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

[Rob]

A simple disclosure would help, every year a simple "X entities enquired about entering the Gate Approval Process, Y entered it and Z completed it"

Reasons for failure were.... then some default lines eg. no proof of funds, directors were a bunch of crooks, euromillions winner wanted the club for £1m its worth more, they loved rockin robin too much etc etc.

Personally I think the above would knock a fair few issues on the head.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by WAFCExile

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.

Trust? That's long gone. I wouldn't trust that lot as far as I could throw them.

Its just putting ridiculous unnecessary obstacles in the way as a way of blocking investment and therefore they retain the power. Far to easy to say legal advice without going into detail and providing evidence.

Never heard that about Hamilton before but I was wondering when someone would hark back to the past as part of the justification.

[pagl]

Originally Posted by WAFCExile

The club is worth much more than £1m.

It isnt though.
No assets and just an annual income that is variable.
How much would it really take to buy the club?

[John Neals Dynasty]

Originally Posted by pagl

It isnt though.
No assets and just an annual income that is variable.
How much would it really take to buy the club?

We could have a whipround in the Turf.

For those of a sensitive nature yes I'm joking.

But seriously a lot has come out from this especially the not having to tell the fans no wonder they got upset about the leak.

On the otherside of the coin look what's happened at Bury.
Posted via mobile theme

[Bagger Vance]

Mutual NDA's are essential, I would never sign an NDA where the other party could tell all and sundry about my business but I had no reciprocity. Either both can talk or neither can talk, one way NDA's aren't right or fair and I would never sign one and I doubt any sensible person would.

[pagl]

The WST do not want investment or other parties involved in WAFC.
Thats clear and they will make it as difficult as possible.

They are happy for anyone to donate what they want but anything that requires any form of involvement at board level or running the club is a no.

Lets say Iesty wants to invest £1m when he wins the lottery what would he do?
The WST would be happy to take his money as a donation but would they be prepared to let him own part/all of the club and how would they facilitate it?

I dont see the harm in talking with Bryn Law to see his proposal as they dont have to accept it anyway. Dont disclose wages and keep talks simple. Its not difficult is it?
They may want to appoint 1 or 2 football directors but would that be a bad thing?

The fear factor is why were still NL. No-one has any balls.

[Pieman]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

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".

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.

Totally agree the whole set up has been manufactured to deter any bids. A potential buyers legal team would look at it and advise not to bother imo

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Mutual NDA's are essential, I would never sign an NDA where the other party could tell all and sundry about my business but I had no reciprocity. Either both can talk or neither can talk, one way NDA's aren't right or fair and I would never sign one and I doubt any sensible person would.

It could allow the board to discredit them. It's utter madness.

But you will get the usual mob defending it.

[LlayDragon]

Originally Posted by benwilliams

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.

Do you have a link to the whole response please?