The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

I still don't get that if, as has been said, 'this whole share issue is being driven by "control being outside the boardroom"', why the decent and logical thing wasn't to invite the Trust - with the whole of their shares in tact - onto the board? Control is then in the boardroom surely and certain assurances could be negotiated and made binding.

It would surely show that the majority shareholder acknowledged the input and ownership of a fan based organisation and would show a clear and greater willingness for working together, as is often stated as an aim. Instead a hornets nest is kicked at a vital time. Yes, different groups have different shares in all manner of businesses and are prone to takeovers (hostile or otherwise) because of it, but some of the best avoid the vagaries of individual decisions by ensuring wider representation and more cooperative approaches.

the sep11 statement is back...http://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10417~2458179,00.html

a couple of highlights

parker "I am surprised that we have got to this spot if this shareholding was such a concern to John then clearly he could have chosen to match my shares, I believe that he still has up to £350,000 of his £500,000 commitment to put into the club and he intends to do that when the cash is needed, probably in the turn of the calendar year and he could put that into shares so the problem could be rectified or could have become rectified"

fenty "Mr Parker then publicly requested to increase his shareholding by 500,000 shares. This was not a matter of providing funds for the cash flow requirements of the business; it clearly provided him with just under 54% and control. Assuming I acquired the same number of shares which was never discussed, control would still remain outside of the board room. Mr Parker suggested in the interview that I could equate, this does not solve the problem."

Quoted from Denby

the sep11 statement is back...http://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10417~2458179,00.html

a couple of highlights

parker "I am surprised that we have got to this spot if this shareholding was such a concern to John then clearly he could have chosen to match my shares, I believe that he still has up to £350,000 of his £500,000 commitment to put into the club and he intends to do that when the cash is needed, probably in the turn of the calendar year and he could put that into shares so the problem could be rectified or could have become rectified"

fenty "Mr Parker then publicly requested to increase his shareholding by 500,000 shares. This was not a matter of providing funds for the cash flow requirements of the business; it clearly provided him with just under 54% and control. Assuming I acquired the same number of shares which was never discussed, control would still remain outside of the board room. Mr Parker suggested in the interview that I could equate, this does not solve the problem."

Bore off Denby.  Just watch the football and please keep some of your mis guided thoughts and posts to yourself.

Quoted from Sixpence

Bore off Denby.  Just watch the football and please keep some of your mis guided thoughts and posts to yourself.

i should stop quoting relevant statements from the official site?

Quoted from Denby

i should stop quoting relevant statements from the official site?

I thought he was being sarcastic as a joke.  
Least I hope so !

Quoted from Fishbone

I still don't get that if, as has been said, 'this whole share issue is being driven by "control being outside the boardroom"', why the decent and logical thing wasn't to invite the Trust - with the whole of their shares in tact - onto the board? Control is then in the boardroom surely and certain assurances could be negotiated and made binding.

It would surely show that the majority shareholder acknowledged the input and ownership of a fan based organisation and would show a clear and greater willingness for working together, as is often stated as an aim. Instead a hornets nest is kicked at a vital time. Yes, different groups have different shares in all manner of businesses and are prone to takeovers (hostile or otherwise) because of it, but some of the best avoid the vagaries of individual decisions by ensuring wider representation and more cooperative approaches.

That's great but I sadly doubt anyone will ever get to know all the answers.
Partly because JF himself arguably isn't being clear himself.

For example, will he walk if the vote is no ?
Personally I doubt it but whilst there was nothing I saw in his lengthy statement, the trust say:
"If it is a no vote then Mr Fenty will be far less willing to make any further investment"

[Find it ironic they say "Again that is one for Mr Fenty" yet they're happy enough to point that one out !  ]

Does that mean he'll walk away or not ?
Even now, we still don't bloody well know !!!?  
Are we meant to read between the lines like we did in the letter ?  

Anyway, I could quite easily moan at the trusts inconsistency, ambiguity of Q&A answers etc at great length or go round in circles e-mailing the trust or JF for answers that aren't easily available.

Instead I'm voting yes just thankful the clubs future is protected until 2013 and this "control of the boardroom" issue is being put to bed once and for all !

No idea if it's true or not but the overriding message I feel like I'm getting is to be grateful for what you've got.
I suspect maybe there's some truth in that and it could be worse (right now at least)

Quoted from Squarkus

Parker broke the deal by fu king of,sholder to sholder was the deal not just for this season but for the future of GTFC he was the owner when all said and done, so as i look at it fenty is still the lone ranger picking up the tab, by the way can i be the first to kick his balls.

You're not addressing the point Golly made in the original post.  Golly said both agreed on the same level of investment and states that Fenty didn't fulfill this whereas Parker bought shares to a certain value. Golly goes on to say that Fenty's "new" £200k is't new but just fulfills the original agreement with Parker.

Now not being party to that agreement I honestly don't know, but there's a question to be answered. Maybe Fenty can clear this up in a momment with an unequivocal statement saying this £200k worth of shares he's buying nder the agreement proposed by the Trust board is new money over and above what he agreed with Mike Parker or it's not.

Which is it?

Quoted from Informer the real one

balderdash with bells on Golly. I dont like fenty but your blowing smoke up the wrong one here, if things do go well fenty deserves the credit, not your knight.

That completely misses his point. (I assume Golly is a he - to be sexist, only a bloke could be that much of a statto). It's not about what credit does anyone deserve, it's about clarifying some facts.  If Golly is wrong, point out where.

Quoted from 1600

Instead I'm voting yes just thankful the clubs future is protected until 2013 and this "control of the boardroom" issue is being put to bed once and for all !*
No idea if it's true or not but the overriding message I feel like I'm getting is to be grateful for what you've got**.
I suspect maybe there's some truth in that and it could be worse (right now at least)

* I very much doubt it. Many on here don't agree with me but mark my words.  I think the whole fear about rocking the boat lest he walks/jeopardising promotion is short-termist and possibly does Mr Fenty's dedication a great disservice.  Would he really walk away?

I remember when a few years ago following the (pitifully supported Keep the Mariners Afloat campaign) JF to his credit stepped in. This support was predicated on the basis that the shareholders agreed to waive the Takeover rule that anyone havng 51% of the shares had to buy the shares of remaining minority shareholders.  The new Trust board are merely following in the footsteps of the old Trust board in buying this. At least the old board could say iwe didn't have enough votes to make a difference. Personally I'd rather they'd said no on principle even if they'd been outvoted. But hey ho. Here we are again.

** I was but the Trust Board is proposing we give away a lot of what we've got.  

Quoted from Fishbone

I still don't get that if, as has been said, 'this whole share issue is being driven by "control being outside the boardroom"', why the decent and logical thing wasn't to invite the Trust - with the whole of their shares in tact - onto the board? Control is then in the boardroom surely and certain assurances could be negotiated and made binding.

It would surely show that the majority shareholder acknowledged the input and ownership of a fan based organisation and would show a clear and greater willingness for working together, as is often stated as an aim. Instead a hornets nest is kicked at a vital time. Yes, different groups have different shares in all manner of businesses and are prone to takeovers (hostile or otherwise) because of it, but some of the best avoid the vagaries of individual decisions by ensuring wider representation and more cooperative approaches.

Fishbone, you are talking so much sense it could be dangerous.

I wonder if Mr Fenty could answer the question in your first paragraph.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

I wonder if Mr Fenty could answer the question in your first paragraph.

Sorry to butt in but surely the response would be about the trust having the capability to help finance the club ?

Trust say:

"Pursuing a full executive board position is not something we wish to pursue at the moment given the financial responsibility that potentially comes with it.
A full place is open to us when we can prove sustainable financial commitments .We are not in a position to do that yet but intend to be in the future .The logical first step is to achieve a non executive position on the board and discussions about this are very much on going and we feel very confident of a favourable outcome.

How the trust are gonna raise enough to help bankroll the club or how Chapman got in there at all makes me wonder but that's another matter...

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

* I very much doubt it. Many on here don't agree with me but mark my words.  I think the whole fear about rocking the boat lest he walks/jeopardising promotion is short-termist and possibly does Mr Fenty's dedication a great disservice.  Would he really walk away?

Personally I don't think he would now no.

I hope you're right that he won't later but I'm not convinced.
Personally I'm guessing he's on a 2 season sh1t or bust mission to get out the BSP, relocate etc.
If we don't go up this season, I expect the case for a relatively whopping budget to be pushed next year. (which tbf I might agree with)

I fear if the deal doesn't go through, he might have a ready made excuse to walk next season (not that he needs one) in the unlikely event the wheels fall off in the BSP (if we're still here) next season.

Sure he doesn't need any reason to walk away but does anyone really want to give him a good reason like "control outside the boardroom" ?
Can't say I do.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

** I was but the Trust Board is proposing we give away a lot of what we've got.

Good one.

lol I don't know, it's a funny old issue.
Some people say the trust shares are worth nothing.
Others say Mike parker hasn't really given the club anything cos he can always flog them to regain his investment.
I don't know but the truth is out there somewhere !