WST Statement - Unable to accept a bid for the club.

[Haruki]

"In light of the proposed takeover of Chester FC we have been asked to clarify the process if such an offer was received at Wrexham.

The answer is quite straightforward. A bid for the club could not be accepted under our current rules. Primarily

4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and transparently.

To accept a bid for the club this rule would need to be overturned by special resolution. A Special Resolution requires a majority of 75% of members and at least 50% of members voting (Rules 51 and 100).

Following this there would need to be a further resolution to wind up the Society and distribute its assets to charitable causes in the local community (rule 105). All of the above would be a decision of the membership of the Society."


The above paragraphs are from today's WST statement and makes very interesting reading. It indicates that under current WST rules the society is unable to accept any offers made for Wrexham FC.

What has confused me about this is in relation to previous statements and actions by the board.

1) In three separate members meetings I have heard Spencer Harris, when questioned on investment state that two parties showed an interest but were dismissed as they did not come back to the the Trust when questioned on the access to finance. Why at this time did Spencer not also inform members that they had dismissed this interest because of society rule 4.2? it feels at best to be misleading and at worst to be distortion of the facts by Spencer.

2) In the members meeting late last year, again a member asked a question about investment. Mark Williams said that the board were not "anti investment" and the whole reason the Football club was structured into a separate Limited company and not run from the WST (similar to the Chester model) was is that it could enable investment into the Football club. Why did he give that response if he knew that it was impossible to accept investment into the football club? Again this feels like deliberate misleading of the facts

3) The WST board supported a resolution to introduce a gateway policy that meant the club had certain levels of protection against enquires into buying the club. Why did the support this resolution if it is redundant as there is no need for a gateway if they are unable to accept any offers anyway?

[blackbrookred]

So basically they have made it so they can do what they like.

[Teifi Red]

Would/could this be feasible?
Instead of paying monthly membership fee to WST could members cancel such payments apart from 5 chosen members of the same mind set.
All cancelled payments could then be re directed to one of these 5 chosen members who would then pay the total sum of said payments to WST.
By doing this, club would not suffer financially but when it came to members voting, we’d only have 5 to vote the way we wanted.
If it sounds complicated, sorry.

[Wreck Sam]

So under the current rules no offer will even be put to the members to vote on since those rules firstly and foremost are there to ensure that WST ownership cannot be overturned.....

[Funny_Old_Game]

Originally Posted by blackbrookred

So basically they have made it so they can do what they like.

They did that years ago.

We’ve never had any serious people wanting to get involved because the barriers they put up make it impossible.

[Willywill]

This is dreadful. The calamity will continue indefinitely, or till the funds run out!

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Haruki

"In light of the proposed takeover of Chester FC we have been asked to clarify the process if such an offer was received at Wrexham.

The answer is quite straightforward. A bid for the club could not be accepted under our current rules. Primarily

4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and transparently.

To accept a bid for the club this rule would need to be overturned by special resolution. A Special Resolution requires a majority of 75% of members and at least 50% of members voting (Rules 51 and 100).

Following this there would need to be a further resolution to wind up the Society and distribute its assets to charitable causes in the local community (rule 105). All of the above would be a decision of the membership of the Society."


The above paragraphs are from today's WST statement and makes very interesting reading. It indicates that under current WST rules the society is unable to accept any offers made for Wrexham FC.

What has confused me about this is in relation to previous statements and actions by the board.

1) In three separate members meetings I have heard Spencer Harris, when questioned on investment state that two parties showed an interest but were dismissed as they did not come back to the the Trust when questioned on the access to finance. Why at this time did Spencer not also inform members that they had dismissed this interest because of society rule 4.2? it feels at best to be misleading and at worst to be distortion of the facts by Spencer.

2) In the members meeting late last year, again a member asked a question about investment. Mark Williams said that the board were not "anti investment" and the whole reason the Football club was structured into a separate Limited company and not run from the WST (similar to the Chester model) was is that it could enable investment into the Football club. Why did he give that response if he knew that it was impossible to accept investment into the football club? Again this feels like deliberate misleading of the facts

3) The WST board supported a resolution to introduce a gateway policy that meant the club had certain levels of protection against enquires into buying the club. Why did the support this resolution if it is redundant as there is no need for a gateway if they are unable to accept any offers anyway?

The gateway is there specifically to assess any "investor" who might want to get involved with the club.
This is not the same as someone wishing to purchase the club.
Under the current terms due diligence would be done on any investor to ensure that the "investment2 was sound and the proposal to accept or dismiss would be put to the membership. This would require (I believe ) a simple majority vote as long as the WST still owned the club.

A bid for the club is different and would be classed as "hostile".
The current rules would have to be amended as outlined by a 75% majority.
As I see it, the trust would not have to cease to exist but would cease to have a major influence on club matters. A token board position in a new regime might be offered to represent fans.

Personally, although in danger of repeating myself" I would like to see some form of duality with a share issue of some sort.

[LlayDragon]

Originally Posted by Willywill

This is dreadful. The calamity will continue indefinitely, or till the funds run out!

Yup.

The only way any change will happen is the club failing and falling far deeper than it is now.

Not AGMs, not EGMs, not endless debait on here. People not buying season tickets and not attending is the only language our glorious leaders will understand.

[eosceiriog]

Originally Posted by Haruki

"In light of the proposed takeover of Chester FC we have been asked to clarify the process if such an offer was received at Wrexham.

The answer is quite straightforward. A bid for the club could not be accepted under our current rules. Primarily

4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and transparently.

To accept a bid for the club this rule would need to be overturned by special resolution. A Special Resolution requires a majority of 75% of members and at least 50% of members voting (Rules 51 and 100).

Following this there would need to be a further resolution to wind up the Society and distribute its assets to charitable causes in the local community (rule 105). All of the above would be a decision of the membership of the Society."


The above paragraphs are from today's WST statement and makes very interesting reading. It indicates that under current WST rules the society is unable to accept any offers made for Wrexham FC.

What has confused me about this is in relation to previous statements and actions by the board.

1) In three separate members meetings I have heard Spencer Harris, when questioned on investment state that two parties showed an interest but were dismissed as they did not come back to the the Trust when questioned on the access to finance. Why at this time did Spencer not also inform members that they had dismissed this interest because of society rule 4.2? it feels at best to be misleading and at worst to be distortion of the facts by Spencer.

2) In the members meeting late last year, again a member asked a question about investment. Mark Williams said that the board were not "anti investment" and the whole reason the Football club was structured into a separate Limited company and not run from the WST (similar to the Chester model) was is that it could enable investment into the Football club. Why did he give that response if he knew that it was impossible to accept investment into the football club? Again this feels like deliberate misleading of the facts

3) The WST board supported a resolution to introduce a gateway policy that meant the club had certain levels of protection against enquires into buying the club. Why did the support this resolution if it is redundant as there is no need for a gateway if they are unable to accept any offers anyway?

This is precisely why I have been posting for along time about the iron grip.