New investment?

[Cooperman]

I'm going to suggest that you are reading it the same way that I did and that the legal dispute has been closed off (presumably with some level of a deal)

The use of the word "subsided" is quite telling I thought, suggests it may already be over and the AGM will tell us how?

And also using that word suggests it’s been going away (the legal dispute) for some time…which would tally with the Trust’s continuing obfuscation on the matter. DD didn’t directly answer my question on the Trust fb page before Xmas when I asked him directly if he was still behind the action, which struck me as odd/disconcerting at the time.

Wow, just wow if this plays out now as it all appears

Yes indeed. I also interpreted it the same way.

 

[J_B]

It would be an interesting development if the Trust Board negotiated a settlement behind the members' backs.

Keeping people in the dark and conducting deals without their knowledge is why this mess started in the first place.

Hypocrisy is not a good look.

 

[Marchamjack]

It would be an interesting development if the Trust Board negotiated a settlement behind the members' backs.

Keeping people in the dark and conducting deals without their knowledge is why this mess started in the first place.

Hypocrisy is not a good look.

This

 

[Jacket]

Perhaps we can get a sub off Charlie Morgan, he's raking it in with his golden vodka by all accounts :lol:

It has blown up big time fair play to the boy, Floyd Mayweather etc purchasing from him.

Good God, he could and all. The accounts up to the end of April on companies house show he made a profit of £10 million after tax in the 2020/21 financial year! Give us a sub kid.

 

[Dr. Winston]

Good God, he could and all. The accounts up to the end of April on companies house show he made a profit of £10 million after tax in the 2020/21 financial year! Give us a sub kid.

Premium spirits is a huge industry at the moment. It's not as if either of them had to worry about losing everything if their venture didn't take off, but fair play to them for making a good go of it.

 

[STID2017]

It would be an interesting development if the Trust Board negotiated a settlement behind the members' backs.

Keeping people in the dark and conducting deals without their knowledge is why this mess started in the first place.

Hypocrisy is not a good look.

It may be naïve of me but surely as elected members, they are given a mandate to act on the members behalf ?
Therefore to vote in proxy on a decision rather than having to consult the members ?
I would think and hope that they have reviewed the matter and reached a decision that to pursue any legal action through the courts may not bring the outcome they would wish for ?

 

[J_B]

It would be an interesting development if the Trust Board negotiated a settlement behind the members' backs.

Keeping people in the dark and conducting deals without their knowledge is why this mess started in the first place.

Hypocrisy is not a good look.

It may be naïve of me but surely as elected members, they are given a mandate to act on the members behalf ?
Therefore to vote in proxy on a decision rather than having to consult the members ?
I would think and hope that they have reviewed the matter and reached a decision that to pursue any legal action through the courts may not bring the outcome they would wish for ?

On the overwhelming majority of issues, yes I agree. This particular issue was specifically voted on by the members though and a mandate given to the board to carry out the members’ wishes. To reject that members’ decision and change course would, in my view, be unacceptable unless the reasoning was fully explained and the members were consulted again. There may be things that we don’t know of course which may change minds but the lack of communication is deafening.

 

[STID2017]

It may be naïve of me but surely as elected members, they are given a mandate to act on the members behalf ?
Therefore to vote in proxy on a decision rather than having to consult the members ?
I would think and hope that they have reviewed the matter and reached a decision that to pursue any legal action through the courts may not bring the outcome they would wish for ?

On the overwhelming majority of issues, yes I agree. This particular issue was specifically voted on by the members though and a mandate given to the board to carry out the members’ wishes. To reject that members’ decision and change course would, in my view, be unacceptable unless the reasoning was fully explained and the members were consulted again. There may be things that we don’t know of course which may change minds but the lack of communication is deafening.

Fair point and in that case I hope that an explanation will be forthcoming to members to clarify what exactly has happened

 

[Longlostjack]

It must be an excellent deal for them not having felt the need to consult members. Perhaps it‘s subject to approval by a vote of the members. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Pacemaker]

I never agreed with legal action, the costs involved and the time legal action takes it was never going to provide what members wanted even if the case was successful. It was all about revenge against the former board but was going to cause issues for everyone at the club now.

Current court cases are now at least a year behind schedule due to Covid issues, if the Trust and the board has come to an arrangement it might be the sensible pragmatic choice rather than the emotional approach many members have had.

 

[waynekerr55]

I never agreed with legal action, the costs involved and the time legal action takes it was never going to provide what members wanted even if the case was successful. It was all about revenge against the former board but was going to cause issues for everyone at the club now.

Current court cases are now at least a year behind schedule due to Covid issues, if the Trust and the board has come to an arrangement it might be the sensible pragmatic choice rather than the emotional approach many members have had.

That may be the case, but no explanation is a bit fishy. Plus there has to be the concern of the 21% stake being watered down, which would mean no say and less cash for the Trust. Let's see how this pans out

 

[jackjackjackjack]

It has blown up big time fair play to the boy, Floyd Mayweather etc purchasing from him.

Good God, he could and all. The accounts up to the end of April on companies house show he made a profit of £10 million after tax in the 2020/21 financial year! Give us a sub kid.

That'll be a takeover target for a major drinks conglomerate. If Springsteen's back catalogue made £15,000,000 a year and went for £500,000,000. Taking into account that music rights are seemingly overvalued at the moment, the vodka boys would still get a tidy windfall.

From ballboy to owner (with assorted other local businessmen), the story writes itself.

 

[Dr. Winston]

That'll be a takeover target for a major drinks conglomerate.

Ryan Reynolds and George Clooney both made a fortune from selling their spirit brands. Obviously Au doesn't have the inbuilt marketing capacity that those two did but if they're savvy they could make a fair few bob for themselves.

 

[Jacket]

That'll be a takeover target for a major drinks conglomerate.

Ryan Reynolds and George Clooney both made a fortune from selling their spirit brands. Obviously Au doesn't have the inbuilt marketing capacity that those two did but if they're savvy they could make a fair few bob for themselves.

If it all pans out and he becomes the club's saviour, they could make a film. From Ball Boy to Big Balls. OK the title needs work. Get Mal Pope on.

 

[Muteswan]

Maybe they should add a Copr (Cu) variety to their range. You heard it here first.
I’m always here to collect any royalties from the naming idea.
Thanks in advance.