Taken from The Trust Facebook Page

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Not for me. When I left the board the legal action was still ploughing ahead, albeit frustratingly slowly. Phil left the same time as me so I assume he’d say the same.

Indeed, progressing slower than we would like but certainly going ahead. And that was certainly the case last year when itwas confirmed funding etc was secured?

Im sure it was announced that they'd even got to the point of lodging the papers with the court, which to me implies they'd secured the funding and the preparations complete and just a case of waiting for a date.

What I can't fathom is how or why they're still taking legal advice. Regarding what!?

 

[PSumbler]

Indeed, progressing slower than we would like but certainly going ahead. And that was certainly the case last year when itwas confirmed funding etc was secured?

Im sure it was announced that they'd even got to the point of lodging the papers with the court, which to me implies they'd secured the funding and the preparations complete and just a case of waiting for a date.

What I can't fathom is how or why they're still taking legal advice. Regarding what!?

It certainly shouldnt take six months to "get up to speed" which is pretty much what has been suggested.

At least one member of the board was part of the legal sub group when I was on it and remained part last year when I was still "helping" (I say helping, not part of the decision making but inputting into the case as/when needed/requested)

 

[Longlostjack]

Indeed, progressing slower than we would like but certainly going ahead. And that was certainly the case last year when itwas confirmed funding etc was secured?

Im sure it was announced that they'd even got to the point of lodging the papers with the court, which to me implies they'd secured the funding and the preparations complete and just a case of waiting for a date.

What I can't fathom is how or why they're still taking legal advice. Regarding what!?

Good question.

 

[Vetchfielder]

They've announced that they've served papers on the respondents to the case (i.e. Yanks, Jenkins, Dineen etc) and they've announced that they have funding for the legal action.

However, they've never said that they've submitted the case in the courts, and if they had I think they would have told us. So we aren't waiting for a trial date yet because it's not yet with the courts.

It is still with the Trust Board and it's legal advisors. I believe that any legal work that is currently going on is around agreeing a deal with the Yanks and/or others. But they are keeping it to themselves, either for legal reasons around an NDA or, worse, maybe to run the clock down so that the 6 years expires in early March and members have no time to react to what's been agreed or do anything about it.

 

[ARQS]

I wonder if they think they're on the verge of a settlement.

 

[Niigata Jack]

I’m pretty convinced there’ll be no court case now. Something fundamental has changed since August last year.

Well they got no right to go against the vote, it'll make it look farcical a laughing stock of the whole thing, :?

 

[exiledclaseboy]

I’m pretty convinced there’ll be no court case now. Something fundamental has changed since August last year.

Well they got no right to go against the vote, it'll make it look like farcical a laughing stock of the whole thing, :?

It would be a brave trust board that fails to act on an instruction from its members without first consulting those members on any proposed revised course of action.

 

[Niigata Jack]

Well they got no right to go against the vote, it'll make it look like farcical and a laughing stock of the whole thing, :?

It would be a brave trust board that fails to act on an instruction from its members without first consulting those members on any proposed revised course of action.

Yep, time is running out though after all this time as well, I hope the delay isn't because of any so called deal that the other side maybe putting together, surely the Trust have be lead down that garden path before and to no avail, This lot they are dealing with are clever and unscrupulous, bastards,

 

[SwanseaJames]

I'm a Lawyer. I specialise in shareholder disputes. I act for football teams and players. It's fair to say I have a pretty good grasp of the law behind this dispute, the sensitives of dealing with "football people" and experience of resolving disputes like this. I can't quite understand why the Trust is running down the limitation clock (which presumably, on an approximate basis, will be April 2022) unless there's been some form of standstill to stop the clock so settlement can be pursued. I hope all will become clear soon.

Edit - typo

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

I'm a Lawyer. I specialise in shareholder disputes. I act for football teams and players. It's fair to say I have a pretty good grasp of the law behind this dispute, the sensitives of dealing with "football people" and experience of resolving disputes like this. I can't quite understand why the Trust is running down the limitation clock (which presumably, on an approximate basis, will be April 2022) unless there's been some form of standstill to stop the clock so settlement can be pursued. I hope all will become clear soon.

Edit - typo

Do you think Covid could be valid grounds to extend it? It must have had at least some impact on the case preparation

 

[PSumbler]

Well they got no right to go against the vote, it'll make it look like farcical a laughing stock of the whole thing, :?

It would be a brave trust board that fails to act on an instruction from its members without first consulting those members on any proposed revised course of action.

Brave or something else anyway

 

[Niigata Jack]

Well they got no right to go against the vote, it'll make it look farcical and a laughing stock of the whole thing, :?

It would be a brave trust board that fails to act on an instruction from its members without first consulting those members on any proposed revised course of action.

 

[Vetchfielder]

Looking like bad news on the legal case isn't it:-

1. AGM gets arranged 2 weeks later than it should have done under the Trust's model rules.
2. AGM made virtual when it needn't have been under any Covid regs - more controllable and less emotive that way
3. No announcement yet, so no "difficult" motions at the AGM from members - the deadline for those being submitted is tomorrow

That's what it looks like to me. Come on Trust Board, tell us what's going on. Prove me wrong.

 

[PSumbler]

Looking like bad news on the legal case isn't it:-

1. AGM gets arranged 2 weeks later than it should have done under the Trust's model rules.
2. AGM made virtual when it needn't have been under any Covid regs - more controllable and less emotive that way
3. No announcement yet, so no "difficult" motions at the AGM from members - the deadline for those being submitted is tomorrow

That's what it looks like to me. Come on Trust Board, tell us what's going on. Prove me wrong.

This got lost yesterday in all the transfer chat but I cant do anything but agree on this front.

Not sure why the AGM was delayed past the model rules deadline - given its remote then it cant be for anyone not being able to attend. And it could easily be switched now to being "non remote" if it was the will of the board (and that doesn't preclude anybody being able to dial in via Zooms - its the way of the world now)

The lack of any information is leading pretty much most members to jump to the same conclusion and -as Cudey said further up the thread - that would be a very brave (!) decision by the board

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

Anyone who thought the trust would take the club to court are deluded, was never going to happen.