Mariners Trust - Seat on GTFC Board

For those that may have missed the post on the MT specific messageboard - surely this is good news for all supporters?  Supporter representation at board level is a massive step forwards IMO.

http://www.marinerstrust.co.uk/index.php/news/39-mtstatementplaceonboard260212

Key question I suppose is: is this offer for a seat on the board conditional on the 200,000 shares going to Fenty?

Quoted from Grim_Exile

For those that may have missed the post on the MT specific messageboard - surely this is good news for all supporters?  Supporter representation at board level is a massive step forwards IMO.

http://www.marinerstrust.co.uk/index.php/news/39-mtstatementplaceonboard260212

Thanks for posting GE.

I am made up.  Congratulations to the Trust and to John Fenty for coming to heads of agreement about this bold step forward.

It is absolutely fantastic news and if it can be confirmed in time for me to get my postal ballot in for March 5th then I will definitely be voting YES, rather than the NO that would have been there previously!

It's such a good news story for the club - putting GTFC on the map as progressive club with regards to fan involvement.

Best news this year.

Up the Bleeding Mariners

Quoted from Tommy

Key question I suppose is: is this offer for a seat on the board conditional on the 200,000 shares going to Fenty?

If so it is a fair trade, in my opinion.  

Really good work by the Trust to have got even to this stage.

A year ago I never thought I would see the day.

Really good work guys.

Quoted from HarryHaddocks

Thanks for posting GE.

I am made up.  Congratulations to the Trust and to John Fenty for coming to heads of agreement about this bold step forward.

It is absolutely fantastic news and if it can be confirmed in time for me to get my postal ballot in for March 5th then I will definitely be voting YES, rather than the NO that would have been there previously!

It's such a good news story for the club - putting GTFC on the map as progressive club with regards to fan involvement.

Best news this year.

Up the Bleeding Mariners

Well there you go. The Trust's ballot process is derailed by a gesture of a seat on the board.

Quoted from HarryHaddocks

Thanks for posting GE.

I am made up.  Congratulations to the Trust and to John Fenty for coming to heads of agreement about this bold step forward.

It is absolutely fantastic news and if it can be confirmed in time for me to get my postal ballot in for March 5th then I will definitely be voting YES, rather than the NO that would have been there previously!

It's such a good news story for the club - putting GTFC on the map as progressive club with regards to fan involvement.

Best news this year.

Up the Bleeding Mariners

WHS word for word.

Mariners Trust I salute you. And I think the GTFC board should be recognized for this positive action.

I hope this offer can be made concrete in time for ballot papers to be posted.

What a complete and utter farce.

Firstly - great news the Trust will get a place on the Board. Complete common sense.

But how on Earth can the current ballot go ahead now this has happened? I've voted a certain way based on what I thought should have happened. That has now happened and may well have changed my vote. You just cannot change things in the middle of a vote!  Incredible. Adds even more weight as to why this should have waited until the end of the season and not taken place now. Surely the result of this is now open to legal challenge?

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Well there you go. The Trust's ballot process is derailed by a gesture of a seat on the board.

Derailed????? surely a touch on the glass-half-empty side Codger?

I am assuming that by "gesture" you are implying it will not happen?

I very much hope your pessimism is misplaced. And would stick my neck out and say that it's unlikely that the club would dangle this carrot and then withdraw the offer. It would be cataclysmic PR.

I guess the the terms/scope of Trust involvement at board level need to be thrashed out which is why it cannot be confirmed immediately?

Quoted from bax

What a complete and utter farce.

Firstly - great news the Trust will get a place on the Board. Complete common sense.

But how on Earth can the current ballot go ahead now this has happened? I've voted a certain way based on what I thought should have happened. That has now happened and may well have changed my vote. You just cannot change things in the middle of a vote!  Incredible. Adds even more weight as to why this should have waited until the end of the season and not taken place now. Surely the result of this is now open to legal challenge?

I understand your concern and agree re: the timing (far from ideal), but I would have thought that this would depend on the outcome of the ballot.  If anything, I would imagine that this news would sway more people towards a 'Yes' rather than a 'No' vote.  If the outcome of the current ballot is 'Yes', then it could be argued that the outcome wouldn't have been affected by this news.

But you can't introduce stuff after the start of the ballot which fundamentally changes the whole process!  Hundreds of people could have voted on the information su0pplied at the outset. Now something has changed which is a two-fingered salute to those who voted early.

Quoted from Trawler

Derailed????? surely a touch on the glass-half-empty side Codger?

If you like, but legally this news effectively changes the landscape of what Trust members were voting on. Those that voted prior to this news may well have voted differently had they had this information to hand, therefore the ballot should be voided with immediate effect.

Quoted from bax

What a complete and utter farce.

Firstly - great news the Trust will get a place on the Board. Complete common sense.

But how on Earth can the current ballot go ahead now this has happened? I've voted a certain way based on what I thought should have happened. That has now happened and may well have changed my vote. You just cannot change things in the middle of a vote!  Incredible. Adds even more weight as to why this should have waited until the end of the season and not taken place now. Surely the result of this is now open to legal challenge?

To be fair mate you've been against this from the start have you not? It's no suprise your looking for a downside, the trust having a place on the board is brilliant and the original idea of the board, if as an added bonus Fenty gives us 200k to its a bigger bonus. The trust will never ever run this club so today's news is the pinical for the trust.

Quoted from pontoonlew

To be fair mate you've been against this from the start have you not? It's no suprise your looking for a downside, the trust having a place on the board is brilliant and the original idea of the board, if as an added bonus Fenty gives us 200k to its a bigger bonus. The trust will never ever run this club so today's news is the pinical for the trust.

Is that a new 200k or the 200k that was committed to as part of the 500k to match Mike Parker's 500k?

Quoted from Grim_Exile

If anything, I would imagine that this news would sway more people towards a 'Yes' rather than a 'No' vote.

but now that control of the club could now be within the boardroom without any transferral of shares this is a fundamentally different situation and could mean people are more inclined to vote no?

Quoted from MuddyWaters

If you like, but legally this news effectively changes the landscape of what Trust members were voting on. Those that voted prior to this news may well have voted differently had they had this information to hand, therefore the ballot should be voided with immediate effect.

Yes, fair enough.  It does mean that those who have already voted may see things in a different light.

Perhaps a ballot recall is in order - but unless it is a concrete offer of a seat on the board my vote would still be NO.

The plot thickens.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Is that a new 200k or the 200k that was committed to as part of the 500k to match Mike Parker's 500k?

you'd be better off asking for the meaning of life

Quoted from Grim_Exile

I understand your concern and agree re: the timing (far from ideal), but I would have thought that this would depend on the outcome of the ballot.  If anything, I would imagine that this news would sway more people towards a 'Yes' rather than a 'No' vote.  If the outcome of the current ballot is 'Yes', then it could be argued that the outcome wouldn't have been affected by this news.

That being the case (swaying people to vote yes), then this seat on the board should be more than just "agreed in principle" should it not, if it going to sway voters (which it will and indeed has -see above)?

Quoted from Trawler

Yes, fair enough.  It does mean that those who have already voted may see things in a different light.

Perhaps a ballot recall is in order - but unless it is a concrete offer of a seat on the board my vote would still be NO.

The plot thickens.

Which leads you to the next question..what is the benefit of a seat on the board if you don't have the shareholding & financial clout to go with it? You could argue that any chance to put forward the view of the fans is a good one but if you look at the vast range of opinions of people on here as a barometer, you could end up trying to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

Quoted from Chris

That being the case (swaying people to vote yes), then this seat on the board should be more than just "agreed in principle" should it not, if it going to sway voters (which it will and indeed has -see above)?

I'm inclined to agree and things have to be clarified from the Club as soon as possible

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Is that a new 200k or the 200k that was committed to as part of the 500k to match Mike Parker's 500k?

Who knows? I think the people who are against this are the people who are against Fenty as a whole. Think it's time people put aside their thoughts on Fenty and saw the bigger picture, because it's hampering people's views on it. If this was Parker I am sure a lot of you would have a different opinion.

Quoted from pontoonlew

Who knows? I think the people who are against this are the people who are against Fenty as a whole. Think it's time people put aside their thoughts on Fenty and saw the bigger picture, because it's hampering people's views on it. If this was Parker I am sure a lot of you would have a different opinion.

Whatever anyone's view on Fenty, he is clearly very astute regarding the machinations of a boardroom, however this news should never have been delivered in what is (and I quote from Saturday's interview) 'a due, legal process'

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Which leads you to the next question..what is the benefit of a seat on the board if you don't have the shareholding & financial clout to go with it? You could argue that any chance to put forward the view of the fans is a good one but if you look at the vast range of opinions of people on here as a barometer, you could end up trying to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

The benefit IMHO is it's a voice for supporters who have joined the Trust. I trust in the Trust and its members to decide what issues are important and need airing at board level - regardless of the number of opinions.

There has been much debate about our unsustainable budgets in recent weeks. Hopefully a Trust member on the board will also help to ensure that club is run responsibly and is financially sustainable.   I think it is much easier for any insight about the real state of our finances to be gleaned by having someone "on the inside".

As for financial clout hopefully a seat on the board for the Trust means many more fans join the Trust.   A bigger Trust with more annual renewals and with better attended fund raising events will one day yield more financial clout.

Rose-tinted? perhaps.  But we cannot knock it until we have tried it.

I would like to trust the Trust but on the basis of what I am seeing/hearing/reading, it looks like there are way too many spokesmen/women at present to be coherent.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I would like to trust the Trust but on the basis of what I am seeing/hearing/reading, it looks like there are way too many spokesmen/women at present to be coherent.

Chris Parker is the Chairman, Graham Precious is the designated communications person which will include interviews from time to time, a responsibility he shares with Chris Parker.

well, well, well.
this is a bit of a bolt from the blue - strange how, when the ballot was sent out, a place on the Board was a distant wish, something that might be considered in the future etc etc.
there then follows a number of people commenting on here that they'll be voting no, because they didn't feel we were getting anything in return for giving up 200,00 shares.many mentioned they felt the trust should have a place on the board, especially as they have far more to offer than messrs elsom and chapman.
then lo and behold a place on the board suddenly becomes available.
looks like the fishy really does run gtfc!!!

what do you think squarkus??

FFS is there no limit to how low Fenty will go?

What a disgraceful move to announce this in the middle of the 'shares gift' ballot.

Was he that afraid it would be a 'no' vote that he threw this in at the 11th hour?

Or is it yet another one of his 'if you agree to this I'll do that' arm twisting moves

Will the offer stand if it is a 'no' vote ? (highly unlikely after this outrageous 'sweetener') If it has been made dependent on the Trust members voting 'yes' it is totally out of order and shows the man for what he is, in my opinion, a manipulative stop-at-nothing operator

The vote must surely be null and void if there is a chance just one voter has been swayed by this underhand late announcement. It should be put to the membership again after the Trust has taken its place on the board

Quoted from Ipswin

FFS is there no limit to how low Fenty will go?

What a disgraceful move to announce this in the middle of the 'shares gift' ballot.

Was he that afraid it would be a 'no' vote that he threw this in at the 11th hour?

Or is it yet another one of his 'if you agree to this I'll do that' arm twisting moves

Will the offer stand if it is a 'no' vote ? (highly unlikely after this outrageous 'sweetener') If it has been made dependent on the Trust members voting 'yes' it is totally out of order and shows the man for what he is, in my opinion, a manipulative stop-at-nothing operator

The vote must surely be null and void if there is a chance just one voter has been swayed by this underhand late announcement. It should be put to the membership again after the Trust has taken its place on the board

I was trying to be slightly more tactful but THIS!

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I would like to trust the Trust but on the basis of what I am seeing/hearing/reading, it looks like there are way too many spokesmen/women at present to be coherent.

I'm interested to know your views on the potential benefits of having the Trust on the GTFC board I listed Codger. Agree or disagree?

As for coherence I guess this is subjective. Coherence can be hard to muster when you're relying on the board of GTFC to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

And it's easy to forget that the Trust board is totally voluntary in nature and there are going to be hiccups along the way.  This is a relatively new board who were immediately called on to deal with the biggest events in the Trust's short life.  Under those conditions I think they have dealt with things pretty coherently.

Your definition of spokesmen/women is unclear - do you mean to say there are too many Trust board members on the Fishy?

Quoted from Ipswin

FFS is there no limit to how low Fenty will go?

What a disgraceful move to announce this in the middle of the 'shares gift' ballot.

Was he that afraid it would be a 'no' vote that he threw this in at the 11th hour?

Or is it yet another one of his 'if you agree to this I'll do that' arm twisting moves

Will the offer stand if it is a 'no' vote ? (highly unlikely after this outrageous 'sweetener') If it has been made dependent on the Trust members voting 'yes' it is totally out of order and shows the man for what he is, in my opinion, a manipulative stop-at-nothing operator

The vote must surely be null and void if there is a chance just one voter has been swayed by this underhand late announcement. It should be put to the membership again after the Trust has taken its place on the board

i think you're probably right ipswin - it's both a carrot and stick proposal, and he's done it because he was getting nervous ; he obviously reads the fishy and indeed it has been suggested he even posts on here. the third way option - i.e. vote no, but that it could be a yes if the trust was offered more has got quite a bit of support on here, and after gobby's thread more and more interesting/difficult questions were being asked.i'll repeat the point i've made previously - jf desperately wants those shares and that control, and i thought that he'd have more to offer if pushed.
and i think i'd agree that the ballot process has been corrupted. a re-ballot would also keep up the pressure on him, which would be no bad thing

Who has actually made this offer to the Trust? John Fenty is not in a position to offer a seat on the board is he? as he himself is only a board member and not Chairman. Surely any new board members have to be approved by the shareholders at an AGM or EGM. What is a non-executive position? Is anything the Trust suggest to be thrown out by the rest of the board using what used to be the Trusts shares against them.

Although I would love to see the Trust have a proper seat on the board, I just see this as an attempt to sway the upcoming vote, and even with the Trust sitting in at board meetings etc. they will still actually be powerless to influence anything.

Quoted from Coley Surfer

Who has actually made this offer to the Trust? John Fenty is not in a position to offer a seat on the board is he? as he himself is only a board member and not Chairman. Surely any new board members have to be approved by the shareholders at an AGM or EGM. What is a non-executive position? Is anything the Trust suggest to be thrown out by the rest of the board using what used to be the Trusts shares against them.

Although I would love to see the Trust have a proper seat on the board, I just see this as an attempt to sway the upcoming vote, and even with the Trust sitting in at board meetings etc. they will still actually be powerless to influence anything.

The person representing the Truss on the board of GTFC will have no power or voice whatsover (but could be useful looking after the coats, making the tea and sharpening the pencils as Fenty sniggers at how easy it was to get £200,000 worth of free shares)

Quoted from Ipswin

The person representing the Truss on the board of GTFC will have no power or voice whatsover (but could be useful looking after the coats, making the tea and sharpening the pencils as Fenty sniggers at how easy it was to get £200,000 worth of free shares)

I sort of knew that Swin. I just wanted some sort of clarification. Then again if you realised who I was then you'd have known that already.

Quoted from Ipswin

The person representing the Truss on the board of GTFC will have no power or voice whatsover (but could be useful looking after the coats, making the tea and sharpening the pencils as Fenty sniggers at how easy it was to get £200,000 worth of free shares)

Okay, can you tell me what the trust can do better with 200k that Fenty can't do with 400k? If it's really about the benifit of the club and not about your views on Fenty on a personal level I'm sure you'll have a good answer.

Quoted from Ipswin

The person representing the Truss on the board of GTFC will have no power or voice whatsover (but could be useful looking after the coats, making the tea and sharpening the pencils as Fenty sniggers at how easy it was to get £200,000 worth of free shares)

FFS

How boringly predictable. Ipswin in Slate Everything Shocker.

What is it exactly you'd suggest moving forward Ipswin?  Is there any good to come out of a Trust? Come on mate.  What's your big idea?

Or is just you need to face facts that you'll NEVER be happy?

Presumably you're not a Trust member - it must be soooooo frustrating watching from the sidelines while they "screw it all up."

Next time get involved so your opinions actually count for something, rather than shouting from the sidelines.

For the record, I saw more people on here saying they'd vote yes than no, people claiming otherwise are being very biased and selective.

I think a seat on the board is fantastic. Every trust across the country has this type of aim and we may just be on the cusp of achieving it. Yes, it may well be in exchange for £200k of share (which the trust did not pay for) but someone on the board can act as a voice for the fans which should, in turn, encourage more people to join the trust. This will increase funds and allow the trust to attempt more ambitious ways of helping the club. No, the board representative won't have a major iinfluence on the finance, players etc but their voice will be direct link between the fans and club which will no doubt be useful in resolving (or trying to) issues regarding catering, club promotion schemes, communication etc. It can only be positive step.

Quoted from FFS

FFS

How boringly predictable. Ipswin in Slate Everything Shocker.

What is it exactly you'd suggest moving forward Ipswin?  Is there any good to come out of a Trust? Come on mate.  What's your big idea?

Or is just you need to face facts that you'll NEVER be happy?

Presumably you're not a Trust member - it must be soooooo frustrating watching from the sidelines while they "screw it all up."

Next time get involved so your opinions actually count for something, rather than shouting from the sidelines.

It's not a case of 'slating everything'

If you can't see

a) that this 11th hour announcement of a place on the board of GTFC is purely designed to ensure the Trust members vote 'yes' and
b) that whoever represents the Trust on the board will be there as a token representative with no power to influence things

then I just hope you haven't had a vote.

The Trust? What can it achieve? Quite honestly not a lot with Fenty having such a powerful grip on the whole shooting match and even less if they relinquish half of their shares

I have already suggested a way forward which was to review the situation in May rather than the knee-jerk reaction we are seeing now. One whisper that Fenty might not put in any more money and everbody would cheerfully sell their Granny.

FFS we are having one of our best seasons ever under Fenty (mind you there hasn't been much competition) There is an outside chance we might get back in the F League, Bennett's sell-on money will start to come in, gates are up, there is no way Fenty is going to sit back and watch the club and his 'benign' loans go down the tubes now (especially when he had already undertaken to put more cash in anyway and is simply late doing so) and his threat that we might have to sell Hearn in January is no longer valid

As a shareholder I consider I am already involved but my shares (a bit like those the Turst will be left with) are useless voting-wise against Fenty's holding

BTW I an not your 'mate'

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.

Just what does a "slot" mean, doesn't sound to me like a proper board member.

Quoted from arryarryarry

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.

Just what does a "slot" mean, doesn't sound to me like a proper board member.

Board member without voting powers it looks to me non executive

Quoted from arryarryarry

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.

Just what does a "slot" mean, doesn't sound to me like a proper board member.

Yeah well pointed out... Sounds more like they'll be able to have five mins during the normal board meeting to voice their opinions and then be shown the door... Could just be the way it's worded though...

Quoted from Wrawby_Mariner

Board member without voting powers it looks to me non executive

first paragraph of the trust statement:

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

Just found this as part of a definition of an non executive board member

They are generally held equally liable as the executive directors under certain statutory requirements such as tax laws

I would hope the Trust are aware of this and I assume they will put in place some sort of insurance to cover any liabilities.

I am getting in touch with TESCO to get on their board because i go there every week. I thought having a waste of space on the board is what drunk old Nosey off hence him dumping the shares. The club needs wealthy successful businessmen on the board

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.

Quoted from HarryHaddocks

if it can be confirmed in time for me to get my postal ballot in for March 5th then I will definitely be voting YES, rather than the NO that would have been there previously!

A classic example of how this last minute announcement (which isn't all it seems incidentally - please see DavidB's post on the details of what Trust participation is likely to be limited to) could radically alter how people vote.

Quoted from Ipswin

A classic example of how this last minute announcement (which isn't all it seems incidentally - please see DavidB's post on the details of what Trust participation is likely to be limited to) could radically alter how people vote.

I would only vote 'yes' if a concrete seat on the board were to be agreed between now and posting my vote back to the trust, a slot in board meetings won't change my vote from a NO.

So it hasn't really radically altered my vote.

But then I'm only an inflatable fish.

#wewantharryback  

Quoted from HarryHaddocks

I would only vote 'yes' if a concrete seat on the board were to be agreed between now and posting my vote back to the trust, a slot in board meetings won't change my vote from a NO.

So it hasn't really radically altered my vote.

But then I'm only an inflatable fish.

#wewantharryback  

whs

Quoted from HarryHaddocks

I would only vote 'yes' if a concrete seat on the board were to be agreed between now and posting my vote back to the trust  

That'll give you 'nobby-stiles' mate, take a cushion is my advice!

Quoted from HarryHaddocks

I would only vote 'yes' if a concrete seat on the board were to be agreed

#wewantharryback  

They are all concrete now - they stopped using chairs when Mike Newell was around

super dodgy, another clear as mud communication from the trust.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

super dodgy, another clear as mud communication from the trust.

We can only go on what info we have

Still a "no" I'm afraid. Perhaps even more so given the way it has arisen. Can you imagine the stink if during the Scottish independence referrendum campaign Cameron truned round and offered to extend the deal by which England subsidises Scotland?

The position offered sounds like a sop at the 11th hour  to sway more members to vote yes (and a bit of a face saver for the Trust). It's a toothless position on the board. A step forward but still toothless.

As someone pointed out on another thread. there was a deal to be done. Sell the shares to Fenty, the Trust then has £200k which is far more than the other directors (bar Fenty), it should have a full seat then by right. Control of the club resides in the boardroom so solving Fenty's concern. Not difficult is it?

The inference from previous Trust statements was that the current deal was the best available. Now Fenty seemingly offers more! There was more on the table all the time if only they'd stood firm.

In it's Q&A the Trust said it had no immediate ambition to join the board. So if it accepts this now, what was the previous statement all about?

Apart from the fact it ought to be the immediate goal to get on the club board, it all looks a bit of a sodomist's muddle.

Vote No. Let's have a proper round of negotiations with no arms up backs and do this thing properly.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Sell the shares to Fenty, the Trust then has £200k

Just for clarity (not a criticism of the main point you were making, but so that the situation is accurate!), the MT proposal states 'that the Trust transfers 200,000 shares in GTFC to John Fenty for a non cash consideration" (my italics)

Not sure what this 'non cash consideration' might be...... (but it certainly won't be £200k )

Absolutely. That's what I mean. The deal should be to sell the shares for £200k. The club could still be put into the club and the Trust takes a proper step forward.

Having said that. I'd still like to know if the money JF is pledging (for the 200,000 un-issued shares he's proposing to buy) is new money over and above any investment made under the deal with Mike Parker. Has all the investment JF agreed to put in to match MP been made? If not why not?

These are not esoteric questions. They go to the heart of the issue.

Quoted from Grim_Exile

surely this is good news for all supporters?  Supporter representation at board level is a massive step forwards IMO.

I'm not so sure.

"A seat on the board" sounds wonderful and gives you this lovely image of handshakes, smiles and every fan being listened to.

But let's step back for a second.

A lot of people say the trust "are caught between a rock and a hard place", "gun to their head" etc

I don't personally believe that but assuming you think it's true, what can be realistically achieved anyway except perhaps even more fan discontentment ?

It might also be argued MT haven't represented fans interests so far.
Even if you wildly assume they have, why should they get a seat on the board when they're only speaking for 300 fans ?

Surely it should be for ALL fans, not just 300 (a fair number of which rarely talk about what happens on the pitch anyway and only seem to pop up where boardroom issues spring to the fore ! )

What about the other 5000+ fans ? Will they be listened to ?
If so then how come they won't be listened to in terms of the vote right now ?

And that's not even taking into account how competent the trust board are.

I'd like to know the exact details of how and what's gonna be decided before they march into the boardroom and have them "representing" me (or if it's all fans, others not yet convinced)

Questions..

- What if the trust board lobby the boardroom for something the majority of fans don't want ? More upheaval and bad feeling ?
- What if it goes wrong - how do we remove them from the boardroom ?
- What is their exact role within the boardroom ? What can they do in there they can't do outside of it ?
- What type of issues will be discussed ?
- How will boardroom issues be raised ? Will the trust board ask their members/fans to vote on every issue before they raise it in the boardroom ?

Besides which, what if the majority of members DON'T want a seat on the board ?
Or if the share issue is supposedly "democratic" is this not part of the democratic process ?
  
I signed up to have MY say on the issues I wanted to have a say on.
Just personally the last thing I want right now is THIS trust board anywhere near the boardroom !

Bottom line though is I still think the trust board have NO MANDATE to act on behalf of the majority of fans and should stick to being a major shareholder until such time they get a much larger fanbase on board.

Until they do, this could be asking for trouble IMO.
I reckon we could see more of the same division we've seen amongst the fans in recent days.
In any case, think it's premature for anyone to just blindly accept it until it's all been discussed and poentially put to a vote.

Maybe fans need to realise not everything that sounds great (like a supporters trust ?) always ends up great !

Is the yes vote in doubt? I thought it was a forgone conclusion

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Still a "no" I'm afraid. Perhaps even more so given the way it has arisen. Can you imagine the stink if during the Scottish independence referrendum campaign Cameron truned round and offered to extend the deal by which England subsidises Scotland?

The position offered sounds like a sop at the 11th hour  to sway more members to vote yes (and a bit of a face saver for the Trust).In the original Q&A's this was already mentioned so not sure why this is considered news or 11th hour shananegans It's a toothless position on the board. A step forward but still toothless.and unless the Trust has a spare couple of million quid hanging around it could never be anything else!

As someone pointed out on another thread. there was a deal to be done. Sell the shares to Fenty, the Trust then has £200k which is far more than the other directors (bar Fenty), it should have a full seat then by right. Control of the club resides in the boardroom so solving Fenty's concern. Not difficult is it? The Trust said in the original letter than they had offered a number of solutions which, for reasons you and I dont know where not acceptable to all parties.

The inference from previous Trust statements was that the current deal was the best available. Now Fenty seemingly offers more! There was more on the table all the time if only they'd stood firm. You are assuming that the latest negotiations regarding the seat on the board are dependent upon a 'Yes' vote. I don't get the impression that it is

In it's Q&A the Trust said it had no immediate ambition to join the board. So if it accepts this now, what was the previous statement all about? A fully blown seat on the board was not their desired ambition at the time because of the financial implications but as they have explained, they were, and are, seeking a non executive position which doesnt put them in the financial mire if the club goes to the wall
Apart from the fact it ought to be the immediate goal to get on the club board, it all looks a bit of a sodomist's muddle.

Vote No. Let's have a proper round of negotiations with no arms up backs and do this thing properly Neither you (I assume) nor I were party to the negotiations and as they have been going on since november I think it was fair to say that this 'solution' wasnt the first proposal. I think it is grossly unfair to suggest no negotiations have taken place when we are not party to the meetings.

My view is that we, as Trust members, either let the trust board manage situations or we remove them and stand against them. There wern't a huge number of people coming forward previously and although many criticise their every move I have been reasonably happy from the sidelines in the steps taken in the last 4 months. I am told membership has doubled. The membership of what 325? compares well with Arsenal and Newcastle who have around 1100. I have had regular e-mail updates and now it looks like we will at least have fan represntative on the board. When have we ever been remotely close to that?

Quoted from Harlem mariner

Is the yes vote in doubt? I thought it was a forgone conclusion

The whole vote is dubious now and should be voided as soon as possible.

Quoted from BlackBoots

My view is that we, as Trust members, either let the trust board manage situations or we remove them and stand against them. There wern't a huge number of people coming forward previously and although many criticise their every move I have been reasonably happy from the sidelines in the steps taken in the last 4 months. I am told membership has doubled. The membership of what 325? compares well with Arsenal and Newcastle who have around 1100. I have had regular e-mail updates and now it looks like we will at least have fan represntative on the board. When have we ever been remotely close to that?

I am not a member of the trust so correct me if my understanding is incorrect. The current trust members have elected a board to speak on their behalf and possibly make decisions on their behalf.

Will the trust board or all members decide who is to sit in at GTFC board meetings and will that person be able to make decisions on their own or have to consult with other board members or all members.

I can see it now JF: "and (to the trust board member) how do you feel about the current proposal?"

Trust board member: "Er not sure I will have to get back to you"

And as for your comment "we will at least have fan representative on the board." Again I ask how do you speak for the fans as a whole?

To clarify, the Trust board did not need the memberships approval to carry out any share transfer but felt it was the right thing to do.

Clearly, that sort of approach is not always possible. If the members don't like how board members perform, they can be removed when/if they stand for re-election and replaced by the likes of 80's Glory et al or anyone that can be bothered to do instead of just sitting and complaining.

Don't complain if you won't do. The Trust board is open to almost anyone.

Quoted from Chris

Don't complain if you won't do.

Incredible !

Why shouldn't anyone complain let alone a member of the trust ?

One second you're doing the right thing by your members next thing you know, members can't have an honest say without running for election ?

I dread to think how you might view the average supporter, I really do.

It's a shame you just don't allow ALL fans to have their honest say without getting your knickers in a defensive twist, regardless of whether they are part of or can serve the "organsation" at all.

Do you have a job 80's?

I think that you are probably an unemployed middle manager based on your cut and paste skills and the clearly vast amaount of time you have to post on here!

Agree with much of what you say on these matters however!

Quoted from BlackBoots

My view is that we, as Trust members, either let the trust board manage situations or we remove them and stand against them. There wern't a huge number of people coming forward previously and although many criticise their every move I have been reasonably happy from the sidelines in the steps taken in the last 4 months. I am told membership has doubled. The membership of what 325? compares well with Arsenal and Newcastle who have around 1100. I have had regular e-mail updates and now it looks like we will at least have fan represntative on the board. When have we ever been remotely close to that?

Now where did I say anything opposite to what you've just said.

I'm criticising them for this deal and the way it's done.

So you think Fenty's offer of a seat in the boardroom isn't linked to this? You must be very naive.

The Trust Board might have offered other solutions which weren't acceptable to Fenty. In my view if they have had to compromise as much as the current deal on the table they should have walked away. Is there any new money on the table from JF or is this merely him fulfilling the undertaking he made with Parker?

So in what way would the Trust be in the mire if the club went mammaries up? If they've acted in accordance with company law then there should be no problem.

And why would the Trust need a spare couple of million quid? Any other directors apart from Fenty put anything like this in? No!

Quoted from 1600

I dread to think how you might view the average supporter, I really do.  I AM an average supporter!

It's a shame you just don't allow ALL fans to have their honest say without getting your knickers in a defensive twist, regardless of whether they are part of or can serve the "organsation" at all. Knicker wearing egotistical Trust member. Damn, I 'ave been rumbled

BgiChris is my hero. Whatever he says I agree with.

Can't we get aaron onto the board?

Quoted from lukeo

BgiChris is my hero. Whatever he says I agree with.

You sure you know Big Chris?

oops

Quoted from 1600

It's a shame you just don't allow ALL fans to have their honest say without getting your knickers in a defensive twist, regardless of whether they are part of or can serve the "organsation" at all.

Serious question,  how do you conduct a vote for ALL fans?  What's to stop a load of Scunthorpe / Lincoln etc fans claiming to be Town fans and voting on something 'for a laugh'?  I think the almost nominal fee of £15 a year to join the trust would probably prevent the majority of non town fans from voting.

Whilst I agree that all Town fans should be represented I can't see how that can happen unless the majority of fans join the trust.  

Quoted from cocky

Serious question,  how do you conduct a vote for ALL fans?  What's to stop a load of Scunthorpe / Lincoln etc fans claiming to be Town fans and voting on something 'for a laugh'?  I think the almost nominal fee of £15 a year to join the trust would probably prevent the majority of non town fans from voting.

Whilst I agree that all Town fans should be represented I can't see how that can happen unless the majority of fans join the trust.  

You really think a load of scunny/lincoln fans would bother to vote, just for a laugh...??? Seems a bit far fetched for me, they can't even be arsed with their own teams let alone ours...

VOR - you're clearly a pretty intelligent bloke but do you seriously think that's it feasible for the Trust to open this vote up to all Town 'fans'? Even if it is, wouldn't the Trust effectively be finishing itself off? Why would anybody bother to join if you can influence its actions and have an equal say in what it does and how it operates without doing so?

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

VOR - you're clearly a pretty intelligent bloke but do you seriously think that's it feasible for the Trust to open this vote up to all Town 'fans'? Even if it is, wouldn't the Trust effectively be finishing itself off? Why would anybody bother to join if you can influence its actions and have an equal say in what it does and how it operates without doing so?

This would be absolutely right if the re-named Mariners Trust hadn't had to deal with such a mammoth decision as soon as it re-invented itself. I think it's unfortunate and unfair that such a fledgling group has been put under so much duress during its' infancy.

This isn't a comment on the individuals involved - it's a comment against the 'carrot & stick' that have been dangled their way.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

This would be absolutely right if the re-named Mariners Trust hadn't had to deal with such a mammoth decision as soon as it re-invented itself. I think it's unfortunate and unfair that such a fledgling group has been put under so much duress during its' infancy.

This isn't a comment on the individuals involved - it's a comment against the 'carrot & stick' that have been dangled their way.

but that's not their fault old codger - you should be directing your ire /compalints at to whoever caused the situation. the trust is a legal entity which is bound by law/regulations to do things in a certain way.

btw the potential to vote was open to ALL GTFC fans - all they had to do was to have joined the trust.......

Quoted from forza ivano

but that's not their fault old codger - you should be directing your ire /compalints at to whoever caused the situation. the trust is a legal entity which is bound by law/regulations to do things in a certain way.

btw the potential to vote was open to ALL GTFC fans - all they had to do was to have joined the trust.......

As per other thread, no ire to Trust board from me, but you can trace this mess back clearly to the day when they accepted the shares.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

As per other thread, no ire to Trust board from me, but you can trace this mess back clearly to the day when they accepted the shares.

damned if they did, damned if they didn't situation. if they hadn't accepted the shares they wouldn't be in this potentially advantageous position would they?

Quoted from forza ivano

damned if they did, damned if they didn't situation. if they hadn't accepted the shares they wouldn't be in this potentially advantageous position would they?

Accept that with a but. There needs to be a coherent strategy so that this seat on the board means that the Trust can make a positive input into the future of GTFC and one where the club's existence (whether you are pro or anti Fenty) isn't reliant on the good grace of one man.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Accept that with a but. There needs to be a coherent strategy so that this seat on the board means that the Trust can make a positive input into the future of GTFC and one where the club's existence (whether you are pro or anti Fenty) isn't reliant on the good grace of one man.

i'm sure there would be - the Trust Board would be able to take advice from Supporters direct who have dealt with this situation over a number of years.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Accept that with a but. There needs to be a coherent strategy so that this seat on the board means that the Trust can make a positive input into the future of GTFC and one where the club's existence (whether you are pro or anti Fenty) isn't reliant on the good grace of one man.

Sure Mr Fenty would agree with that one, but is there anyone queuing up.

Or

Are you really suggesting that the budget should be set to ensure break even without football fortune and that the Trust should takeover the running of the club to achieve this.

As i see it there needs to be some risk taken to remain competitive (remember you are competing with clubs from the season before who can set lager budgets, either because they have previously had football fortune or have a backer), but it must be underwritten, otherwise no football fortune/no backer. Its bang.

Risks last season were far to high at £1m losses, but then we had two backers who were prepared to support the worst which was the case.

Quoted from Pongo

As i see it there needs to be some risk taken to remain competitive

by 'risk' i assume you mean 'loans'

are you implying that we need a benefactor (whoever that might be) to continue adding to our club debts indefinitely?

there is proof that the club could have had a competitive budget for the last 6 years without accruing the debt it has, however, we are where we are and we can't continue like this until the bubble finally bursts

Quoted from Pongo

Sure Mr Fenty would agree with that one, but is there anyone queuing up.

Or

Are you really suggesting that the budget should be set to ensure break even without football fortune and that the Trust should takeover the running of the club to achieve this.

As i see it there needs to be some risk taken to remain competitive (remember you are competing with clubs from the season before who can set lager budgets, either because they have previously had football fortune or have a backer), but it must be underwritten, otherwise no football fortune/no backer. Its bang.

Risks last season were far to high at £1m losses, but then we had two backers who were prepared to support the worst which was the case.

Of course there has to be some risk, that's what business life is all about. However it's no use pretending that the current situation (continued losses, build up of loans/debt, delapidated facilities) is sustainable - nor is it in the best interests of anyone, even Mr Fenty.

There's no interest in anyone from outside investing in GTFC - because there's nothing to invest in other than a mountain of debt - benign or otherwise. So the conundrum remains, does Mr Fenty really want external investors or not?

Relocation,  Relocation,  Relocation.

UTM!

Flack jacket on!

Quoted from sonik

Relocation,  Relocation,  Relocation.

UTM!

Flack jacket on!

Let's get on with it then!

Quoted from sonik

Relocation,  Relocation,  Relocation.

UTM!

Flack jacket on!

Yes. Didn't the club have to write off £500K after the last abortive attempt at looking at relocation. Which then lead to Mr. Fenty having to loan more money to the club.

Quoted from voice of reason

You really think a load of scunny/lincoln fans would bother to vote, just for a laugh...??? Seems a bit far fetched for me, they can't even be arsed with their own teams let alone ours...

Not probable, but definitely possible.

If the (for example) Tellywag printed a ballot slip and urged Town fans to post it back with their vote, who's to say there would be a true representation of Town fans...?!

I don't know the best solution.

Perhaps a voting slip per match day ticket (home fans only) is the answer? Hand one over to every person going through a turnstile?Anything but the situation that we have now found ourselves in.

I'm a trust member but I'm in 2 minds about the vote. (Not that I'm eligible to do so!) I was initially a "Yes" but the latest revelations regarding the place on the board has a huge impact on everyone that goes to games or claims to be a fan. Perhaps the true representation of fans would be to do the things I suggest above but then again, what business is it of anyone not a trust member to vote on how they deal with their shares?

I can see both sides of the argument which is quite rare on here....

Quoted from Biccys

I'm a trust member but I'm in 2 minds about the vote. (Not that I'm eligible to do so!) I was initially a "Yes" but the latest revelations regarding the place on the board has a huge impact on everyone that goes to games or claims to be a fan. Perhaps the true representation of fans would be to do the things I suggest above but then again, what business is it of anyone not a trust member to vote on how they deal with their shares?

I can see both sides of the argument which is quite rare on here....

I sympathise Biccys - difficult to know what's best! As I've said in another post, I think it might help to keep the two issues separate i.e.
1) whether / how well the Trust does / should represent supporters generally; and
2) which way (as a current Trust member) to vote

2) is the relevant issue here - there's a decision to be made, and it's got to be made by Trust members and with the circumstances as they are (regardless of point 1) and also regardless of how the circumstances arose) - it's the Trust as a legally constituted organisation that were given the shares

That's not to understate the importance of the vote, nor the impact of its consequences on the future of the Club - but it's the current situation, and it isn't going to change before Monday's deadline!

The 'seat on the Board' is another complicating factor - but it's important to remember that currently it's only been agreed in principle, with further negotiations and conditions to be met - it's not a foregone conclusion, and should it progress will bring issues and responsibilities that need careful consideration (including whether the Trust feels it yet has sufficient membership, clarity about role, and capability).

Another consideration is that there could be other options that have been / could be considered: the current proposal has arisen out of initial negotiations with John Fenty, but a No vote doesn't have to be seen as a rejection of him or lack of recognition of his concerns about shareholdings 'outside the Boardroom' - it is just a rejection of the current proposal (including its restrictive conditions). Whilst other options might not be as attractive to John Fenty, there could be ways of alleviating his immediate concerns without reducing the Trust's potential future influence.

but a No vote doesn't have to be seen as a rejection of him or lack of recognition of his concerns about shareholdings 'outside the Boardroom' - it is just a rejection of the current proposal (including its restrictive conditions). Whilst other options might not be as attractive to John Fenty, there could be ways of alleviating his immediate concerns without reducing the Trust's potential future influence.

thanks dave b Perfectly put and sums up the '3rd way option'. this will be put on the bottom of my voting slip

Quoted from forza ivano

but a No vote doesn't have to be seen as a rejection of him or lack of recognition of his concerns about shareholdings 'outside the Boardroom' - it is just a rejection of the current proposal (including its restrictive conditions). Whilst other options might not be as attractive to John Fenty, there could be ways of alleviating his immediate concerns without reducing the Trust's potential future influence.

thanks dave b Perfectly put and sums up the '3rd way option'. this will be put on the bottom of my voting slip

Interesting.

I think JF would very much see a 'No' vote as a rejection of him. He would undoubtedly take it as a kick in the gonads. Sensitive soul