Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Moderators: Moderator
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 31 Guests

E-Mail from the Trust

  This thread currently has 72,322 views. Print
31 Pages Prev ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next All Recommend Thread
Southwark Mariner
February 17, 2012, 9:56am
Whiskey Drinker
Posts: 3,153
Posts Per Day: 0.69
Reputation: 78.29%
Rep Score: +21 / -6
Location: London
Approval: +3,537
Gold Stars: 81
I'm guessing the £10 Trust figure came from the Alan Buckley evening £15 non members £10 members. So, you could say it's £10 to join the Trust and £15 to attend the evening.
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 270 - 309
forza ivano
February 17, 2012, 10:07am

Exile
Posts: 14,680
Posts Per Day: 2.47
Reputation: 78.4%
Rep Score: +72 / -20
Approval: +15,142
Gold Stars: 265
Quoted from MeanwoodMariner
I think it is a very carefully and thoughtfully worded letter and I strongly disagree with those claiming JF is holding a gun to anyone's head. JF has repeated said that he is not willing to fund the club while control lay outside the boardroom. It's a pretty reasonable stance to take.

There is an offer on the table from JF to get himself back in more control - there's nothing inherently evil in his desire to do that. The consequences of a 'yes' vote are laid out in the terms of the deal. The consequence of a 'no' appear to be the ending of Fenty's funding as we have known it. This isn't a threat from JF, it's just the realisation of the position he told everyone about months ago after all the mess with the Mike Parker situation.

In an ideal world would the Trust want to give up 40% of their shares so recently after acquiring them? Obviously not. But then again they would not be giving them up - they would be getting the guarantees of the agreement.

Some people think that the Trust are being bullied/blackmailed/ar$eraped. To paraphase I think this means that the result of a 'no' vote would not be that bad and the potential consequences are being exaggerated. I have yet to hear an argument that completely satisfies me that why we would be just fine. Talk of money from 2 Wembley visits in the near future seem to be a bit of a gamble to say the least.


interesting argument Meanwood. I agree that if i was JF i'd want control, given the amount of money he's throwing away.What are the consequences of a yes vote? JF will fund the club for another 15 months; but one could argue that with the Bennett money coming in, the increase in crowds, the potential of wembley/play offs etc and a saleable asset in Hearn then this is about the only time in recent history when we could get by without jf!
You mention the guarentees the trust have got. These are' the football club involves the trust in the on going budget setting' - one could argue that as a major shareholder the trust would have to be consulted anyway, and so what if they are 'involved' ?- at the end of the day jf will jut go his own way anyway.
'the football club works hand in hand with the trust to promote the trust activities in a positive manner' - well, it would be sensible to do that anyway, as the trust are one of the few bodies actually trying to help the club. Is a bit of advertising and the use of Mcmenemys for a couple of do's adequate recompense for giving away 200,00 shares?
i don't think a no vote automatically leads to JF walking away - it actually gives the board a chance to say to jf ' the members don't think this is a reasonable deal, you're going to have to bring more to the table'. throw in a place on the board and i think you've got the makings of a deal.

ps not having a dig meanwood, but your arguments have in a funny way made me lean even more towards a no vote!
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 271 - 309
Trawler
February 17, 2012, 10:20am
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,312
Posts Per Day: 0.22
Reputation: 87.32%
Rep Score: +33 / -4
Approval: +915
Gold Stars: 6
Quoted from forza ivano

i don't think a no vote automatically leads to JF walking away - it actually gives the board a chance to say to jf ' the members don't think this is a reasonable deal, you're going to have to bring more to the table'. throw in a place on the board and i think you've got the makings of a deal.


I don't disagree Forza. But unfortunately the way the vote is structured the Trust will have no way of knowing why an individual member has said no, or if they would be prepared to say yes with a better deal.

The only way to find out why it's a no will be to canvas members again - probably though a meeting first to establish the voting options?

I wish there was an option which said "No, but if you give the Trust a seat on the board yes."


"Pound for pound, and class for class, the best football team I have seen in England since the war. In the league they were in they played football nobody else could play. Everything was measured, planned and perfected and you could not wish to see more entertaining football." Bill Shankly, Manager GTFC 1951-54
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 272 - 309
forza ivano
February 17, 2012, 10:26am

Exile
Posts: 14,680
Posts Per Day: 2.47
Reputation: 78.4%
Rep Score: +72 / -20
Approval: +15,142
Gold Stars: 265
Quoted from Trawler


I don't disagree Forza. But unfortunately the way the vote is structured the Trust will have no way of knowing why an individual member has said no, or if they would be prepared to say yes with a better deal.

The only way to find out why it's a no will be to canvas members again - probably though a meeting first to establish the voting options?

I wish there was an option which said "No, but if you give the Trust a seat on the board yes."


i'd vote for that in a flash. maybe we could insert a suitable note on the bottom of the voting form?? it would put across our 'third way' idea.

nb increasingly coming to the conclusion that the trust got the best deal they could at the time, given the info they had at the time and that they were being backed into a corner. events subsequently have shown that had they known about bennett they could probably have got a better deal. am not criticising the trust board, i think jf has prob been a little underhand. hope its not too late for them to regain the initiative and get some more concessions out of him
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 273 - 309
Southwark Mariner
February 17, 2012, 10:30am
Whiskey Drinker
Posts: 3,153
Posts Per Day: 0.69
Reputation: 78.29%
Rep Score: +21 / -6
Location: London
Approval: +3,537
Gold Stars: 81
I'm still slightly confused that JF's argument is control lies outside of the board....and the Trust with its shares wants to be on the board. Problem solved. You could  offer up a period of 2years or so with no voting rights or something but seems simple.
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 274 - 309
Trawler
February 17, 2012, 10:36am
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,312
Posts Per Day: 0.22
Reputation: 87.32%
Rep Score: +33 / -4
Approval: +915
Gold Stars: 6
Quoted from forza ivano


i'd vote for that in a flash. maybe we could insert a suitable note on the bottom of the voting form?? it would put across our 'third way' idea.

nb increasingly coming to the conclusion that the trust got the best deal they could at the time, given the info they had at the time and that they were being backed into a corner. events subsequently have shown that had they known about bennett they could probably have got a better deal. am not criticising the trust board, i think jf has prob been a little underhand. hope its not too late for them to regain the initiative and get some more concessions out of him


Yup me too. "Vote the Third Way!" or as the twitterati would have it #standupandfight.

As for your other comments - the more I think about it - it isn't too late to regain the initiative. Arguably the pressure is off. Hearn is staying (for the time being), Bennett funds are on their way to GTFC. Gates are building at BP.  Is there any real damage done if we say no for now and barter with Mr Fenty in the Summer?  Noone is going to spit out their dummy if it's handled properly.


"Pound for pound, and class for class, the best football team I have seen in England since the war. In the league they were in they played football nobody else could play. Everything was measured, planned and perfected and you could not wish to see more entertaining football." Bill Shankly, Manager GTFC 1951-54
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 275 - 309
forza ivano
February 17, 2012, 10:44am

Exile
Posts: 14,680
Posts Per Day: 2.47
Reputation: 78.4%
Rep Score: +72 / -20
Approval: +15,142
Gold Stars: 265
Quoted from Trawler


Yup me too. "Vote the Third Way!" or as the twitterati would have it #standupandfight.

As for your other comments - the more I think about it - it isn't too late to regain the initiative. Arguably the pressure is off. Hearn is staying (for the time being), Bennett funds are on their way to GTFC. Gates are building at BP.  Is there any real damage done if we say no for now and barter with Mr Fenty in the Summer?  Noone is going to spit out their dummy if it's handled properly.


agree with that approach totally.maybe we could ask that on the q&a?

think you're probably in our camp are you southwark? your idea seems sensible, although we should remember that when jf says he's not happy with control lying outside the boardroom, what he actually means is that he's not happy not being in total control!(which is understandable when you're throwing away thousands of pounds every week)
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 276 - 309
Trawler
February 17, 2012, 10:46am
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,312
Posts Per Day: 0.22
Reputation: 87.32%
Rep Score: +33 / -4
Approval: +915
Gold Stars: 6
Quoted from forza ivano


agree with that approach totally.maybe we could ask that on the q&a?


I've emailed the Trust as follows:

Dear MT

Are you open to members adding their own comments to the ballot paper
as to why they have said no? or indeed if a popular third voting
option can be found among members prior to March 5th then adding this
as a 'Third Way'?

For me it isn't that I disagree with the proposal outright - I would
vote yes under an improved deal, namely a seat on the board.

It may move things forward if the Trust knew that their members voting
no were prepared to move towards JF with better terms?

UTM,


"Pound for pound, and class for class, the best football team I have seen in England since the war. In the league they were in they played football nobody else could play. Everything was measured, planned and perfected and you could not wish to see more entertaining football." Bill Shankly, Manager GTFC 1951-54
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 277 - 309
MeanwoodMariner
February 17, 2012, 10:52am

Champagne Drinker
Posts: 2,326
Posts Per Day: 0.39
Reputation: 79.34%
Rep Score: +19 / -5
Approval: +2,673
Gold Stars: 8
Quoted from forza ivano


interesting argument Meanwood. I agree that if i was JF i'd want control, given the amount of money he's throwing away.What are the consequences of a yes vote? JF will fund the club for another 15 months; but one could argue that with the Bennett money coming in, the increase in crowds, the potential of wembley/play offs etc and a saleable asset in Hearn then this is about the only time in recent history when we could get by without jf!
You mention the guarentees the trust have got. These are' the football club involves the trust in the on going budget setting' - one could argue that as a major shareholder the trust would have to be consulted anyway, and so what if they are 'involved' ?- at the end of the day jf will jut go his own way anyway.
'the football club works hand in hand with the trust to promote the trust activities in a positive manner' - well, it would be sensible to do that anyway, as the trust are one of the few bodies actually trying to help the club. Is a bit of advertising and the use of Mcmenemys for a couple of do's adequate recompense for giving away 200,00 shares?
i don't think a no vote automatically leads to JF walking away - it actually gives the board a chance to say to jf ' the members don't think this is a reasonable deal, you're going to have to bring more to the table'. throw in a place on the board and i think you've got the makings of a deal.

ps not having a dig meanwood, but your arguments have in a funny way made me lean even more towards a no vote!


Fair enough. I am by no means rooted in the 'yes' camp. What I do not agree with is the (admitted small) number of posters who believe the deal is bad purely because it has come from Fenty (he can't be trusted, he's playing the trust like a fiddle, he'd have the fingers from your hand etc). The deal of course offers Fenty some benefits. It would be a pretty strange move for him to try to broker a deal that did not benefit him in any way!

I remain sceptical that our financial situation is solid enough to not need JF at the moment. The Bennett money is obviously great, no arguments. The higher crowds have taken above what was budgeted which is a positive but we are on our best run of form for years - this is as good as it will get while we are outside the League and may not last. Furthermore, were we not budgetted to actually make a loss still? Hearn is definitely an asset but unless he is sold we won't get any money. There have been plenty of discussions that his sale may not actually be of any benefit if form and crowds dropped because of his sale. Wembley visits would be great but if you asked a dispassionate bookie they would point out that we are more likely to fail to reach Wembley than we are to get there. Clearly I'm a glass half empty man.

This phrase you used has really got me thinking too:
"adequate recompense for giving away 200,00 shares"

What do the Trust really lose? They still have a significant amount of shares that they did not have to pay for. Other than the vague sense that they are losing something they only just got, what will the negative impact be on the Trust? I'm not being rhetorical, I am genuinely asking for people's thoughts.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 278 - 309
Trawler
February 17, 2012, 10:58am
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,312
Posts Per Day: 0.22
Reputation: 87.32%
Rep Score: +33 / -4
Approval: +915
Gold Stars: 6
Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

What do the Trust really lose? They still have a significant amount of shares that they did not have to pay for. Other than the vague sense that they are losing something they only just got, what will the negative impact be on the Trust? I'm not being rhetorical, I am genuinely asking for people's thoughts.


In my view we stand to lose bargaining power.

I'm not against handing the shares over per se meanwood, but I think the Trust could get a better deal from doing so. Once 200,000 shares go to Mr Fenty and he regains majority shareholding the Trust loses its teeth.


"Pound for pound, and class for class, the best football team I have seen in England since the war. In the league they were in they played football nobody else could play. Everything was measured, planned and perfected and you could not wish to see more entertaining football." Bill Shankly, Manager GTFC 1951-54
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 279 - 309
31 Pages Prev ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next All Recommend Thread
Print


Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread
 

Back to top of page

This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.