Peter Moore

[Wyld Wyl]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

Getting too far ahead of yourself here. Wait and see what the offer is and the conditions attached.
If the offer is genuine and the bidders are trustworthy, I believe that the trust would recommend approval and the resolution would pass.
Conversely, if the bid is dubious in any way , this would be highlighted and the trust would advise rejection. The bid would then fail.

Ahead of myself? There's a vote happening now that finishes tomorrow. If the result is to continue there will be another vote later on. I'm pointing out what happened before to warn anyone about "voting" to abstain. It would be a bit pointless pointing it out after voting has finished. I don't know why anyone would abstain on this but if there is such an option people should know how it counted last time.

I don't doubt that the board will make recomendations but that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Wyld Wyl

Ahead of myself? There's a vote happening now that finishes tomorrow. If the result is to continue there will be another vote later on. I'm pointing out what happened before to warn anyone about "voting" to abstain. It would be a bit pointless pointing it out after voting has finished. I don't know why anyone would abstain on this but if there is such an option people should know how it counted last time.

I don't doubt that the board will make recomendations but that has nothing to do with what I said.

Fair comment. I would agree with you that clarity is required, maybe a straight Yes / No vote to avoid argument.

[Cenotaff]

Originally Posted by Superunknown

Abstentions should be treated as forfeiting your vote, it's clearly neither a yes or no, it is a choice to simply not take part. Why the abstentions were treated as no votes in the last round of vote god only knows but the same mistake can't be made this time around. This very well could go down to the wire.

100% agree.

[-luke]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

Fair comment. I would agree with you that clarity is required, maybe a straight Yes / No vote to avoid argument.

I believe that some votes would have gone a different way in the last AGM had abstentions been either explained properly, or treated appropriately.

To one of your earlier points, I don't believe that we would be at this stage in proceedings if the board believed that there was anything particularly worrying about this approach based on previous instances where investment has been indicated. I think/suspect, that something has been happening in the background for some time.

[ABd]

Originally Posted by NottsRed

If its LeBron i will do several laps around Wrexham naked.

The Racecourse - Summer 2022:

[krux]

Originally Posted by ABd

The Racecourse - Summer 2022:

pfft. travelling.

[Bigmike]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

As owners, I believe the trust have a responsibility to publish the information for consideration but should advise whether they think the outcome of the negotiations is favourable or not. Reasons for that should be made clear and then individuals can judge. Whilst these are extraordinary circumstances, I think a fair proportion of the membership will vote with the trusts advice.

In the current financial circumstances, the bid would have to be pretty dodgy to turn down. If that proves to be the case we need a complete rethink on how we finance the club.

good post

[bowler]

It may not be Peter Moore but I wish it was what a man to have onboard the club would be flying high with him in charge, we can only wait and see.

[jarko]

Originally Posted by bowler

It may not be Peter Moore but I wish it was what a man to have onboard the club would be flying high with him in charge, we can only wait and see.

Glad someone has got thread back on track as in thread title.