The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

80's - your suggestion seems to be to suspend the vote until every Town fan going has joined the Trust? What should we say - 1,000 members? 2000? We took 28,000 to Wembley the first time so shall we go for that? Tell Fenty if he can just hang on til the bottom end of never and then we can have the vote.

I suppose it's a bit like the other question "How do you make sure every Town fan would get a chance to vote ?".

Someone (it might have been you I'm not sure) mentioned Scunny imposters signing up whatever.

Well you know what, sometimes you'll never get the perfect solution or answer.

If you're telling me we shouldn't bother trying to giving thousands of Town fans a voice because a few Scunny imposters MIGHT be arsed to chip in too, then I'd argue we're jumping at shadows and the priorities are wrong.

Same thing for the "representation" issue - what are we saying ?

It's better that we go with something arguably unacceptable because we can't think of the perfect solution which is better ?

I do agree the vote should be cancelled but only til the Board offer becomes something concrete and definite.
But what if it doesn't ?  
See how easy it is to do nothing ?  

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

I completed my masters degree in maths at Cambridge University.

Sure I believe you.

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

If you still want to moan that the Trust don't represent the fans then so be it. It is not the point of their existence - the Trust represent the Trust and anyone can join.

The trust represent the trust ?
Fair enough then.

Quoted from marinette

If you think you can do a better job than the current board representatives, then why on earth didn't you put yourself forward in the first place?

Peronsal circumstances, I just can't

Quoted from marinette

You complain about the Trust steaming ahead without consulting the membership and then in the next breath you want them to wave a magic wand and come up with 'detailed future plans' at the drop of a hat?  How does that work exactly?

Talking ideas would be a start.

Quoted from marinette

No, it doesn't really bother me that only 300 members have joined up.   And no, I don't really want to know what is around the corner.  Does that make me a bad person?

Not at all I'm just a bit suprised you don't want membership to increase and you're not interested.  

Quoted from marinette

You don't think other people care about GTFC... only you.  Fair enough.

Did I say that ?

Anyway, I think I know what the score is - don't see the point is discussing this anymore.
There's always a reason something else can't work !
Tell you what it's the last time I try to help the trust out.

Quoted from 1600

Well you know what, sometimes you'll never get the perfect solution or answer.

If you're telling me we shouldn't bother trying to giving thousands of Town fans a voice because a few Scunny imposters MIGHT be arsed to chip in too, then I'd argue we're jumping at shadows and the priorities are wrong.

That's what the Trust is for!!!!  
Is this all just a wind up?

Quoted from 1600

Sure I believe you.

Yep, Selwyn college 2003. Are you really that surprised there are Fishy members more educated that you? But that's irrelevant and I'm fully aware this academic dik-swinging will not reflect well on me either so I'll stop there.  

Quoted from 1600

Talking ideas would be a start.
Tell you what it's the last time I try to help the trust out.

I think it's the regular comments of this nature that do you the biggest disservice. Whether you're aware or not, you give the impression that you are truly amazed that your comments fail to gain universal acknowledgement as being "correct". Maybe, just maybe your ideas are not quite as useful or well thought through as you believe?  

With 6 days left to go before the deadline for the vote by MT members, to help me (and others) make up my mind about this somewhat complex situation I suggest we separate the two issues:

1) the extent to which the Trust does/should/can/ought to represent/claim to represent the supporters' base of the club. That's a valid point for discussion and debate - but it's irrelevant to the current urgent issue of the vote, which constitutionally and legally applies only to the members of the Trust. We can debate how this came about, the rights and wrongs of the MT Board approach - but that is a very different topic to the very urgent and important issue:

2) what are the arguments for and against voting 'Yes' and for and against voting 'No'?

I'm struggling with this. On the one hand a Yes vote will enable John Fenty to feel comfortable about the allocation of share ownership and he's promised to commit further funds that keeps the club a going concern for 15 months.

On the other hand, there are some nagging doubts: the 'carrot and stick' pressures being used to persuade the Trust; there are alternative solutions that don't require the Trust to relinquish any of its shareholding ownership influence (a place on the Board; a renewable assignment of voting proxy to the Chair of any Board meeting; a renewable commitment to not voting against JF at an EGM). The pressure being put on the Trust as the least powerful major shareholder to relinquish its potential influence doesn't feel right - in forming a coalition you work out a compromise, you don't ask the minority party to transfer its seats to the dominant party! Nor do you sign-away your rights to accept further shares.

Presumably a No vote shouldn't be seen as anti-JF or closing the door on any solution - just that the currently negotiated proposal isn't acceptable to the majority of those Trust members who voted (the only subset of fans that count in this issue).

Views on this welcome please - arguments for and against over the next couple of days will be helpful!

Another good post.
Do I take it you're a trust member yet to decide David ?

If I was forced between the yes and the no, I would go yes because it clears up so many things - funding, and all the palaver that's likely to result if a "No" vote happens.

Maybe that's not the best reason in the world but it might be the best solution.

Would you put money into what is effectively something you don't control.

Pressure what pressure the MT are not having to raise funds as and when required. Myabe you would like the exposure DavidB.

Think a reality check is needed TBH

Quoted from 1600

Tell you what it's the last time I try to help the trust out.

And there's me thinking you were desperate to increase Trust membership.  Throwing a hissy fit in public and sniping at every opportunity - you're not really going out of your way to attract new members to the trust, are you?  Not in any practical sense.  

It's strange - you remind me of macca bilk when he was at his most annoying.

Quoted from Pongo

Would you put money into what is effectively something you don't control.

Pressure what pressure the MT are not having to raise funds as and when required. Myabe you would like the exposure DavidB.

Think a reality check is needed TBH

Thanks pongo for commenting: an interesting response!

Re: JF's reluctance to commit funds when he doesn't have control (although I thought he'd expressed it as 'ownership / control being outside the Boardroom' - which is different - and 'fear of being removed from the Board via an EGM', with associated risk to the funds he has contributed.

I understand his position/concerns about this - but (and this is a question) if he lost / relinquished his position as a Director surely he is entitled to repayment of his loans and can sell his shares?

And why would the renewable allocation of voting rights to the Chair as proxy and / or a (renewable) understanding about the Trust not voting against him in the event of an AGM not allay these concerns?

Re: the contribution of funds: (a question) what are the legal obligations on shareholders (compared to the Board) to contribute funds to ensure the  Club continues as a going concern, other than to respond to any calls to all shareholders as determined by the Board? And why are other (major) shareholders not being approached to raise funds or donate shares?

Genuine questions....!

Quoted from DavidB

Re: JF's reluctance to commit funds

I understand his position/concerns about this - but (and this is a question) if he lost / relinquished his position as a Director surely he is entitled to repayment of his loans and can sell his shares?

Re: the contribution of funds: (a question) what are the legal obligations on shareholders (compared to the Board) to contribute funds to ensure the  Club continues as a going concern, other than to respond to any calls to all shareholders as determined by the Board? And why are other (major) shareholders not being approached to raise funds or donate shares?
Genuine questions....!

Hi David, I have been away for a while and have missed most of what has gone on but as i understand it.

You mention repayment of loans. Firstly the club cannot repay these loans even if it wanted to. They stand at around £2.1 mill at the last accounts and i believe JF has put a further 300K in this season from his comments in the press, which i must say he didn't have to and i suspect most of us wouldn't have if we had the money under the current circumstances.

If Mr Fenty left the Board.
I understand there is an agreement called a Directors Protocol agreement that was well detailed at the last AGM. According to JF if a director left the board of their own volition then they could not demand loans back unless they were affordable. So i guess an affordable repayment arrangement would be put in place on a director leaving the board.

However if they were removed then the loans could be called on. Now is this an ACE and is it likely to be used??? A million dollar question.

My impression is that JF would have liked to have stepped aside and given someone else a chance.  I think that is clear from his actions and statements.

Describing his loans as benign is fair enough but what does this mean. Would JF whatever the circumstances force the club into administration/ possibly, but i doubt he would force it out of business.

To expand, it is often the case that when a business is floundering that it enters in to a simple form of administration called a Pre-Pack. Effectively dipping into administration and virtually coming out straight away.

My suspicion is that JF will either walk away in the event of a NO vote and deal with the loans in a benign way. Or get the hump and take the club into a pre-pack and wash away other shareholders in the process. Simply his loans enable him to call the shots of and administration.

Whatever the way be careful what you wish for is my advice.

Re:Obligation of Funds
There seems to be nil obligations on JF to put any funds in to the club. At the 2010 AGM, the Whitewash agreement between MP and JF that was ratified by shareholders, has i would suggest, gone up in smoke. And the significant change since then is that MP acquired control and then did nothing with it, but choose to upset the apple cart by gifting 500k of shares to the MT. Was it wise, out of the goodness of his heart, or just to get one over on JF???? My view is that it got him out of a pickle and shoved it up JF.

Regarding responsibility of shareholders, there are no obligations to provide funds, however they usually do. If they are shareholder Directors as has to be the case with GTFC. In any case they have a duty to maintain going concern. Effectively that is to ensure the club can pay its short term debt say, 12 month obligations and do not enter into any transaction that they are clear they cannot pay for, otherwise they could become personally libel for the debt.

After looking over the various threads on this Share Issue, i must say whether it be members of the MT or just fans, there emotions are up and down. Unreliable at best.

Just  a though!!!!!
If you were funding the football Club would you like to be hostage to such whimsical discussions as on the MB arising in a vote adversely affect the interest of the GTFC.

I would say JF has not held a gun to anyone's head or played hard ball, i think its the reverse to be honest. The MT have propositioned the members with a rational proposal which maintains a significant shareholding that can be sued to call meetings and ask for a poll vote which is all that is needed, that is unless they are planning to run the club.

Quoted from shareholder

Hi David, I have been away for a while and have missed most of what has gone on but as i understand it.

You mention repayment of loans. Firstly the club cannot repay these loans even if it wanted to. They stand at around £2.1 mill at the last accounts and i believe JF has put a further 300K in this season from his comments in the press, which i must say he didn't have to and i suspect most of us wouldn't have if we had the money under the current circumstances.

If Mr Fenty left the Board.
I understand there is an agreement called a Directors Protocol agreement that was well detailed at the last AGM. According to JF if a director left the board of their own volition then they could not demand loans back unless they were affordable. So i guess an affordable repayment arrangement would be put in place on a director leaving the board.

However if they were removed then the loans could be called on. Now is this an ACE and is it likely to be used??? A million dollar question.

My impression is that JF would have liked to have stepped aside and given someone else a chance.  I think that is clear from his actions and statements.

Describing his loans as benign is fair enough but what does this mean. Would JF whatever the circumstances force the club into administration/ possibly, but i doubt he would force it out of business.

To expand, it is often the case that when a business is floundering that it enters in to a simple form of administration called a Pre-Pack. Effectively dipping into administration and virtually coming out straight away.

My suspicion is that JF will either walk away in the event of a NO vote and deal with the loans in a benign way. Or get the hump and take the club into a pre-pack and wash away other shareholders in the process. Simply his loans enable him to call the shots of and administration.

Whatever the way be careful what you wish for is my advice.

Re:Obligation of Funds
There seems to be nil obligations on JF to put any funds in to the club. At the 2010 AGM, the Whitewash agreement between MP and JF that was ratified by shareholders, has i would suggest, gone up in smoke.

Regarding responsibility of shareholders, there are no obligations to provide funds, however they usually do. If they are shareholder Directors as has to be the case with GTFC. In any case they have a duty to maintain going concern. Effectively that is to ensure the club can pay its short term debt say, 12 month obligations and do not enter into any transaction that they are clear they cannot pay for, otherwise they could become personally libel for the debt.

I think this is a pretty good post. My only comment would be that is there a moral obligation for JF to fund a budget he and his fellow board members set? While I appreciate that it is someone elses money I'm spending by saying this (and as such it's easy for me to say), I think there is.

There is much that can be commented on regarding the possibility of administration and wiping out other shareholders etc, but Id prefer not to speculate further on that, bt it is by no means certain that JF would either WANT to regain control, nor would it be certain that he would be the only possible investor.

aaaahh, thank goodness , we seem to have resumed a higher level of debate - thanks to david b and the disappearance of 80s gloryhole!

shareholder- we've been waiting for you to reappear! i'd be very interested in your views on golly's post which actually started this mammoth thread.
i must say i'd have to disagree with you about jf playing hardball - he ,imho, has been disingenuous in his dealings with the trust.as i've said before, he came up with the nightmare scenario of hearn being sold on deadline day a couple of days before the 31.1 deadline, and somehow seems to have omitted to mention to the trust the discussions he'd been having with barry fry over the past couple of weeks re ryan bennett's sell on clause. i find it very difficult to believe that he didn't know/suspect a transfer was in the offing either in january or the summer. we also have the unresolved question as to whether the £200,000 so proudly trumpeted by jf was actually new money or simply the balance of the £500,000 he'd previously pledged. my suspicion is the latter and i am reminded of the smoke and mirrors announcements and budgets that gordon brown so specialised in.do you remember those? - the tax increases that didn't start for several years so we'd all forgotten about them by the time they came round and the spending pledges that were re hashed and re - announced to make it look as though it was new money?

at the moment i'm voting no, but am going to put on my ballot paper that i'd prefer a 3rd way - we suspend the voting rights for 6 months as a gesture of goodwill, but say that the present arrangement, whilst an acceptable basis for moving forward, needs further negotiation.
if the Trust were to be offered a cast iron, non executive place on the board then i think i'd vote yes. at the moment jf is gaining 200,000 shares and control in return for nothing that the trust couldn't have before this blew up