Over the past week, the Trust has been endeavouring to collate documents for circulation to members that support or oppose the motions to be voted upon at the SGM on 28th April.

However the existence of a shareholders' agreement between the shareholders of the Club, which as you know includes the Trust, is making it extremely difficult to compile information for circulation that both (a) makes the case for and against the motions but (b) does not breach the shareholders' agreement.

It has been made very clear to the Trust that if documents are circulated that breach the shareholders' agreement, an injunction will be sought by a third party to remove the documents from circulation and prevent the discussion of their contents at the SGM on 28th April.

Our own advisers have advised us that if an injunction is sought, there is a good chance that it would be granted. The Trust is not simply paying too much heed to groundless threats.

If such an injunction is obtained, the chances of this matter being resolved to the respective parties' satisfaction would be considerably reduced. The Trust would also be obliged to pay the legal costs relating to the injunction, which could easily exceed £10,000

Any injunction would also either be enforceable against the members of CAN, or would oblige the Trust to enforce it against members of CAN. This means that the legal and financial implications could also be severe for them.

In the circumstances we ask you to bear with us, we are doing everything we can to find a way out of the current predicament.

Thank you for the update Nigel but the only way that we can draw our own conclusions on this are to have knowledge of the relevant information contained in the shareholders agreement.

As we are all shareholders in the trust that holds the majority of the club shares is there any reason why this cannot be published?

I also think we have a right to know who the third party is who is threatening this action, as this would again be action against the trust and it's members ----us!!!!!!

Paul, we deeply regret this situation. I'm afraid its not possible for any party to disclose the agreements contents. Also our legal advice is that we cant answer your other question either, I'm sorry. Had we been able to we would have put this information in our original message.

This raises a number of concerns.

Why was an agreement entered into which prevents the Trust Board from acting properly on behalf of their members?

When and who set up this agreement and what are it's terms and conditions (an outline will do)?

An injunction has not yet been sought. If it is I agree that the Trust should not spend £10,000 upwards fighting this, however why not try and move forward in trying to publish this information - if an injunction is sought the Trust is under no obligation to fight it. At least it might reveal who has information they wish to hide from Trust members, and should cost nothing. At present their is no need for anyone to seek an injunction, through your actions (or lack of them) you have effectively stopped any information from reaching those to whom you are supposedly responsible, without this 3rd party having to take any action.

Why has it taken until this time to realise that you may not be able to publish information because of possble legal difficulties? Has the Shareholders Agreement come as a sudden shock to you? Was no-one on the Trust Board aware of it and it's consequences before now?

You must be aware that many people are waiting for this in order to come to a decsion about which way to vote. You must also be aware that by waiting until this late to issue this statement that you are severely restricting peoples opportunity to make informed decisions. Was this through choice, incompetence, oversight or some other reason?

As this matter goes on it increasingly seems to me that some individuals/groups of individuals have lost sight of the fact that the Trust Board exists solely to serve it's members. I am trying hard to maintain an open mind and make decisions based on fact. At present I seem to be being forced into a situation where I make a decision based on an emotional response based on the impression that

a) The Trust Board appears to be trying to hide information from me (and other ordinary Trust members).

b) The Trust Board apears to have lost sight that it exists to serve it's members interest and only it's members interest.

Nigel, and you said that the trust hasn't been hijacked. It has and it has also been bound, gagged and has a gun pointing at it now!

Do you still not agree?

Did JAH admit to destroying other people's mail in your presence -yes or no?

Mike,

The Shareholders Agreement was created when Blenhiem 1862 was formed to save the club from Administration in 2003. Its common for companies with more than one shareholder to have them. Broadly speaking a Shareholders Agreement regulates the relationship between the company and its shareholders.

The £10,000 costs we refer to are the likely costs to be incurred if the injunction were to be served. The costs would be a lot more if the Trust were to fight it.

The Trust Board do not want to hide anything from members. We wanted to publish this information for the SGM and were within hours of doing so. We have spent today trying without success to find a way round the problem. This has stopped information from all parties being distributed.

We are aware that members were waiting for this information. It was our intention that they should have it.

We are committed to the SGM process and have been working night and day to organise it and make sure it happens in the interests of members.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul_B:
Nigel, and you said that the trust hasn't been hijacked. It has and it has also been bound, gagged and has a gun pointing at it now!

Do you still not agree?

Did JAH admit to destroying other people's mail in your presence -yes or no?

Paul,
The Trust has not been hijacked. This threat of legal action is a big blow, but there will still be the meeting on Tuesday and all issues can be debated. If we can publish anything in the mean time we will.

I am being repeatedly questioned, yes or no, but it is in members’ interests that full information be provided. John and Eric will make their defence on Tuesday. Their statements would have been sent out by now if we had been able.

I'm only going to say this once. The Trust Board believe that John has done nothing illegal and has acted in the best interests of Notts County at all times in his handling of the investment interest. We are pleased to note that he had said today that correspondence has been continuing on this matter.

Nigel how the hell can you maintain this charade when you know who the "third party" is?

"Third parties" threatening injunctions to stop trust members being given information on people they elected.

You must be so very proud!

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:

I'm only going to say this once. The Trust Board believe that John has done nothing illegal and has acted in the best interests of Notts County at all times in his handling of the investment interest. We are pleased to note that he had said today that correspondence has been continuing on this matter.

The trust board "believe" that JAH has done nothing wrong! So not quite sure then?

So should we suspend the meeting so all the facts are together, I presume its Roy Parker who is the third party, can't he come out with a statement? if it is him why can't he say? wish everyone could just sit round a table and thrash all this out in the boardroom, I'm no politician but needs sorting out for the good of the club.