Salford

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

Do you support the idea of putting up a bond to discuss “investing”?

I think it’s sensible. You’d think such people would have money to put up a bond to weed out the time wasters.

Originally Posted by Haruki

I believe their lawyers advised them not to sign the NDA as it was a totally one sided NDA, they had a £50k penalty clause if they revealed information about us but there wasn't a reciprocal clause

Works both ways. If the above is true then you'd be mad to sign it.
It's deliberate too, if you welcomed talks etc why would it be so one sided? Like I said the shutters are down.

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

Works both ways. If the above is true then you'd be mad to sign it.
It's deliberate too, if you welcomed talks etc why would it be so one sided? Like I said the shutters are down.

Like you, I don’t really know enough apart from rumours on here. I’m sure there’s no smoke without fire, however.

You wonder whether a pack could be prepared for potential “investors” although they would want/need to know commercially sensitive information. NDAs can work but the trickle of information could be damaging

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

Who said it would be without due diligence?

What he said was do you really believe he would invite a bunch of shysters to get involved with a club he loves and supports, which he clearly does. Why would he?
For starters it would make him look like a fool.

Now I haven't always agreed with him in the past but there is no doubt he's a fan, that cannot be questioned. When people like him who could potentially help the club are treated with such distrust its a clear sign that some fans are still overly paranoid and stuck in the past, which could be a detriment to the club.
Some people are so convinced that the current set up is the only way (flies in the face of the football failure we've endured) that its preventing progress.

Time to move on and stop comparing our situation now to where we have been because its totally different now.

In respect of Due Diligence I said IF and my answer was to your point asking if the poster believed Bryn Law is trustworthy ? My point on that is I don't care if he is or isn't (I have some doubts that Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan had a blue moon bed spread before taking over city).
I simply want a transparent and sensible approach which may or may not include financial bonds being required.
Not saying the current set-up is the only way either but a bond seems sensible to me careless whether it comes from a fan or not.
By the way - thank god that where we are and where we have been are totally different.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

Like you, I don’t really know enough apart from rumours on here. I’m sure there’s no smoke without fire, however.

You wonder whether a pack could be prepared for potential “investors” although they would want/need to know commercially sensitive information. NDAs can work but the trickle of information could be damaging

For me Al its just a case of talking to them see what they say and go from there. There is no commitment needed at this stage surely.
Although I'm far from an expert in these matters I don't see the harm in talking.
The WST is always in total control and can pick and choose what's best for the club which is why I'm disappointed with all the negativity surrounding the Bryn Law people.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by moynkeepthefaith

In respect of Due Diligence I said IF and my answer was to your point asking if the poster believed Bryn Law is trustworthy ? My point on that is I don't care if he is or isn't (I have some doubts that Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan had a blue moon bed spread before taking over city).
I simply want a transparent and sensible approach which may or may not include financial bonds being required.
Not saying the current set-up is the only way either but a bond seems sensible to me careless whether it comes from a fan or not.
By the way - thank god that where we are and where we have been are totally different.

The bond is only sensible if it isn't a deal breaker, which (if true) it seems it was. As said above the WST are in the driving seat, the fear of being sold to someone iffy is just not possible is it?

[krux]

Originally Posted by Haruki

I believe their lawyers advised them not to sign the NDA as it was a totally one sided NDA, they had a £50k penalty clause if they revealed information about us but there wasn't a reciprocal clause

very interesting if true.

So we have a process on the face of it, but in reality its one that won't work in practice. So we therefore have no process.

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

The bond is only sensible if it isn't a deal breaker, which (if true) it seems it was. As said above the WST are in the driving seat, the fear of being sold to someone iffy is just not possible is it?

The bond is there (I assume) to prevent the club having to talk to every tom dick and harry that promises the earth but does not have the financial acumen to back it up.
In my opinion as they(WST) need to be transparent the requirement for a nominal amount allows them to justify refusal to engage in discussion.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by moynkeepthefaith

The bond is there (I assume) to prevent the club having to talk to every tom dick and harry that promises the earth but does not have the financial acumen to back it up.
In my opinion as they(WST) need to be transparent the requirement for a nominal amount allows them to justify refusal to engage in discussion.

But we're always told there isn't a queue of likely investors or money men (and I don't think there is either) so I don't think that would be an issue.

I fully agree with your last sentence although this alleged 50k penalty clause needs looking at if it exists.

[moynkeepthefaith]

for me it just makes practical business sense.