Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=Rob;2264141]Two sets of technical changes put forward by Bryn Law - the pair are to the bottom of [url]https://wst.org.uk/wp/?page_id=503[/url]

He wants a penalty clause of £2k for breaking an NDA rather than £50,000, explaining it as [I]"It is my contention that this figure has been set too high and that it actually discourages any approaches from those with serious investment intent as they regard such a figure as being excessive in comparison to other investment negotiations in which they have been involved."[/I]

The Gate process is worth a read fully, with the first two intro paragraphs below from him: [I]"It is my proposal that The Gate Approval Process be amended to better encourage credible investment approaches. It is my contention that, as it exists, the process is overly punitive and, as such, is discouraging all potential investors from taking the process anywhere beyond the requirement to sign an NDA, particularly as the onus to
maintain confidentiality only falls on the investor, not on the Society Board.


"Furthermore, the fact the potential investor must then make a 5k payment to facilitate a second meeting and provide a business plan and proof of funding, but the Society board still has the right to end the process at this stage without disclosing the detail to the membership is unlikely to encourage credible investors to pursue the process to
this stage. There are good and bad investors out there, my contention is that whilst this process is rightly designed to discourage those whose intentions could be harmful, it’s actually too restrictive and is actually discouraging even those with positive intentions."[/I]

The Board advises against the first and 'strongly' advises against the second says it [I]'...could lead to a repetition of the near farce which occurred when the previous owners were attempting to sell the club.'
[/I][/QUOTE]
Final paragraph gives the board advice...so my question is has the board met to discuss motions already?
And was it the full Wst board position ie was it unnanimous?

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2264159]Personally from what we've seen them waste on players, I won't trust them with a penny. I'm surprised you would to be honest[/QUOTE]

Thats a different issue. Yes they did waste it but the fact is we still need investment.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=Iesty;2264148]out of interest, does this approval also apply to donations?

for example, if a lottery winner wanted to inject a £1m pot of money into the club (something that is not unfathomable), n[B]o questions asked and for no stake or involvement in the club[/B], would the board steadfastly have to stick to the approval process??[/QUOTE]

what mug is going to do that?

If I won the lottery and put £1m in, I would expect to own the club.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=krux;2264165]what mug is going to do that?

If I won the lottery and put £1m in, I would expect to own the club.[/QUOTE]

Vote for the resolution then.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

Worth reading the board response to Bryn's proposals based on legal advice received. I was initially attracted by Bryn's resolutions but worth reading the whole context.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2264145][I]"Furthermore, the fact the potential investor must then make a 5k payment to facilitate a second meeting and provide a business plan and proof of funding, [B]but the Society board still has the right to end the process at this stage without disclosing the detail to the membership[/B] is unlikely to encourage credible investors to pursue the process to
this stage. There are good and bad investors out there, my contention is that whilst this process is rightly designed to discourage those whose intentions could be harmful, it’s actually too restrictive and is actually discouraging even those with positive intentions."[/I]

There it is.[/QUOTE]

At face value, it seems that the question we need to answer is this: when it comes to making decisions in the best interests of the club, do we trust the elected Board more than we trust the membership at large? If the answer is 'we trust the Board more', we should reject the proposal. If the answer is 'we trust the membership more', we should vote for the proposal.

However, given that the Board are elected by the membership, and have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the Trust (and therefore the club), and without their veto nothing could stop a prospective buyer stuffing the ballot box (by signing up new members who would then vote for a buyout), retaining clause 8 seems sensible to me. And before you say that stuffing the ballot box would never happen – remember the lengths to which Hamilton went to try and get control of the club. Paying 5,000 random strangers recruited online £20 each to sign up as members and vote for a takeover against our best interests would be both easier and cheaper than what he actually did.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2264176]Worth reading the board response to Bryn's proposals based on legal advice received. I was initially attracted by Bryn's resolutions but worth reading the whole context.[/QUOTE]

Its just more Spencer Spin, the board are obviously making it harder for any investment to be put to the membership.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=krux;2264165]what mug is going to do that?

If I won the lottery and put £1m in, I would expect to own the club.[/QUOTE]

The club is worth much more than £1m.

Re: Bryn Law puts forward 'Gate Approval Process' changes and NDA changes
 

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2264176]Worth reading the board response to Bryn's proposals based on legal advice received. I was initially attracted by Bryn's resolutions but worth reading the whole context.[/QUOTE]

Who in their right mind pays 5k for a second meeting when the board can just tell them to do one anyway and don't even have to tell members? You'd have to insane to pay 5k just to propose something.
No wonder we're constantly told "there's no one out there".

[I]Furthermore, the fact the potential investor must then make a 5k payment to facilitate a second meeting and provide a business plan and proof of funding, but the Society board still has the right to end the process at this stage without disclosing the detail to the membership is unlikely to encourage credible investors to pursue the process to this stage.[/I]