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

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by dixienormous

We have fans killing the club.

Apathy now rules.
This thread is a case in point.

If Geoff Moss had done some of the things this club has done recently there would have been uproar and he would have got it in the neck. Double standards and hypocrisy is rife.

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

A unilateral/one way NDA is entirely the correct one to have here. It is there to cover the confidential information that will be disclosed to the potential purchaser of the club, and to protect our trade secrets.

A two-way NDA would mean the owners of the club (us) could potentially not be told important information about the people who want to buy it from us, including their financial position.

That's not workable and is detrimental to our interests.

You are looking at it from an entirely one sided perspective.

If I am looking to invest and I disclose my financial position including shareholdings, cash positions, assets etc then I should have protection of this sensitive information not being rattled around just as you describe the club should in the event it does not progress. If it progresses then both parties agree what is reasonable for both sides to disclose.

Lets examine a scenario. An individual is about to sell a limited entity to a plc, this will yield a sizeable cash return. They wish to embark on a new project and that project is the football club. In the current scenario the minute they tell the club board where the money is coming from they are breaking the law as the one sided NDA allows the potential disclosure without penalty which could run into insider trading laws.

The bigger issue though is why don't they just come clean and say the clubs not for sale and we don't need investors - surely it just makes everything clear and the fans know where they stand - all the subjective stuff goes away and everyone just gets on with things. That's an hones, reasonable position and lets face it - the reality.

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

You said you have no idea what his agenda is and then said approach with caution, which we all know what it suggests in the context of this thread.

I don't need to be careful about my initial reply to you at all, and if that's a threat you've made against me there its laughable.

As ever you read based on your own agenda - I have made it crystal clear what I was saying.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

You are looking at it from an entirely one sided perspective.

If I am looking to invest and I disclose my financial position including shareholdings, cash positions, assets etc then I should have protection of this sensitive information not being rattled around just as you describe the club should in the event it does not progress. If it progresses then both parties agree what is reasonable for both sides to disclose.

Lets examine a scenario. An individual is about to sell a limited entity to a plc, this will yield a sizeable cash return. They wish to embark on a new project and that project is the football club. In the current scenario the minute they tell the club board where the money is coming from they are breaking the law as the one sided NDA allows the potential disclosure without penalty which could run into insider trading laws.

The bigger issue though is why don't they just come clean and say the clubs not for sale and we don't need investors - surely it just makes everything clear and the fans know where they stand - all the subjective stuff goes away and everyone just gets on with things. That's an hones, reasonable position and lets face it - the reality.

This is it in a nutshell, they can't even be honest about it because they are terrified of the reaction.

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by WrexhamO

This is disgraceful.

This is what happens when you deal with John Mills. Very nasty piece of work as i have also found out

[pagl]

BV as usual right on the money.

[Todd Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

You are looking at it from an entirely one sided perspective.

If I am looking to invest and I disclose my financial position including shareholdings, cash positions, assets etc then I should have protection of this sensitive information not being rattled around just as you describe the club should in the event it does not progress. If it progresses then both parties agree what is reasonable for both sides to disclose.

Lets examine a scenario. An individual is about to sell a limited entity to a plc, this will yield a sizeable cash return. They wish to embark on a new project and that project is the football club. In the current scenario the minute they tell the club board where the money is coming from they are breaking the law as the one sided NDA allows the potential disclosure without penalty which could run into insider trading laws.

The bigger issue though is why don't they just come clean and say the clubs not for sale and we don't need investors - surely it just makes everything clear and the fans know where they stand - all the subjective stuff goes away and everyone just gets on with things. That's an hones, reasonable position and lets face it - the reality.

A two way NDA could fairly easily result in another Geoff Moss or Alexander Hamilton.

Regarding your last paragraph. I think this is our standpoint. We haven't asked for investors to come forward, and personally I don't think we need them. However, it is right that a mechanism exists if any do approach the club.

[Funny_Old_Game]

Anyone who thinks we don’t need investors is barmy. Trust have been in control for 7 full seasons and we have reached the playoffs twice. And one of those doesn’t count because we still had contracts to key players from the previous regime.

We need investment to go up, how clear does it need to be?

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

A two way NDA could fairly easily result in another Geoff Moss or Alexander Hamilton.

Regarding your last paragraph. I think this is our standpoint. We haven't asked for investors to come forward, and personally I don't think we need them. However, it is right that a mechanism exists if any do approach the club.

I'd argue it increases exponentially the chances of one! If an NDA is in place then all information can be disclosed, there is no motivation to withhold due to privacy concerns so you are far more likely to get to know the person or persons in more detail.

As for the last point - we agree its the stance so why bother with a mechanism that can be easily criticized as being designed to fail. Just don't have one until the stance has changed. Being clear on the position is braver, its honest, it promotes clarity and focuses everyone minds on what needs to be done without the distraction of people thinking an olive branch may be on its way.

The current position is unfair and misleading, its giving hope to some when there is none.