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

[Todd Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

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.

Because the fans own the club and it is them who will ultimately make a decision. The WST board have never appealed for investors, but they have said on multiple occasions that they are open to considering any serious approaches for the club. Any that are deemed to be beneficial to the club will be put to the members.

Having a formal process in place to handle such events is a good thing all round.

[Phils-an-alki]

When you think about it, it takes a special level of arrogance to continue after years of failure on the pitch (and don't give me that utter shite that last season was successful), doing the same things year in year out and expecting things to improve and not admit you need help, whether that's financially or otherwise.

But we all know how arrogant the club board are just from January's debacle so nothing should be a surprise.

Things are slowly coming to a head, with more and more fans waking up to the fact that their club is being used as an ego trip.

It can't and won't go on forever and at some point something will push fans that one step too far. The boards are on thin ice as it is. They need to remember where the money comes from that allows them to be in control.

The myths of democracy, transparency and honesty that are supposed to come with being fan owned have been well and truly busted. Community club is another myth.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

Because the fans own the club and it is them who will ultimately make a decision. The WST board have never appealed for investors, but they have said on multiple occasions that they are open to considering any serious approaches for the club. Any that are deemed to be beneficial to the club will be put to the members.

Having a formal process in place to handle such events is a good thing all round.

Absolute rubbish. The fans fund the club but ultimately have no say whatsoever in reality.

[Todd Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

Absolute rubbish. The fans fund the club but ultimately have no say whatsoever in reality.

You can put forward proposals, vote for other people's proposals, attend AGMs and make your point, stand for election, vote for others who you believe hold your viewpoint, view the accounts in full, talk directly to board members face to face etc.

Can you name another football club, or indeed any other organisation, which gives you more of a say?

Mistakes have been made - appointing Barrow being one of them - but these events happen at any organisation, big or small.

[DoomandGloom]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

When you think about it, it takes a special level of arrogance to continue after years of failure on the pitch (and don't give me that utter shite that last season was successful), doing the same things year in year out and expecting things to improve and not admit you need help, whether that's financially or otherwise.

But we all know how arrogant the club board are just from January's debacle so nothing should be a surprise.

Things are slowly coming to a head, with more and more fans waking up to the fact that their club is being used as an ego trip.

It can't and won't go on forever and at some point something will push fans that one step too far. The boards are on thin ice as it is. They need to remember where the money comes from that allows them to be in control.

The myths of democracy, transparency and honesty that are supposed to come with being fan owned have been well and truly busted. Community club is another myth.

We're all aware of your anti trust agenda so I find it difficult to take anything you say seriously.

Simply answer me these 2 questions,

1. If 30 people come forward next season saying they want to buy the club, each approach costing the club (let's be nice and be Conservative) £3.5k in legal and other costs to follow up, who should pay for this, the membership or the people suggesting they might invest?

2. The pretend investor, knowing at worst they will be penalised £2k, publishes what Shaun Pearson's wages or buyout clause is and he leaves, what do the fans think of that?

[dixienormous]

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.

Have you watched any of the football on show the last seven years or so?

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

Absolute rubbish. The fans fund the club but ultimately have no say whatsoever in reality.

Isn’t that the same with most clubs outside the top 2 leagues?

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

Because the fans own the club and it is them who will ultimately make a decision. The WST board have never appealed for investors, but they have said on multiple occasions that they are open to considering any serious approaches for the club. Any that are deemed to be beneficial to the club will be put to the members.

Having a formal process in place to handle such events is a good thing all round.

You can't have it both ways. Look at Pete Jones submission and all prior evidence, they do not want to sell, they do not want any serious approaches or investment, they just want donations that do not effect the structure or politics.

Denying that is playing politics and the fans deserve better. They do not deserve a carrot being dangled which will never be reached. They deserve the truth and certainty.

This process is designed to block, its one sided, unfair and not mutually respectful and will not "encourage" any serious parties once the terms have been placed on the table. It is designed to do the opposite and discourage and seems to have worked at least once that we know of. It is a model to ensure an offer never gets to the fans (who do not own the club as has been proved, they are members of a Trust that owns the club).

My message to the Trust higher echelons would be drop the subterfuge and be brave enough to state the desired position and stick to it. If their conviction is strong enough then why not be brave enough to argue for it. Hiding behind a process engineered to fail then pretending to sit on the fence isn't fair on the fans. They deserve the truth and they deserve certainty.

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

You can put forward proposals, vote for other people's proposals, attend AGMs and make your point, stand for election, vote for others who you believe hold your viewpoint, view the accounts in full, talk directly to board members face to face etc.

Can you name another football club, or indeed any other organisation, which gives you more of a say?

Mistakes have been made - appointing Barrow being one of them - but these events happen at any organisation, big or small.

Chester are a club that you have more of a say than us as Chester members can directly vote their elected representatives, true democracy.

And i will get in quick and say i know you will try to counter it by saying "look at the mess they got in" and yes they did but it answered your questions of naming a club that gave you more of a say.