The trust have already stated they have invited him to table his bid to them on the > @DevC said:
Nice Carrots, you should know from your previous working career that it is entirely up to the bidder what they include in their bid. They can include a requirement for your nemesis Mr Stroud to do a lap of honour of the pitch clad solely in a pair of Asses ears if they wish. It is then up to the seller to accept or reject that bid.
This constant refrain of half truths and negativity is getting very wearing and I suspect counter-productive to the Harman cause. He will (perhaps) submit his bid in the next four weeks or so. Time then surely to let his and Luby's bids stand and be judged on their merits.
Crucially though, we are not the ones "judging" and it will be the trust board that make this decision and then explain to us their decision and we will have no opportunity to make an informed decision on both bids merely accept what we are being told that bid "x" is the best and for these reasons. Given the trust has already admitted they have made mistakes in this process and the fact that this is the biggest decision Trust members have been asked to make since Steve Hayes took over the club, would it not be better to allow trust legacy members to see both bids? There are lots of conspiracy theories about the Trust and suggestions the Trust will still go for the USA bid regardless given they have already borrowed such a large amount of money and the only way to end that debate would be to allow Trust Legacy members to see both bids. What possible harm can it do? If one bid is clearly better than the other long termsthere is nothing to fear. I believe it will not end the debate and accusations levelled at it unless we see both bids and I suspect it will be counter production is the board still favour the USA bidders and 75% of votes are needed.Trevor responded on this point at the last meeting by blocking this idea on the basis that the Trust Board have been elected to make decisions on our behalf. In my opinion that demonstrates a lack of democracy on the crucial decision which potentially hands over the club to new others forever. If the board truly want to get this through an open and transparent process is the only way forward, it's is everyones club not just the boards.
As you say @HG1 the Trust Board have been elected to make decisions on our behalf and as time pressures inexorably mount (and Brexit parallels continue) we have to trust them to look objectively at both sets of proposals and to recommend which of the two, in their judgment, have greater merit. I think I would have more faith in their judgment in this respect than I would in that of 800 odd Legacy members and, in any case, there just isn’t time to organise a vote by Legacy members on the relative merits of each bid if, as @Dev says in his post of 1.01pm, all (including legal aspects) is to be resolved before the end of the season.
The decision about which bid to present to the membership does not hand over anything to anyone. That could only happen if more than 75% of Legacy Members vote for it.
To take the point about visibility further, by the time the vote happens there will have been the AH public meeting and the Luby/Collis proposals in the public domain, (assuming the Trust Board go with the Americans) as well as the Board's rationale for their decision. So it's not that difficult for a Legacy Member to weigh up for themselves whether they think it was the right decision, and if they don't believe it is, then they can register their disagreement by their vote.
But the devil is in the detail and the Trust Board judgement on the relative merits of the respective proposals will be based on more detailed information and, arguably, a better grasp of the implications than we relatively untutored mortals will have at our disposal.
But of course @LeedsBlue what you say about the final outcome is absolutely right.
My argument was about the practicalities of what can be done within the tight timescale.
I think we should all vote on a day when we get to see both bids with 75% threshold to be reached. If it is not an alternative day would then to be voted on until we have consensus. Then we should vote on which bid to see first (hopefully a majority will be reached for one of the other) then we should get to vote on the bids we like with a 51% threshold. Then the ones that voted for it can celebrate total victory unless their favoured bid goes tits up in which case they can say the Board did not supply them with all the information they required, while the ones who voted against can complain that it is too narrow a win, predict disaster and maintain they cannot be held responsible because they voted for the better bid which was rejected. It's the only way I can see this matter being laid to rest.
@micra my comments were more directed at HG1's post than your response to it. Doing the "@" thing at the start of my post would've been helpful, I think.
@DevC said:
Thanks @micra . That was broadly my understanding of timescales.
I do think it is very important that this is all resolved (including legals if either bid is accepted) ideally before the last game of the season, so GA can plan player releases/new contracts etc with certainty.
Timescale will be tight but just about doable I suspect.
Harman bid presented w/c 4 march.
Trust review and any questions to bidders up to w/c 18 mar.
Meeting to present to members w/c 25 mar and vote to end c. 16th April.
If approved, two weeks to do legals
Deal complete 2 May.
Well, I hope it all goes to schedule @DevC, but like many a government project, they rarely stick to timescale or budget.
@NiceCarrots
One bid on the table so yes all bidders were given the opportunity for a majority stake.
Stooges in the audience? Did I miss a magic show? Is it at all possible they just had a different opinion?
Why didn't you ask the Beechdean question live on the night rather than the pointless one bid question? I would be interested in the answer but you chose not to raise it face to face. Why?
I note with interest that, as yet, there has been no response to this post from RITM.
Comments
The trust have already stated they have invited him to table his bid to them on the > @DevC said:
Crucially though, we are not the ones "judging" and it will be the trust board that make this decision and then explain to us their decision and we will have no opportunity to make an informed decision on both bids merely accept what we are being told that bid "x" is the best and for these reasons. Given the trust has already admitted they have made mistakes in this process and the fact that this is the biggest decision Trust members have been asked to make since Steve Hayes took over the club, would it not be better to allow trust legacy members to see both bids? There are lots of conspiracy theories about the Trust and suggestions the Trust will still go for the USA bid regardless given they have already borrowed such a large amount of money and the only way to end that debate would be to allow Trust Legacy members to see both bids. What possible harm can it do? If one bid is clearly better than the other long termsthere is nothing to fear. I believe it will not end the debate and accusations levelled at it unless we see both bids and I suspect it will be counter production is the board still favour the USA bidders and 75% of votes are needed.Trevor responded on this point at the last meeting by blocking this idea on the basis that the Trust Board have been elected to make decisions on our behalf. In my opinion that demonstrates a lack of democracy on the crucial decision which potentially hands over the club to new others forever. If the board truly want to get this through an open and transparent process is the only way forward, it's is everyones club not just the boards.
Thanks @HG1. Were you a Leave voter by any chance.....
I suspect in practise the Board will need to prepare a fairly detailed bids comparison document - assuming of course there are two bids to compare.
As you say @HG1 the Trust Board have been elected to make decisions on our behalf and as time pressures inexorably mount (and Brexit parallels continue) we have to trust them to look objectively at both sets of proposals and to recommend which of the two, in their judgment, have greater merit. I think I would have more faith in their judgment in this respect than I would in that of 800 odd Legacy members and, in any case, there just isn’t time to organise a vote by Legacy members on the relative merits of each bid if, as @Dev says in his post of 1.01pm, all (including legal aspects) is to be resolved before the end of the season.
The decision about which bid to present to the membership does not hand over anything to anyone. That could only happen if more than 75% of Legacy Members vote for it.
To take the point about visibility further, by the time the vote happens there will have been the AH public meeting and the Luby/Collis proposals in the public domain, (assuming the Trust Board go with the Americans) as well as the Board's rationale for their decision. So it's not that difficult for a Legacy Member to weigh up for themselves whether they think it was the right decision, and if they don't believe it is, then they can register their disagreement by their vote.
But the devil is in the detail and the Trust Board judgement on the relative merits of the respective proposals will be based on more detailed information and, arguably, a better grasp of the implications than we relatively untutored mortals will have at our disposal.
But of course @LeedsBlue what you say about the final outcome is absolutely right.
My argument was about the practicalities of what can be done within the tight timescale.
@micra - You place a lot of faith in the financial acumen of an ice cream salesman!
Eh? Because he/she wants to see all available accurate information before voting to change the constitution? Makes perfect sense Dev.
I think we should all vote on a day when we get to see both bids with 75% threshold to be reached. If it is not an alternative day would then to be voted on until we have consensus. Then we should vote on which bid to see first (hopefully a majority will be reached for one of the other) then we should get to vote on the bids we like with a 51% threshold. Then the ones that voted for it can celebrate total victory unless their favoured bid goes tits up in which case they can say the Board did not supply them with all the information they required, while the ones who voted against can complain that it is too narrow a win, predict disaster and maintain they cannot be held responsible because they voted for the better bid which was rejected. It's the only way I can see this matter being laid to rest.
Some of you are saying we should "trust the board" to make this decision ... That's the problem, after all the stuff that has come out recently
I think you may have cracked it @Wendoverman. Either that or you’ve cracked. Must say that narrative had a familiar ring.
@micra my comments were more directed at HG1's post than your response to it. Doing the "@" thing at the start of my post would've been helpful, I think.
Well, I hope it all goes to schedule @DevC, but like many a government project, they rarely stick to timescale or budget.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I note with interest that, as yet, there has been no response to this post from RITM.