firstly it's a relief to find so many different and generally well balanced,well argued points of view.
secondly i'd urge those sniping from the sidelines to pay up their tenner and then snipe and vote on something that you're obviously concerned about
thirdly i feel a little uncomfortable that this is the first we have heard of the share movements over 2 weeks after the events.

finally i have to say that despite being pro fenty and pro trust i'm very much in 2 minds about this, and think that someone posted some very good advice i.e. that they would not be voting until they'd read the q & a's from the trust in a couple of weeks time.
my initial view was that i should vote yes and support the trust board and fenty, that the shares were gifted in the first place (you don't miss what you haven't got etc) and that fenty back on board and helping out with funding wasn't a bad deal.in other words the trust hed got the club an extra £200k for doing very little!
but the more i've thought the more i'm thinking of voting no. seems to me like jf has been negotiating with the trust for some while.it also seems clear to me that the bennett transfer was not a bolt from the blue (the story about fry offering jf a pay off predated it by several weeks) and that jf probably guessed ,if not knew, that summat was in the offing either in jan or the summer. then suddenly 2 days before deadline day he apparently tells the trust that 'we've got to sort this out NOW or Hearn gets sold on deadline day'.bet he didn't tell the trust board about the possiblilty of bennett being sold......
be also interested to know why we can't maintain the staus quo until at least the summer, as someone suggested. Why couldn't we give up the voting rights, but retain the shares on a rolling 6 month basis? jf gets the security he needs but knows that he has to retain the 'trust of the trust' to renew that agreement every 6 months.
if that's not possible then voting no and going back to the negotiating table gives jf summat to think about, and now the pressure is off somewhat, the trust board may well be able to get a better settlement. if we are to give up voting rights and shares then a place on the board should be a minimum. after all i find it difficult to believe that if chapman and elsom are suitable board members the same opportunity should not be given to the trust

Forza forza!  You make a lot of sense. As one of the (minor) founding fathers have you thought about standing for the Trust Board?