Will the information submitted by both sides to Supporters Direct for publication for the SGM still be published, once the legal side of things have been worked out?

Well glad its all over now, and we have had the vote, some passionate speeches and I hope we can now move forward, only one thing annoyed me (there's no gagging order on me!!) was a referral by Eric Kerry re the COE saying it was an outrageous decision to scrap the COE, I was on the Trust Board when the Trust ratified the Club Board decison to scrap the COE as the Football league could not guarantee funding and think I actually sat next to Eric at the board meeting and the trust agreed to support the club board decision, so Eric please don't make these outrageous statements, lets now work together with the fans and be honest and take the club forward with honesty and integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveR:
Will the information submitted by both sides to Supporters Direct for publication for the SGM still be published, once the legal side of things have been worked out?

It's very difficult to say Dave. Sadly, it's hard to see anything changing unless the Shareholder Agreement changes, which itself is highly unlikely.

Hi Nigel.

Thanks for replying - I can't imagine that it's been a hugely rewarding task to be the public face of the Trust on these forums recently.

I don't quite understand how the Trust as majority shareholder can be so effectively gagged.

If Supporters Direct had no problem with the legality of the documents and information and were ready to send them out, how can the Trust be stopped from doing so? And how can the person responsible remain anonymous?

Can you tell us on what grounds the injunction was granted, or when?

Tuesday night should have been proof that democracy was at the heart of the Trust, but I'm not sure that this happened; the chairman used club resources to put out his information while other people were forbidden to say a thing. It shouldn't happen this way.

What annoyed me about the scrapping of the COE was that JAH said that it did not happen on his watch because he did not attend the trust meeting when the decision was ratified.

Surely the point should be that he should have made sure he attended the meeting (or at least voted by proxy) and speak against it if he disagreed with the decision.