The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Read his post that you quoted 'love him or loathe him'.  We all have opinions, Sadly that's fuelled by the internet mis-information era.  However, opinions aside in one form or another he's put a fortune into the club.  That's a fact, to see if I believe it's been done effectively just check my other posts.  He's still here and there still isn't an alternative so let's use the Trust as a vehicle to influence.

There is an argument that the Trust will be less influential with less shares. Others believe by settling this situation, the Trust will ensure a much better working relationship with JF. What is certainly true is that the trust will only be as influential as JF allows them to be, he'll never give anything away he doesnt want to give away. The only way the Trust can TRULY influence is if as many people as possible join up. Barralad made this pooint previously, and the Trust promotional papers say it too, that together, we are stronger. A cliche I know but still true non the less.

There are some very able minds on this forum, and I'd love to see some of them actively involved with the trust.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Read his post that you quoted 'love him or loathe him'.  We all have opinions, Sadly that's fuelled by the internet mis-information era.  However, opinions aside in one form or another he's put a fortune into the club.  That's a fact, to see if I believe it's been done effectively just check my other posts.  He's still here and there still isn't an alternative so let's use the Trust as a vehicle to influence.

Don't disagree with the highlighted bit Leighton. Two questions that arise from that:
(a) it depends on which way you want to influence him;
(b) is the proposed gifting of shares the best way to influence him.

Part of the relevance of Golly's history lesson is to highlight apparent weaknesses in the arguments about "putting control back in the boardroom" and  clarifying whether the extra £200k really is new money.  If he's right then it undermines the rationale for the deal and the credibility of the statement. Shaky ground is no basis for a good decision.

Quoted from Squarkus

What makes you think Wally Golly is right??

Good one. I'm sure Golly feels well and truly put in his place with that one.

Quoted from Squarkus

so you like to play russian roulett do you, as banded on previous posts if the club are in 3.5 million of debt, do you not think thats why MP scampered of, and where do you come from with investment, what lunatic would invest in a football club, JF does it because he first and formost is a fan and is passionate about GTFC and quite clearly a lunatic, we are enjoying the best spell of football we have seen in 10 years and all you can bang on about is shares ect ect, ffs wake up and smell the coffee, the only way forward is to back JF and the trust and see if we can get out of this sh t league.UTM

The game of Russian roulette was already started when this whole fiasco kicked off. The Trust Board blinked first.

As for the question of who would invest in a football club, you've partly answered this yourself. The other one was Mike Parker. Also in a small way, every other shareholder, inc the Trust from day one of its existence.

As for people banging on about shares, well that is kind of the whole point of the issue. The Trust Board has proposed a major transfer of shares from common ownership to a club director. How can people fail to "bang on" about it whether for or against. If they'd never proposed it, we wouldn't be bangng on about it.

To coin a popular phrase, if you don't fackin like it darnt fackin read a thread called "Reply to 'The  Share Issue....'"

Quoted from Chris

I'd just like to clarify that the Trust board have not been hoodwinked by anyone.

There is virtually nothing contained within any of the threads on any forum I have seen that was not mentioned, brought  up, debated, discussed or even argued about. The Trust board came to a MAJORITY verdict, not a unanimous one. One board member has publicly declared how he voted and why, another resigned his position because he voted no. As much as this has been debated on the forums, it was debated by the Trust board, I can 100% assure anyone of that.

Must have missed something here Chris. Who was it?  Not mentioned on the Trust site as far as I can see.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Must have missed something here Chris. Who was it?  Not mentioned on the Trust site as far as I can see.

Argh. must proof read! Should read "nearly resigned because he voted no". Apologies.

The other member who declared how he voted was Barralad, on here on another thread a few days ago, and he explained his reasoning in full. Pretty persuasive arguments were made by him.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Don't disagree with the highlighted bit Leighton. Two questions that arise from that:
(a) it depends on which way you want to influence him;
(b) is the proposed gifting of shares the best way to influence him.

Part of the relevance of Golly's history lesson is to highlight apparent weaknesses in the arguments about "putting control back in the boardroom" and  clarifying whether the extra £200k really is new money.  If he's right then it undermines the rationale for the deal and the credibility of the statement. Shaky ground is no basis for a good decision.

The answer to b. In my opinion is no.

Quoted from Chris

Argh. must proof read! Should read "nearly resigned because he voted no". Apologies.

The other member who declared how he voted was Barralad, on here on another thread a few days ago, and he explained his reasoning in full. Pretty persuasive arguments were made by him.

Phew!

If Fenty was a town player, he may not be the most consistent or skilful in the team but he'd put a shift in every game and he'd stay at the club no matter what.

Quoted from STB

If Fenty was a town player, he may not be the most consistent or skilful in the team but he'd put a shift in every game and he'd stay at the club no matter what.

Like Makofo?