Fenty vote - 82% in favour

I was a 'No' - but would have voted yes if a seat on the board had been offered in exchange for the shares from the outset.

I am not for the Trust owning/running the club outright, but I do think their involvement at board level would have been a positive step forward.

The Mariners Trust must now push Mr Fenty hard for that mooted seat, bringing media pressure to bear if needs be to make him deliver on the vague offer made part way through the voting process.

The pessimist within tells me he will lose interest now he has control back in his hands.

But there is now a mandate:

• The football club involves the Trust in the on-going budget setting.

It’s an awkward position to be in. Regardless of whether the Trust are consulted by the club on any budget setting going forward or not, the Trust is now perceived to be complicit in this process, by the terms of this vote. They have this publicly stated aim and yet without a seat on the board it relies on JF and the club board giving the Trust the time and the access to financial info to have any say.

Nonetheless, this is now something the Trust is publicly tied to and has to work hard to effect, and they need to be open with members about how they are going about it.  It's a heavy responsibility. They must contend with the weight of Trust members’ expectations for financial sustainability, but have no real influence to effect change – yet.

If they fail or are stymied by the GTFC board to effect change they still have their members to answer to. And not just the members. There’ll by many vocal non Trust members fingers pointing Trust-wards as well as at Mr Fenty if we continue to make substantial losses each season.

How will the Trust be involved in on-going budget setting in reality if there is no seat on the board? Will the Trust rep be invited to attend all budget meetings?

The Trust has acted in good faith. One can only hope Mr Fenty will do the same.

This just puts off the fact that in 14 months time we will be looking for another solution to our financial woes.

The timing of this ballot has been shocking, just when we get a trickle of success on the pitch "discussions" regards shares and investment pop up. I for one cannot understand (especially after the financial benefits that will come our way from the Bennett deal in the not too distant future) the requirement to have such a discussion when focus of supporters should be with the team on the pitch. I believe the ideal time for sorting this out would have been the end of the season, or at least after our play-off push had stalled.

The simple fact that so many people are readily prepared to trust a man that has overseen such a demise in our club fortunes is unhealthy. This would suggest to me that they think that Mr Fenty is the only answer to the long term security of the club.

Being at the whim of one man is not a suitable way forward for a club of our size, we need multiple investors/investments. The burden must be shared!

What a joke. I regret my membership already.

oh well, that's democracy. disappointing result for us doubters. agree with much of trawlers post. the cynic in me says that in 12 months time
1) the trust will not be on the board
2) fenty will have dismissed their thoughts on the budget with 'thanks very much, a pat on the head and  a wave goodbye'
3) the club will'gift' the hire of mcmenemys at  a reduced rate for a race night, so the trust can raise money to repaint the toilets or the gate

just hope i'm being over pessimistic and the trust will see that fenty has done em up like a kipper and won't get caught out again by his omissions/threats and half truths

Ahhh, democracy. When 2 idiots have more strength than one genius!

Seems to me like the silent majority on here have done the right thing.

Quoted from Dan

Seems to me like the silent majority on here have done the right thing.

I disagree completely.  Fenty had no intention of walking away - can you imagine the fallout for him if he had done? He wouldn't have been able to show his face locally ever again and he certainly wouldn't ever win another local election!

I don't particularly blame the Trust Board as they are well meaning but inexperienced at dealing with him -  they were well and truly blackmailed!  And as far as the Trust having a representative on the Board is concerned...at best it will be non-exec if at all.  As someone posted on here a couple of weeks ago, the Trust should have asked for £200,000 worth of benign debt be wiped off the slate as a price and if he didn't agree tell him that's the final offer.

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

Thank god the long term future of the club is now secured. Well the next 14 months anyway. By which time we'll be further in debt, further dependent on one man and presumably still operating on a budget way beyond our means.

As I said, thank god the long term future of the club is secured.......

It's 14 months more security than a 'no' vote would have brought. Is the current reliance on one man healthy? No, of course not. But a rejection of this deal would not have resolved that.

This deal was not about completely restructuring the entire financial workings of the club!

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

It's 14 months more security than a 'no' vote would have brought. Is the current reliance on one man healthy? No, of course not. But a rejection of this deal would not have resolved that.

No, but further negotiations could've secured the trust a place on the board and firmer commitments than 'input towards setting future budgets' or whatever the clause is. All this deal does is delay future problems whilst at the same time deepening them. As a football club we are completely beholden to Mr Fenty and becoming even more so.

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

It's 14 months more security than a 'no' vote would have brought.  

But at what cost to the Trust's influence and long term viability Meanwood? With the loss of shares the Trust's bargaining position is substantially weakened. They have given away much and got little in return. A seat on the board could and should have been a minimum requirement. The 14 month's security is a red herring.  Neither you nor I can say if JF would have walked for sure. The only person who knows is Mr Fenty himself.

To be clear I was not against parting with 200,000 shares per se, but this was the one big chance to get something meaningful and quantifiable in exchange.

And all we got were vague promises.

I don't blame the Trust board. They presented to their members the situation as they saw it.  It was the members that ratified it.

We get what we deserve.

Mr Fenty got what he wants - I just hope a Trust seat on the board is forthcoming.

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

It's 14 months more security than a 'no' vote would have brought. Is the current reliance on one man healthy? No, of course not. But a rejection of this deal would not have resolved that.

This deal was not about completely restructuring the entire financial workings of the club!

A rejection of the deal would have brought a much quicker focus to the long term financial wellbeing of the club. Fenty has manoeuvred a situation where he has bought 14 months of control and hoodwinked the Trust into giving him someone else's shares.