Last night

[Gareth Nicholson]

I Am also glad that woz will continue as chairman and thank him for his clarification. One part of his post does lead to further questions, maybe for a separate thread but I will let mods decide. Fund raising will start in earnest for the 20per cent stake - will these be voting shares? What value has been put on a club with no assets and a stonking great debt? Why are fans being asked to pay for shares when the other boArd members were not? Have the fans not done enough in saving our club to be rewarded with the shares rather than having to pay for them? As I say maybe all questions for another thread but questions this trust member feels need to be answered by the Board members.

Hi Damon,

A couple of points in response to that. Woz talked about fundraising and the 20% offer seperately, so I'll touch on the two issues separately too.

The Trust needs to raise money to enable it to run and meet all of its objectives. We need to meet running costs that, with the rising cost of postage as one example, are going up. We also need to raise money to do more in the community, continue the Trust's support for things like the womens' team and for local charities like the Foodbank (I'd like to see a Christmas Foodbank campaign as an annual event).

And aside from that, if the Trust's members agree that the best way forward for the Trust in achieving its aim of community ownership is to take up the share offer made by James Brent (and there are strong arguments both for and against I feel), we will of course need to raise a significant amount of money to achieve that.

So to answer your questions:

Will these be voting shares? - We are waiting formal confirmation from James Brent as to what the formal offer is, what the share offer will look like and cost.

What value has been put on a club with no assets and a stonking great debt? - We have asked those questions and are awaiting answers.

Why are fans being asked to pay for shares when the other boArd members were not? - We will raise this issue with James.

I know that doesn't take us much further, but as James himself admitted in the QandA answers (and let's take a minute to say that we should be proud of the engagement and apparent transparency so far from the club), the Trust have asked the questions and the ball is very much in his (ie James's) court.

A meeting between the Trust Board and James will take place in the coming weeks where we expect to see meat put on the bones. We will impress on James the need for that information to be put to Trust members (and more generally put in to the public domain).

What will follow would, I expect, be a consultation paper for Trust members outlining in layman's terms the pros and cons of the offer and possibly making a recommendation to members. That's something the Board will need to agree the mechanics of following our meeting with James.

We will also seek independent financial and legal advice, using the resources available to Supporters' Direct members as much as we can. However, we are extremely keen to hear from Argyle fans who can either offer themselves or can put us in touch with people who could offer pro bono legal and/or financial advice in understanding the intricacies of the offer, giving an independent opinion on likely risks to the Trust and its members etc. I'd ask anyone who thinks they can help to get in touch with us.

Edited to correct some spelling mistakes.

 

[Damon.Lenszner]

Thanks gareth

 

[PL2 3DQ]

I suppose there's nothing to stop a wealthy Trust member of two from contributing a lot of cash towards the 20% on behalf of the Trust?
The problem with that is that the wealthy member may want the seat on the Board for himself.

 

[Damon.Lenszner]

But what exactly would he be buying?

 

[tonycholwell]

Just to get everyones feet back on terra firma I think I ought to point out a couple of obvious truths:

1. Despite the offer of 20% shareholding in the club, the booths in the ground, the gazebo outside the ground, free ground avertising and every other conceiveable advantage the Trust appear to be struggling recruiting existing members, IJN excepted let alone new ones.

2. The events of the last few days despite hugs and kisses all round now have opened the eyes of many to the manipulative actions of the few (?) Trust members who appear to have form. Sadly some of these appear to be on the current Board and one at least on the orgiinal Board. Odd both have remained uncharacteristically quiet.

I think James Brent would be better advised kicking this into the tall grass for 12 months to see if a greater maturity can be forged and a greater strength to Trust numbers.

It is clear the majority of fans, non Trust members, will feel uneasy with the offer ranyway, but to carry on with visible fault lines seems, well, odd.

 

[Wozzer]

Just to get everyones feet back on terra firma I think I ought to point out a couple of obvious truths:

1. Despite the offer of 20% shareholding in the club, the booths in the ground, the gazebo outside the ground, free ground avertising and every other conceiveable advantage the Trust appear to be struggling recruiting existing members, IJN excepted let alone new ones.

2. The events of the last few days despite hugs and kisses all round now have opened the eyes of many to the manipulative actions of the few (?) Trust members who appear to have form. Sadly some of these appear to be on the current Board and one at least on the orgiinal Board. Odd both have remained uncharacteristically quiet.

I think James Brent would be better advised kicking this into the tall grass for 12 months to see if a greater maturity can be forged and a greater strength to Trust numbers.

It is clear the majority of fans, non Trust members, will feel uneasy with the offer ranyway, but to carry on with visible fault lines seems, well, odd.

Tony,

1. This statement is based on what?

2. The events of the last few days are behind us. I/we have learnt a lot and have moved on with even more drive and determination. In fact I think the events of the last couple of days has made the Trust stronger.

When did you do the poll of the fans to see if they were uneasy regarding the 20% offer. I would be interested to see the results.

 

[gil]

Just to get everyones feet back on terra firma I think I ought to point out a couple of obvious truths:

1. Despite the offer of 20% shareholding in the club, the booths in the ground, the gazebo outside the ground, free ground avertising and every other conceiveable advantage the Trust appear to be struggling recruiting existing members, IJN excepted let alone new ones.

2. The events of the last few days despite hugs and kisses all round now have opened the eyes of many to the manipulative actions of the few (?) Trust members who appear to have form. Sadly some of these appear to be on the current Board and one at least on the orgiinal Board. Odd both have remained uncharacteristically quiet.

I think James Brent would be better advised kicking this into the tall grass for 12 months to see if a greater maturity can be forged and a greater strength to Trust numbers.

It is clear the majority of fans, non Trust members, will feel uneasy with the offer ranyway, but to carry on with visible fault lines seems, well, odd.

With the greatest of respect Tony, the opportunistic nature of your post really made me smile and brightened my day. I salute you for never giving up.

As a Trust member who isn't part of the inner circle I tend to look at any minor infighting rather differently. There are more than a thousand members who will hopefully be balloted - or at least have their opinions canvassed on the share offer. Petty squabbling by some should have no bearing on that. What I'm trying to say is that the Trust as a whole is greater than the individual prominent personalities.

I also believe that if the offer is right and the Trust decide to take it up then many more of the wider fanbase will be drawn into the Trust as a result.

Whether the majority of fans will be uneasy with the offer is certainly open to debate. I always find it dangerous to claim to speak for the majority.

 

[tonycholwell]

Woz/gil

Sorry to lump you together, but seems easier.

1. Membership. Oh just a wild stab in the dark Woz, but no figures released recently only problems getting emails out. I look forward to the new membership figures, but I suspect they will not be a full take up of those renewals or new members. As I say with all the advantages the Trust have, to languish with such a low figure of members would be a worry. Any trade union would be worried representing so few of the potential members.

2. Woz, I am happy for you if you think things are now stronger. Just watch your back matey, its the silent ones in particular to be on your guard against. Althougjh I thinkl your safe from Ed

3. Guys Im not talking for anyone, only myself, but facts are facts and Trust membership remains stubbonly low. I think that must have been in JBs thinking with the GAS Board, a more inclusivee venture.

4. Gil, you and me both Im not a member of the Trust inner circle either but glad to have brightened your day.

Anyway, good to get back to normal, the thrust and parry of debate, very much healthier than all the other rubbish!

 

[Thai green]

How I agree with both gil and Tony in one respect. ( actually we may well agree on more ).

Getting back to normal which is welcome news after the silly posts on a different thread. At that time I tried to calm everyone who was involved in what appeared to be a playground squabble, may I clarify that ?

It seemed silly to those members of The Trust, like me, who are NOT in the Home Park inner loop or are not able to attend the Fan Fests etc to find a rumour, maybe true, had set off an evening of bitter comments, not afraid to name names, Deep Throat and Windsor Boy, over something I advised from experience of Council membership and Political work would soon blow over, which it did, when people actually talked to each other without resorting to keyboard bashing.

Now The Chairman has spoken ( written actually ) all is well thank goodness, let us mere Members away from 'inner Home Park' as I call it, relax and await positive news that will be forthcoming when The Trust convenes a meeting to ascertain the pros and cons of the offer from James Brent of a 20% stake in Argyle.

How this offer uptake, if agreed, is to be funded will be another interesting and challenging debate.

I look forward to Trust News not squabble news. :lol:

 

[Tim Chown]

I suppose there's nothing to stop a wealthy Trust member of two from contributing a lot of cash towards the 20% on behalf of the Trust?
The problem with that is that the wealthy member may want the seat on the Board for himself.

So part of this is that we're looking at the new Model Rules that Supporters' Direct are encouraging trusts to adopt. This includes a withdrawable share option to allow members to put money into a share acquisition scheme and have their investment ring-fenced. Obviously this is something we will be taking advice on. It's possible that the withdrawable share option may have some cap on what any individual can put in.

 

[Greenblooded1]

I Am also glad that woz will continue as chairman and thank him for his clarification. One part of his post does lead to further questions, maybe for a separate thread but I will let mods decide. Fund raising will start in earnest for the 20per cent stake - will these be voting shares? What value has been put on a club with no assets and a stonking great debt? Why are fans being asked to pay for shares when the other boArd members were not? Have the fans not done enough in saving our club to be rewarded with the shares rather than having to pay for them? As I say maybe all questions for another thread but questions this trust member feels need to be answered by the Board members before the fund raising commences.

You make very good points. One would have thought the fact that the fans apart from essentially saving the club, already are contributing towards paying off the clubs debts regarding staff backpay & helping creditors. To expect significant payment for shares would be insulting/TTP, IMHO.

Wasn't it Trust money that kept the club afloat Jan 2011.... £330,000 :facepalm:

 

[Wozzer]

Woz/gil

Sorry to lump you together, but seems easier.

1. Membership. Oh just a wild stab in the dark Woz, but no figures released recently only problems getting emails out. I look forward to the new membership figures, but I suspect they will not be a full take up of those renewals or new members. As I say with all the advantages the Trust have, to languish with such a low figure of members would be a worry. Any trade union would be worried representing so few of the potential members.

2. Woz, I am happy for you if you think things are now stronger. Just watch your back matey, its the silent ones in particular to be on your guard against. Althougjh I thinkl your safe from Ed

3. Guys Im not talking for anyone, only myself, but facts are facts and Trust membership remains stubbonly low. I think that must have been in JBs thinking with the GAS Board, a more inclusivee venture.

4. Gil, you and me both Im not a member of the Trust inner circle either but glad to have brightened your day.

Anyway, good to get back to normal, the thrust and parry of debate, very much healthier than all the other rubbish!

As I thought just pure guess work and no evidence of fact. Tony you must try harder :thumbup: