So the big question is now how long will it take all 800 legacy members to read the 50 page document one at a time?
Maybe Trevor could do a Jackonory style reading with everyone sat around in a circle?
I'm pretty comfortable with the legal document only being available on the night. I am assuming the presentation will contain the key points and also assuming some are deliberately not understanding the documents point for disruptive effect.
@rmjlondon said:
I would think if people don't vote yes, we would immediately go into administration and a fire sale of players in January will follow and we will tumble towards the relegation zone.
I myself don't think RC has the money to back this club how some people think.
So vote yes or we are doomed...but the bloke hasn't got the money to support a yes vote?
This illustrates precisely why I leave economics and high finance to those in the know.
@OxfordBlue said:
Trust members are not shareholders.
A good many of us are.
@DevC said:
Legacy members are season ticket holders of many years standing.
Not ‘many’. A few years (3 or 4, I’ve topped half a century so haven’t needed to commit the qualifying period to memory).
I do worry about @NiceCarrots. Sloppily worded and poorly set out posts do nothing to further his cause. And a 50 page legal document is not a prospectus. I don’t recall ever having seen a prospectus marked “Commercial in Confidence
Carrots aren’t always healthy.
My reading of the current situation is as follows; As at next Tuesday The Legacy members are being asked to vote Yes on a proposal which they will not have had prior detailed information. It apparently is 50 pages long. My question regarding this is,have the members of the Trust Board read the details of this proposal ?
I was informed last night by a Trust Board Member that there was still currently some "i's to dot" and" t's to cross".
In my opinion the Legacy Members should be voting on a document approved by the Trust Board and Rob Couhig in which there is a paragraph which contains a statement similar to this, " This agreement is subject to a vote of the Legacy members of the Trust Board being at least 75% of the total Legacy Members as at the 11th October 2019"
Is the current Trust proposal in line with the Rules Of The Trust?
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I'm pretty comfortable with the legal document only being available on the night.
Presumably you're able to attend the meeting. How would you feel if you weren't able to?
You're becoming a bit DevC with your assumptions. I'm hoping I'll be able to attend but work commitments might get in the way. I made that comment with both scenarios in mind.
I'm not going to be able to read the document on the night. It will be too long and full of legalese. Unless they have 400 copies it would be impractical in any case.
As I see it if I can't get to the meeting I'm not much behind being there in terms of getting a full legal understanding.
I also won't be able to make it or cast my eyes over the document for work reasons. I am confident people will ask the pertinent questions and no doubt the Gasroom will be full of up to the minute critique and opinion (not just 'Vote yes you old bastards or we are all screwed!!!) for me to assess saving me the irritation of having to contact my lawyer.
I feel even if the 50+ document was emailed out most legacy voters would not read it all and some probably not understand it either and they will vote based on their gut feeling. However, I agree it should be emailed out to legacy members, all voters should have the opportunity to digest at their leisure. The only argument for not sending this out would be a failed bid and that document then being used as the basis of a new bid, but the bottom line is what are we getting for handing over 75% of the club and importantly how long will Rob be prepared to fund losses before he breaks even if at all?. My understanding was he was not attending next Tuesday which personally I feel is a mistake because you are relying on the Trust to answer the questions and there will be some questions for sure they do not know the answer to.
@HG1 said:
The only argument for not sending this out would be a failed bid and that document then being used as the basis of a new bid....
Surely another pretty big reason for not sending the document out is that it is confidential and business sensitive and will be available to all on Facebook inside two minutes?
@HG1 said:
The only argument for not sending this out would be a failed bid and that document then being used as the basis of a new bid....
Surely another pretty big reason for not sending the document out is that it is confidential and business sensitive and will be available to all on Facebook inside two minutes?
Its not going to stop people reporting on it though on social media is it...
It would be fairly easily be put in an online data room which protects it from being saved, copied, printed, etc. with each legacy member being given a link to it and views would then be tracked.
That wouldn't stop someone typing it out word for word off the web page but if someone is willing to do that on a 50 page legal document for a few comments/likes on the Facebook group then hats off to them.
@Malone said:
Surely something can't be "that" confidential, when it's potentially being shown to 800 individuals!
This is the part I'm slightly confused by. I've not had to sign an NDA to read it, so I could easily take some decent notes / I've got a pretty good memory and share the most important bits elsewhere, with the chance of errors or even if I was that way inclined, deliberate changes - surely it's better to have an actual prospectus given out even if the full legalese is hard copy reading material only
Comments
So the big question is now how long will it take all 800 legacy members to read the 50 page document one at a time?
Maybe Trevor could do a Jackonory style reading with everyone sat around in a circle?
I'm pretty comfortable with the legal document only being available on the night. I am assuming the presentation will contain the key points and also assuming some are deliberately not understanding the documents point for disruptive effect.
but he deserves to be heard and tbh if your not a legacy member @aloysius then u won't be asking any questions as you have no say !!!
So vote yes or we are doomed...but the bloke hasn't got the money to support a yes vote?
This illustrates precisely why I leave economics and high finance to those in the know.
A good many of us are.
Not ‘many’. A few years (3 or 4, I’ve topped half a century so haven’t needed to commit the qualifying period to memory).
I do worry about @NiceCarrots. Sloppily worded and poorly set out posts do nothing to further his cause. And a 50 page legal document is not a prospectus. I don’t recall ever having seen a prospectus marked “Commercial in Confidence
Carrots aren’t always healthy.
Understood.
But it doesn't mean that the board are under legal obligation to make a digital copy of the proposed agreement available to ALL trust legacy members.
You're.
My reading of the current situation is as follows; As at next Tuesday The Legacy members are being asked to vote Yes on a proposal which they will not have had prior detailed information. It apparently is 50 pages long. My question regarding this is,have the members of the Trust Board read the details of this proposal ?
I was informed last night by a Trust Board Member that there was still currently some "i's to dot" and" t's to cross".
In my opinion the Legacy Members should be voting on a document approved by the Trust Board and Rob Couhig in which there is a paragraph which contains a statement similar to this, " This agreement is subject to a vote of the Legacy members of the Trust Board being at least 75% of the total Legacy Members as at the 11th October 2019"
Is the current Trust proposal in line with the Rules Of The Trust?
Might help your eyesight in reading a 50 page document though!
Presumably you're able to attend the meeting. How would you feel if you weren't able to?
You're becoming a bit DevC with your assumptions. I'm hoping I'll be able to attend but work commitments might get in the way. I made that comment with both scenarios in mind.
I'm not going to be able to read the document on the night. It will be too long and full of legalese. Unless they have 400 copies it would be impractical in any case.
As I see it if I can't get to the meeting I'm not much behind being there in terms of getting a full legal understanding.
So what you really meant was that you're comfortable with not being able to read the document?
No. You only asked me about that point.
I wouldn't expect a full legal contract to be subject to being put on social media. I think that is dangerous and wrong.
I would love to be able to read it but hope to hear the pertinent information ahead of the vote from the Trust.
As I couldn't tell you the current legal framework of the club I'm not sure I'd know what I'd compare this new knowledge to.
In short I am comfortable with the situation. That doesn't mean everyone else has to be.
Cool
I also won't be able to make it or cast my eyes over the document for work reasons. I am confident people will ask the pertinent questions and no doubt the Gasroom will be full of up to the minute critique and opinion (not just 'Vote yes you old bastards or we are all screwed!!!) for me to assess saving me the irritation of having to contact my lawyer.
Why have I a recollection of the document being available for perusal for 14 days at AP?
I feel even if the 50+ document was emailed out most legacy voters would not read it all and some probably not understand it either and they will vote based on their gut feeling. However, I agree it should be emailed out to legacy members, all voters should have the opportunity to digest at their leisure. The only argument for not sending this out would be a failed bid and that document then being used as the basis of a new bid, but the bottom line is what are we getting for handing over 75% of the club and importantly how long will Rob be prepared to fund losses before he breaks even if at all?. My understanding was he was not attending next Tuesday which personally I feel is a mistake because you are relying on the Trust to answer the questions and there will be some questions for sure they do not know the answer to.
It’s what the trust website says. Available from meeting on 15th until voting stops on 29th. 50 pages of legal text not an easy read.
Surely another pretty big reason for not sending the document out is that it is confidential and business sensitive and will be available to all on Facebook inside two minutes?
Surely something can't be "that" confidential, when it's potentially being shown to 800 individuals!
It would be fairly easily be put in an online data room which protects it from being saved, copied, printed, etc. with each legacy member being given a link to it and views would then be tracked.
That wouldn't stop someone typing it out word for word off the web page but if someone is willing to do that on a 50 page legal document for a few comments/likes on the Facebook group then hats off to them.
This is the part I'm slightly confused by. I've not had to sign an NDA to read it, so I could easily take some decent notes / I've got a pretty good memory and share the most important bits elsewhere, with the chance of errors or even if I was that way inclined, deliberate changes - surely it's better to have an actual prospectus given out even if the full legalese is hard copy reading material only
How thick do we estimate it would be? I've got this table and an uneven floor...
@Username - Unless I'm going to be watched while reading it, what is to stop me photographing the pages?
Sadly, I did not win the Euromillions so could not table my late rival bid...
Parklife (our official matchday programme) - 48 pages and glossy - is 2.5 mm thick.
How troublesome is your wobble @Wendoverman ?
Clutching as I do a vital vote I would get the prospectus for free surely?...you don;t get rich shelling out £3 if you don't need to.
£3.50 if you don’t mind.
Seriously though, we must distinguish between a prospectus and a full-blown legally binding document.
Indeed. One of them would probably be too thick. It's a tricky situation.
Proving my point I think...