The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

Quoted from Fishbone

If the Trust were to be given a place on the board it would ensure 'control in the boardroom' that could address John Fenty's concern, at least in principle. It would also alleviate concerns about the Trust giving away shares. Given these were gifted by Mike Parker, it might also make many of us feel a little easier about the principles involved. There is then the issue of executive versus non executive status, however, this is not merely a case of one or the other as there are lots of examples of levels in between that exist elsewhere. These could surely be thrashed out with appropriate safeguards and clauses put in to protect both interests. This would present a much more positive and cooperative solution which could coalesce the collective efforts of all parties. Given the perilous position of the club, and indeed the socio-economic issues affecting the town as a whole, shared focus and ownership might prove more powerful and give broader 'shoulders' to the leadership and organisation of the club.

Increasingly elsewhere we are seeing interest in new models of business and social development with the recognition that previous models are either no longer working or are unsustainable. I personally would not question John Fenty's financial commitment nor his support for the club. Nor would I question the effort and well intentioned efforts of the Trust. However, what I would question is whether this 'yes'/'no' option currently on the table is the only way forward. As John Fenty points out he has fears as a significant investor as to what might happen if others sought to remove him. Likewise, we also see examples of small and powerful boards making decisions that can ultimately damage the reputation and viability of an organisation to the extent that they are merged, shut down, discredited or efectively sold. I'd personally like to see the Trust with a seat at the table to safeguard to some degree against future changes (there will be a day when JF is not around) in circummstance and ownership and the vagaries of individual interest or whim.      

Quoted from headingly_mariner

How many people with multiple logins are posting on this thread? There are some really similar styles of posting and they all seem to be arguing the same thing.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

How many people with multiple logins are posting on this thread? There are some really similar styles of posting and they all seem to be arguing the same thing.

Quoted from Fishbone

[quote=4082]Fishbone: I think some should be reminded that Mr Parker did not give these shares across out of the goodness of his heart. Whilst i am please he has, it was done to get him out of a sticky patch and having to make an obligatory offer for all of the shares in GTFC, so we shouldn't be fooled IMHO.[size=14]

Fair point - although my initial comment was more intended to highlight potenital alternatives to the current situation and the uncomfortable situation of the Trust handing over shares to JF gifted to them by MP with few direct benefits in return. I appreciate the argument is that once done, then JF will commit to further investment but if the Trust were in the boardroom with assurances, why couldn't this happen anyway?

I do tend to agree with your latter points regardng the need for cash injections from individuals until 'finance in football changes' - but if we and people at all levels don't take steps to bring about that change when the opportunities occur, then perhaps we're/they're culpable by default and contribute to the prevailing logic being maintaned and reproduced. I personally feel that in this current climate with so many worrying situations at football clubs, it is at least worth condiering in more depth the range of possibilities than merely conforming to what has happened previously in the hope it may be better this time around.

However, having said all that,  as you point out, if the only real option available to us is to accept the 'yes/no' decision in exchange for something concrete that assures long term survival of the club that the fans love and cherish in this climate, then I can fully appreciate why a 'yes' vote would be a logical response and one that we'd have to live with in contrast to the bleak alternative being put forward. Personally, I just feel that it maybe not as simple as a 'yes or no' or 'this way or no way' as there still appear to be so many potential pemeatations that could still be explored.  
All the best.

Quoted from Chris

What is clear from all the various polls on the various forums, and threads such as these, is that there are a lot of questions that people would like answered.

I suspect these questions are too late to help decide this vote either way, but in the interests of harmony moving forward, it would be good for Fenty to answer the questions currently being posed. Maybe he would do so via the Trust, Ill ask to see if the Trust board agree.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Chris, no beef with you but what are the chances of getting an honest and transparent answer from him that won't be u-turned when he comes up with another scheme?  Somewhere between highly unlikely and no flipping chance is my guess.  He's chosen this moment, this flipping moment to force through his own agenda, that's flipping disgusting.  I have no respect or confidence left in him, whatsoever.  The Trust will do what they will because they are scared, fear isn't the basis for a sound partnership.  It's just disgusting.