All Trust members should by now have received an email and had time to digest the comments. I’d like to know what others think to the proposal’s offered.
I've had to vote no, due to the lack of options.
For one point (and there are others), to vote yes means that The Trust will be starting discussions with them only taking a minority share in the Club. I can't think why they would be happy with this. Even simple Maths would dictate this to be wrong. If Cleeve purchased the Club for circa £115k, as has been said previously (years ago) and with no debts, Surely the Club must be worth less than when he purchased it, and now it's saddled with so much debt.
Therefore a 95K stake in the Club should be worth more than a minority stake. Also, what is a Minority stake? 1%? 49%? If it's anything less than 20% then it really is a waste of time even entering discussions with Bal and Jo. There needs to be more meat on the Bones when asking this question. You can't start discussions with a minority vote as the objective, and then go back and say we have changed our mind on that particular point. That wouldn't be a good way to start a relationship. The question itself doesn't mention the minority share, but the accompanying letter does so please be aware of this and read the entire thing every carefully.
Where does only taking a minority stake leave the Trust when it comes to PSI (persons with Significant interest). The Trust must have some sort of say in the running of the Club (even if not the final say) and investing 95k in a small club such as Lynn should really be worth that.
So why does TSI think we as supporters, and major investors, are only worth a minority stake in our Football Club? Where's their logic in that? No explanation, but we are asked to vote on it.
I've already said this to the Trust. I would fully agree and welcome that they should enter discussions with TSI, but not with only a minority share as a starting point, hence my no vote. If the question was worded differently, I may be able to answer in the positive.
On another point, I can't see why Bal apparently does not want the Trust Members (or anyone else) to know what's going on during discussions. As a Trust member himself, surely he would like to adhere to the basic principle of being open and honest. If there's nothing to hide, why be so cloak and dagger and not want full disclosure? I'm lost on this one. In my opinion, if Bal wants to discuss things with the Trust, all members must be informed at all times, and in particular when they ask questions. Otherwise, what's the point of having a Trust or a Club with member involvement?
There are other points that I've mentioned to the Trust, but this one is just to basically addresses my view of the vote.
A case of having to say no, but would prefer to say yes.
Show Posts
