What is your view after todays meeting ? Are you now happy with the plans ? Still unsure or dead against ? Nothing more than trying to see whether JAH achieved what he set out to do.

So any response guys ?

I didn't realise you were so interested in my views. No new information has come out so still unsure. As someone commented on the Pie mailing list we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Having listened to the whole forum this evening I have to say JAH sounds like a complete cock, however if the takeover is done then he will have delivered so ultimately I will praise him. This is the results business and the result of the takeover far outweighs the personality of the man who got us there. A new born successful Notts is all that matters. I really don't see what we have got to lose ! Is there a worse case scenario ?

I was unable to make the forum, but it seems that no new information was forthcoming? I've given this takeover a lot of thought and I will not be voting in favour it for three reasons:

1. I don't believe gifting our share of the club is a responsible action. I'd hoped that with the agreement of Haydn Green's estate that we could receive money for our share, which we could then hold in trust for future club needs.

2. I don't believe I should be asked to give away my share in my club without knowing who they are.

3. I don't believe I should be asked to give away my share in my club without knowing the financial structure of the deal.

I've heard the arguments about it being confidential, etc. But I'm sorry, when you're dealing with a trust body of numerous people then loss of confidentiality is one of the things you have should have to accept.

This is like being asked to give away your house that you own and being told that there is a place for you to live in, but you won't know the landlord or anything about the property they're providing. Plan lunacy.

The deal sounds very promising, but the lack of information and security is what makes me have to say no.

This is my first and hopefully last time I will comment on messages on the Trust Forum.

I have never heard so much biased egotistical people in my life.

I know that some of you have a problem with John Armstrong Holms, I am no fan of his, but is this the time to try and take revenge.

The club in its present state is going nowhera but down to the Conference and out of business.

If I remember correctly if we drop out of the football league then the lease means nothing and we could be forced to leave Meadow Lane.

We should all forget our egos, sence of importance and accept this takeover as our best chance of still be in existance for our 150th anniversary.

So come on all you true Pie supportes and give a resounding yes vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Roweyp:
So any response guys ?

Apologies for not responding sooner - work last night, and today, and that strange thing, rarely found, known as "a life" tonight.

I'm rather flattered that anyone cares what I think enough to ask.

Normally, to be honest, I wouldn't say. It's a secret ballot, and I had intended to keep it that way.

Seeing as you ask though, I'll admit. I voted for the share disposal, and against the writing off of the loan.

Due to work committments, I wasn't able to get to the forum, and so have had to make my decisions on the basis of what I've seen and heard said, and not said.

With regard to the share transfer, I had my doubts. To be honest, the amounts involved don't concern me as much as not knowing who we're dealing with. The arguments that we didn't know who Mr Green was at the time of the rescue frankly doesn't hold water. Firstly, the situation then was a lot more desperate than it is now. Secondly, as soon as the register of shareholders for Blenheim 1862 Ltd was deposited at Companies House, it was available to anyone who wanted to search the records in the public domain - the same won't be possible for companies, or funds, registered in Switzerland or the BVI. I don't like the secrecy, or the lack of transparency that result in having our owners based there, and I don't like the practical reasons I can think of why a company would want to establish itself there. If, as the Evening Post tells us JAH thinks, the proposed new owners are in it for the "kudos", I don't see why they'd want to remain anonymous - you can't get much kudos if you don't tell anyone who you are.

So, I have my worries about giving away the shareholding for nothing to people who aren't identified. However, the reported guarantee from First London does convince me that the money is there, and it's undoubtedly true that a significant cash injection won't hurt Notts' chances. Equally the appointment of a Chief Executive with the apparent pedigree of Mr Trembling would seem to be of advantage to the club. I have never believed in throwing out the baby with the bath water, and have always believed that the best is often the enemy of the good, and so have backed the share deal in the belief that, whilst it may not be perfect, it offers a positive commercial future for the club. It also means something that, whilst I might not agree with all they do or say, I still believe that the current Boards of club and Trust are passionate about the well being of Notts County, and I can't believe that they, having seen the facts of the situation, would recommend anything not in the club's best interests.

I found myself unable to back the write off of the loan, for two reasons. Firstly, because of the situation with the loan owed to Mr Green's estate. Whatever legal sophistry may be employed, we all know, that money is owed. If the Trust's loan to the club was repaid, we could repay that debt.

Secondly, I do not believe that the Trust model of ownership and involvement has failed, and believe it should still have a future at Notts County. The funds released by repayment of the debt (after Mr Green's estate was paid what it was owed) could be used either to put an immediate loan back to the club, thus continuing the supporters' real stake in Notts County, or could be held against the prospect of any future funding crisis that might arise. By writing off that loan, we're giving away what we worked so hard to acheive - the ability to help our club in its hour of need, and I can't accept that.

Hope that makes some sense, even if you don't agree with me.

Gareth

Yes thanks, I was simply wondering what the doubters still thought. Obviously we are all entitled to our own opinions. I for one can't see how we have any choice. I can't see any risk in the takeover as we have no assets to strip anyway, so it's not like they can take money out and simply leave. I understand the arguement that David has put across in that he wants a contingency fund set up as a safety net, however as I have said I can't see where there is any risk. The only risk we have is by saying no, watch Munto go elsewhere and we are left with very few fans (no doubt many less if the deal falls through) a budget that is ever decreasing and almost no hope. Surely that is the biggest risk of all ?

Have to say I agree with Metal Micky, what have we got to lose?

The club as we know it now with the Trust as majority shareholder has no future, we will continue to fight relegation until we eventually fall into non-league, administration and inevitably out of business.

The Munto proposal is supported by Bank Guarantees, while not knowing the amount of money being invested we know that even if Munto back out of the deal the investment is still there. Really, who cares who is investing the money, as long as the money is coming? An irrevocable bank guarantee stands for the next 5 years, if after 5 years no more money is forthcoming we just go back to where we are now - but we've had 5 years of fun in between.

I've read, and listened to, every bit of information that has been made available to us over the last few weeks and I just can't see a reason to vote no.

I have to say that I cannot see how a bank guarantee in this context is worth anything.

If Munto don't invest.

Bank pays balance of money to club.

Munto (100% shareholder) takes money from club.

Munto pays back bank!

Hey presto! Hall of mirrors.

Paul_B

I imagine the lawyers putting the deal together will have the contingency that if Munto don't invest the agreed amount then the share ownership will revert back to before the takeover.

As if!!!!!!

Ass-u-me nothing!

Any competent lawyer will put those sort of provisions into a contract

You've seen the contract then? Or is this just wishful thinking?

No I haven't seen the contract but I assume that JAH hasn't written it on the back of a fag packet and that a firm of solicitors have been involved to put together the legal terms of the takeover.

So, you've chosen "option two - wishful thinking."

Wishful thinking?

Is it your position that all of the terms of contract of the proposed takeover have been written between JAH/RP and Munto by themselves?

From your statements that appears to be you position which is asinine.

Munto have engaged professional advisors to assist during this process as they have been identified.

The Club Board may or may not have engaged professional advisors. Given the willingness of at least one shareholder to threaten litigation to prevent the distribution of information to Trust members before the SGM, it is reasonable to assume that they will have consulted suitably qualified professional advisors.

The Trust Board have declined to answer specific questions repeated on this forum seeking confirmation that they have sought independent legal advice, so it is reasonable to assume that they haven't. As Trust and Club interests are not identical, it is essential that any advice taken is independent of that taken by the club board.

Simon

quote:

Originally posted by magpie1983:
Wishful thinking?

Is it your position that all of the terms of contract of the proposed takeover have been written between JAH/RP and Munto by themselves?

From your statements that appears to be you position which is asinine.

That's not my position at all. My position is I'm not going to assume that there are clauses in the contract merely because it makes me feel better about the deal.

I assume that the clause is there because I assume that NCFC have instructed solicitors and unless those solicitors are completely incompetent these are the sorts of provisions that would be set in a contract.

TBH I feel good about the deal anyway, but then again I don't really believe that the trust model is viable in the lower league football, so I would be pro the deal