quote:

Originally posted by Gareth Marklew:
I'm wondering if you could clear up a couple of queries for me - obviously, I'll understand if you can't answer for any reason, legal or otherwise.

1) How did the "third party" know what was in the various pieces of documentation? Presumably, for them to be threatening the injunctions, there must have been something in there that they didn't like, but I can't see why anyone other than the original authors, the Trust Board and possibly Supporters' Direct should have known the contents before publication.

2) CAN have clearly put a lot of thought and work into preparing proposals for the future of the club. Would the Trust Board be willing to work with, and encourage the Club Board, to be willing to work with them to see if the work that has been done could be utilised for the good of the club and of the Trust?

Thanks

Gareth

quote:

Originally posted by MikePrice:
Nigel - Thanks for the answers on my previous points. Following on from that, can I ask

Is it not possible to say who is threatening to issue an injunction? Surely that is not subject to legal restrictions. (I hope) that all parties are all anxious to clear the matter up on Tuesday, and whichever way the votes go, allow the Trust and the club to move forward without this cloud hanging over them. Whoever is threatening legal action is putting the chances of a satisfactory solution at risk and potentially damaging the club/the Trust or both. Without full and complete information there is at leats a suspicion that the party (parties) concerned wish for whatever reason to see the relationships between Trust Board, members and the club damaged futher. I do hope this is not the case

Is it not possible to publish some of the promised documentation with perhaps offending paragraphs removed, with a note saying that they have been removed following legal advice? Without any other information I am afraid ordinary members such as myself have only gossip and rumours on which to base a decision.

Do you know whether what is said on Tuesday will also be subject to potential legal action or will we be able to hold an open and free debate?

Thanks - Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Bridg4d_Pie_:
Nigel far be it from me to add more fuel to the current fire, God knows it is burning well enough with the fuel being added currently.
Would it be possible for you to answer one question for me please.

Why is it that when Stuart Rolley posts on the Trust Forum it shows one & all that he is " Trust Chair", I was under the impression it was his brother Glenn who was the "Trust Chairman" & that Stuart was a Trust Board Member currently suspended. Would you please clarify the situation please.

Every Thing Forward & Trust in The Lord.

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart Rolley:
Nigel could you please confirm that neither John Armstrong Holmes nor Eric Kerry were party to the threatened legal injunction.

If they were and then published their own statement of evidence surely that would be unconstitutional and contrary to the spirit of the Trust rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart Rolley:
So Nigel, having been subject to a threatened injunction from "a third Party" stopping release of supporting documentation to members ahead of the SGM; do you consider it fair, equitable and democratic that the persons subject to the SGM proposals can use the Club website and database of season ticket holders to publish their views and justification?

As you know who the third party is as well as I do, how do you manage to reconcile this with an open accountable Trust run by the fans for the fans?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:
Unfortunately we cannot, on advice, answer any questions relating to the identity of the 3rd Party.