UOF reply to Somers

[pmu 0]

A vicious circle of trust issues. I dont trust this board and same feelings about a number of the characters actively opposing them.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Noticed this over on FF too. People demanding to know the "truth" and you do at times wonder whether they will actually accept the truth even when it is being put in front of them. At this moment and time it seems not to matter what the CEO or Somers say, they simply "can't be trusted". Likewise people continue to demand things they won't get from this or any other board, if only because it is legally not plausible. And that in turn is used as another club by those fans. At the end of the day, only time will tell whether Wallace's and Somers' word can be trusted in respect of Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

 

There is no legal impediment that prevents the board from issuing a statement to the Stock Exchange stating that they aren't going to sell, sale and leaseback or use as security either Ibrox, Murray Park or both but feel free to prove otherwise.

 

Give one reason as to why any fan should trust any member of the board.

[Stimpy 0]

Some interesting questions for Somers to answer.

[Zappa 0]

A vicious circle of trust issues. I dont trust this board and same feelings about a number of the characters actively opposing them.

 

Not exactly a perfect circle by any means, since the fans opposing, asking questions and being critical or cynical of the board aren't the ones controlling and running the Club.

[chilledbear 16]

Keep asking the questions, well done. Hopefully they find their way on to the National media.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Noticed this over on FF too. People demanding to know the "truth" and you do at times wonder whether they will actually accept the truth even when it is being put in front of them. At this moment and time it seems not to matter what the CEO or Somers say, they simply "can't be trusted". Likewise people continue to demand things they won't get from this or any other board, if only because it is legally not plausible. And that in turn is used as another club by those fans. At the end of the day, only time will tell whether Wallace's and Somers' word can be trusted in respect of Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

 

they have lied already. time has told.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Please explain why not?

 

You are like a man that's waiting on his house to be re-possessed and holding out to the last minute for a solution

 

Methinks Brahim Hemdani has explained this a few times already. No company will enter some sort of "legal" agreement with such a vague body as "the support". In what way would it be "legally binding", for how long, according to which precedent etc.. I'm all for some sort of "binding statement" by the club not to sell or loan or secure something against Ibrox or Auchenhowie, rest assured. But at the end of the day what would actually happen if one partner (i.e. the company) falls short here? in this essentially one-way agreement. Shall they pay some amount to those they entered the agreement with? Repay the STs? Would that change anything? The only thing they will do is lose face and trust ... and that would be untowards the investors and the stockmarket first and foremost. Something they most likely fear most, given the current circumstances. But since they have at great lengths made statements already and openly about this, there is no real need for some sort of temporary legally / binding agreement, at least from their point of view.

You could obviously ask whether a Dave King owner would contemplate such an agreement either, as for him the same "rules" apply: what would happen if he does not hold true to it? Will the other party sue him for x pounds or want their ST money back? Working this out will probably cost much more than it will be worth, at least for the club. And you wonder whether the UoF et al will shoulder some of these payments too.

 

Again, I'm all for safeguarding the club's assets, if such an opportunity arises. Right now, the UoF and some others apparently want to hammer their plan through no matter what, even if it makes no sense in company law et al or has no precedent one could use. At least AFAIK.

[colinstein 294]

bottom line is, we need fan ownership................even if it's 51%

if the Bundesleigue can do it.....so can we

 

King is the only one who can start this ball rolling

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Methinks Brahim Hemdani has explained this a few times already. No company will enter some sort of "legal" agreement with such a vague body as "the support". In what way would it be "legally binding", for how long, according to which precedent etc.. I'm all for some sort of "binding statement" by the club not to sell or loan or secure something against Ibrox or Auchenhowie, rest assured. But at the end of the day what would actually happen if one partner (i.e. the company) falls short here? in this essentially one-way agreement. Shall they pay some amount to those they entered the agreement with? Repay the STs? Would that change anything? The only thing they will do is lose face and trust ... and that would be untowards the investors and the stockmarket first and foremost. Something they most likely fear most, given the current circumstances. But since they have at great lengths made statements already and openly about this, there is no real need for some sort of temporary legally / binding agreement, at least from their point of view.

You could obviously ask whether a Dave King owner would contemplate such an agreement either, as for him the same "rules" apply: what would happen if he does not hold true to it? Will the other party sue him for x pounds or want their ST money back? Working this out will probably cost much more than it will be worth, at least for the club. And you wonder whether the UoF et al will shoulder some of these payments too.

 

Again, I'm all for safeguarding the club's assets, if such an opportunity arises. Right now, the UoF and some others apparently want to hammer their plan through no matter what, even if it makes no sense in company law et al or has no precedent one could use. At least AFAIK.

 

Bh is wrong. Chelsea have safeguarded their stadium. It's perfectly possible.

[Darthter 542]

I would think that signing over right to the stadium is possible.....providing the right vehicle us in place.

 

Signing your biggest asset over to a company wholly owned by someone trying to takeover the club/company was NEVER gonna work.

 

What they could do is create a new company, that is owned jointly by the club & the membership scheme, with directors equally representing the club & fans. Ibrox could be signed over to that company.