Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

[PeteUSA]

Although I freely admit to not being an expert in this area, I think you will find that, although the Trust is the majority shareholder, 75 per cent of shares are required for the Trust to have complete and unqualified control.

You mean they'd have total control over the club board; which in turn would mean a club board is no longer neccesary, which would mean that the trust could thank Tagg & Co for all they've done for us, and show em' the door?

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

You mean they'd have total control over the club board; which in turn would mean a club board is no longer neccesary, which would mean that the trust could thank Tagg & Co for all they've done for us, and show em' the door?

No. The current EFL rules (and possibly the FA too) don't allow supporters' trusts to have 100% boardroom dominance.

 

[Matt Russell]

No. The current EFL rules (and possibly the FA too) don't allow supporters' trusts to have 100% boardroom dominance.

Nirvana denied then!

 

[Terryhall]

No. The current EFL rules (and possibly the FA too) don't allow supporters' trusts to have 100% boardroom dominance.

Thats interesting Pete. One of the rights of a 50% shareholder is to have the authority to remove Directors from the board. So does the FA prevent a legitimate shareholder from exercising its statutory right in that regard?

 

[Antony Moxey]

No. The current EFL rules (and possibly the FA too) don't allow supporters' trusts to have 100% boardroom dominance.

Really? So if the Trust had a 100% shareholding in the club it couldn't appoint its own directors to fill the board? How does it work at clubs that are wholly owned by one owner - do they have to have a number of 'outsiders' on their board too and if not what's the difference between being wholly owned by an individual compared to a Trust?

Or is it perhaps that no one individual 100% owns a club and that they're all majority shareholders instead (although saying that don't the Glazer family wholly own MU?).

 

[Spoonz Red E]

You win the star prize.

Ahem... #110

 

[iscalad]

Ahem... #110

I've been very sick and poorly, so missed your answer. Still, as it was Spoonzed up, I still win (beer)

 

[LOG]

Really? So if the Trust had a 100% shareholding in the club it couldn't appoint its own directors to fill the board? How does it work at clubs that are wholly owned by one owner - do they have to have a number of 'outsiders' on their board too and if not what's the difference between being wholly owned by an individual compared to a Trust?

Or is it perhaps that no one individual 100% owns a club and that they're all majority shareholders instead (although saying that don't the Glazer family wholly own MU?).

Happy to be corrected as i'm not entirely certain but i think the rule is that not all Club Board members are allowed to also be members of the Trust Board.

 

[Spoonz Red E]

I know the difference between the 50% shareholding threshold and the 75% one, my point was more that it has been mentioned many times before but I'm not sure it has ever been explained to people who aren't in the know already and why it might be an "urgent priority".

Even saying "we can change the articles of association" - what do you think the average fan will make of that? What are articles of association? Why is it important to change them? (Or even an urgent priority).

It's back to communication - a simple explanation of what you're trying to achieve will help get buy in.

A good point Fred.

What often sounds like "I don't agree with what your doing" can really be "I don't understand why you're doing what you're doing".

 

[John William]

Ahem... #110

You didn't name them, and your knowledgeable illusion was doubtless lost on many.