E-Mail from the Trust

One more point, I don't know what this would look like but I'm sure that there's one or two accountants out there who have access to the right figures and can do the maths:-

What I would be interested to see is the clubs current balance sheet plus all of the loans that JF has put in.  Divide this by the number of years that he's been involved in a controlling capacity to give an annual trading loss position.  Make an assumption on what the relegations/poor management decisions/poor player acquisitions have cost in the same period and remove the figures.

I have absolutely no idea what that would look like because I'm not an accountant, but I'd like to know because that would be the shortfall that we'd looking to fund if JF's dummy finally hits the floor.  I'm not for a moment suggesting that he should walk away, but I'd like to know the position if he did and wether his threats (albeit veiled) carry any real weight.

Interested as ever in all constructive comments.

Quoted from psgmariner

To use the terminology of Deal or No Deal I think there is another round in this!

Say no now and I am sure a better offer would be made in 6 months time.

I think JF should ring into the trust meeting with his offer, maybe we could get fatty Burns to do Noel Edmonds bit  

Quoted from Marinerz93

But then he'd be going back on his word of putting the club in peril, something he said he wouldn't do.

Sure, he has said that, but then he's also said he isn't prepared to continue funding alone and he also said that there isn't any funding beyond February.  The trouble when people make too many statements, is that at some point they have to renage on one and that's the point that credibility goes out of the window.

Quoted from psgmariner

I have, posted it yesterday. Would have voted for the 3rd way if it was there though.

perhaps you could send a letter or email to the trust saying that? the more feedback they get from the members ,the better

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Sure, he has said that, but then he's also said he isn't prepared to continue funding alone and he also said that there isn't any funding beyond February.  The trouble when people make too many statements, is that at some point they have to renage on one and that's the point that credibility goes out of the window.

Fair comments, my problem lays with the benign loan, the lack of paying it back and the club losing money when in fact we should be in the black now the tax debt is gone.

Quoted from Marinerz93

Fair comments, my problem lays with the benign loan, the lack of paying it back and the club losing money when in fact we should be in the black now the tax debt is gone.

See my post #290, I'm kind of asking the same question.

I am not Fenty's biggest fan obviously but this proposal is not 'bad' for the club per se and there is certainly nothing wrong with him wanting to strengthen his position, nor is this anything sinister or 'evil' on his part.

I am firmly in the camp of "the deal has to be in the best interests of the club rather than something that whilst benefitting the club is primarily designed to benefit an individual (Fenty) or an organisation (the Trust)".

Whilst a yes vote does benefit GTFC I firmly believe that there are other options that not only provide Fenty with the security he desires but also have more benefits to GTFC than the current proposal.

The benign loans argument is one that has raged for a while. Some Wayne doesn't expect the money back, some say he does, some say it dissuades inward investment.

In my opinion a better deal for GTFC would be for Fenty to buy the 200k of new shares as planned and convert the required number of loans to shares so that he regains control.

This achieves the same objective as the current proposal but has additional benefits to both the club and Fenty. Fenty's additional gain is that it would dilute the holdings of both the Trust and Mike Parker. The club gains because we have a healthier balance sheet which has the potential to attract inward investment.

A second option that has greater benefits would be for the Trust to obtain a seat on the board either by holding the current stock as a whole or selling a portion of their shares to Fenty and agreeing to invest this money into the club over a period of time.  Fenty gets what he wants but GTFC benefit more from the current proposal by having greater fan influence.

Personally I would like the deadline to be extended until the summer so that more options can be considered and we will have a better idea of future funding requirements.

I don't think the current proposal is a bad deal, I just think GTfC would benefit more by other options - and at the end of the day we should be fighting for the best deal for the club rather than being any pro / anti Fenty camp.

Quoted from Quagmire

I am not Fenty's biggest fan obviously but this proposal is not 'bad' for the club per se and there is certainly nothing wrong with him wanting to strengthen his position, nor is this anything sinister or 'evil' on his part.

I am firmly in the camp of "the deal has to be in the best interests of the club rather than something that whilst benefitting the club is primarily designed to benefit an individual (Fenty) or an organisation (the Trust)".

Whilst a yes vote does benefit GTFC I firmly believe that there are other options that not only provide Fenty with the security he desires but also have more benefits to GTFC than the current proposal.

The benign loans argument is one that has raged for a while. Some Wayne doesn't expect the money back, some say he does, some say it dissuades inward investment.

In my opinion a better deal for GTFC would be for Fenty to buy the 200k of new shares as planned and convert the required number of loans to shares so that he regains control.

This achieves the same objective as the current proposal but has additional benefits to both the club and Fenty. Fenty's additional gain is that it would dilute the holdings of both the Trust and Mike Parker. The club gains because we have a healthier balance sheet which has the potential to attract inward investment.

A second option that has greater benefits would be for the Trust to obtain a seat on the board either by holding the current stock as a whole or selling a portion of their shares to Fenty and agreeing to invest this money into the club over a period of time.  Fenty gets what he wants but GTFC benefit more from the current proposal by having greater fan influence.

Personally I would like the deadline to be extended until the summer so that more options can be considered and we will have a better idea of future funding requirements.

I don't think the current proposal is a bad deal, I just think GTfC would benefit more by other options - and at the end of the day we should be fighting for the best deal for the club rather than being any pro / anti Fenty camp.

Nail, hammer, head.  Points from lots of other posts condensed into one logical one.

I suggested this previously Quagmire and was told that JF would have to buy out the trust and MP should he get into a position he allowed MP to get into in the first round of share shenanigans.  This deal is engineered to combat that, it's the way it's done that doesn't sit right.

Interesting ideas from quagmire.
i have emailed the following questions to the Trust




1)       Do the Trust want to have a seat on the GTFC Board?

2)        Would they accept a seat on the GTFC Board if it were offered to them within the next 6 months (if, of course, it was financially feasible)?

3)       Why can we not have a ‘third way’ option? i.e. the current offer is a good basis for negotiation but we are not completely happy with the agreement as it stands and  would like to discuss the matter further. (The waiving of voting rights could be continued as a gesture of goodwill on the Trust’s part.)

4)       Did Mr Fenty tell you that he had had discussions with Barry Fry over Ryan Bennett’s sell on clause during the latter part of January?

5)       Did Mr Fenty ever tell you that there was a possibility of Ryan Bennett being sold by Peterborough and the financial windfall that would bring



I hope this does not sound over critical because I think you are doing a sterling job in difficult circumstances.



UTM