Fenty vote - 82% in favour

Quoted from Harlem mariner

Quoted from Wrawby_Mariner

Don't know what you find funny .. Finding an alternative should be a job for every fan . Especially ones against the share proposal

Quoted from voice of reason

Whoa... it's fook all to do with us non trust members remember...

Quoted from lancspontooner

This seems the ideal result for the moaners on here. Most knew that the Trust would have a majority voting "Yes" so the Trust Board, Trust Members and Fenty could be criticised in equal measure without the worry that funding might disappear this season. The club could then go on funding new players (Soares and Winn) in an attempt to get out of this god-forsaken division but the moaners would still have the moral high ground claiming that 82% of voters had been duped and apparently they are "cretins".

I voted late on to hear the arguments and I voted "Yes". I don't know the Trust Board members and I don't know Fenty. I know that Fenty's debts make our club an unattractive proposition to potential investors and I have been very critical of his decisions and communications to fans as Chairman. However, I do think he's a fan and I'm certain that there is no-one else likely to fund this club until the end of next season. I also think that next season is the most critical season we face as I think we'll fall short this year. So, as the least worst option, I'll give my support to the Trust Board to negotiate with Fenty and hopefully help to keep my club afloat. If he doesn't negotiate properly or the Trust Board aren't up to it I'd either withdraw my support for the Trust - or even put myself forward to get more involved. I wouldn't snipe on the sidelines/messageboards.

So carry on moaning on here and then you will have the satisfaction to be able to say "I told you so" next season if it doesn't work out. Alternatively you could join the Trust and give it a proper mandate to represent the fans. Rant over.  

Quoted from marinette

The majority vote holds sway, and that's fair enough.  In one sense, it's a relief that we don't have to worry about the club folding just yet, even though the crisis has merely been delayed, and not sorted out for good.

The only other person in recent years who appears to have been willing to put a decent amount of cash into the club has been Mike Parker. I'm still struggling to understand why there was a need to put that clause in the agreement about not wanting Mike Parker to be sold any more shares, when in the same breath Mr Fenty is bemoaning the fact that there is nobody else to share the financial burden.  Surely if Mr Parker were to get any more shares he would have to pay for them, and therefore bring much needed money into the club?

I am led to believe that Mike Parker allegedly doesn't want anything more to do with the running of the club, and also that he is unlikely to offer any more money.  That's fair enough, and I'm sure he'll have his reasons.  But if that is genuinely the case, why are we effectively banning him from buying any more shares - when he isn't going to buy any anyway!!!   Is there any purpose to that clause in the agreement, other than to make it sound slightly hostile, slightly offensive and slightly humiliating to Mike Parker?

Quoted from Harlem mariner

Good post

Quoted from cod.gtfc

It would have been a good post except where has this vote stopped Parker from buying any more shares? The proposal was to stop Parker from gifting any more of his shares to the trust therefore stopping the same thing happening again, not stopping Parker buying any more shares.

Quoted from marinette

Ah yes, I got that wrong - my apologies.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure that naming Mike Parker personally like that shows the club in a very good light, especially as Mike Parker has made a substantial financial contribution to GTFC in the not-too distant past.  If I suddenly found myself with a big pot of money, I'm not sure I would want to give it to an organisation that treated its investors in such a way - it almost seems as if MP is being blacklisted.