Trust launched 1892 pledge

[Donkey Toon]

A 1% stake is almost meaningless and would be nothing more than symbolism. Also their support of the PIF takeover means they don't represent my wishes for the club is the most meaningful way possible. No way will I be signing on.

they don't represent my views either, but its what the members voted for. I joined to represent those of us who don't want to be Saudi cheerleaders.

It is good that you are doing that, but my feeling is that it will make no headway against the court of popular opinion. As i'm not from the region my voice would I fear be next to meaningless. I noticed in their manifesto they make a big point of standing up for LGBTQ rights, I wonder how they think that stacks up against a Saudi owned regime owning the club and their (the Trust's) support of it. If they can't figure out that inconsistency then i'm of the opinion that they don't have the intelligence or reasoning to do the job. I also can't fathom how the numerous women on the Trust Board can square that with the human rights abuses against women and why they think the female supporters of the club would want their money supporting that takeover. None of it makes any sense to me at all.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

they don't represent my views either, but its what the members voted for. I joined to represent those of us who don't want to be Saudi cheerleaders.

It is good that you are doing that, but my feeling is that it will make no headway against the court of popular opinion. As i'm not from the region my voice would I fear be next to meaningless. I noticed in their manifesto they make a big point of standing up for LGBTQ rights, I wonder how they think that stacks up against a Saudi owned regime owning the club and their (the Trust's) support of it. If they can't figure out that inconsistency then i'm of the opinion that they don't have the intelligence or reasoning to do the job. I also can't fathom how the numerous women on the Trust Board can square that with the human rights abuses against women and why they think the female supporters of the club would want their money supporting that takeover. None of it makes any sense to me at all.

I see where you are coming from. The point of the trust is that its a body to represent fan views, so its been setup to go with the wisdom of the crowd. I think there is some PL rules that an official trust setup this way gets special rights. So the board can't just enforce their views on the membership.
With the inconsistency, you can either just give up or try and work to improve it.

My view is that there might be some chance of changing how the members vote so be less bootlicking of a regime.

(also it shouldn't just be the female board members offended by the women's rights).

[Speedo]

On the view 1% doesn't mean anything - I'd disagree because:
- Even with 1% holding, a shareholder has a right to access to information about the company not commonly in the public domain - e.g. salaries, payments, sponsorships, etc., so we as a fanbase can object to commercial deals we disagree with and at least have oversight into what is being done with our money within the club.
- With a seat at the table - even as a noisy-but-not-decisive voice - that's a great step forward from today where a muffled voice with no influence whatsoever.
- 1% is a platform which can grow over time as more money is put in to the trust, or the club drops down the divisions, or some other form of acquisition (e.g. gifted %, as per Hearts). But 1% is a critical milestone (perhaps THE critical milestone) to begin that process.

Now whether all that is worth £3m is each individual's call - and I certainly understand why people have concerns about "mob rule" when it comes to the Trust's actions. I think if it was in a position of control like that, some reform would be needed to enable the Trust to hire experts to work on its behalf (but not at its direction). However that is a long way away - right now any voice is a whole lot better than no voice at all.

[gola]

yeh the view 1% does nothing is rly short sighted imo as outlined above

[Colly]

On the view 1% doesn't mean anything - I'd disagree because:
- Even with 1% holding, a shareholder has a right to access to information about the company not commonly in the public domain - e.g. salaries, payments, sponsorships, etc., so we as a fanbase can object to commercial deals we disagree with and at least have oversight into what is being done with our money within the club.
- With a seat at the table - even as a noisy-but-not-decisive voice - that's a great step forward from today where a muffled voice with no influence whatsoever.
- 1% is a platform which can grow over time as more money is put in to the trust, or the club drops down the divisions, or some other form of acquisition (e.g. gifted %, as per Hearts). But 1% is a critical milestone (perhaps THE critical milestone) to begin that process.

Now whether all that is worth £3m is each individual's call - and I certainly understand why people have concerns about "mob rule" when it comes to the Trust's actions. I think if it was in a position of control like that, some reform would be needed to enable the Trust to hire experts to work on its behalf (but not at its direction). However that is a long way away - right now any voice is a whole lot better than no voice at all.

Genuine question here, and this is the result of me studying finance, hating it and not wanting anything to do with it for 15 years since, so if any of the below is wrong please shout up.

At the moment there aren't shareholders in the club, it's owned outright by Ashley. So is the stuff you've stated based on the takeover resulting in us becoming a share based limited company again? And if that is the case, wouldn't most of that information become public domain if we're a plc again?

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

Genuine question here, and this is the result of me studying finance, hating it and not wanting anything to do with it for 15 years since, so if any of the below is wrong please shout up.

At the moment there aren't shareholders in the club, it's owned outright by Ashley. So is the stuff you've stated based on the takeover resulting in us becoming a share based limited company again? And if that is the case, wouldn't most of that information become public domain if we're a plc again?

There is one shareholder atm, which is Mike Ashley's holding company 'Mash Holdings'. It still lists accounts on companies house.

But just having more shareholders doesn't necessarily make more information public. You don't have to become a plc just because you have multiple shareholders, could just be a plain old ltd company. Not really a reason for Staveley and co to make it a plc.

[Colly]

So this sort of hinges on whoever buys the club allowing the Trust to buy a stake?

And is there any issue around confidentiality in regard to the Trust getting this info and sharing it?

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

So this sort of hinges on whoever buys the club allowing the Trust to buy a stake?

And is there any issue around confidentiality in regard to the Trust getting this info and sharing it?

One would assume if* the trust gets a board member they would have to sign a contract with an NDA.
It may well be a case the 1892 board member is required to be selective with what they share to the trust more broadly.

*Its not certain they would. Having 1% is sufficient to automatically get a board seat, board members are voted on. I don't know why they would not for PR reasons.