|
Post by gasincider on Mar 16, 2016 10:55:32 GMT
Yes. But most shareholders abstained
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Mar 16, 2016 11:02:56 GMT
With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item. TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word? With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was. This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him. I don't see how you think this was dodgy ? Greedy people do this all the time, this is more a sign of the times than anything odd.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Mar 16, 2016 11:03:35 GMT
Yes. But most shareholders abstained No big deal then ?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 16, 2016 11:06:40 GMT
With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item. TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word? With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was. This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him. I don't see how you think this was dodgy ? Greedy people do this all the time, this is more a sign of the times than anything odd. Well, if someone really wanted to buy my house (which I really don't want to leave) I wouldn't sell until they offered an amount of money that made it worth my while. I wouldn't sell for market value as some favour to a random business.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Mar 16, 2016 11:11:36 GMT
I don't see how you think this was dodgy ? Greedy people do this all the time, this is more a sign of the times than anything odd. Well, if someone really wanted to buy my house (which I really don't want to leave) I wouldn't sell until they offered an amount of money that made it worth my while. I wouldn't sell for market value as some favour to a random business. Yes, but nobody from BRFC would make a good backhander from it. The point I was making is the only one making a grab for cash is the owner.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 16, 2016 11:14:32 GMT
With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item. TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word? With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was. This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him. let sleeping dogs lay
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 16, 2016 12:25:36 GMT
Yes. But most shareholders abstained Cheers for confirming the outcome
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 16, 2016 12:48:55 GMT
Yes. But most shareholders abstained The majority ( most ) surely voted in favour of the resolution otherwise it wouldn't of been passed. ( I voted in favour ). UTG
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 13:00:24 GMT
Yes. But most shareholders abstained The majority ( most ) surely voted in favour of the resolution otherwise it wouldn't of been passed. ( I voted in favour ). UTG Abstained, not voted against. I think somebody also said that the vote was handled by the top table so with 92% they will always win regardless of how many vote on the floor. I trust the top table to make the correct decisions so no objections here.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 16, 2016 13:08:02 GMT
The majority ( most ) surely voted in favour of the resolution otherwise it wouldn't of been passed. ( I voted in favour ). UTG Abstained, not voted against. I think somebody also said that the vote was handled by the top table so with 92% they will always win regardless of how many vote on the floor. I trust the top table to make the correct decisions so no objections here. I must pay more attention to the written word.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 16, 2016 13:10:13 GMT
Some good updates on the Independent Forum if anybody is interested, it still all sounds very positive. Mind = blown. It kind of helps when you get people doing what you have asked for thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 16, 2016 13:12:41 GMT
Watola talking bolloxs. what a suprise
|
|
|
Post by You can call me Al. on Mar 16, 2016 15:14:03 GMT
.....so after all the soddin hullabaloo was Ed guilty of any bloody thing or not?
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 16, 2016 15:17:44 GMT
Why are we buying this property if we're not selling to Sainsburys ( barring a miracle in the courts)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 15:25:15 GMT
.....so after all the soddin hullabaloo was Ed guilty of any bloody thing or not? Let's ask Severncider that one. Him and several others on here really do like starting up these kangaroo courts. But are not so quick in admitting wrongly so. if all is fine by the new owners then that says it all.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 16, 2016 15:43:46 GMT
Why are we buying this property if we're not selling to Sainsburys ( barring a miracle in the courts)? is it part of the contract that we has to purchase it?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 16, 2016 17:54:53 GMT
It was indeed part of the contract that we needed it. However, the problem was caused by the fact that the resolution stated the money was for EW. In fact it was due to the lady who owned the house. So, no kangaroo court, yet another badly drafted document.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Mar 16, 2016 19:01:20 GMT
It was indeed part of the contract that we needed it. However, the problem was caused by the fact that the resolution stated the money was for EW. In fact it was due to the lady who owned the house. So, no kangaroo court, yet another badly drafted document. I'm in the let sleeping dogs lie camp but ... what document? If the price is £520k (i.e £395k plus the £125k "ransom") then it all makes perfect sense and there was nothing to see here. edit: Ok I see what you mean, it was in the wording of the resolution. I do think it was a bit premature to crucify EW though when it was obvious the motion would be clarified and discussed on the night.
|
|
|
Post by You can call me Al. on Mar 16, 2016 19:10:36 GMT
Not adverse to criticism if someone's guilty of something but i must say i feel Mr Ware is due an apology here as the suggested accusations appear unfounded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 19:25:34 GMT
Does any of this matter? To learn from history is to recognise the reality of the chaotic scrambling around that was going on. Who, what and where does not matter. It was chaos. Now it comes out, to ensure it doesent happen again, is to ensure there is challenge to the fawning loyalty expressed by many on this forum, for example. In reality 92% ownership will prevent that, and minority shareholder rights, as represented by the SC and their two chancer directors, will do nothing. So, its close your eyes and pray.
|
|