@Steve_Peart said: @eric_plant, @Vital, TS made it clear last night that members will not see both bids, only the one the Board put forward.
If that is the case, there is not much point in Harman submitting a firm bid.
It is obvious that the Board are not going to waver from their original recommendation (I am not arguing against the American's bid probably being the best option by the way). However, by us not seeing Harman's bid, I think it is more likely that the Board will not reach the 75% figure.
The club will then have no option but to accept Harmzn's plan B in order to repay the American's loan.
Having taken time to mull it over, I think the trust presented well last night, and helped calm some of the fears.
Stroud started off defensively, as did a few audience members. Perhaps he was a little nervous about the capacity crowd, but he grew into it and relaxed during the course of the event.
I do have a little more confidence that Harman never lodged an official bid, and was never outright denied from doing so.
Why he waited until the last minute, and presented it independently I don't know, and it leaves some residual doubt.
However, 2 topics were disapointingly not covered in depth IMO:
1.
Isn't it irresponsible to take a loan from a potential future investor?
It means there can never be a level playing field between two bids. One party is owed a significant amount of money, the other is not.
Furthermore, the Americans now have a back door into full ownership, should we never achieve 75%,, never find a buyer, and default on their sizeable loan.
2.
I wanted more to be raised about how the charge against the stadium may have been technically legal and within the T&Cs, but was clearly not in the spirit of the Trust or FALL and a pretty piss poor loophole to exploit.
It's worth noting that as yet no-one has seen A Harman's plan B, because it hasn't been formally submitted.
For all we know the detail may be a pile of rubbish. It's not in our interest to simply reject the Americans bid so as to make acceptance of A Harman's bid by default.
I would find that very a very disappointing execution of process ...
I suppose the shroud of an NDA or CC will prevent Mr Harman from presenting his bid independently of the board if they decide not to allow us the privilege of scrutiny?
Or plan C, a combination of the Andy Harman investment and Trust member funding. As stated earlier this means we only give away a minority holding and ensures Trust involvement going forward.
I think we have ignored the fact that 12 months ago we were being told we were on the road to breaking even and suddenly we have only the sell option. Maybe we have been subject to mis-management and can improve things by a change of leadership, focus and even more involvement from the Trust members in relation to funding. I think @marlowchair suggested something like this some months back.
The point is we really don’t know what can be done without selling off the Crown Jewels, as there is no transparency even though it is our club that is under discussion and at threat.
@Twizz said:
It's worth noting that as yet no-one has seen A Harman's plan B, because it hasn't been formally submitted.
For all we know the detail may be a pile of rubbish. It's not in our interest to simply reject the Americans bid so as to make acceptance of A Harman's bid by default.
I would find that very a very disappointing execution of process ...
But if Harman's bid turned out to be "a pile of rubbish", isn't that a pretty solid reason to let the members see it alongside the American's bid?
Overall I thought it was a very clever and very professional presentation put together by Trevor and the team that he works with " behind the scenes".
Like others, I am disappointed that Trust Members will not be allowed to see the detail on both bids and make a decision based on those presentations.
Given the loss of faith by Supporters in the Trust we should now be allowed a choice - it's called democracy.
However, Trevor's body language and demeanour told me that there is absolutely no way Andrew Harman's bid would be allowed to be successful.
For me the abiding memory of the evening was the quite staggering arrogance shown by Trevor in trying to justify his position as Chairman of both the Trust and Football Club.
It's quite clear that both bids need to be presented, or they might as well not bother with a vote requiring 75% as it would have no chance of getting through.
Alot of last night really depended on your views on Stroud and the board. They didn't really say anything to quell the fears of some but came across credibly to those who were more trusting.
I was struck by the number of people happy to listen and trust last night. Far bigger percentage than on this board. I think it is unfair to say the whole supporter base mistrusts the board based on this.
I can't see how seeing more than one bid will help getting any bid over the 75% barrier. Can anyone explain to me how this works?
Following on frommy post above with regard to (I think) the impossibility of having a vote over two bids.
If the board look at the two bids assuming that Andy puts in a detailed one and then explain IN DETAIL why they have taken the decision to put
one or the other to the vote....then we can take an informed vote on the one they choose for good or ill.
BUT does anyone know if that sort of thing is possible if there are NDAs in place?
@Right_in_the_Middle, I agree that the majority last night were probably behind the board. The applause which broke out when an opinion had either a 'pro' or 'anti' board sentiment, seemed louder for the 'pro' camp.
Last night saw no more then 25% of the Legacy members attending. I suspect that most of the other 75% will be happy to follow the Board's recommendation. Whether that will be enough to secure a 75% result is very unclear.
A meaningful vote before the final vote, Eric? The parallels to brexit get ever more pronounced.
Personally I think we should forget this nonsense and just sell to whoever promises £350m for a new centre forward..... either that or leave the league with a no deal option.
@steve_peart you could also more worryingly argue that out of the 75% not there last night the number not engaged in the process at all doesn't have to be that high to scupper any vote
I can't see how seeing more than one bid will help getting any bid over the 75% barrier. Can anyone explain to me how this works?
I think you'd have to have a process (a vote?) to get to a preferred option and then have the final vote on that
This.
There's a possibility that a detailed response from the board on why they have chosen one over the other could be enough, but I highly doubt it for everyone.
Both need to be presented, with a vote on which is the preferred option, if the preferred option is a majority bid, then that would need to go to the members and get 75%.
@Wendoverman said:
So if a vote on the two bids goes 49% - 51%...do we think the 49% who opposed would then vote FOR to make the 75% threshold?
Personally I'd hope so if both bids were good options for the club, so the first vote was picking the best of two good options. Would largely depend on the "campaigning" I guess.
We could also go for the ‘are we happy to sell the club’ vote first - with the 75% threshold and then a further vote (assuming we get past that) on which bid to accept with a simple majority required.
Please God no more votes...have had a whole day of tedious yah boo Brexit debate.
Have not been able to face trying to watch the Yah Boo Wycombe Debate yet!
@bookertease that is correct and I totally follow that many couldn't attend. That wasn't the point I was trying to make just for the avoidance of doubt (and CAPITALS and !!!)
Comments
If that is the case, there is not much point in Harman submitting a firm bid.
It is obvious that the Board are not going to waver from their original recommendation (I am not arguing against the American's bid probably being the best option by the way). However, by us not seeing Harman's bid, I think it is more likely that the Board will not reach the 75% figure.
The club will then have no option but to accept Harmzn's plan B in order to repay the American's loan.
Having taken time to mull it over, I think the trust presented well last night, and helped calm some of the fears.
Stroud started off defensively, as did a few audience members. Perhaps he was a little nervous about the capacity crowd, but he grew into it and relaxed during the course of the event.
I do have a little more confidence that Harman never lodged an official bid, and was never outright denied from doing so.
Why he waited until the last minute, and presented it independently I don't know, and it leaves some residual doubt.
However, 2 topics were disapointingly not covered in depth IMO:
1.
Isn't it irresponsible to take a loan from a potential future investor?
It means there can never be a level playing field between two bids. One party is owed a significant amount of money, the other is not.
Furthermore, the Americans now have a back door into full ownership, should we never achieve 75%,, never find a buyer, and default on their sizeable loan.
2.
It's worth noting that as yet no-one has seen A Harman's plan B, because it hasn't been formally submitted.
For all we know the detail may be a pile of rubbish. It's not in our interest to simply reject the Americans bid so as to make acceptance of A Harman's bid by default.
I would find that very a very disappointing execution of process ...
I suppose the shroud of an NDA or CC will prevent Mr Harman from presenting his bid independently of the board if they decide not to allow us the privilege of scrutiny?
Or plan C, a combination of the Andy Harman investment and Trust member funding. As stated earlier this means we only give away a minority holding and ensures Trust involvement going forward.
I think we have ignored the fact that 12 months ago we were being told we were on the road to breaking even and suddenly we have only the sell option. Maybe we have been subject to mis-management and can improve things by a change of leadership, focus and even more involvement from the Trust members in relation to funding. I think @marlowchair suggested something like this some months back.
The point is we really don’t know what can be done without selling off the Crown Jewels, as there is no transparency even though it is our club that is under discussion and at threat.
But if Harman's bid turned out to be "a pile of rubbish", isn't that a pretty solid reason to let the members see it alongside the American's bid?
Overall I thought it was a very clever and very professional presentation put together by Trevor and the team that he works with " behind the scenes".
Like others, I am disappointed that Trust Members will not be allowed to see the detail on both bids and make a decision based on those presentations.
Given the loss of faith by Supporters in the Trust we should now be allowed a choice - it's called democracy.
However, Trevor's body language and demeanour told me that there is absolutely no way Andrew Harman's bid would be allowed to be successful.
For me the abiding memory of the evening was the quite staggering arrogance shown by Trevor in trying to justify his position as Chairman of both the Trust and Football Club.
Not happy.
It's quite clear that both bids need to be presented, or they might as well not bother with a vote requiring 75% as it would have no chance of getting through.
Alot of last night really depended on your views on Stroud and the board. They didn't really say anything to quell the fears of some but came across credibly to those who were more trusting.
I was struck by the number of people happy to listen and trust last night. Far bigger percentage than on this board. I think it is unfair to say the whole supporter base mistrusts the board based on this.
I can't see how seeing more than one bid will help getting any bid over the 75% barrier. Can anyone explain to me how this works?
Following on frommy post above with regard to (I think) the impossibility of having a vote over two bids.
If the board look at the two bids assuming that Andy puts in a detailed one and then explain IN DETAIL why they have taken the decision to put
one or the other to the vote....then we can take an informed vote on the one they choose for good or ill.
BUT does anyone know if that sort of thing is possible if there are NDAs in place?
yes it is.
I dare say that is what will happen (if as you say there are actually two bids)
@Right_in_the_Middle, I agree that the majority last night were probably behind the board. The applause which broke out when an opinion had either a 'pro' or 'anti' board sentiment, seemed louder for the 'pro' camp.
Last night saw no more then 25% of the Legacy members attending. I suspect that most of the other 75% will be happy to follow the Board's recommendation. Whether that will be enough to secure a 75% result is very unclear.
I think you'd have to have a process (a vote?) to get to a preferred option and then have the final vote on that
A meaningful vote before the final vote, Eric? The parallels to brexit get ever more pronounced.
Personally I think we should forget this nonsense and just sell to whoever promises £350m for a new centre forward..... either that or leave the league with a no deal option.
If only Brexit had required 75% of the electorate
@steve_peart you could also more worryingly argue that out of the 75% not there last night the number not engaged in the process at all doesn't have to be that high to scupper any vote
I'm not even sure if 75% of me can make a decision...
Sadly that is destined to be one of life's great regrets, Eric.
I heard the Brexit fiasco is all the fault of Trevor and the Power Group...
This.
There's a possibility that a detailed response from the board on why they have chosen one over the other could be enough, but I highly doubt it for everyone.
Both need to be presented, with a vote on which is the preferred option, if the preferred option is a majority bid, then that would need to go to the members and get 75%.
I'm confused @Username ...who is voting initially in this scenario before it goes to the members?
The legacy members in both votes. Sorry I should have put that in the original post.
Edit: If the trust have a preferred bidder then they can say this, and why before the first vote.
@Right_in_the_Middle, it would be interesting to know how many times the ERS will nudge reluctant voters, what escalation process has been agreed.
So if a vote on the two bids goes 49% - 51%...do we think the 49% who opposed would then vote FOR to make the 75% threshold?
Personally I'd hope so if both bids were good options for the club, so the first vote was picking the best of two good options. Would largely depend on the "campaigning" I guess.
We could also go for the ‘are we happy to sell the club’ vote first - with the 75% threshold and then a further vote (assuming we get past that) on which bid to accept with a simple majority required.
Much more fun
And @Right_in_the_Middle some of the 75% may be fully engaged - just not THAT engaged to travel 6 hours on a cold Monday night to hear about!
Please God no more votes...have had a whole day of tedious yah boo Brexit debate.
Have not been able to face trying to watch the Yah Boo Wycombe Debate yet!
You’re no fun anymore @Wendoverman
@bookertease that is correct and I totally follow that many couldn't attend. That wasn't the point I was trying to make just for the avoidance of doubt (and CAPITALS and !!!)