|
|
Post by bellevueboy on Jun 7, 2015 22:31:07 GMT
I don't know much about what went on previous Arno, only what I read on here, and hear from others. I was in nappies (well almost!) when Fred Story, Kate Rowley, JC and the Trust had their to do years ago. It needs to be pushed aside now. The Trust as they were did the job they were designed to do back then. Now their role needs to be completely different. To be fair to you Deano, i'm sure it must be hard to understand if you wern't around to witness what went on previously - I mentioned some of it earlier but there was lots more. The problem the Trust have now is that people don't forget what has happened in the past and whilst it's easy for the Trust to say the past is in the past, it's hard for people to forget. Especially when it's the people who caused the alienation in the first place are asking for the fans to put the past in the past. The best possible thing the Trust could do would be for the entire board to stand down before the new elections. A total clean slate. You mention there's new blood on the board but a lot of those names you mentioned previously are the ones who were around when all the previous **** was going on. I honestly hope you a right and that it's a new dawn for the Trust but the proof of the pudding........................ Yes the en masse resignation is the best way forward. Current board members could stand again. Seems obvious but before then more should join to give it all credibility. Join and decide...that's the way forward given there will be no takeover. |
|
armo
Ball Boy
Posts: 205 
|
Post by armo on Jun 7, 2015 23:17:58 GMT
Arno, the fee went up on June 1st to £10. I know because I missed the deadline to renew at the cheaper price. I checked the Trust website earlier and there was a presentation and draft summary on there. Haven't seen the finished article though. Sorry, your right, it is on there. No link, not on the home page, not in the news section but if you go into downloads there is the 5 year plan draft summary and a presentation. Seems like a list of aspirations with very little meat however: "Propose that the current membership fee is increased gradually over time to increase the money available for the football club" - that'll be 100% in a year then. |
|
|
|
Post by carlislewhite on Jun 8, 2015 7:36:35 GMT
Genuine question - Does the Trust not become irrelevant when Lumsden's supporters club kick in, in terms of a fans voice (present delay put aside). I thought the issues with the Trust where one of the primary reasons for him setting it up.
That looks a far better option to me, no baggage, respected figurehead, etc
|
|
|
|
Post by halpinforpope on Jun 8, 2015 7:45:20 GMT
As an exile should I decide to join The Trust, would I be able to vote on all matters by postal or proxy means?
|
|
armo
Ball Boy
Posts: 205
|
Post by armo on Jun 8, 2015 8:16:18 GMT
Halpin, yeah I believe you can do it all by Proxy/Email. Certainly the vote about reducing the shares down to 10% was.
|
|
|
|
Post by CUFCDeano on Jun 8, 2015 8:19:24 GMT
Genuine question - Does the Trust not become irrelevant when Lumsden's supporters club kick in, in terms of a fans voice (present delay put aside). I thought the issues with the Trust where one of the primary reasons for him setting it up. That looks a far better option to me, no baggage, respected figurehead, etc The Trust are meeting with Chris Lumsdon this week - I presume information from either side/both sides will come out following on from the meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by CUFCDeano on Jun 8, 2015 8:20:23 GMT
As an exile should I decide to join The Trust, would I be able to vote on all matters by postal or proxy means? Yes, vote by proxy is definitely an option. For the recent vote to dilute the shares to 10% in favour of the Andrew Lapping proposal, postal voting was available. Sorry Armo - just saw your response. |
|
|
|
Post by thesilentone on Jun 8, 2015 8:25:14 GMT
Difficult for supporters at the moment. The turmoil created by AL's proposal which was reliant on the Trust to dilute there shareholding, appears to have been used/abused by our Club Owners. There is a lack of general 'Trust' all round at the moment.
New groups, takeovers, billionairs, resignations, etc, it's to much. Had all our eyes not been opened (including our owners) by AL where would we be.... nowhere. However, the derailed AL plan has put everyone in turmoil as there is no structured plan for anyone to buy into anymore.
I do not think it is a time to join/ do anything until our ownership is signed and paid..........
The actions of our owners, is becoming more dis-creditable by the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by mullen103 on Jun 8, 2015 8:32:05 GMT
Difficult for supporters at the moment. The turmoil created by AL's proposal which was reliant on the Trust to dilute there shareholding, appears to have been used/abused by our Club Owners. There is a lack of general 'Trust' all round at the moment. New groups, takeovers, billionairs, resignations, etc, it's to much. Had all our eyes not been opened (including our owners) by AL where would we be.... nowhere. However, the derailed AL plan has put everyone in turmoil as there is no structured plan for anyone to buy into anymore. I do not think it is a time to join/ do anything until our ownership is signed and paid.......... The actions of our owners, is becoming more dis-creditable by the day. Good post and agree.
I joined the trust for the Lapping vote and was hoping for complete change of the trust and made into a supporters club.
With this failing there's nothing at all the trust can do with the current ownership as they get snubbed and told to get lost regarding new investment.
Id recommend everyone joins the trust if Lappings plans went ahead but now it seems its money wasted.
|
|
|
|
Post by halpinforpope on Jun 8, 2015 8:39:38 GMT
Halpin, yeah I believe you can do it all by Proxy/Email. Certainly the vote about reducing the shares down to 10% was. Thanks Armo |
|
|
|
Post by bobbyowenstolemypast on Jun 8, 2015 11:54:08 GMT
What exactly have the Trust done in the past? A lot of people think they are ba5tards, surely they can't still be bad? I'll probably join tomorrow but like I said yesterday, the BoD can obviously pick & choose what they want them to know. I think there's quite a bit more than the when Fred Story tried to give a bit of land to JC (remember, the guy who saved the club despite the Trusts constant attempts at revising history?). How about Kate Rowley (who was a big cheese on the board at the time) being forced to resign from the Trust and apologise after being found to lie about FS? I'm pretty sure she purjured herself during that court case to but can't swear to that one. Or, then again, there's that oddious little **** Alan Steel. Decides to install himself as chairman of the Turst and despite promising elections in the first year, decides they're "to busy" and he'll just stay on as chairman thank you very much. Or there's his all round good egg brother, Norman Steel, the Trust's representative on the board of Carlisle. The reason he's the Trusts representative on the board, i'm sure, is down to the afformentioned fact that he's an all-round good egg and nothing to do with the fact that he's loaned the Trust a chunk of money (which the Trust are still in the process of paying back) and had it written into his loan that he *had* to be the Trusts board representative. I think accusing someone of perjury is a bit naughty unless you've got absolute proof. There was some private case brought against KR by Fred Story that was thrown out of court. Whether that was supposed to be about 'perjury' I can't recall exactly but I don't remember anything being proven in court by anyone. If the CUFC Trust is set up the way most others are, the members don't elect the chairman, its the board that does that, so Alan Steel wouldn't need to be elected in the way you describe. As I recall the first chairman was Mike Corry, not Alan Steel. He was secretary....then took over later as chairman from Mike. |
|
|
|
Post by mashiniblick on Jun 8, 2015 11:59:57 GMT
So basically a lot of folk slagging off former/founder members of the Trust need to get their facts right?
I think I'll join and see what happens. It's only a tenner!
|
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 12:01:49 GMT
I can get 3 pints and some chips for a tenner.
|
|
armo
Ball Boy
Posts: 205
|
Post by armo on Jun 8, 2015 12:31:57 GMT
I think there's quite a bit more than the when Fred Story tried to give a bit of land to JC (remember, the guy who saved the club despite the Trusts constant attempts at revising history?). How about Kate Rowley (who was a big cheese on the board at the time) being forced to resign from the Trust and apologise after being found to lie about FS? I'm pretty sure she purjured herself during that court case to but can't swear to that one. Or, then again, there's that oddious little **** Alan Steel. Decides to install himself as chairman of the Turst and despite promising elections in the first year, decides they're "to busy" and he'll just stay on as chairman thank you very much. Or there's his all round good egg brother, Norman Steel, the Trust's representative on the board of Carlisle. The reason he's the Trusts representative on the board, i'm sure, is down to the afformentioned fact that he's an all-round good egg and nothing to do with the fact that he's loaned the Trust a chunk of money (which the Trust are still in the process of paying back) and had it written into his loan that he *had* to be the Trusts board representative. I think accusing someone of perjury is a bit naughty unless you've got absolute proof. There was some private case brought against KR by Fred Story that was thrown out of court. Whether that was supposed to be about 'perjury' I can't recall exactly but I don't remember anything being proven in court by anyone. If the CUFC Trust is set up the way most others are, the members don't elect the chairman, its the board that does that, so Alan Steel wouldn't need to be elected in the way you describe. As I recall the first chairman was Mike Corry, not Alan Steel. He was secretary....then took over later as chairman from Mike. The reason the case was thrown out was because KR had already agreed to have no more involment with the Trust and to apologise to FS - under which circumstances FS promised not to sue (which he then went on to do). The case most certainly wasn't thrown out because there was no case to answer. Edited to add, i've dug out details from the N&S - she was being taken to court for perjury and, the case was thrown out after the Trust agreed to FS/The Clubs demands. www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/1.210538 |
|
armo
Ball Boy
Posts: 205
|
Post by armo on Jun 8, 2015 12:36:25 GMT
I think there's quite a bit more than the when Fred Story tried to give a bit of land to JC (remember, the guy who saved the club despite the Trusts constant attempts at revising history?). How about Kate Rowley (who was a big cheese on the board at the time) being forced to resign from the Trust and apologise after being found to lie about FS? I'm pretty sure she purjured herself during that court case to but can't swear to that one. Or, then again, there's that oddious little **** Alan Steel. Decides to install himself as chairman of the Turst and despite promising elections in the first year, decides they're "to busy" and he'll just stay on as chairman thank you very much. Or there's his all round good egg brother, Norman Steel, the Trust's representative on the board of Carlisle. The reason he's the Trusts representative on the board, i'm sure, is down to the afformentioned fact that he's an all-round good egg and nothing to do with the fact that he's loaned the Trust a chunk of money (which the Trust are still in the process of paying back) and had it written into his loan that he *had* to be the Trusts board representative. I think accusing someone of perjury is a bit naughty unless you've got absolute proof. There was some private case brought against KR by Fred Story that was thrown out of court. Whether that was supposed to be about 'perjury' I can't recall exactly but I don't remember anything being proven in court by anyone. If the CUFC Trust is set up the way most others are, the members don't elect the chairman, its the board that does that, so Alan Steel wouldn't need to be elected in the way you describe. As I recall the first chairman was Mike Corry, not Alan Steel. He was secretary....then took over later as chairman from Mike. The Trust was setup a long time ago and i'm struggling to remember. However, if he wasn't Chairman then he was Treasurer - no arguments from me there. I am 100% that there was supposed to be elections in the first year until the board went back and decided they were to busy. That's when I cancelled my Direct Debits. |
|
pacirv
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by pacirv on Jun 8, 2015 12:57:26 GMT
Surely the Trust as holders of 25% of the club should legally be entitled to know the mystery investors identity.
As should anyone in the board.
|
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 13:23:05 GMT
Not really mate, not at this stage. If you were selling your shares in, say Tesco, you wouldn't have to tell other shareholders, or anybody on Tesco's Board. If these negotiations are for the sale of the two clowns shares I doubt they have to tell anybody. If it comes out they want a full restructure, that may be when everyone is told. If there is no mystery investor, and never was, they'll never have to tell anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by CUFCDeano on Jun 8, 2015 13:38:11 GMT
Not really mate, not at this stage. If you were selling your shares in, say Tesco, you wouldn't have to tell other shareholders, or anybody on Tesco's Board. If these negotiations are for the sale of the two clowns shares I doubt they have to tell anybody. If it comes out they want a full restructure, that may be when everyone is told. If there is no mystery investor, and never was, they'll never have to tell anyone. They're not selling their shares though are they Moorlad. We'd be dancing in the streets if they were. I thought they were talking about issuing 2,800,000 new £1 shares, using the same setup as Lapping's proposal? I can't find that information in a club statement though, not sure where I read it? |
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 13:43:17 GMT
This is a different proposal, and in all honesty I haven't a clue what they're talking about, and I don't suppose you have either. But they can easily wrap it up as talk of selling shares, can't they?
|
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 13:46:55 GMT
If they were supposed to tell other shareholders, or even other board members about anything like this, how come the Trust haven't demanded any sort of clarification? Or do they deem that to not be in the best interests of the fans? Or can they not afford to act on behalf of the fans? Whichever way, it doesn't say much about them does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by CUFCDeano on Jun 8, 2015 14:11:53 GMT
If they were supposed to tell other shareholders, or even other board members about anything like this, how come the Trust haven't demanded any sort of clarification? Or do they deem that to not be in the best interests of the fans? Or can they not afford to act on behalf of the fans? Whichever way, it doesn't say much about them does it? The Trust have demanded information. They can't force it out of Nixon/Jenkins. If you've any (legal) suggestions, I'm sure they'd appreciate hearing them. Here's the N&S article re: the statement: www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/latest/about-turn-as-carlisle-utd-consider-new-investment-bid-1.1213477 |
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 14:37:41 GMT
Have the Trust agree to that? If they have then they're very stupid indeed.
Does that, in fact, mean that Pattison is definitely going to have only 1% of the shareholding? Have the Trust lost their veto because of their negotiations in the Lapping bid? If they have, then that is also very stupid. Do you have any trust in a single thing that either Jenkins or Nixon say? Does anybody really think that somebody who is prepared to invest £30m over a 5 or 6 year period is going to be happy with 45% of the shares of something worth next to nowt?
Have the Trust checked out whether it is legal for the clowns to be going round offering to dilute their shareholding to any fool who comes asking? Or are they just accepting being walked all over? This is serious stuff, the Trust need to be trying to find a friendly solicitor and taking some serious advice, if they don't they'll end up signing over a large part of their ownership to Jenkins and Nixon, along with any say in the future running of the club.
Are these reasons why I should be joining the Trust?
|
|
|
|
Post by CUFCDeano on Jun 8, 2015 15:35:53 GMT
1. Have the Trust agree to that? If they have then they're very stupid indeed. 2. Does that, in fact, mean that Pattison is definitely going to have only 1% of the shareholding? 3. Have the Trust lost their veto because of their negotiations in the Lapping bid? If they have, then that is also very stupid. 4. Do you have any trust in a single thing that either Jenkins or Nixon say? 5. Does anybody really think that somebody who is prepared to invest £30m over a 5 or 6 year period is going to be happy with 45% of the shares of something worth next to nowt? 6. Have the Trust checked out whether it is legal for the clowns to be going round offering to dilute their shareholding to any fool who comes asking? Or are they just accepting being walked all over? This is serious stuff, the Trust need to be trying to find a friendly solicitor and taking some serious advice, if they don't they'll end up signing over a large part of their ownership to Jenkins and Nixon, along with any say in the future running of the club. Are these reasons why I should be joining the Trust? Broken these down into a few points to give you better answers. 1) No, the Trust agreed to the 45/45/10 split based on Andrew Lapping's proposal only. The Trust firmly believe that any new investment proposal will need a new vote to be held. 2) Again, that's dependent on Andrew Lapping's proposal going ahead. If things remain as is, he will have an 18.75% shareholding, or if a new investment proposal is agreed, he could have less. He has however resigned from the BOD. 3) No - though they are seeking legal advice. They are under the understanding (and so am I as a Trust member) that the vote was relating to Andrew Lapping's proposal ONLY. 4) Who is this aimed at? The 'United Trust' don't have one single opinion on this matter. My own personal opinion is that I don't trust what Nixon/Jenkins have to say. I'm sure that other Trust members will have the same opinion. Others may have a differing opinion. 5) Absolutely not - this is why I fail to believe there is a mystery billionaire interested. 6) As per #3, they are seeking legal advice. |
|
|
|
Post by melbourneblues on Jun 8, 2015 15:36:58 GMT
The trust have demanded information', since when has that bothered Nixon and Jenkins.
I got told when there was to be a meeting they would always hold their own private meeting without Steel beforehand and decide what was to be said.
|
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 15:44:17 GMT
1. Have the Trust agree to that? If they have then they're very stupid indeed. 2. Does that, in fact, mean that Pattison is definitely going to have only 1% of the shareholding? 3. Have the Trust lost their veto because of their negotiations in the Lapping bid? If they have, then that is also very stupid. 4. Do you have any trust in a single thing that either Jenkins or Nixon say? 5. Does anybody really think that somebody who is prepared to invest £30m over a 5 or 6 year period is going to be happy with 45% of the shares of something worth next to nowt? 6. Have the Trust checked out whether it is legal for the clowns to be going round offering to dilute their shareholding to any fool who comes asking? Or are they just accepting being walked all over? This is serious stuff, the Trust need to be trying to find a friendly solicitor and taking some serious advice, if they don't they'll end up signing over a large part of their ownership to Jenkins and Nixon, along with any say in the future running of the club. Are these reasons why I should be joining the Trust? Broken these down into a few points to give you better answers. 1) No, the Trust agreed to the 45/45/10 split based on Andrew Lapping's proposal only. The Trust firmly believe that any new investment proposal will need a new vote to be held. 2) Again, that's dependent on Andrew Lapping's proposal going ahead. If things remain as is, he will have an 18.75% shareholding, or if a new investment proposal is agreed, he could have less. He has however resigned from the BOD. 3) No - though they are seeking legal advice. They are under the understanding (and so am I as a Trust member) that the vote was relating to Andrew Lapping's proposal ONLY. 4) Who is this aimed at? The 'United Trust' don't have one single opinion on this matter. My own personal opinion is that I don't trust what Nixon/Jenkins have to say. I'm sure that other Trust members will have the same opinion. Others may have a differing opinion. 5) Absolutely not - this is why I fail to believe there is a mystery billionaire interested. 6) As per #3, they are seeking legal advice. So how can the new deal be 45/45/10 if the Trust haven't been consulted and a new vote hasn't been held? How is it that Nixon and Jenkins can possibly be telling a mystery bidder that this is the case when they have absolutely no say in what the Trust will or won't accept. The Trust needs to hurry up with it's legal consultation, because we're coming up to the deadline, it must be about day 30 of those 5 - 10 days by now. |
|
|
|
Post by CUFCDeano on Jun 8, 2015 15:49:47 GMT
Exactly, how can the new deal be 45/45/10. It can't, not without the Trust's permission. No vote has been held by the Trust yet, and there won't be one held until the Trust board have met with the mystery billionaire to discuss the proposal.
What deadline? There was no deadline. Sounds like you were expecting to find out who the mystery billionaire was within the 5-10 days.
This says they were going to hold a meeting within 5-10 days. My understanding is that they held discussions with the 'mystery billionaire' (not face to face), and met with a rep/agent of that same person. They then say they will keep supports informed about any major developments. Presumably there have been no major developments yet - shock horror! They then go onto say that they respect that the Trust have a right to negotiate its share percentage....so is it 10% Mr Nixon, or is it negotiable?
|
|
moorlad
Youth Team Player
Posts: 258
|
Post by moorlad on Jun 8, 2015 15:56:59 GMT
So it would sound from that as if Nixon is being disingenuous. If I had anything to do with the running of the Trust, I'd have been right on to Nixon about saying things like that in public without talking, properly to the Trust first. It is one thing treating a potential investor the way they have, it is quite another treating 25% of the ownership of the club like idiots. Have the Trust challenged Nixon on this at all?
The 5 - 10 day comment was a joke by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesilentone on Jun 8, 2015 16:12:21 GMT
Not really mate, not at this stage. If you were selling your shares in, say Tesco, you wouldn't have to tell other shareholders, or anybody on Tesco's Board. If these negotiations are for the sale of the two clowns shares I doubt they have to tell anybody. If it comes out they want a full restructure, that may be when everyone is told. If there is no mystery investor, and never was, they'll never have to tell anyone. If you are a significant shareholder ( I am not sure of the %) you do need to inform other shareholders if you intend to sell. |
|
|
|
Post by oldhamblue on Jun 8, 2015 16:25:56 GMT
The trust dilution does worry me a lot....as I said on an earlier post; I suspect that the BoD will try and threaten the Trust with legal action if it holds to its 25% and blocks the deal that feathers their nests with blue yonder.....Simply, without believing they can bulldoze the Trust the BoD line doesn't make a lot of sense...
Comical Andy is welcome to come and contradict me - although whether anyone would believe a word he posts right now is debatable.......
|
|
|
|
Post by deeksme on Jun 8, 2015 21:51:04 GMT
I really have no idea why anyone would join the trust, even after having read through all this. It smacks of the rubbish the board have come out with in the past - "back us, as we're the only option". I would join an independent supporters group that had nobody from the previous trust board on, and had no formal links with the club, but relying on Al "golf day" Woodcock et al to help us get out of this mess? Are you high?
People saying "Join the trust, change it from within" - yes, perhaps I'll also join the tory party. Then David Cameron will have to listen to me, won't he?
|
|
