Trust Legal Action Called Off

[ARQS]

Who are the people currently on the trust board then?

 

[Niigata Jack]

Screenshot 2022-02-15 221548.jpg

I didnt actually tag him in anything either :lol:

Gutless shithouse slime ball, Club is fuked been fuked over by people that were supposed to look after it, they should be hounded out, if for nothing else, than being fuking useless.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Quick question.

Can a motion of No Confidence be put down Thursday and this outcome be paused until the motion is voted upon?

Personally, I don't think that the board is acting in the Trust's best interests here.

Dilute the shareholding until its nearly worthless, then have the fan base attack the Trust in the future (if things go badly wrong. Again!!!) for not stopping this and selling out.

Make the Trust meaningless and a target.
Sorry.
Thats

Whether or not the agreement is palatable, I imagine the Trust board will have taken extensive advice on their ability to sign it and they’ve executed it quite deliberately before anyone knows about it so it cannot now be changed unless anyone could point to that legal advice being wrong and the agreement being ultra vires. My understanding is that they are able to sign such an agreement (legally) so it is what it is.

 

[Niigata Jack]

Quick question.

Can a motion of No Confidence be put down Thursday and this outcome be paused until the motion is voted upon?

Personally, I don't think that the board is acting in the Trust's best interests here.

Dilute the shareholding until its nearly worthless, then have the fan base attack the Trust in the future (if things go badly wrong. Again!!!) for not stopping this and selling out.

Make the Trust meaningless and a target.
Sorry.
Thats

Whether or not the agreement is palatable, I imagine the Trust board will have taken extensive advice on their ability to sign it and they’ve executed it quite deliberately before anyone knows about it so it cannot now be changed unless anyone could point to that legal advice being wrong and the agreement being ultra vires. My understanding is that they are able to sign such an agreement (legally) so it is what it is.

Then they should be hounded out, for being utterly incompetent at best.

 

[Niigata Jack]

Cardiff won tonight as well, just to rub salt into the wounds.

 

[Uxy]

The former board took legal advice on the ability of the Trust Board to make the decision, and whether it needed recourse to the members or not.

The guidance was quite clear, the Board had the legal authority.

Given the past consultations, with member approval, it was always going to be a big issue if went away from that precedent.

I have to be honest, I don't buy the argument there was no way around it.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

The former board took legal advice on the ability of the Trust Board to make the decision, and whether it needed recourse to the members or not.

The guidance was quite clear, the Board had the legal authority.

Given the past consultations, with member approval, it was always going to be a big issue if went away from that precedent.

I have to be honest, I don't buy the argument there was no way around it.

If there was no way round the confidentiality issue of putting a deal to the members, then there was no way round it back in 2017 either.

The funding issue doesn’t explain it. Irrespective of what was said tonight, a settlement at 2016 prices (which was what was expected) would absolutely have been £21m. Fees from that are neither here nor there to that basic fact.

One thing I think needs to be made clear on Thursday. Lawyers will have provided advice based on their instructions and the question they were asked. They are not in a position to give commercial advice as they do not have the expertise to do so.

 

[MajorR]

I get the Board have the authority to make executive decisions without the members approval, but given the previous mandate and the ramifications I just feel it should have gone back to the members for consideration. I am really disappointed with whats taken place.

 

[Uxy]

The former board took legal advice on the ability of the Trust Board to make the decision, and whether it needed recourse to the members or not.

The guidance was quite clear, the Board had the legal authority.

Given the past consultations, with member approval, it was always going to be a big issue if went away from that precedent.

I have to be honest, I don't buy the argument there was no way around it.

If there was no way round the confidentiality issue of putting a deal to the members, then there was no way round it back in 2017 either.

The funding issue doesn’t explain it. Irrespective of what was said tonight, a settlement at 2016 prices (which was what was expected) would absolutely have been £21m. Fees from that are neither here nor there to that basic fact.

One thing I think needs to be made clear on Thursday. Lawyers will have provided advice based on their instructions and the question they were asked. They are not in a position to give commercial advice as they do not have the expertise to do so.

In terms of the commercial guidance, I understand it was confirmed tonight that the QC said the most likely scenario was an award at 2016 value. Not guaranteed of course, nothing is, but best guess.

As you say, what is the best commercial decision for the Trust is subjective and well outside the scope of the Trust's legal advisors. As I would hope they'd admit themselves.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

If there was no way round the confidentiality issue of putting a deal to the members, then there was no way round it back in 2017 either.

The funding issue doesn’t explain it. Irrespective of what was said tonight, a settlement at 2016 prices (which was what was expected) would absolutely have been £21m. Fees from that are neither here nor there to that basic fact.

One thing I think needs to be made clear on Thursday. Lawyers will have provided advice based on their instructions and the question they were asked. They are not in a position to give commercial advice as they do not have the expertise to do so.

In terms of the commercial guidance, I understand it was confirmed tonight that the QC said the most likely scenario was an award at 2016 value. Not guaranteed of course, nothing is, but best guess.

As you say, what is the best commercial decision for the Trust is subjective and well outside the scope of the Trust's legal advisors. As I would hope they'd admit themselves.

Oh I imagine they will make it crystal clear…

I’m done after Thursday to be honest. I believe in the concept of a Trust but can see absolutely no value in this one. For me anyway. Others wil have different opinions.

Anyone want to come up with another supporters group instead…

 

[crazedbison]

In terms of the commercial guidance, I understand it was confirmed tonight that the QC said the most likely scenario was an award at 2016 value. Not guaranteed of course, nothing is, but best guess.

As you say, what is the best commercial decision for the Trust is subjective and well outside the scope of the Trust's legal advisors. As I would hope they'd admit themselves.

Oh I imagine they will make it crystal clear…

I’m done after Thursday to be honest. I believe in the concept of a Trust but can see absolutely no value in this one. For me anyway. Others wil have different opinions.

Anyone want to come up with another supporters group instead…

I’m in 100%.

 

[Darran]

I get the Board have the authority to make executive decisions without the members approval, but given the previous mandate and the ramifications I just feel it should have gone back to the members for consideration. I am really disappointed with whats taken place.

Spot on P.
The Supporters DisTrust.

 

[Niigata Jack]

In terms of the commercial guidance, I understand it was confirmed tonight that the QC said the most likely scenario was an award at 2016 value. Not guaranteed of course, nothing is, but best guess.

As you say, what is the best commercial decision for the Trust is subjective and well outside the scope of the Trust's legal advisors. As I would hope they'd admit themselves.

Oh I imagine they will make it crystal clear…

I’m done after Thursday to be honest. I believe in the concept of a Trust but can see absolutely no value in this one. For me anyway. Others wil have different opinions.

Anyone want to come up with another supporters group instead…

This one isn't fit for purpose and it don't believe it has been for a while, think there's been a board with separate ideal's, few whispering in corners, chasing their own ends.

 

[Uxy]

In terms of the commercial guidance, I understand it was confirmed tonight that the QC said the most likely scenario was an award at 2016 value. Not guaranteed of course, nothing is, but best guess.

As you say, what is the best commercial decision for the Trust is subjective and well outside the scope of the Trust's legal advisors. As I would hope they'd admit themselves.

Oh I imagine they will make it crystal clear…

I’m done after Thursday to be honest. I believe in the concept of a Trust but can see absolutely no value in this one. For me anyway. Others wil have different opinions.

Anyone want to come up with another supporters group instead…

Aye.

But two questions:

a) Are the things the Trust still has still desirable?
b) Can the perception be rehabilitated?

If the answer to either is No, then maybe it's moot. But I'm not sure another supporters group achieves anything in itself. Especially as circumstances on the ground won't change too much in the short term ...

 

[Darran]

Oh I imagine they will make it crystal clear…

I’m done after Thursday to be honest. I believe in the concept of a Trust but can see absolutely no value in this one. For me anyway. Others wil have different opinions.

Anyone want to come up with another supporters group instead…

This one isn't fit for purpose and it don't believe it has been for a while, think there's been a board with separate ideal's, few whispering in corners, chasing their own ends.

Great post that Maxwell.