E-Mail from the Trust

Quoted from 1054

What is the longest thread ever on the fishy?

Quoted from 1054

Do you think the trust has made a low profile entrance into gtfc life?

Quoted from bax

80s Glory - I have posted a lengthy explanation of why I've voted 'no' at http://toogoodtogodown.wordpress.com

Quoted from forza ivano

agreed andy, although if i was entering into any negotiation with him i think i'd check my hands at the end to make sure i still had all my fingers! he is our best (and only) hope and compared to many other club chairman we have the best of a fairly bad/ruthless lot. that doesn't mean to say that the trust should just turn over and have its belly tickled. he seems almost paranoid about control/mike parker and i'd urge the board to use that to their advantage

Quoted from davmariner

Briefly... I think the Trust and Mr Fenty have come to an appropriate compromise. My main concern however, is the future beyond May 2013 and I also feel that the Trust should explore the possibility of joining the board (if they aren't already).

Quoted from 1600

Thanks for sharing your article and bringing it to my attemtion.

I think you raise some fairish points.

Your question:

"Therefore, why should we be handing over 200,000 shares to allow “Mr Fenty agrees to cover any losses for the current season and for the year ending May 2013” when he’s just admitted this is already covered?"

The way I interpret it (and obviously I may be completely wrong) is that he's saying he's got the ability to fund until May 2013 ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CONTROL RETURNS TO THE BOARDROOM.

Or in other words, slightly jumping the gun on the understanding that the vote passes, but moreso creating some feelgood factor for the future in the Telegraph.

I guess the 200 or 400 thousand shares aren't specifically to cover these losses (even thought they might) but simply to return control to the boardroom (but again I'm only guessing and I haven't even looked at figures).

But you raise a valid point - if the money is there then I would guess it appears to be a "Do we want to risk it if we say no..." type scenario.

Your other question about voting rights and Hearn.

Regardless of what actually happened, maybe I'm being thick but personally, I'm totally lost what the connection between voting rights and the potential selling of players is full stop.

Some people say the letter is "carefully worded" and it is but I also find it confusing trying to join up the dots.

I'm not really motivated to do so but the trust have been decent enough to answer questions so I suppose I should compile mine and fire them off.

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