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

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

It's not at all. Unilateral or ‘one-way’ NDAs are quite standard. I deal with them all the time.

Bilateral NDAs require negotiation and agreement between the two parties before coming into force. Not really possible in the type of situation we are talking about, and it would potentially cost our club a lot of money. What would we gain from that?

Bryn Law's proposal is unworkable and will encourage chancers to try their luck. The whole point of the NDA is that it offers protection to us. A serious bidder for the club will never need to worry about it because they will never break the NDA.

Of the last 50 or so NDA's I've signed not one is one sided, every single business we engage in negotiations with expect mutual protections. And very rarely do they need to be negotiated, most I get and certainly the one I send out are fair and reasonable from the outset. Only unfair and punitively one sided NDA's ever cause issues.

[Hightown Brymbo Red]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

Irrelevant. However if that scenario had ever come about, the members would have been asked.

Irrelevant?..and are you sure members would be asked?

[Todd Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Of the last 50 or so NDA's I've signed not one is one sided, every single business we engage in negotiations with expect mutual protections. And very rarely do they need to be negotiated, most I get and certainly the one I send out are fair and reasonable from the outset. Only unfair and punitively one sided NDA's ever cause issues.

I work for a large international company. In my job I manage the bid and tender process (we are the bidder). My team is involved in around 6,000 of these a year. Most don't have an NDA attached, but of the ones that do (maybe 5%), all are one way, in favour of the company tendering for services. If we don't agree to their NDA, we are prohibited from bidding.

[Funny_Old_Game]

There’s still enough nodding dogs around to prevent this vote getting through.

[John Neals Dynasty]

Originally Posted by bartonbank

Why shouldn't we look back to what happened? You learn from history.

True But as to learn from history did we learn the mistakes from Hamilton to follow up with Moss?

Off subject I know have we learnt from history when we commemorate the D Day landings with the far right on the rise.
Posted via mobile theme

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by John Neals Dynasty

True But as to learn from history did we learn the mistakes from Hamilton to follow up with Moss?

Off subject I know have we learnt from history when we commemorate the D Day landings with the far right on the rise.
Posted via mobile theme

The members didn't make the mistake, it was down to the administrator.
In hindsight it should have been a requirement to ensure some protection to ensure that the ground stayed in a football club trust or something similar.

[krux]

Originally Posted by pagl

Vote for the resolution then.

Of course. However I have a feeling there will only be us 2 voting in favour!

[krux]

Originally Posted by WAFCExile

The club is worth much more than £1m.

I'm not sure it is. However even if it was, I would want a proportionate stake in the club for the £ put in.

[moynkeepthefaith]

I have no idea what his (Bryn Law's) agenda is but I would preach caution. We can argue the point about NDA's forever (and already have) but IMO a serious investor would not be deterred by what is currently in place.