In light of my criticism the other day I must say I’m very pleased with what they’ve had to say in their statement a few mins ago.

The Mariners Trust is well aware of the groundswell of discontent around the recent run of form and the management of Russell Slade and Paul Wilkinson. This sentiment is shared by the majority of fans and members we have spoken to, and indeed the Trust Board.

The Mariners Trust Rep Jon Wood was at the Board Meeting yesterday. After a discussion with me we formed the view that we should represent the views of the fans and Jon articulated their concerns to the rest of the board in the strongest possible terms.

Despite this, after a long debate and taking into account all factors, the rest of the board reached the outcome as detailed in the club's statement.

We now move on, respect the decision, and will do everything possible to help turn around the rest of the season.

With another four or five wins required to guarantee safety, we would urge supporters to get behind the players on the pitch and do their bit to ensure we remain in League 2 for next season”

Not sure it will placate those who feel the Trust is toothless and that their one vote is just outnumbered by those who support the major shareholder

Then people need to complete the survey and give the Trust the mandate to make a change. We are trying, believe us!

Not for me it doesn't ,
What value does having a trust member on the board have?
Lip service imo

I agree, as a critic of how the Trust have operated previously I think it’s fair to give credit where it’s due. It’s a reasonable statement that highlights that the Trust is willing to deliver home truths to the board. At the minute there’s not much more they can do than that.

Quoted from bax

Then people need to complete the survey and give the Trust the mandate to make a change. We are trying, believe us!

Don't doubt you are.

I hope the survey does give you the mandate to effect change in whatever form and hope the survey results are not so wide ranging that they become muddled.

I know I can search and find the answer but is there a closing date for the survey?

Quoted from Cloudy

Not sure it will placate those who feel the Trust is toothless and that their one vote is just outnumbered by those who support the major shareholder

The trust will always be outnumbered , but atleast they voted for the vast majority of supporters and didn't tow the party line .

Quoted from bax

The Mariners Trust is well aware of the groundswell of discontent around the recent run of form and the management of Russell Slade and Paul Wilkinson. This sentiment is shared by the majority of fans and members we have spoken to, and indeed the Trust Board.

The Mariners Trust Rep Jon Wood was at the Board Meeting yesterday. After a discussion with me we formed the view that we should represent the views of the fans and Jon articulated their concerns to the rest of the board in the strongest possible terms.

Despite this, after a long debate and taking into account all factors, the rest of the board reached the outcome as detailed in the club's statement.

We now move on, respect the decision, and will do everything possible to help turn around the rest of the season.

With another four or five wins required to guarantee safety, we would urge supporters to get behind the players on the pitch and do their bit to ensure we remain in League 2 for next season”

Absolutely no point in being there really, is there? He (Fenty) is just toying with the Trust, to try to placate as many fans as he can. I would come away from the board, re convene and concentrate on finding new investment.

I admire all those involved, but you cannot work with Fenty, it is just not possible. He will, with the rest of the board, always call the shots.

Much better to walk away, and become a big player in the new board, whenever it is formed.

Quoted from Cloudy

Not sure it will placate those who feel the Trust is toothless and that their one vote is just outnumbered by those who support the major shareholder

That’s life though Trust will never have sufficient numbers to form a majority so we have to accept that the representative puts forward the fans feelings and influence other Board members accordingly. Regrettably I think this may become a regular agenda item on forthcoming meetings as I see no light at the end of this particular tunnel

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

Absolutely no point in being there really, is there? He (Fenty) is just toying with the Trust, to try to placate as many fans as he can. I would come away from the board, re convene and concentrate on finding new investment.

I admire all those involved, but you cannot work with Fenty, it is just not possible. He will, with the rest of the board, always call the shots.

Much better to walk away, and become a big player in the new board, whenever it is formed.

To be fair to the chair of the Trust (and I don’t know him personally) he’s trying. My understanding is that he’s only been there a short time and compared to previous chairs, he’s the only one to push against the circus of the GTFC board.

Quoted from bax

Then people need to complete the survey and give the Trust the mandate to make a change. We are trying, believe us!

More power to your elbow, literally. The fans are the future of this club as it is only the fans who can re-connect the club to the town. UTM.

Quoted from davmariner

To be fair to the chair of the Trust (and I don’t know him personally) he’s trying. My understanding is that he’s only been there a short time and compared to previous chairs, he’s the only one to push against the circus of the GTFC board.

I know and it is not having a dig, and I admire them for having the gumption to try something new. However, John Fenty does not listen to people who have as much clout as himself, so there is no way on this earth he will be influenced by a well meaning trust.

I would advocate a different approach. Leave him to it, and get support from elsewhere and when we get a new start be part of it from the off, with people who have a different approach to Fenty.

On the outside, they would have far more leverage by having freedoms to speak out saying exactly what they feel. Being represented on a board sounds great, but not in this particular case.

This statement is another positive step from the Trust. At the minute we cannot ask more than they represent the views of the fans and vote accordingly. The statement is great communication on a big issue. Well done to those involved.

What this proves- is what we already knew tbh- that fenty and his merry men are untouchable. If John doesnt want it to happen it wont happen.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I know and it is not having a dig, and I admire them for having the gumption to try something new. However, John Fenty does not listen to people who have as much clout as himself, so there is no way on this earth he will be influenced by a well meaning trust.

I would advocate a different approach. Leave him to it, and get support from elsewhere and when we get a new start be part of it from the off, with people who have a different approach to Fenty.

On the outside, they would have far more leverage by having freedoms to speak out saying exactly what they feel. Being represented on a board sounds great, but not in this particular case.

I totally agree with the above. Resign from the board and use all of your energies in finding new owners for the club. There is no way back for the present board so don't waste your time on them.

If we turn against the trust we are royally screwed. I have long been an advocate of them removing themselves from the board.  But I respect them 100%. My own belief is that they coukd be more effective as a separate organisation.  I think we all know their place on the board is lip service. As has righty been pointed out they are a lone voice.  But anyone having a go at any trust member should be prepared to step into the breach.  They represent us the best they can. In the next few months/years they could be more important to this club than ever before.
Do not let Fenty and Co drive a wedge between us.  Fans need to be united more than ever before.

See you all at Coventry away.   UTM

Think I have to be open minded, turn up Saturday, support the players on the pitch, and hopefully witness the start of our recovery from this dismal run of matches.

I am no fan of RS's tactics but I must believe that we can turn it around. Grimsby Town needs me and I need Grimsby Town.

Looking forward to better times, support the team, support the Trust.

We are Grimsby, we stick together through thick and thin.

#UTM    #GTFC      (groupwave)

Quoted from Cambs Mariner

I totally agree with the above. Resign from the board and use all of your energies in finding new owners for the club. There is no way back for the present board so don't waste your time on them.

I know we have the trust survey , but maybe its time for a simple vote , stay on the board or leave

Kudos for speaking for the fans bax. I will be there on Saturday rooting for the team, for points , for those who went to Yeovil, for kids who should have free tickets, for Kristine Green, for Mighty, for the guy who takes the crowd photos, for DJ, Vernam, Clifton and new loanees.
Bax called for support at the forum and deserves, along with other Trust volunteers our full backing. Currently, they are our only irons in the fire.

We know the extent of the power and control in the Boardroom.  I would still rather have the Trust voice strong opinions against the majority of the Board than have nothing be said to make Fenty think for even 1 second.

I am sure there are other benefits with being on the Board. Eg, being privy to confidential discussions that cannot be reported back to Trust members.  But are still helpful to the Trust, and indirectly to Trust members and the fans.

I am not sure about the merits of the Trust having discussions with the Board and NOT being part of the Board.  The root cause of most problems is Fenty holding all the aces and having too much power and control.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

Absolutely no point in being there really, is there? He (Fenty) is just toying with the Trust, to try to placate as many fans as he can. I would come away from the board, re convene and concentrate on finding new investment.

I admire all those involved, but you cannot work with Fenty, it is just not possible. He will, with the rest of the board, always call the shots.

Much better to walk away, and become a big player in the new board, whenever it is formed.

I firmly believe that this is the way forward for the Trust, but a huge and important part of the process has got to be a great number of fans stepping forward to help. We can't sit back and think the current Trust board members have got enough time or resources to do it all on their own..

Quoted from TownSNAFU5

We know the extent of the power and control in the Boardroom.  I would still rather have the Trust voice strong opinions against the majority of the Board than have nothing be said to make Fenty think for even 1 second.

I am sure there are other benefits with being on the Board. Eg, being privy to confidential discussions that cannot be reported back to Trust members.  But are still helpful to the Trust, and indirectly to Trust members and the fans.

I am not sure about the merits of the Trust having discussions with the Board and NOT being part of the Board.  The root cause of most problems is Fenty holding all the aces and having too much power and control.

Whilst I agree with what you are saying. The present board are obviously friends or associates of Mr Fenty so I would imagine that any major proposals that are put forward have already been discussed between them making sure that they go in their favour.

While I admire the trust's intent and commitment to sharing our views unfortunately it just goes to show the higher power won't listen and no matter what will always go with "there" decision.


Sad but true.

Well done the trust, an excellent statement and clear transparent decision making. I applaud your efforts, it is never easy to swim against the tide.

I feel sorry for them as the Trust will never have any chance in the boardroom. In my experience of business a company is usually run by the inner circle of executive directors who meet privately and decide the policy and direction. I'm guessing that the Trust rep is the equivalent of a non-exec board member who sits outside the key decision-making discussions.

In a proper accountable business the non-exec directors would not allow this to happen and use their combined power to effect change in the exec team if the business is failing. But this isn't a normal business so the single voice of the Trust will never have any chance in the boardroom.

They may as well resign the position and hand the running of bars, etc back to the club. We all know where the blame lies and it's not the Trust ... or the fans.

Whilst I agree that the Trust appear powerless in the boardroom, they can only operate within their sphere of influence. Hopefully the survey allows them to review their position and make a decision that frames their future.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Whilst I agree that the Trust appear powerless in the boardroom, they can only operate within their sphere of influence. Hopefully the survey allows them to review their position and make a decision that frames their future.

Agree and that is why it is vital that every fan completes the survey to give them a direction and mandate

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

Absolutely no point in being there really, is there? He (Fenty) is just toying with the Trust, to try to placate as many fans as he can. I would come away from the board, re convene and concentrate on finding new investment.

I admire all those involved, but you cannot work with Fenty, it is just not possible. He will, with the rest of the board, always call the shots.

Much better to walk away, and become a big player in the new board, whenever it is formed.

I disagree. If and when discussions take place on control of the club being transferred we need to be at the heart of the conversation.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

I disagree. If and when discussions take place on control of the club being transferred we need to be at the heart of the conversation.

That's my feeling too. Also glad they were there yesterday, making the views of the fans felt, as they were on the Chuckaway Trophy.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I know and it is not having a dig, and I admire them for having the gumption to try something new. However, John Fenty does not listen to people who have as much clout as himself, so there is no way on this earth he will be influenced by a well meaning trust.

I would advocate a different approach. Leave him to it, and get support from elsewhere and when we get a new start be part of it from the off, with people who have a different approach to Fenty.

On the outside, they would have far more leverage by having freedoms to speak out saying exactly what they feel. Being represented on a board sounds great, but not in this particular case.

The other way of looking at it is the Trust is the only party that will 'speak truth to power'. If a new party plans to takeover, not being on the board means not having a voice in the discussions. Always best to keep a foot in the door even if it doesn't look like it's achieving much currently.

One day through circumstances we cannot currently predict the make up of the board might change. Maybe one director at a time. But it will happen.

Always have appreciated the trust and what they do. Thank you Baxenden and everyone else, maybe the trust need to organise a get together of members and see what everyone feels is best. Personally have to agree with some comments here, clearly can't work alongside this current board.

Another way of looking at it is, not being on the board is a bit like being Norway in respect of the EU. Still have to abide by the decisions of the EU, still have to contribute disproportionately to the budget, still have to accept free movement, still have to accept EU regs on just about everything, but without a say in the rules. Not even at the discussion table.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

The other way of looking at it is the Trust is the only party that will 'speak truth to power'. If a new party plans to takeover, not being on the board means not having a voice in the discussions. Always best to keep a foot in the door even if it doesn't look like it's achieving much currently.

One day through circumstances we cannot currently predict the make up of the board might change. Maybe one director at a time. But it will happen.

If and when it happens, hopefully very soon,  then all of the board will be gone because JSF holds the ace card. The rest are just there to make up a board. You may as well have some of the Muppets on the board for all the use they are. It was good to have the Trust on board when things were going relatively well a year or so ago. But now everything about the GTFC board has become poisonous and the sooner the Trust distance themselves the better. They are far better looking for new owners and negotiating with them for a better future for the Club and the fans.

Can I just ask as I am not really clued up on all this stuff. Did the Trust not gift Mr. Fenty a whole lot of shares that were given to them by the Carphone guy? Would it have made them more powerful if those shares had be kept. I could be completely wrong on this, like I said I am not into all this power and shares malarkey.

Quoted from RexFannies

Can I just ask as I am not really clued up on all this stuff. Did the Trust not gift Mr. Fenty a whole lot of shares that were given to them by the Carphone guy? Would it have made them more powerful if those shares had be kept. I could be completely wrong on this, like I said I am not into all this power and shares malarkey.

I might be wrong bit didn't he come from Youngs?

Quoted from arryarryarry

I might be wrong bit didn't he come from Youngs?

Maybe...was it Mike Parker. I kept thinking Mike Ashley then I realised it wasn't him lol

Quoted from RexFannies

Maybe...was it Mike Parker. I kept thinking Mike Ashley then I realised it wasn't him lol

Mike Ashley is Sports Direct. David Ross is Carphone Warehouse. Mike Parker was Youngs Seafood.

Quoted from ginnywings

Mike Ashley is Sports Direct. David Ross is Carphone Warehouse. Mike Parker was Youngs Seafood.

I know that now...thank you. I knew it wasn't Ashley. It was Parker I think who gave the shares away.

Quoted from Cambs Mariner

If and when it happens, hopefully very soon,  then all of the board will be gone because JSF holds the ace card. The rest are just there to make up a board. You may as well have some of the Muppets on the board for all the use they are. It was good to have the Trust on board when things were going relatively well a year or so ago. But now everything about the GTFC board has become poisonous and the sooner the Trust distance themselves the better. They are far better looking for new owners and negotiating with them for a better future for the Club and the fans.

It may seem futile at the moment. But it's better we have a seat at the table when the thing finally falls apart. The trust is there representing the supporters. It's there as of right (regardless of any deals done to get it there in practice). It's a bit like voting in elections. A lot of the time it seems pointless. But if we didn't have that right where would we be..

Things might be poisonous, but sometimes you just have to crack on and deal with people and situations you'd rather not deal with. I'm sure Fenty and the others wish that the fans Trust did not have a rep on the club board. It's our club so why should our rep be the one to leave?

Front it out I say.

Bax has shown today that the Trust can still have a voice regardless of the obligations that Jon Wood is under as a member of the club board. The Trust showed that it can still say what it thinks is right, as witnessed by the support it gave for the fans game last year. It can still speak up despite the club being silent (despite Jon himself not being able to speak loudly publicly) over Bragate. The positions are not incompatible.

"the majority of fans"???

Around 30 turned up at the Wellington Arms tonight. Are they representative of all our fans? Of the 4000 regular fans how many spout their discontent? 100? 200?  

Quoted from The Grim Reaper

"the majority of fans"???

Around 30 turned up at the Wellington Arms tonight. Are they representative of all our fans? Of the 4000 regular fans how many spout their discontent? 100? 200?  

4000? You not been looking at how attendances have fallen this season then? The 1000 that have disappeared have not voiced their discontent? Have they all found new hobbies or got jobs that means they can't go on a Saturday?

You have really bought into this self-deluding idea of Fenty's that it's a few keyboard warriors on the internet.

The fact that 30 people have bothered to go out to a pub in a dead part of town on a cold wet Thursday night in January speaks volumes for the depth of feeling. Small numbers maybe but what else gets more people out on a similar night merely because they feel negative about something? Getting 30 people at a meeting because they WANT to be there is an achievement. Getting 30 people there who really would much rather they didn't feel so strongly about something is much more impressive than you give credit for.

You're lucky to get three men and a dog in the Welly most week nights.

This thread shows the problem the Trust has.

Fans are split over the seat on the board as shown above. IF The Trust retains the seat it alienates half the fans, if it removes itself from the board it alienates half the fans! Can't win

How JF must be laughing

Quoted from KingstonMariner

I disagree. If and when discussions take place on control of the club being transferred we need to be at the heart of the conversation.

Any investor or consortium worth its salt will talk to the Trust whether the Trust member is on the board of GTFC or not. And maybe if there are boardroom takeover discussions in the future, the Trust will need to be on the ingoing side of the table rather than the outgoing. I also think a Trust led campaign to find investment while unrepresented in the boardroom and wanting to be part of the future, has far more provenance to any potential investor than being alongside the current board while doing so, unless JF publicly gives the Trust free reign to do so from within..

Could the trust raise the money to run a for sale notice for the club in the national newspapers?

Soon as the trust gifted Fenty the shares I’m afraid many lost confidence in the trust , also paying to be there just doesn’t sit right

Quoted from The Grim Reaper

"the majority of fans"???

Around 30 turned up at the Wellington Arms tonight. Are they representative of all our fans? Of the 4000 regular fans how many spout their discontent? 100? 200?  

Terrible WUM.

Quoted from dapperz fun pub

Soon as the trust gifted Fenty the shares I’m afraid many lost confidence in the trust , also paying to be there just doesn’t sit right

The Trust didn’t gift it’s shares. The members gifted the shares.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

4000? You not been looking at how attendances have fallen this season then? The 1000 that have disappeared have not voiced their discontent? Have they all found new hobbies or got jobs that means they can't go on a Saturday?

You have really bought into this self-deluding idea of Fenty's that it's a few keyboard warriors on the internet.

The fact that 30 people have bothered to go out to a pub in a dead part of town on a cold wet Thursday night in January speaks volumes for the depth of feeling. Small numbers maybe but what else gets more people out on a similar night merely because they feel negative about something? Getting 30 people at a meeting because they WANT to be there is an achievement. Getting 30 people there who really would much rather they didn't feel so strongly about something is much more impressive than you give credit for.

Agree, considering the number of people that turned up to a Trust meeting right before a match, was it 10 people at the trust meeting?

Does anyone have the split of shares, who has what percentage and is there any significant others?

Whilst the trust are at the top table then they could/ should maybe be asking for details of just what would be acceptable to JF as a takeover ?

What guarantees is he expecting from any takeover party ? ie future financial security/ capital
Is there a magic number that will buy JF's place/shares on the board ?
Would JF wish to retain a large percentage of shares even if he steps down off the board ?
Clear definition and clarity on the benign loan situation. ( He has said he wont call them in to the detriment of the club but as far as i am aware he has never said he would forget them altogether )
Do other board members see themselves staying if JF leaves ?
Seeking lobbying support from other shareholders to strengthen any takeover position.

Whilst there, they have access to all the information and people that your fan in the street doesnt have, so its better to stay there and use the position than be completely out in the cold.

Totally agree moosey. Been thinking about it over the last couple of days and it would be helpful to know just what it would take for someone or a group to meet the due diligence.

agreed Moosey - whilst we are on the Board the Trust will have access and knowledge of the up to date financial situation and of any 'plans' that are afoot. they then have ahead start should things change or go titties up. there's been no end of examples of the shiite suddenly hitting the fan and then trusts, supporters and possible saviours are left scrambling around, battling against tight deadlines, often not knowing the full financial situation

Yes but business confidentiality rules would prevent any information gleaned from being used.

Quoted from 139914

Does anyone have the split of shares, who has what percentage and is there any significant others?

This is copied from a post of mine back in August (bit of context:  I was looking at a potential way of removing JF when his directorship next comes up for re-election by finding a way for a group to purchase enough shares so that they, when added to those of the Trust, Mike Parker, and Lee Mullen would be able to Out—vote those held by JF and ‘others’):

According to the latest available accounts (end May 2016) both Chapman and JF were up for re-election at the AGM (sometime December 2016) and were re-elected - I'm not sure when JF will come up for re-election again.

In terms of holdings, again looking at the latest accounts available, it appears JF holds 43% of issued shares.

Assuming MP still holds 500k, the Trust 300k, Mullen 130k this gives this group approx 41% of issued shares, with the remaining 16% held by 'others'.

Someone better at maths than me could (if they wanted) work out what kind of share purchase would be necessary to be in a position to vote JF off the board at the next AGM where his directorship comes up for re-election.

Could and would JF accept being phased out by means of his shares being bought and therefore his shareholding goes down year on year? If he clarifies exactly what he wants back financially then it may be viable to pay him his 2M over 10 years on the understanding he steps down possibly off the board? He knows we haven't got the 2M he knows it`s very unlikely anyone else will come in so to me this is compromise and everybody gets what they want?

Quoted from moosey_club

Whilst the trust are at the top table then they could/ should maybe be asking for details of just what would be acceptable to JF as a takeover ?

What guarantees is he expecting from any takeover party ? ie future financial security/ capital
Is there a magic number that will buy JF's place/shares on the board ?
Would JF wish to retain a large percentage of shares even if he steps down off the board ?
Clear definition and clarity on the benign loan situation. ( He has said he wont call them in to the detriment of the club but as far as i am aware he has never said he would forget them altogether )
Do other board members see themselves staying if JF leaves ?
Seeking lobbying support from other shareholders to strengthen any takeover position.

Whilst there, they have access to all the information and people that your fan in the street doesnt have, so its better to stay there and use the position than be completely out in the cold.

And for the first time since the Trust joined the board, I actually agree to them having that seat and purely for the reasons as stated above.  I think that before too long we will be hearing bad news regarding the new stadium, it's gone very very quiet on that front and I believe that JF and Co are now preparing to jump ship. We need to have someone that can see what is happening in real time. I'm sure there will be some confidentiality issues where the Trust have to remain silent.  But at least they can put pressure on the board to do things the right way.  Up to now I haven't joined the trust because I felt strongly they shouldn't have a seat on the board. I will be joining the trust this weekend.  

Quoted from Bigdog

Any investor or consortium worth its salt will talk to the Trust whether the Trust member is on the board of GTFC or not. And maybe if there are boardroom takeover discussions in the future, the Trust will need to be on the ingoing side of the table rather than the outgoing. I also think a Trust led campaign to find investment while unrepresented in the boardroom and wanting to be part of the future, has far more provenance to any potential investor than being alongside the current board while doing so, unless JF publicly gives the Trust free reign to do so from within..

Exactly this. I think a lot of posters underestimate just how difficult JF is to work with. Although I haven't directly worked with him I have seen him at  close quarters, and have had numerous business contacts tell me directly how difficult it is. It is just the way it is, just like I have many faults JF has his, but getting him to work with the trust in any meaningful way is pie in the sky thinking.

In my opinion it is far better for the Trust  to publicly distance  itself from the board at the end of the season and put all their energies into getting benefits to the club that Fenty cannot influence.  

Quoted from Civvy at last

And for the first time since the Trust joined the board, I actually agree to them having that seat and purely for the reasons as stated above.  I think that before too long we will be hearing bad news regarding the new stadium, it's gone very very quiet on that front and I believe that JF and Co are now preparing to jump ship. We need to have someone that can see what is happening in real time. I'm sure there will be some confidentiality issues where the Trust have to remain silent.  But at least they can put pressure on the board to do things the right way.  Up to now I haven't joined the trust because I felt strongly they shouldn't have a seat on the board.

I will be joining the trust this weekend.  

I asked someone about this today and their view was Town will get a new ground BUT if he was a betting man it will be going up where the flats come down? Don`t shoot the messenger but most people said from day one the Freemo docks area was best.

Thank you, so in other words JF only needed the support of a further 7% of the shareholding to maintain the stranglehold.

Purely speculative question with no hidden or implied accusation.  I know that there is a threshold somewhere which if exceeded then that particular shareholder must make an offer for all of the other shares.  I think that this was where Mike Parker was heading hence the reasoning behind gifting some of the shares to the Trust.  So the question, what’s the legality behind purchasing shares to just short of the threshold and then using ‘front’ shareholders to secure an overall majority?  Is it illegal or accepted as common practice?  Appreciate it wouldn’t happen in Grimsby.

I’m guessing that part of my previous post answers why JF hasn’t or won’t convert the B9’s into shares.

Quoted from 1mickylyons

I asked someone about this today and their view was Town will get a new ground BUT if he was a betting man it will be going up where the flats come down? Don`t shoot the messenger but most people said from day one the Freemo docks area was best.

Was it someone with any inside info, Mickey?

What I don't get is the theory that the Trust could somehow put out feelers to find 'investors' (i.e. benefactors) after leaving the board of directors.

"Yes, we decided we couldn't work alongside the owner/directors so jumped ship, but how about buying the club off him/them?"

Doesn't make any sense to me at all, I'm afraid. Do trust members (who are all volunteers, of course) generally mix in circles with people with a couple of million quid they don't mind losing? Would any potential 'investors' be more likely to come in if the trust weren't on the board of directors?

Nope, can't see it. Better to grin and bear it and be there to put their point across in board meetings even if they are subsequently outvoted.

Quoted from 139914

Thank you, so in other words JF only needed the support of a further 7% of the shareholding to maintain the stranglehold.

Purely speculative question with no hidden or implied accusation.  I know that there is a threshold somewhere which if exceeded then that particular shareholder must make an offer for all of the other shares.  I think that this was where Mike Parker was heading hence the reasoning behind gifting some of the shares to the Trust.  So the question, what’s the legality behind purchasing shares to just short of the threshold and then using ‘front’ shareholders to secure an overall majority?  Is it illegal or accepted as common practice?  Appreciate it wouldn’t happen in Grimsby.

He doesn’t really need the support of anyone, just that the ‘others’ (nobody really knows who these people are, some may not even be alive anymore) don’t vote alongside the Trust, Parker and Mullen.

I’m not sure what that threshold is but it could be feasible for the Trust to raise enough funds to purchase a block of shares that wouldn’t take them near the threshold of having to make an offer on all shares but would be enough, when added to the holdings of Parker and Mullen, to out-vote JF.

Unfortunately, ‘the board’ AKA JF would decide whether to sanction that share sale or not ... or he could simply purchase a similar amount of shares himself to retain the status quo.

Personally, I’d look into the legality of the share transfer from the Trust to JF all those years ago - it was perfectly feasible for JF and family members / friends to be Trust members who were effectively voting for him to receive 200k of shares for free, and that can’t really be ‘right’.  

A swing of 200k of shares from JF to the Trust could be enough to swing the power away from JF

Quoted from 139914

I’m guessing that part of my previous post answers why JF hasn’t or won’t convert the B9’s into shares.

100%

Plus, if the club folds, as a creditor, he may still get something back but as a shareholder only he’d have little chance.

Quoted from Maringer

What I don't get is the theory that the Trust could somehow put out feelers to find 'investors' (i.e. benefactors) after leaving the board of directors.

"Yes, we decided we couldn't work alongside the owner/directors so jumped ship, but how about buying the club off him/them?"

Doesn't make any sense to me at all, I'm afraid. Do trust members (who are all volunteers, of course) generally mix in circles with people with a couple of million quid they don't mind losing? Would any potential 'investors' be more likely to come in if the trust weren't on the board of directors?

Nope, can't see it. Better to grin and bear it and be there to put their point across in board meetings even if they are subsequently outvoted.

I get your point, and a previous one about pissing into the tent (I chuckled at that).  But is it the £30k a year donation to be on the board that’s the real issue?  Never been a director so my ignorance is total.

Regarding the £30k per year 'donation' for a place on the board, it seems a bit odd to me.

No idea about company law in this regard, but surely a trust place could be a non-executive directorship with no financial input required? More an advisory role?

That said, if this is considered a 'fee' to run the bars with any profits made subsequently going to the trust, I wouldn't have a problem with that really.

Quoted from 139914

Does anyone have the split of shares, who has what percentage and is there any significant others?

Quoted from TheRealJohnLewis

Andrew Newman has £25,000 (1%) worth of shares. (dodgy ticket tout?)
The Mullens have £130,000 (6%) shares
The Trust has £320,550 (14%)
Mike Parker has £500,000 (22%)
John Elsom £75,500 (3%)
(Hopefully the above is correct as I had to search through a hundred odd pages of shares!)

For comparison, Fenty has 43%

The board is not made up of investors apart from Fenty and the Trust represented by Wood.

Quoted from TheRealJohnLewis

Thanks again.  Okay so making some assumptions then.  The total shareholding is around £2.31m.  Just over 11.5% held by unknowns (fans perhaps?), that leaves 88.5% active shareholders.  This is probably over simplifying things but (no idea who is aligned with who), assuming the Trust, Mr Parker, Mr and Mrs Mullen, Mr Elsom and Mr Newman could be persuaded to vote together that would total 45%, enough to overturn the current board.

Worst case being Mr Elsom and Mr Newman voting with Fenty, in which case their shares would need to be bought.  Just over £100k.  Would they sell?  Given that the shares are worthless I’m guessing they would, probably at less than the issue price.

If (big if I know) the trust were able to raise £100k and have the right contacts to make the above happen, I think we just might get to the bottom of what Mr Fenty really wants, his hand would be forced.

Who’s starting the fundraiser?  It’ll take me plus another 499 putting in £200 each to hit the target.  My money is pledged.

There is no way the fans should even consider paying any of the benign loans off. That failure should already have been paid for. If the directors want someone to take on the burden of the club it should be offered debt free.

Quoted from 139914

Thanks again.  Okay so making some assumptions then.  The total shareholding is around £2.31m.  Just over 11.5% held by unknowns (fans perhaps?), that leaves 88.5% active shareholders.  This is probably over simplifying things but (no idea who is aligned with who), assuming the Trust, Mr Parker, Mr and Mrs Mullen, Mr Elsom and Mr Newman could be persuaded to vote together that would total 45%, enough to overturn the current board.

Worst case being Mr Elsom and Mr Newman voting with Fenty, in which case their shares would need to be bought.  Just over £100k.  Would they sell?  Given that the shares are worthless I’m guessing they would, probably at less than the issue price.

If (big if I know) the trust were able to raise £100k and have the right contacts to make the above happen, I think we just might get to the bottom of what Mr Fenty really wants, his hand would be forced.

Who’s starting the fundraiser?  It’ll take me plus another 499 putting in £200 each to hit the target.  My money is pledged.

The 11.5% are probably all fans. Lots of us with small amounts. Makes it hard to mobilise but I'd pledge my small amount.

Quoted from Fishy_fishtails

The Mariners Trust Statement - A Clarification

The Board of The Mariners Trust is happy to clarify that following his input at Wednesday's meeting of the Board of Grimsby Town F.C. regarding the views of the fan base, as communicated to The Trust about the current situation at Grimsby Town F.C, Jon Wood confirmed that there was a consensus reached before he contributed fully to the discussion that culminated in the issue of the statement by the Board later that day giving his full support to the final draft.  
Taken from their Facebook page just now, which was posted approx 2 hours ago, yet no one on this thread has picked up on it.  
UTM

So the decision to stick with Slade was made before the Trust view was expressed. Time to protest.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

So the decision to stick with Slade was made before the Trust view was expressed. Time to protest.

There's no surprise is there?

Quoted from headingly_mariner

So the decision to stick with Slade was made before the Trust view was expressed. Time to protest.

Did they send him for teas while they got on with the important stuff? Joking aside though, this stinks if true, and i have no reason to doubt it. Sad part is, it doesn't surprise me.

Is that what happened Bax?
The tweet from the Trust is not the clearest and lots of people on twitter are confused. Can you clarify please

Quoted from Fishy_fishtails

The Mariners Trust Statement - A Clarification

The Board of The Mariners Trust is happy to clarify that following his input at Wednesday's meeting of the Board of Grimsby Town F.C. regarding the views of the fan base, as communicated to The Trust about the current situation at Grimsby Town F.C, Jon Wood confirmed that there was a consensus reached before he contributed fully to the discussion that culminated in the issue of the statement by the Board later that day giving his full support to the final draft.  
Taken from their Facebook page just now, which was posted approx 2 hours ago, yet no one on this thread has picked up on it.  
UTM

So basically the decisions had already been made before he contributed, Like I said in a earlier post on this thread Mr Fenty and the rest of the board are friends so all the main decisions are made beforehand. The Trust pay 30K a year to be on the board. Nobody else on the board other than Mr Fenty  have ever put anything near that amount in. It is bloody disgusting.

Thats quite garbled hopefully Bax will clear it up.

Wow.bax please clarify. If this is true then why he hell are we putting in 30k p.a.?And being treated like a bunch  of infants?

I guess it's difficult to type coherently with your nuts in a "property of GTFC" vice....is all I can take from that.

The trust should resign from the board and withhold the 30k.
Simple.

Quoted from IlkleyMariner

The trust should resign from the board and withhold the 30k.
Simple.

Not sure the 30k is actually theirs. That’s the problem.
It’s the profits from the bars !!

Should certainly resign now, especially if their mind was made up before the trust rep had chance to put their view across, I urge all of you to fill in the trust survey again with the recent revelations in mind.

I still think if this means what it says we should stay on the board. If decisions are being made without a member of the board (and the representative of a major shareholder) present then have any rules or regulations been broken? Any company lawyers out there could shed any light on this?

Quoted from KingstonMariner

I still think if this means what it says we should stay on the board. If decisions are being made without a member of the board (and the representative of a major shareholder) present then have any rules or regulations been broken? Any company lawyers out there could shed any light on this?

It just sounds like JW had the last say and his contribution is "the fans don't want RS". I don't think there's anything JW could have said that the board don't already know. So in that situation, if JW goes last in making his point, the board already know how they will vote. They've already weighed up the financial implications of keeping or sacking Slade, they've taken into account past performance where he's had a bad run and turned it around, given him the backing to sign some players and decided for now that keeping Slade as manager is the way to go.

I don't expect many people to agree with the decision given the current plight, but unless the trust had some rabbit to pull out of a hat that nobody had already considered, then there's nothing to see here.

Quoted from pen penfras

It just sounds like JW had the last say and his contribution is "the fans don't want RS". I don't think there's anything JW could have said that the board don't already know. So in that situation, if JW goes last in making his point, the board already know how they will vote. They've already weighed up the financial implications of keeping or sacking Slade, they've taken into account past performance where he's had a bad run and turned it around, given him the backing to sign some players and decided for now that keeping Slade as manager is the way to go.

I don't expect many people to agree with the decision given the current plight, but unless the trust had some rabbit to pull out of a hat that nobody had already considered, then there's nothing to see here.

So you are admitting that although the trust hold a seat on the board they are not allowed to contribute to anything other than fans opinions ? !!

I’m just asking. Not calling you a liar or anything. 😉

How can I admit anything? We've already established that I'm an exile. I just don't subscribe to the mass hysteria on here and think it's beneficial to put across a different point of view given my belief that all this negativity is making things on the pitch worse.

They are allowed to contribute anything they want in a discussion. But if all you can contribute is what somebody already knows, then it isn't going to change their decision.

We all know the view from most fans, even moderate ones, is that they want to change manager. I'm not saying that the decision to keep Slade was even right in my opinion, I'm just saying that the trust would have had to have more than what the other directors already know to sway any decisions.

Maybe you are right PP and maybe people are reading too much into a statement, that is at best unclear and at worst confusing, but these things seem to keep getting thrown into the public domain like hand grenades, on a regular basis. Perhaps whoever released this should have worded it better or not released it at all. It just adds to the volatility of the situation. We do our PR on the pitch apparently.

Quoted from ginnywings

Maybe you are right PP and maybe people are reading too much into a statement, that is at best unclear and at worst confusing, but these things seem to keep getting thrown into the public domain like hand grenades, on a regular basis. Perhaps whoever released this should have worded it better or not released it at all. It just adds to the volatility of the situation. We do our PR on the pitch apparently.

I understand why the trust did it. People are starting to turn on them and they want to deflect that pressure. It's an easy escape to say something like that which will then turn the anger back on the club because they're the most reviled entity.

I also think there have been other things done and said by people with an ulterior motive of wanting regime change and trying to force the situation at any cost. Now with the downturn in form, it's a much easier target to get people on the bandwagon. The only problem is, there isn't anybody proposing a realistic solution, just a foot stomping of wanting the man out.

You seem to know a lot about what goes on in the boardroom Pen Penfras to be an exile...

He doth protest his exile status too much methinks..

I'm just guessing. Just because my guess doesn't conform to the hysteria that you are seemingly trying to create, doesn't make it any less valid. Obviously, you do know what's gone on, so if you could enlighten people eloquently, then maybe this thread would be over.

Although my point still stands, what did JW put forward other than the fans don't want RS here? Because the board already knew that. For JW to have been overlooked, you must have had some other convincing points that you put forward. I don't think publicising those goes against any NDA as long as you're not disclosing what came directly from the club.

You just happen to be guessing using the same argument and near identical wording as a member of the board. Must be a huge, huge coincidence I'm sure.

Quoted from pen penfras

I'm just guessing. Just because my guess doesn't conform to the hysteria that you are seemingly trying to create, doesn't make it any less valid. Obviously, you do know what's gone on, so if you could enlighten people eloquently, then maybe this thread would be over.

Although my point still stands, what did JW put forward other than the fans don't want RS here? Because the board already knew that. For JW to have been overlooked, you must have had some other convincing points that you put forward. I don't think publicising those goes against any NDA as long as you're not disclosing what came directly from the club.

To be fair, the board are very much in touch with the fans and haven't at any point, let alone recently, completely misjudged the feelings and opinions of the majority of the fanbase and written them off as a "vocal minority".

Quoted from ginnywings

He doth protest his exile status too much methinks..

How ironic.

He’s saying he is an excile.

And the vast vast majority of fans wish he really was one.

Perhaps he’s just practicing for next season. We live in hope !!

Quoted from pen penfras

I'm just guessing. Just because my guess doesn't conform to the hysteria that you are seemingly trying to create, doesn't make it any less valid. Obviously, you do know what's gone on, so if you could enlighten people eloquently, then maybe this thread would be over.

Although my point still stands, what did JW put forward other than the fans don't want RS here? Because the board already knew that. For JW to have been overlooked, you must have had some other convincing points that you put forward. I don't think publicising those goes against any NDA as long as you're not disclosing what came directly from the club.

Also, for someone who is definitely an exile and not connected to the board, that's a really odd way of phrasing it. You're making a lot of assumptions about a meeting that you definitely didn't attend but seem to know a lot about.

Quoted from bax

Also, for someone who is definitely an exile and not connected to the board, that's a really odd way of phrasing it. You're making a lot of assumptions about a meeting that you definitely didn't attend but seem to know a lot about.

Can't the Trust just resign from the board and put their energies elsewhere? You cannot reason with them, it is one man who thinks he owns everything to do with GTFC surrounded by his acolytes and they will never listen in any meaningful way.  

He's already let the cat out of the bag.

Quoted from pen penfras

I understand why the trust did it. People are starting to turn on them and they want to deflect that pressure. It's an easy escape to say something like that which will then turn the anger back on the club because they're the most reviled entity.

I also think there have been other things done and said by people with an ulterior motive of wanting regime change and trying to force the situation at any cost. Now with the downturn in form, it's a much easier target to get people on the bandwagon. The only problem is, there isn't anybody proposing a realistic solution, just a foot stomping of wanting the man out.

A realistic and sensible post with all that's going around.

Quoted from Sixpence

A realistic and sensible post with all that's going around.

This little debate here must have got you really fired up Sixpence, you haven't posted since October 2012!!

Quoted from pen penfras

I understand why the trust did it. People are starting to turn on them and they want to deflect that pressure. It's an easy escape to say something like that which will then turn the anger back on the club because they're the most reviled entity.

I also think there have been other things done and said by people with an ulterior motive of wanting regime change and trying to force the situation at any cost. Now with the downturn in form, it's a much easier target to get people on the bandwagon. The only problem is, there isn't anybody proposing a realistic solution, just a foot stomping of wanting the man out.

Ulterior motive of wanting regime change? Maybe - but only because the regime hasn't and won't listen to the voices of the customers. You can only pi$$ people off for so long - perhaps you would like to report that bit back to whoever you know on the board.

Exile my ar$e, dear Pen-Pen has been posting nothing but pro-Fenty board guff all along, along with Fenty_Fishtails. Quite how he can even discuss people with their own 'agendas' and ulterior motives is beyond parody when his own are so evident.

Pen Penfras is Welsh and can be translated as Chief or Superior Cod Fish.

Quoted from Cambs Mariner

Pen Penfras is Welsh and can be translated as Chief or Superior Cod Fish.

Correct. Now who might that be?

Quoted from Bigdog

This little debate here must have got you really fired up Sixpence, you haven't posted since October 2012!!

Couldn't get the internet in prison!

Quoted from Sixpence

Couldn't get the internet in prison!

Did you you do time for deconstructing things.

I have posted many times about the position of a Trust member on the board while Fenty sits in the chair at meetings (without actually being the chairman) and rules everything with his usual 'I'm right you're wrong we'll do it my way' attitude.

The Trust position on the board is totally powerless and toothless and although I said it in jest, the Trust rep might just as well make the tea and sharpen the pencils, his ability to influence any decision is nil and he can't tell us half of what was said either!

Quoted from Cambs Mariner

Pen Penfras is Welsh and can be translated as Chief or Superior Cod Fish.

A fat headed cod fish, I have a welsh speaking friend and he also says Penfras has been used as cruel reference to the owner of large and ugly head. So who on the board fits that reference?

http://welsh-dictionary.ac.uk/gpc/gpc.html?penfras

Quoted from Bigdog

This little debate here must have got you really fired up Sixpence, you haven't posted since October 2012!!

‘Sleeper’ springs to mind.

I wonder what ‘phrase’ activated him.

Any ideas folks ?

Quoted from Cambs Mariner

Pen Penfras is Welsh and can be translated as Chief or Superior Cod Fish.

Aye, i looked it up on Google a couple of weeks back and couldn't find a definitive meaning, but some of the translations were, shall we say, a bit fishy.

Quoted from pen penfras

It just sounds like JW had the last say and his contribution is "the fans don't want RS". I don't think there's anything JW could have said that the board don't already know. So in that situation, if JW goes last in making his point, the board already know how they will vote. They've already weighed up the financial implications of keeping or sacking Slade, they've taken into account past performance where he's had a bad run and turned it around, given him the backing to sign some players and decided for now that keeping Slade as manager is the way to go.

I don't expect many people to agree with the decision given the current plight, but unless the trust had some rabbit to pull out of a hat that nobody had already considered, then there's nothing to see here.

So what you're saying is that because JW doesn't agree with the other board members, and is in the minority his contribution is worthless and can be ignored? Ever heard of discussion and debate? Never had a discussion where people changed their minds or outlook by listening to the minority view?

If you answer 'no' to those questions, I name you 'John Fenty'  ;D