Grendel
Well-Known Member
He does but so does Salop, we are the “troll farm” on here lol.
What a shock... the trust "speak up" (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mr_monkey
- Start date
He does but so does Salop, we are the “troll farm” on here lol.
The JR's concluded, on the evidence that WASPS paid the correct price for the lease extension. The logic was as they held the short lease the Council would not get any further monies from anyone else so what ever they got was profit
However, I think the complaint is CCC - knowing WASPS were going to ask for the extension - did not say the stadium plus 250 year lease is Umpty Million in first place?
As the lease extension took place in the same meeting as the sale then clearly this had been discussed. Normally some delay takes place on these things ( even artificially ) to make it look uncontrived but I suspect WASPS did not have the funding in place and would only get it once they had the longer lease in place.
So the complaint must be around whether the Council agreed to contrive a scheme that aided WASPS to buy the stadium and get CCC out of a hole OR was it the best offer they thought they could get and only then by the route chosen.
I think, the Council having discussed the possibility of selling a 250 year lease should have gone back and tested the market. I then think there could not have been any JR's or further doubt. It is the timing of it all and the fact WASPS clearly knew the value of the uplift and they were going to get it that enabled them to get their Bond in place so quickly
But are WASPS guilty of anything but clever dealing ????
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Each time a vacancy comes up, someone stands and enough attend to elect them.
Wouldn't take too many run throughs to end up with a majority.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You don’t really believe Kalns and Ellis ha e home do you? Elections only occur at an AGM - meetings have to have policy items agreed in advance by the board.
It’s never going to happen
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
We could have already had 2-4 if people had been bothered. Pretty sure CJ could be persuaded to stand aside.
We could already have had a sizeable presence.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The minute one happened the meetings would never be publicised
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
As soon as one happened, that person would be publicising them.
tisza
Well-Known Member
But again it's the Council being investigated rather than Wasps. Wasps have capitalized on the opportunity created by the appalling relationship between CCC and SISU.
let's be honest if the football club had pulled off this deal fans would have been whooping it up.
Last edited:
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Here we go!!
"The only party not responding are CCFC"
.....and you absolute clowns wonder why...
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much it. There was even the bizarre situation at one point where the judge at the hearing over whether to grant an appeal or not approved the appeal on the basis the judge in the original case had considered the original lease and the extension two separate transactions when they should be one. The same judge then heard the appeal and ruled against SISU as they had to be considered separate transactions by law.
I suspect this is what the EC will look into if they proceed. My understanding is that they are not looking to see if UK law has been broken but more to see if UK law upholds EU law.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
FFS, isn't that the same stuff that was in the Telegraph the other day. There's nothing new is there?
Amazing how they can continually just outright ignore their membership.
tisza
Well-Known Member
EFL have always been involved - were with the Sixfields saga. Nothing new there. Not involved because of Trust influence.
Obviously club keeping EFL uptodate - just not the Trust. Wonder why! Meetings with consortiums probably don't help either
Trust have updated the EFL with what information or is that confidential?
Again lack of transparency is aimed at the club yet they admit the other stakeholders they "engaged" with insist on confidentiality. This helps the supporters make informed decisions how?
All sides offering the bare information without detail - discussions about potential sites but not what they are or whether they are realistic etc.
There isn't one City supporter who doesn't believe the club should be back in Cov - just some different opinions on where or under what conditions.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Thats not the black power fist... it’s just a fist.
(things you can say to your girlfriend during sex you can also post on SBT)
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Not with that attitude.
We need:
- people who are members
- those people to nominate someone
- at least one person to attend AGM and be proxy for the others
As long as everything is done according to the rules, can’t see how anyone could stop us short of mobilising a bigger number to vote against.
Classic Militant Tendency tactics.
Nick
Administrator
As I keep asking.
According to the rules, how did Tim Kalns get onto the board as I can't remember any sort of vote? (I may be wrong)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There wasn’t he was seconded by another board member as there was a vacancy
tisza
Well-Known Member
wasn't it the case there were 6 places available and only 6 candidates nominated?
Sky Blue Trust - Election of Board Members 2019
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If there'd been more candidates than vacancies at the last AGM, there'd have been votes at the meeting, and the ones with the most votes would have been elected. Given the numbers attending those meetings, it wouldn't have taken many of us (relatively) attending to swing the vote in favour of a particular set of candidates.
As it happened, there weren't more candidates than vacancies, and it was only a couple of us there who weren't the usual crowd.
Remember, you don't need 100% of board members with one view, that's not constructive either. There are some board members who are well meaning, and would try to work with whoever else is on the board, I feel. There are some who are probably a bit tired and wouldn't really want to fight much about continuing.
You start with however many vacancies there are first time around, and keep adding to them whenever the time comes.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And I keep saying: I have no idea. I only know Tim Kalns exists because you keep going on about him.
What’s the relevance to this conversation?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And in itself that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it starts waking up a sleeping supporter base that seemingly doesn't care. If they get a bigger number that time around, you work for an even bigger number yourself the next time. Eventually... they lose, if the will is there.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Are there still vacancies? Couldn't we propose someone now and they'd be straight on if they follow the same process as previously.
Also how many board members will be up for re-election next time round?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I don't know.
Only if nobody stood against them. otherwise there would be a vote.
I don't know.
Nick
Administrator
Because you were talking about getting on to the trust board and trust rules?
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
Nice to see the Trust cheerfully ignore all the feedback at the last AGM in their latest statement -
Sky Blue Trust - Key Points from the Open Discussion at the Sky Blue Trust AGM, 15th July, 2019
Sky Blue Trust - Key Points from the Open Discussion at the Sky Blue Trust AGM, 15th July, 2019
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
So, as has been explained to you i there aren’t enough nominees they get elected unopposed. But there would be if we stood nominees. So it’s not relevant.
Nick
Administrator
He wasn't elected unopposed, was he?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Fucking hell mate. What actually is your problem? I don’t know. I’m nothing to do with the trust. You’re obsessed with the guy, you tell me.
You fancy answering an actually useful question and telling us if you can email all members to get support for the press release and any planned action to get SBT members on the Trust board?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
None of this is correct
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You can only enact people at an AGM
If there are spare places then what happens I believe a board member can nominate a person for selection later - Kalns
I can assure you if the trust had an AGM and had wind of a “coup” they would change the date at very short notice or get the media to swing the Jimmy Hill Way.
Attending meetings also is a waste as the rules are official agenda items have to be approved in advance of the meeting and at 7 days notice (meetings can be rearranged)
Technically with a lot of effort it would be possible at the next AGM to make changes but it would be virtually impossible to deselect some of the existing group. I personally wouldn’t want to spend one minute with Dave Johnson in the same street let alone a board meeting.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I get being overly negative about everything is your thing. But I don’t think you’re right here. This is a legal body bound by legal rules. A quick scan of them suggests:
So 5% of 2700 is 135 members to call a special meeting. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No not with hard work.
For general meetings there are rules. All members must be informed at least 14 days before the meeting:
Similarly proxy rules. Maximum of three proxies per person so you’d need a few people. Again, not easy but not impossible.
AGMs have to be called within six months of financial year end and all other rules around notice apply:
Yes it requires work. Yes it requires organisation. That’s what the people currently in charge did. That’s how life works, those who can be arsed win the spoils. When I mention this I get half the forum screeching at me, but the fact is it’s true. If you want a better trust you have to show you’re better organised with better support than those currently doing it.
If not, you’re just a keyboard warrior who wants to moan quite frankly.