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.

I certainly didn't expect what is happening now that's for sure... Maybe I was being naive, did you expect to b making such decisions so soon?

Not sure what you find incredible either? When I said you went steaming in two footed I meant you started making bold decisions when, in my opinion, you didn't really have any justification too... I know you claim Hearn would have been sold without you so courageously stepping forward with your fast thinking all action style but i'm not convinced by that statement myself...

I actually wanted the Trust to work at the start and was looking forward to you proving yourselves but to be honest i'm begining to think some of you are becoming jumped up wannabes with some misguided sense of power...

Congrats on being offered a place on the board though... I guess it'll be really helpful to the 300 or so fans that have joined the Trust, the rest of us should just be good little people and keep our opinions, ideas and hopes to ourselves shouldn't we, afterall we haven't paid the Trust to have a say in our club have we....

Quoted from forza ivano

excellent summary from david b, although i think we may need an updated version with the news regarding a place on the board

Thanks Forza. I've just posted the following on the 'Trust Seat on the Board' thread (sorry, not sure how to link!):

I think cause for celebration might be a tad premature, given the wording of the MT announcement (selected key relevant parts, my italics):

"..we are pleased to clarify that in principal GTFC have agreed that the Mariners Trust should have a position on the football club board, at the current time this is likely to be a Non-Executive position.  Discussions regarding the exact details of this are on-going and we hope to be able to announce further details over the next couple of weeks.
...
...John Fenty says” I have embraced both the previous board and the current Mariners Trust board and have already agreed with my colleagues that the Trust will have a slot at GTFC board meetings to present ideas, support and challenge. I can see the merit in having a Trust member on the board and welcome a detailed discussion to set terms with the board relative for this to happen “"

So as it stands currently the Trust will be invited to speak at Board meetings at an agreed Agenda item; and John Fenty is open to further Board discussion about the terms under which the Trust could be given a Board seat.

There are two immediate issues:

1) is the timing of this given the Trust members' vote a coincidence or not? Arguably this is difficult to ascertain - so perhaps best to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a coincidence (albeit maybe not wise timing to make such an announcement!)

2) how does this influence arguments for and against the Trust's proposal that is being voted on? One line of argument suggests that a 'No' vote should now be more likely: retaining its current gifted shareholding will give the Trust more influence at Board level, and also having the Trust formally on the Board means that majority ownership no longer resides outside the Boardroom, so removing the reason that JF gave for not being comfortable with committing further investment.

it's no coincidence david .It's the latest move by jf in his almost desperate campaign to regain control.

1) it slips jf's mind to tell the Trust that he's been discussing the bennett sell on money with fry for much of january - i'm certain he had a bluddy good idea that bennett would go either in January or the summer and that would relieve any impending financial crisis.

2) waits until the last possible moment to tell the trust that he might have to sell Hearn and paints them into a corner with his proposals

3) omits to tell them that the £200,000 he is going to put in is not new money at all, but simply the balance of the £500,000 he agreed previously with parker to pay

4) suddenly out of nowhere he offers another carrot, although there are so many caveats(as you have pointed out) that you have to wonder if anyone will believe it will happen. interestingly enough this comes after golly's post has raised a number of interesting/difficult questions for jf, and after a number of people have announced their intention to vote no

imho jf has been disingenuous (at best) during this whole affair and i don't personally trust him to deliver the seat on the board. at the moment i'll still be voting no

Genuine question. If JF says yes in principle to MT having a seat on the board, they then hand over the prom,ised shares and miraculously JF finds a reason to not give them the seat as promised due to some legality, loophole, technicality. What then? Cos I can smell a rat if I'm honest. There's too many coincidences with timings in this whole affair. The Bennett money, Hearn's alleged transfer, the trust being offered a seat a week prior to the vote ending... Something's not right in Denmark.....

Wow, that's a change in opinion Biccy's!

Fantastic to see so many people actually reading the material that is out there and not just reading a headline.

Quoted from Biccys

Genuine question. If JF says yes in principle to MT having a seat on the board, they then hand over the prom,ised shares and miraculously JF finds a reason to not give them the seat as promised due to some legality, loophole, technicality. What then? Cos I can smell a rat if I'm honest. There's too many coincidences with timings in this whole affair. The Bennett money, Hearn's alleged transfer, the trust being offered a seat a week prior to the vote ending... Something's not right in Denmark.....

I think Fenty is offering a 'slot' not a full seat on the board.

Should we fill Fenty's slot?  What does Fenty's slot smell like? Rat?

He is playing an absolute blinder, divide and rule of the fans, restricting information (and information is power).

As I said before (and John responded to in his post on the OS), he is playing hardball with a bunch of devoted but disparate supporters.  He holds all the cards, mespecially when the trust don't know the value of what they have got and are not willing to bluff like Johnny boy does!!!

Quoted from forza ivano

it's no coincidence david .It's the latest move by jf in his almost desperate campaign to regain control.

1) it slips jf's mind to tell the Trust that he's been discussing the bennett sell on money with fry for much of january - i'm certain he had a bluddy good idea that bennett would go either in January or the summer and that would relieve any impending financial crisis.

2) waits until the last possible moment to tell the trust that he might have to sell Hearn and paints them into a corner with his proposals

3) omits to tell them that the £200,000 he is going to put in is not new money at all, but simply the balance of the £500,000 he agreed previously with parker to pay

4) suddenly out of nowhere he offers another carrot, although there are so many caveats(as you have pointed out) that you have to wonder if anyone will believe it will happen. interestingly enough this comes after golly's post has raised a number of interesting/difficult questions for jf, and after a number of people have announced their intention to vote no

imho jf has been disingenuous (at best) during this whole affair and i don't personally trust him to deliver the seat on the board. at the moment i'll still be voting no

WHS x10. Excellent post

Quoted from Biccys

Genuine question. If JF says yes in principle to MT having a seat on the board, they then hand over the prom,ised shares and miraculously JF finds a reason to not give them the seat as promised due to some legality, loophole, technicality. What then? Cos I can smell a rat if I'm honest. There's too many coincidences with timiongs in this whole affair. The Bennett money, Hearn's alleged transfer, the trust being offered a seat a week prior to the vote ending... Something's not right in Denmark.....

And surely if the MT retain all their shares then this increases the incentive for the Board to offer a place to the Trust, because that way 'control resides within the Boardroom'? If the Trust transfer their shares to JF, there's less incentive for the Board to invite the Trust to have a seat, as that objective will have been achieved already!

I understand it's a "Non-executive role" which is fine, any is better than none, but what if that offer is withdrawn, as would appear possible if they don't have the required investment capability and shares any more.One thing IS certain though. It's a Holy flipping mess. And I don't even believe in Jebus....

Quoted from DavidB

And surely if the MT retain all their shares then this increases the incentive for the Board to offer a place to the Trust, because that way 'control resides within the Boardroom'? If the Trust transfer their shares to JF, there's less incentive for the Board to invite the Trust to have a seat, as that objective will have been achieved already!

Quite right. the sad thing is that if jf had been honest and open in his dealings with the trust , then people would be able to vote yes, because they would trust fenty to stick to his word. the fact that he has not means that nobody in their right mind would trust him to deliver what he has 'promised'.

this for me is the sadness with all this - jf is playing this as a game or a battle which has to be won , and he will use all the tricks in his armoury to win.and yet the  trust don't want to fight him ,they want an on going ,honest and open relationship with him. they have no secret agendas or aces up their sleeves like jf's previous adversaries, and yet he treats them as such, so destroying from the outset what could have been 'a beautiful relationship'