joem
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 131
|
Post by joem on Sept 11, 2023 21:11:41 GMT
I agree, Echo chamber is the greatest phrase
|
|
joem
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 131
|
Post by joem on Sept 11, 2023 21:12:15 GMT
I feel we should have farce threads more often
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 21:18:16 GMT
why the reluctance to agree that a binding vote on these proposals is the correct thing to do a constant refusal to agree to such a vote will tell its own story
|
|
|
Post by hunnsmererook on Sept 11, 2023 21:22:19 GMT
Perhaps someone can clarify for me? From what I can ascertain, Lewes Community Football Club Limited (FCA Mutuals Society Register Society No 30988R) IP030988 is the ultimate parent for two subsidiaries Lewes 2000 FC Ltd (Company no 03790979), and Lewes FC Women Ltd (Company No 11169355). I assume that the holding company has ultimate ownership of all facilities and assets and from what I have read that Lewes 2000 FC focuses on the men’s team and Lewes FC Women focus on the women. If this is the case - if a third party wishes to purchase part of a subsidiary how does/will that be allowed to affect the continued operations of other subsidiary and the assets of the holding company?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 21:25:33 GMT
no one said it would be binding either so the issue remains up in the air....as for club rules i suspect they can be alterered at any time without informing members/fans £££££££££££ mmm
|
|
doc
Sussex County Division Three
Posts: 60
|
Post by doc on Sept 11, 2023 22:22:16 GMT
If this can be construed as a 'takeover,' then I believe the Articles do precisely require that. The directors can make decisions about the running of the club, but not to unilaterally change from an ownership model to selling a controlling stake. That would fly in the face of numerous other Articles and be akin to the board of a Building Society selling to Barclays without a vote of the members. I assume this explains the careful words used (apart from the 'huge' faux pas) and the denial that this is a takeover. Are the board saying that selling a controlling stake in the womens' team is not a 'takeover' because it is separate from the holding company? If so, as asked above, does that mean that Mercury have no interest whatsoever in the land, the name of the club, its intellectual property etc, because otherwise I'm not sure I see the separation. It would be useful if the board could refer to the specific Articles and the law as they understand it with regards this.
|
|
doc
Sussex County Division Three
Posts: 60
|
Post by doc on Sept 11, 2023 22:26:23 GMT
Not sure how I mangled the quote but Stu had said:
....the club rules do not require us to have a vote or that a vote is automatically accepted.
|
|
dicksmith
Sussex County Division One
COYR
Posts: 298
|
Post by dicksmith on Sept 12, 2023 3:08:49 GMT
...as for club rules i suspect they can be alterered at any time without informing members/fans £££££££££££ mmm Why in the world would you say that? You can check the by-laws of the club to see the actual. Are you suggesting here that the board is going to be gaining money personally by the possible action? If you, are, and that seem apparent, you haven't been paying attention. You can grind your personal axes and fantasies all you want, but personal attacks on the Director's motives are certainly off base!
|
|
Jane R
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jane R on Sept 12, 2023 5:52:29 GMT
I find it odd how anyone can be simultaneously concerned that it’s already a done deal and that it can’t be done because the board aren’t allowed to do that. Because there should be a consultation. Because it isn’t a done deal. Or that anyone can choose to believe the Chinese whispers of the media, off the back of the new party’s accidental press release, who we also don’t trust, over what the club have directly told supporters exclusively. In a structured consultation meeting. Which isn’t real though. Because it’s a done deal. Supposedly. “Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true” - Homer Simpson It really doesn't help the "it isn't a done deal" when that's what M13 are saying still as a company and individually on LinkedIn..... which I know is posh boys Facebook. Perhaps if they stopped assuming people may have more trust.
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 12, 2023 6:22:35 GMT
If this can be construed as a 'takeover,' then I believe the Articles do precisely require that. The directors can make decisions about the running of the club, but not to unilaterally change from an ownership model to selling a controlling stake. That would fly in the face of numerous other Articles and be akin to the board of a Building Society selling to Barclays without a vote of the members. I assume this explains the careful words used (apart from the 'huge' faux pas) and the denial that this is a takeover. Are the board saying that selling a controlling stake in the womens' team is not a 'takeover' because it is separate from the holding company? If so, as asked above, does that mean that Mercury have no interest whatsoever in the land, the name of the club, its intellectual property etc, because otherwise I'm not sure I see the separation. It would be useful if the board could refer to the specific Articles and the law as they understand it with regards this. All of the intellectual property and legal agreements are held in the topco (the community owned benefit society). That includes the club name, badge and lease on the Pan. None of that will change if the investment goes ahead.
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 12, 2023 6:40:10 GMT
I find it odd how anyone can be simultaneously concerned that it’s already a done deal and that it can’t be done because the board aren’t allowed to do that. Because there should be a consultation. Because it isn’t a done deal. Or that anyone can choose to believe the Chinese whispers of the media, off the back of the new party’s accidental press release, who we also don’t trust, over what the club have directly told supporters exclusively. In a structured consultation meeting. Which isn’t real though. Because it’s a done deal. Supposedly. “Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true” - Homer Simpson It really doesn't help the "it isn't a done deal" when that's what M13 are saying still as a company and individually on LinkedIn..... which I know is posh boys Facebook. Perhaps if they stopped assuming people may have more trust. As a company on LinkedIn their bio states their intention to acquire controlling stakes in professional women’s football teams. It doesn’t say takeover of clubs, nor does it mention Lewes specifically. I’m not sure how that description is any different to the proposed investment? We (and they) know some of the articles out there are wrong and misleading but that’s the nature of how the media works.
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 12, 2023 6:42:42 GMT
no one said it would be binding either so the issue remains up in the air....as for club rules i suspect they can be alterered at any time without informing members/fans £££££££££££ mmm Perhaps it may be worth doing some research yourself on the rules and how they can be changed. I’m sure you’ll recall the previous owner consultation in the wording and amendment to the rules and what that meant?
|
|
joem
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 131
|
Post by joem on Sept 12, 2023 7:26:29 GMT
I find it odd how anyone can be simultaneously concerned that it’s already a done deal and that it can’t be done because the board aren’t allowed to do that. Because there should be a consultation. Because it isn’t a done deal. Or that anyone can choose to believe the Chinese whispers of the media, off the back of the new party’s accidental press release, who we also don’t trust, over what the club have directly told supporters exclusively. In a structured consultation meeting. Which isn’t real though. Because it’s a done deal. Supposedly. “Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true” - Homer Simpson It really doesn't help the "it isn't a done deal" when that's what M13 are saying still as a company and individually on LinkedIn..... which I know is posh boys Facebook. Perhaps if they stopped assuming people may have more trust. I agree with this point though, the language being used has not been helpful or fair to anyone. Even within an individual article they’ll flip between saying it’s done and that it’s ongoing. My point being we are in a privileged position of getting our information straight from the source, why some people choose not to believe that is a reflection on themselves imo
|
|
robm99
Isthmian South
Posts: 649
|
Post by robm99 on Sept 12, 2023 8:45:53 GMT
One point I'm still not sure about. M13 are proposing "investing" in a 51% share of Lewes Ladies. They expect a return - that's what investors do. OK, no problem with that concept. Therefore, if there's a profit of (just to keep numbers easy) of £100,000 in a financial year, does M13 get £51,000 and Lewes Ladies FC £49,000 ?
Now, remembering "equality is a rising tide that lifts all boats", would half of that i.e. £24,500 go to the men's company or Lewes CFC Ltd? It's all very complicated! And that's the problem, not many of us fans understand the technicalities of it.
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 12, 2023 8:55:55 GMT
One of the key values of the club is transparency. No club at our level publishes in-depth, audited accounts. Very few clubs hold monthly town halls, even fewer clubs will engage in a polite and patient way with fans on social media and forums.
If someone ever wants to ask me or any of the directors or staff a question, they can. Our contact details are on the website and we stand on the terraces at home and away games.
So, you can believe what a journalist writes, who has a remit to be liberal with the truth as long as it gets clicks (which then leads to more advertising revenue for his employer) or you can believe those who consistently front up to the questions and give open and honest answers in the face of abuse, provocation and at times, to put it mildly, misdirected and misaligned “suggestions”
|
|