We should also remember that the Trust Chairman/Board are to some extent, reacting to the groundswell on social, sorry, anti-social media when they communicate. Facebook and the Gasroom do not represent the wider membership as it is only a few of us that post and indeed very few that constantly lead the main critical thrust. Some posts on here border upon the hysterical and that can apply to both sets of opinions. Let's all wait and see what the proposers have to say, tonight and next week. Sadly, I can't make tonight's meeting buy I'm confident that it will be widely reported!
@ValleyWanderer you are correct.History has long shown that the 15 or so people who dominate the gasroom (some under multiple accounts), do NOT speak for the majority.
'Anti-social media' good one. Not so sure though @ValleyWanderer
But why are they bothering when surely as businessmen and indeed...people who use social media -they know ''Facebook and the Gasroom do not represent the wider membership '. ?
I suspect they are fully aware of that which is why they only engage when, for the sake of argument, someone finds something dodgy on the Companies House website or an ex-player calls a meeting and they panic that the anti-social media people might start putting it about to the silent majority.
@TrueBlu so the club can be truly enthused if 90% of Facebook are for and only a small number of about 15 posters on here may be wavering. @DevC can rest easy.
I note the Trust update on the Legacy Members Voting Process on 22nd January 2019, which concludes with the paragraph...
_"What happens next?
After the result of the vote has been announced Trevor Stroud will detail the next steps at the meeting."_
This suggests that the Trust already have a Plan B in mind and it could be the approval of a minority investment in WWFC by Bill Luby and Jim Collis in the event a majority take over is not approved by 75% of Legacy members.
Surely a new vote would have to take place?? So could the Trust board aka 'Strouward'
technically block Harmans bid ? And put a new minority bid by the Yanks to a vote ? Needing only 51% this time ??
Maybe assurances should be made to the Trust board, that they will not go down this route before the vote. If they fail to give these assurances, that would surely destroy the little credibility they have left.
@ChasHarps said:
Surely a new vote would have to take place?? So could the Trust board aka 'Strouward'
technically block Harmans bid ? And put a new minority bid by the Yanks to a vote ? Needing only 51% this time ??
The following Trust rules state:
49.2 The following decisions must be made by Legacy Member resolution:
49.2.1 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of Adams Park;
49.2.2 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1;
Therefore, no Legacy or any Member resolution is necessary for minority investment.
@glasshalfempty - Stroud could then hand over 49% of the club to the Americans immediately after failing to get the 75%. The paperwork could even be prepared in readiness.
So we could have the Bizarre situation the 90% of Legacy members reject the Yanks take over, But the power group could let them in as a 49.9% minority investment, but would be effectively running the club, and ensure that certain individuals in the powergroup still have seats at the top table !!
@ChasHarps said:
Surely a new vote would have to take place?? So could the Trust board aka 'Strouward'
technically block Harmans bid ? And put a new minority bid by the Yanks to a vote ? Needing only 51% this time ??
The following Trust rules state:
49.2 The following decisions must be made by Legacy Member resolution:
49.2.1 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of Adams Park;
49.2.2 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1;
Therefore, no Legacy or any Member resolution is necessary for minority investment.
Absolutely outrageous that you should even post that as if it would be in any way acceptable or morally okay given the obvious feelings of the membership
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not expressing an opinion in favour or against minority investment. I am simply clarifying the rules as published on the Trust website. It would be up to Members to express any dissatisfaction with the rules. There is a process for Members to change the rules (No. 49.1.1).
Comments
We should also remember that the Trust Chairman/Board are to some extent, reacting to the groundswell on social, sorry, anti-social media when they communicate. Facebook and the Gasroom do not represent the wider membership as it is only a few of us that post and indeed very few that constantly lead the main critical thrust. Some posts on here border upon the hysterical and that can apply to both sets of opinions. Let's all wait and see what the proposers have to say, tonight and next week. Sadly, I can't make tonight's meeting buy I'm confident that it will be widely reported!
@ValleyWanderer you are correct.History has long shown that the 15 or so people who dominate the gasroom (some under multiple accounts), do NOT speak for the majority.
'Anti-social media' good one. Not so sure though @ValleyWanderer
But why are they bothering when surely as businessmen and indeed...people who use social media -they know ''Facebook and the Gasroom do not represent the wider membership '. ?
I suspect they are fully aware of that which is why they only engage when, for the sake of argument, someone finds something dodgy on the Companies House website or an ex-player calls a meeting and they panic that the anti-social media people might start putting it about to the silent majority.
I do actually think fb does represent a better idea of fan feeling until the gasroomers infiltrate it
Interesting. As a non-infiltrator, what's the feeling about the take-over on the Facebook Group @Trublue?
Between the two of them there's a huge array of opinions, so I imagine it is fairly representative
99%+ I would say yes in principle obviously that could all change
Looks like we missed a trick. I see Bd07 has invested in Salford. We missed out on that one
@TrueBlu so the club can be truly enthused if 90% of Facebook are for and only a small number of about 15 posters on here may be wavering. @DevC can rest easy.
Bd07 ? Forgive ignorance.
David Beckham
Yes
He had a meeting at the Holiday Inn in Marlow but no-one turned up....then Gary Neville called and that was that.
That raised a chuckle
Bavid Deckham
Morning all
Brief report on last night's open forum including an interview with Andrew Harman:
https://philcatchpole.com/2019/01/24/andrew-harman-presents-investment-plans-to-chairboys-fans/
I note the Trust update on the Legacy Members Voting Process on 22nd January 2019, which concludes with the paragraph...
_"What happens next?
After the result of the vote has been announced Trevor Stroud will detail the next steps at the meeting."_
This suggests that the Trust already have a Plan B in mind and it could be the approval of a minority investment in WWFC by Bill Luby and Jim Collis in the event a majority take over is not approved by 75% of Legacy members.
Now that really would upset a few people,
best sack the trust board now then...
Surely a new vote would have to take place?? So could the Trust board aka 'Strouward'
technically block Harmans bid ? And put a new minority bid by the Yanks to a vote ? Needing only 51% this time ??
I believe the trust don't need a vote to sell a minority share.
That would be outrageous but nothing would surprise me now quite frankly.
Maybe assurances should be made to the Trust board, that they will not go down this route before the vote. If they fail to give these assurances, that would surely destroy the little credibility they have left.
The following Trust rules state:
49.2 The following decisions must be made by Legacy Member resolution:
49.2.1 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of Adams Park;
49.2.2 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1;
Therefore, no Legacy or any Member resolution is necessary for minority investment.
That'll be plan B then.
@glasshalfempty - Stroud could then hand over 49% of the club to the Americans immediately after failing to get the 75%. The paperwork could even be prepared in readiness.
So we could have the Bizarre situation the 90% of Legacy members reject the Yanks take over, But the power group could let them in as a 49.9% minority investment, but would be effectively running the club, and ensure that certain individuals in the powergroup still have seats at the top table !!
This is all pure speculation...
Absolutely outrageous that you should even post that as if it would be in any way acceptable or morally okay given the obvious feelings of the membership
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not expressing an opinion in favour or against minority investment. I am simply clarifying the rules as published on the Trust website. It would be up to Members to express any dissatisfaction with the rules. There is a process for Members to change the rules (No. 49.1.1).