|
|
 MuddyWaters |
| February 29, 2012, 12:11pm |
|
Barley Wine Drinker  Posts: 14,121
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +32,277
Gold Stars: 236
|
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
Although I'm not a Trust member, this would sum up my thoughts. Although as I've stated previously, I believe that this ballot has been completely de-railed over the 'seat/slot on the Board' issue. |
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| forza ivano |
| February 29, 2012, 12:27pm |
|
 Exile Posts: 14,752
Posts Per Day: 2.46
Reputation: 78.4%
Rep Score: +72 / -20
Approval: +15,267
Gold Stars: 266
|
Although I'm not a Trust member, this would sum up my thoughts. Although as I've stated previously, I believe that this ballot has been completely de-railed over the 'seat/slot on the Board' issue.
2 things - firstly you seem to be a pretty sensible fella, why not just stump up the tenner and start having a say? i'ts only by having more people on board and a wider range of views that the trust ,and therefore the fans' representation becomes stronger. seems to me like you've something to contribute and got nothing to lose, apart from a tenner! secondly whilst i sort of agree with you i've thought a bit more about it - what's different between what jf has done and what political parties do during an election? they often come up with new policies during the campaign to take account of different circumstances which occur - often when they think they might be struggling in the polls  .even if a party did a u turn on their taxation policy in the middle of the campaign we wouldn't ask for the election to be stopped and restarted, even if thousands of people had already cast their postal vote? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rodley Mariner |
| February 29, 2012, 12:32pm |
|
|
Posts: 7,809
Posts Per Day: 1.36
Reputation: 78.86%
Rep Score: +63 / -17
Location: Farsley, Leeds
Approval: +13,257
Gold Stars: 178
|
secondly whilst i sort of agree with you i've thought a bit more about it - what's different between what jf has done and what political parties do during an election? they often come up with new policies during the campaign to take account of different circumstances which occur - often when they think they might be struggling in the polls .even if a party did a u turn on their taxation policy in the middle of the campaign we wouldn't ask for the election to be stopped and restarted, even if thousands of people had already cast their postal vote?
It's not really the same as you're voting Yes or No on a single matter which is now considerably clouded. It'd be like the Scots voting on independence and then half way through the day of polling, Cameron announcing that if they vote no, he might, maybe have a look at dropping council tax for all Scots but they'll have to wait and see what he comes up with after they've voted. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MuddyWaters |
| February 29, 2012, 12:32pm |
|
Barley Wine Drinker Posts: 14,121
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +32,277
Gold Stars: 236
|
2 things - firstly you seem to be a pretty sensible fella, why not just stump up the tenner and start having a say? i'ts only by having more people on board and a wider range of views that the trust ,and therefore the fans' representation becomes stronger. seems to me like you've something to contribute and got nothing to lose, apart from a tenner! secondly whilst i sort of agree with you i've thought a bit more about it - what's different between what jf has done and what political parties do during an election? they often come up with new policies during the campaign to take account of different circumstances which occur - often when they think they might be struggling in the polls .even if a party did a u turn on their taxation policy in the middle of the campaign we wouldn't ask for the election to be stopped and restarted, even if thousands of people had already cast their postal vote?
I see what you mean - but policy changes after a postal vote would really only be detail and if you were unsure you probably wouldn't use your postal vote. In this case, JF/the board have completely shifted the landscape and my point in general is that the Trust board is not sufficiently established or backed financially to be dealing with this. I don't want to sound like I'm being disrespectful to the individuals concerned - I'm not - but they are financially weak and JF knows it. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Ipswin |
| February 29, 2012, 12:34pm |
|
Vodka Drinker  Posts: 6,592
Posts Per Day: 1.10
Reputation: 51.24%
Rep Score: +44 / -47
Approval: -3,552
Gold Stars: 89
|
at the moment i'm voting no, but am going to put on my ballot paper that i'd prefer a 3rd way -
Be careful the Trust may well consider that to be a 'spoiled paper' and you vote will not count - just a thought |
| |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Ipswin |
| February 29, 2012, 12:49pm |
|
Vodka Drinker Posts: 6,592
Posts Per Day: 1.10
Reputation: 51.24%
Rep Score: +44 / -47
Approval: -3,552
Gold Stars: 89
|
I do agree the vote should be cancelled but only til the Board offer becomes something concrete and definite. Then proper, updated, fully informed ballot can occur. In the meantime, those with strong opinions either way have the chance to join the Trust, cast their vote and have a proper say in the future of both the trust and the football club.
Probably the most sensible post yet. Knowing exactly what the offer of a position on the board of the club amounts to will do away with all the arguments that it was 'thrown in' at the last minute to affect the vote. If the offer is more than just resident teamaker it will help the 'yes' lobby or if it's a 'chair in the corner and keep quiet' then the 'no' vote will possibly benefit. (the 'yes' lot probably won't like this as I suggest when the true picture emerges board membership will amount to a token presence only) Either way neither side (especially the 'no's) will be able to claim the late announcement was unfair (which IMO it blatantly was) I can see that the granting of the right to vote in a postponed ballot being given to any newly signed up Trust members would dramatically increase Trust membership. Great for the Trust but I suspect the 'yes' crowd wouldn't go for it |
| |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| forza ivano |
| February 29, 2012, 1:02pm |
|
Exile Posts: 14,752
Posts Per Day: 2.46
Reputation: 78.4%
Rep Score: +72 / -20
Approval: +15,267
Gold Stars: 266
|
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 do agree the vote should be cancelled but only til the Board offer becomes something concrete and definite. Then proper, updated, fully informed ballot can occur. In the meantime, those with strong opinions either way have the chance to join the Trust, cast their vote and have a proper say in the future of both the trust and the football club.
interesting post rodley.i wonder if chris or wrawby can tell us if the board have contacted supporters direct on this issue specifically. i.e that the goalposts have been moved after a number of people have already cast their vote? |
|
|
|
|
|
| MuddyWaters |
| February 29, 2012, 1:05pm |
|
Barley Wine Drinker Posts: 14,121
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +32,277
Gold Stars: 236
|
interesting post rodley.i wonder if chris or wrawby can tell us if the board have contacted supporters direct on this issue specifically. i.e that the goalposts have been moved after a number of people have already cast their vote?
With due respect, under the ballot process no-one should be forthcoming with that sort of information - but on the basis that the process is already seriously damaged, why not? |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| MuddyWaters |
| February 29, 2012, 1:11pm |
|
Barley Wine Drinker Posts: 14,121
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +32,277
Gold Stars: 236
|
2 things - firstly you seem to be a pretty sensible fella, why not just stump up the tenner and start having a say? i'ts only by having more people on board and a wider range of views that the trust ,and therefore the fans' representation becomes stronger. seems to me like you've something to contribute and got nothing to lose, apart from a tenner!
Just done it fella. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Squarkus |
| February 29, 2012, 1:19pm |
|
 Lager Top Drinker  Posts: 252
Posts Per Day: 0.05
Reputation: 53.5%
Rep Score: +4 / -8
Approval: -295
|
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.
why do you not want to speculate on that Chris, fenty has to look at all opptions as i see it, whilst the trust run around with the ace card, do you think he is stupid and doesn,t have a plan B, do the trust have a plan B, who is this new investor Chis you have posted this a couple of times now, as we are led to beleave there is not a queue of investors unless the trust and fenty are keeping somthing up there sleaves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
MuddyWaters
Logged
.even if a party did a u turn on their taxation policy in the middle of the campaign we wouldn't ask for the election to be stopped and restarted, even if thousands of people had already cast their postal vote?