Bonygyfraith
North Banker
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2022
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks Uxy for engaging on the issues and for stating/agreeing that: "There is one very valid point being raised, which is maybe getting lost amongst all the ... opprobrium towards the Trust Board, which is the other parties in this. Let's remember the conduct of the sellouts in all this".
I agree with most of what you say on that score. By way of recap, I stated that: "valid criticisms are of the former shareholders and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the 'new' owners (denied by all of them). It feels an injustice that former shareholders have not had to dip deeper into their pockets to share with the Trust the gains they made from the sale of shares in 2016".
The facts largely speak for themselves. The former shareholders have not denied keeping the Trust "out of the loop" as to the existence of the sale negotiations between Dec 2015 and March(?) 2016, when they first informed Trust representatives. Indeed, I recall that Huw Jenkins stated, at a fans forum, that they had done just that. They would no doubt argue it was not their motivation or intention to have deprived the Trust of the opportunity to sell some shares, but whether or not that version is accepted (and many might argue that they must at least have foreseen that outcome), that was the effect. The Trust lost out to the tune of £10 million for half its shares, which would also have seen it remaining as a shareholder for the balance and a seat on the Board.
A load of bunkum has been alleged as to the Trust not wanting to sell any shares in 2016. Statements of an individual or two have been referenced, but no individual can speak on behalf of the Trust - only the Board can do that. Anyhow, the occasional reluctance to sell expressed by an individual was always qualified by words such as "never say never", or that any purchase offer would have to be put to the members.
The best evidence as to what would have happened in 2016 (first 6 months) had the Trust not been excluded, is to look at what happened in 2017: the Trust was willing to sell about half of its shares and the new owners were intially willing to purchase (at the 2016 price). The draft proposal was put to a members' postal ballot and the majority voted to sell. That the deal did not ultimately go through when the new owners backtracked is irrelevant to the evidential point.
I guess that we are also in agreement that criticism of the Board as consituted in the past is misplaced. As to the current Board, my view on its decision is, as I have said, based on what is stated in the Chair's letter to members and the conclusions I draw from that in the light of my knowledge of the civil justice system.
Not sure why posting views on an issue should draw vile abuse from some trollers. Usually means that they aren't confident enough in their position to set it out in argument. Anyhow, to copy what Groucho Marx is said to have written in a letter:
Dear trollers
Go f... yourselves.
Yours sincerely
PS: rude letter follows :lol:
I agree with most of what you say on that score. By way of recap, I stated that: "valid criticisms are of the former shareholders and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the 'new' owners (denied by all of them). It feels an injustice that former shareholders have not had to dip deeper into their pockets to share with the Trust the gains they made from the sale of shares in 2016".
The facts largely speak for themselves. The former shareholders have not denied keeping the Trust "out of the loop" as to the existence of the sale negotiations between Dec 2015 and March(?) 2016, when they first informed Trust representatives. Indeed, I recall that Huw Jenkins stated, at a fans forum, that they had done just that. They would no doubt argue it was not their motivation or intention to have deprived the Trust of the opportunity to sell some shares, but whether or not that version is accepted (and many might argue that they must at least have foreseen that outcome), that was the effect. The Trust lost out to the tune of £10 million for half its shares, which would also have seen it remaining as a shareholder for the balance and a seat on the Board.
A load of bunkum has been alleged as to the Trust not wanting to sell any shares in 2016. Statements of an individual or two have been referenced, but no individual can speak on behalf of the Trust - only the Board can do that. Anyhow, the occasional reluctance to sell expressed by an individual was always qualified by words such as "never say never", or that any purchase offer would have to be put to the members.
The best evidence as to what would have happened in 2016 (first 6 months) had the Trust not been excluded, is to look at what happened in 2017: the Trust was willing to sell about half of its shares and the new owners were intially willing to purchase (at the 2016 price). The draft proposal was put to a members' postal ballot and the majority voted to sell. That the deal did not ultimately go through when the new owners backtracked is irrelevant to the evidential point.
I guess that we are also in agreement that criticism of the Board as consituted in the past is misplaced. As to the current Board, my view on its decision is, as I have said, based on what is stated in the Chair's letter to members and the conclusions I draw from that in the light of my knowledge of the civil justice system.
Not sure why posting views on an issue should draw vile abuse from some trollers. Usually means that they aren't confident enough in their position to set it out in argument. Anyhow, to copy what Groucho Marx is said to have written in a letter:
Dear trollers
Go f... yourselves.
Yours sincerely
PS: rude letter follows :lol:
