The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

Quoted from barralad

Sorry but exactly what did you expect in all seriousness. Overnight the Trust become the third largest shareholder in GTFC. That sort of put us in the position of being involved. Do you think we'd be having any of these debates if Mike Parker had kept his shares? Given the aforementioned gentleman's decision not to be involved in anything to do with Grimsby Town in the future I'd say that created the need for the Mariners Trust to "meddle" as you so eloquently put it.
It's incredible really. Here we have someone accusing the Trust of steaming in two footed yet others believe we have kept things far too close to our chests. Damned if we do damned if we don't.

Quoted from barralad

Sorry but exactly what did you expect in all seriousness. Overnight the Trust become the third largest shareholder in GTFC. That sort of put us in the position of being involved. Do you think we'd be having any of these debates if Mike Parker had kept his shares? Given the aforementioned gentleman's decision not to be involved in anything to do with Grimsby Town in the future I'd say that created the need for the Mariners Trust to "meddle" as you so eloquently put it.
It's incredible really. Here we have someone accusing the Trust of steaming in two footed yet others believe we have kept things far too close to our chests. Damned if we do damned if we don't.

Quoted from Squarkus

you must understand how fenty feels then.

Quoted from gobby

I am not getting on the Trusts back Marc,  I do support the Trust and what they are trying to achieve but what I was trying to say is that maybe these shares have come too early in the Trusts rebirth as such.
UTMM

Quoted from Chris

I think the shares have taken attention away from where it should have been directed.

GTFC should have looked to have worked with the trust regardless of its shareholding in my personal opinion.

In fact, the share issue (as mentioned by Gobby) has indeed polarised opinion on the Trust as JF effectively set (some) fans against the Trust from day 1 by implying we were a barrier for progression rather than the shares presenting an opportunity for the supporters to have a real input into the club. Even in his mre recent statements he still says the trusts shareholding would have been a barrier for people investing, which frankly I totally disagree with. The Trust has said from day 1 that it would look to sell shares if the right investor came along, obviously Mr Fenty took that to mean his good self.

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 can't be considered subsequently.