The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

Quoted from Biccys

I'm not so sure about that. Keeping him is more of a sign of intent and that we, actually despite all

the financial posturing, aren't in THAT bad shape whet a gave to sell him yet. If a were, he'd have gone. No doubt in my mind about that.

Great point but what's a ?

Quoted from marinette

to quote The Old Codger from a different thread:

"[David Burns] asked why the share issue vote needed to happen so soon and why it couldn't have waited till the end of the season - answer was that Fenty asked for it to be resolved before he would put more money in and that was also before news of the Bennett transfer - point being that Burns basically got the bloke to admit that Fenty had forced/coerced the issue."

I think that may have put them in quite a difficult position.

I listened to the interview too and remember hearing the bit about Fenty asking them to come up something.

Not doubting Old Codger (suppose I am tbh but just can't remember), but assuming the "asked for it to be resolved before he would put more money in" bit is true, isn't it also true that....

1) he's already "put more money in" ? (i.e signing the new player on deadline day ?)
2) the proposal hasn't been resolved yet cos it hasn't gone to the vote yet ?

If so, doesn't that negate the above statement ?
And if that was his position then wouldn't he make an official statement to that effect ?

God this is all so confusing...  

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

I understand your point about ending the uncertainty and wanting to end the uncertainty. But if you set that aside how do you think the pros and cons weigh up?

It's a difficult one when there are more questions than answers !

An excellent post though and see exactly where you're coming from.

tbh I'm sat here wondering why I've been asked to decide on a proposal, the consequences of which JF might walk or might not walk, depending on what you believe.

Who's ball should the court be in ? Should it really be mine if the actions of others are perhaps dependant on it ?

"Don't vote then !!!" I hear you all say.
Fine, maybe I won't then.

Is that really the point though ?
Whose RESPONSIBILITY should it be and who gets to decide ?
This is the potentially the club's future we're talking about here !?

The trust board may argue they were voted in so THEY get to decide who decides what.
But what proportion of GTFC fans agreed with them to take it upon themselves to try to represent them ?
How may fans attended a rainy night in Cleethorpes to vote the trust board in ?

The idea of fans voting and having a say is great but sadly the FACTS are:

- Trust membership isn't representative of the fanbase.
- This vote isn't representative of the fanbase.

Whether fans have the chance to join is neither here nor there IMO - for whatever reason and with the best will in the world obviously they haven't been persuaded to.
Maybe this is what credibility means ?

And IMO you can't have it both ways and point the finger at "fans" for not joining (you shouldn't really blame the potential purchaser anyway) but then say it's a "members" club.

So after serious consideration and deep reflection for the right answer, I'm abstaining on all trust issues I believe may affect the wider interests of fans/the clubs future until it's membership is a lot more representative of the fanbase. I urge other members to at least consider doing the same.

If the trust board (as custodians of the Mariners Trust (which I personally believe is currently little more than a large shareholder in GTFC)) wish to hand over their shares to JF for what they personally believe to be in the best interests of the club etc, that's entirely their own decision to make.

But as a fan seeking a larger representation of the fanbase to make such decisions (or as a member the trust chooses to delegate these particular responsibilities to), I will personally have no influence on any of those decisions with a potential impact on the club or it's fans, until a situation of wider fan representation (in terms of membership) shall come to pass.

Personally if I was on the trust board, I'd be thinking of ways to gain the fan representation it needs first before acting.
If that means brain-storming, mass marketing, canvassing opinion as to what fans really want long term, pre-agreements etc whatever then so be it.
Better to all be singing off the same hymnsheet before you engage for real - the proof is in the pudding ?

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Not quite Old Codger. It does have clout - 1/2 million shares worth which is precisely what John Fenty was he was worried about ("control outside the boardroom"). This is a lever.  Until March 5.

But Fenty has used it as a lever. He threatens not to fund the club because power is outside the boardroom, The Trust haven't got any cash to back up their shares, Parker isn't putting any more money in so Fenty holds all the chips.

Very cleverly, he also says that he doesn't want more than 47/48% of the shares so it doesn't appear that he is forcing a majority but he obviously knows that there are other shareholders who will back him and take him over 50% if necessary.

Quoted from 1600

Personally if I was on the trust board, I'd be thinking of ways to gain the fan representation it needs first before acting.
If that means brain-storming, mass marketing, canvassing opinion as to what fans really want long term, pre-agreements etc whatever then so be it.
Better to all be singing off the same hymnsheet before you engage for real - the proof is in the pudding ?

Cant disagree with this TBH.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

But Fenty has used it as a lever. He threatens not to fund the club because power is outside the boardroom, The Trust haven't got any cash to back up their shares, Parker isn't putting any more money in so Fenty holds all the chips.

Very cleverly, he also says that he doesn't want more than 47/48% of the shares so it doesn't appear that he is forcing a majority but he obviously knows that there are other shareholders who will back him and take him over 50% if necessary

Has he really used it as a leaver or is he plain stupid by putting more money in and not calling shots earlier on, that would have made everyone sit up and face the reality, then we wouldn't be having this god awful bo**ocks debate.

There is no agreement it went up in smoke when Mr Parker left the board and broke the agreement to fund future seasons. The trust and Mr Parker hold the aces IMHO but neither will place any money on the table if needed. The Trust can not and Mr Parker says he wont. So that leaves Mr Fenty funding their club lets get real, would you????

Sorry Codger i don't agree. I would not put one penny in and i think Fenty has been naive at best and bloody stupid in MHO thinking people would embrace what i consider was his softball approach. You simply cannot bank on an emotive bunch like we are to come up with a strategy that is anything other than all over the place. It s a mess and needs sorting Mr Fenty please and soon.

Quoted from Pongo

Has he really used it as a leaver or is he plain stupid by putting more money in and not calling shots earlier on, that would have made everyone sit up and face the reality, then we wouldn't be having this god awful bo**ocks debate.

There is no agreement it went up in smoke when Mr Parker left the board and broke the agreement to fund future seasons. The trust and Mr Parker hold the aces IMHO but neither will place any money on the table if needed. The Trust can not and Mr Parker says he wont. So that leaves Mr Fenty funding their club lets get real, would you????

The bit in bold is why some people do not trust JF.  Parker fulfilled his funding to the full amount of £500K whilst JF held out to later in the season, this caused an imbalance of shares.  Mysteriously some time after the board and JF allowed this to happen Rule 9 kicked into place.  MP considerably richer than JF was facing buying JF out and he was in a position financially to pay back JF's member ups benign loan in full.  MP highlighted that the boardroom at Town is inept and that changes were required, he was promised these but they didn't materialize.

I'm not totally anti JF, what concerns me is the benign debt that seems to keep getting bigger with no plan to pay it off / back.  Coupled with the clubs running costs which haven't been streamlined to suit our current league.  This is clogging up the veins at GTFC like someone who lives on fast food, the end result will be the same if these are not addressed.

We seem to be going in circles, a bit like diversionary tactics I would add, shazam.

So after serious consideration and deep reflection for the right answer, I'm abstaining on all trust issues I believe may affect the wider interests of fans/the clubs future until it's membership is a lot more representative of the fanbase. I urge other members to at least consider doing the same.

If the trust board (as custodians of the Mariners Trust (which I personally believe is currently little more than a large shareholder in GTFC)) wish to hand over their shares to JF for what they personally believe to be in the best interests of the club etc, that's entirely their own decision to make.

But as a fan seeking a larger representation of the fanbase to make such decisions (or as a member the trust chooses to delegate these particular responsibilities to), I will personally have no influence on any of those decisions with a potential impact on the club or it's fans, until a situation of wider fan representation (in terms of membership) shall come to pass.

The most long-winded way of saying "I'm sitting on the fence" I've ever read. It is also thoroughly irresponsible. For the last time. The shares were gifted to the Trust. It is therefore the individual responsibility of all Trust members when given the chance to have a say on what happens to them to do so. Doing nothing is not an option. Personally I respect the views of the "No" camp because at the very least they have the courage of their convictions. A clear message needs to be sent to Mr Fenty one way or the other or we could be condemning the club to months maybe even years more of this uncertainty.

The most long-winded way of saying "I'm sitting on the fence" I've ever read. It is also thoroughly irresponsible. For the last time. The shares were gifted to the Trust. It is therefore the individual responsibility of all Trust members when given the chance to have a say on what happens to them to do so. Doing nothing is not an option. Personally I respect the views of the "No" camp because at the very least they have the courage of their convictions. A clear message needs to be sent to Mr Fenty one way or the other or we could be condemning the club to months maybe even years more of this uncertainty. [/quote]

Accepting that this about individual opinions, what I would want is a situation where the club is a) worthy of external investment and b) where the club stops being reliant on the whims of one man. How we get there is the difficult bit, but continuing to divest power to John Fenty is not the long term way forward.

This is a very difficult situation for the Trust - I can imagine the discussions that went on at the Trust Board to try and work this out. As a Trust member I have yet to cast my vote, and am unlikely to do so until towards the end of the week as I really want to try and weigh up what I think is in the best interests of the club.

Several posts have commented on the extent to which the Trust represents the fans, and others have commented on the calibre of the Trust Board: as well as being somewhat unfair, neither point seems relevant to the dilemma that the Trust faces, caught in the middle of a power battle that it neither caused nor wanted - it is the Trust that holds the shares and therefore any decision has to be up to the Trust as it currently is, not as it or others might wish it to be.  

JF has been putting pressure on the Trust over the past few months to 'clarify its position and its plans', and is using the lever of further funding to force the question of majority share ownership outside the Boardroom. Of the two major shareholders 'outside the Board', the Trust has no money or power currently, but a clear desire to help the club, and JF is using this goodwill to ask them to transfer a significant proportion of their shares (=potential power) with conditions ('accept no more shares from MP') to nullify the threat of a possible future Trust + MP (or subsequent holder of MP's shares) outvoting him. In return for this JF will increase his own shareholding and underwrite the operational finances of the Club until the end of next season.

So, the Trust is being asked to weaken its own potential longer-term power and influence to secure JF's funding for the next 15 months. JF says that he's not 'holding the Trust to ransom' - but such pressure seems remarkably unfair! (Presumably he could approach MP and ask him to gift  - or offer to buy  - the required proportion of his shares to achieve the same aim!!).

The offer of involvement in future budget-setting and the support of the Club in promoting the Trust seem 'easy giveaways' (the latter ought to be happening anyway, and I'm not sure the former is a valid activity for the Trust to get involved in unless it's on the Board). So the real question is "should the Trust reduce its potential future power to secure JF's commitment to fund the club's losses for the next 15 months?" Mmm....is giving up potential influence (and a critical role in any future change of share ownership) a wise move? And why should the Trust - or any shareholder - give up the right to accept shares donated by any other party?

Arguably there are other options (which might have been debated at the Trust Board discussions - if so, explaining how they considered these might help people's understanding of the issues):

- the Trust could agree to assign voting proxy to the Chair of any Board meeting for a defined period (even up to 15 months if need be!), and perhaps also commit to non-hostile voting at an EGM (within defined conditions) during this period, subsequently renewable, so removing the medium term threat to JF whilst not ceding longer-term the power it has been gifted

- the Trust, despite its shareholding, does not have to 'present its plans' to the Board, as it was pressed to do by JF - it can legitimately state a 'holding position', with reassurance that it has no hostile intent - whilst it builds up its membership and develops a consensus amongst members about its role and aims. Nor does it have any responsibility for contributing to the ongoing funding of the Club - it can be a 'passive' shareholder (like many of us individually) whilst engaging with the club in areas it chooses (e.g. facilties, fundraising events, voluntary support etc)


At the moment Trust members are being asked to vote on the proposal as a straight 'Yes / No' - which is fair enough - but arguably a 'No' vote does not mean that an alternative proposal can't be considered subsequently.

Quoted from DavidB

This is a very difficult situation for the Trust - I can imagine the discussions that went on at the Trust Board to try and work this out. As a Trust member I have yet to cast my vote, and am unlikely to do so until towards the end of the week as I really want to try and weigh up what I think is in the best interests of the club.

Several posts have commented on the extent to which the Trust represents the fans, and others have commented on the calibre of the Trust Board: as well as being somewhat unfair, neither point seems relevant to the dilemma that the Trust faces, caught in the middle of a power battle that it neither caused nor wanted - it is the Trust that holds the shares and therefore any decision has to be up to the Trust as it currently is, not as it or others might wish it to be.  

JF has been putting pressure on the Trust over the past few months to 'clarify its position and its plans', and is using the lever of further funding to force the question of majority share ownership outside the Boardroom. Of the two major shareholders 'outside the Board', the Trust has no money or power currently, but a clear desire to help the club, and JF is using this goodwill to ask them to transfer a significant proportion of their shares (=potential power) with conditions ('accept no more shares from MP') to nullify the threat of a possible future Trust + MP (or subsequent holder of MP's shares) outvoting him. In return for this JF will increase his own shareholding and underwrite the operational finances of the Club until the end of next season.

So, the Trust is being asked to weaken its own potential longer-term power and influence to secure JF's funding for the next 15 months. JF says that he's not 'holding the Trust to ransom' - but such pressure seems remarkably unfair! (Presumably he could approach MP and ask him to gift  - or offer to buy  - the required proportion of his shares to achieve the same aim!!).

The offer of involvement in future budget-setting and the support of the Club in promoting the Trust seem 'easy giveaways' (the latter ought to be happening anyway, and I'm not sure the former is a valid activity for the Trust to get involved in unless it's on the Board). So the real question is "should the Trust reduce its potential future power to secure JF's commitment to fund the club's losses for the next 15 months?" Mmm....is giving up potential influence (and a critical role in any future change of share ownership) a wise move? And why should the Trust - or any shareholder - give up the right to accept shares donated by any other party?

Arguably there are other options (which might have been debated at the Trust Board discussions - if so, explaining how they considered these might help people's understanding of the issues):

- the Trust could agree to assign voting proxy to the Chair of any Board meeting for a defined period (even up to 15 months if need be!), and perhaps also commit to non-hostile voting at an EGM (within defined conditions) during this period, subsequently renewable, so removing the medium term threat to JF whilst not ceding longer-term the power it has been gifted

- the Trust, despite its shareholding, does not have to 'present its plans' to the Board, as it was pressed to do by JF - it can legitimately state a 'holding position', with reassurance that it has no hostile intent - whilst it builds up its membership and develops a consensus amongst members about its role and aims. Nor does it have any responsibility for contributing to the ongoing funding of the Club - it can be a 'passive' shareholder (like many of us individually) whilst engaging with the club in areas it chooses (e.g. facilties, fundraising events, voluntary support etc)


At the moment Trust members are being asked to vote on the proposal as a straight 'Yes / No' - which is fair enough - but arguably a 'No' vote does not mean that an alternative proposal could be considered subsequently.

Excellent, post - not just saying that because it's you, either!     I think it's the best one I've read on the subject so far.

Your last sentence is a bit confusing though - did you mean if we vote no, we could still consider an alternative proposal?

Quite a few surprising comments by other people on this and another thread.  

Firstly, the assumption that people joined the Trust because they thought it would put them 'above' other supporters.  Nonsense.  I joined before all this recent business started.  I joined because I thought the club was in deep financial trouble, and John Fenty said he needed the fans to help pay off the tax debt.  I could spare a bit of money, so I threw my contribution into the pot and joined the Trust.  Then there was a big row with David Burns over whether or not it was realistic to expect the fans to pay, and Mr Fenty ended up covering the club's debts himself when it mattered.  Now you could look at that in two ways - you could say he was being incredibly generous, or you could say he was calling people's bluff.  It doesn't really matter,  The debt got paid.  

As for this business about whether or not 80's glory gets involved or not, or casts a vote or not - well, who really cares, other than 80's glory?  It's irrelevant when you look at the bigger scheme of things.  Everyone has the opportunity to join the Trust (if they can afford to) and once they have joined, they have the opportunity to vote.  That is what is important.

I'm leaning more and more towards a no vote.  TW area supporter likened the situation to his experience of waiting to hear whether he would be made redundant.  I've been through that too - in my situation, we knew that those left behind who weren't made redundant would be put through the mill, so we really were caught between a rock and a hard place.  My gut reaction was to start making plans.  If the worst happened, what would I do?  I enrolled on a training course and started considering a change of career.  I decided that I would look for work on a national level rather than just limit myself to one geographical area.  Those thoughts and plans are still in my head and the future doesn't seem quite so scary now.  As far as the Trust is concerned, if it's a Yes vote, we still only have guaranteed funding until 2013.  Had we not better start making our own contingency plans in order to decide what happens if the club goes bust?  If we face up to the reality of that and decide what we could do and how we could do it (AFC Wimbledon seem to have managed all right), then the future need not be quite so scary and perhaps some of us wouldn't feel so brow beaten and blackmailed by a rich businessman who appears to be holding the future of the club to ransom.

Quoted from marinette

Your last sentence is a bit confusing though - did you mean if we vote no, we could still consider an alternative proposal?

Thanks marinette, well spotted! Yes, I meant that if there's a No vote there could / should be alternative proposals considered - I've now corrected my original post.

Quoted from barralad

The most long-winded way of saying "I'm sitting on the fence" I've ever read.

Not at all - it means exactly what it says.
I'm a yes man but that's got nothing to do with it.
In my view, the size of the trust isn't representative enough to allow MY personal choice to affect the club or it's fans on this potentially MASSIVE issue that might affect it/them.
That's my well considered view.

Quoted from barralad

It is also thoroughly irresponsible.

How patronizing.  

There is no "responsibility" for members to vote whatsoever, they just have the right to do so.

What are you saying here ?
The trust board decide who gets the responsibility but when you make a choice, you can't choose to do what you want to do ?!!

To be frank, if the trust don't like every individual member making their own free choice they should never have handed over the "responsibility" in the first place !!!

I'd hasten to add I'm not under the personal impression the trust are "doing me a favour" by passing over the huge responsibility.

Quoted from barralad

It is therefore the individual responsibility of all Trust members when given the chance to have a say on what happens to them to do so.

I AM taking reponsibility - I'm taking no part in this particular issue when the club and so many other fans without a say could be affected by it.

Quoted from barralad

A clear message needs to be sent to Mr Fenty one way or the other or we could be condemning the club to months maybe even years more of this uncertainty.

Some might argue JF (and even the trust board) created a lot of this uncertainty all by themselves.

That's not meant as a dig.
IMO that just looks to be the top and bottom of where we(the fans) are.

Remember folks you're under no obligation to vote.
I say knock the ball back into their trusts court until they sharpen up their act up and gain the mass fan support that can make a thriving trust a reality that has some real credibility.

As I said, if the trust (as a large shareholder but not a strong fans voice) want to do it, then fine by me it's their decision.
Maybe we should remember it's not like they can't make these decisions themselves.