New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[RobertT]

Ok, do you (the Trust) think that a convicted criminal should be involved with the club at board level.

Hopefully you would say a definitive No, if that is the case you should be telling Clem & Rob in no uncertain terms that he should be nowhere near the club.

The fact that you (the Trust) haven’t done that publicly would suggest you are either happy with it, or are trying not to rock the boat.

This is something I can get onboard with.  Nothing about Zav Austin suggests he should be anywhere near the club.  I couldn't give a flying fuck if he helped Clem out.  Clear the decks.  Clem can have him on speed dial as a personal sounding board if he likes, but the Trust should have no issue saying it's just not appropriate for a convicted money launderer, of millions in drug money, to be anywhere near the place, regardless of how long ago.  Especially when a) trying to present an image of being under new ownership and b) when it is fucking clear the EFL will not sanction it.  Can someone fuck up his driveway? (not being serious, honest).

[RobertT]

In fact, can't the membership force the issue?  Also call for clarity on Chris Kiely's role with the club - require a full response to the question, something that can then be fact checked against.  He may be a top bloke for all I know, but it's just another game of shadows that looks bad.

[Oaksey Moonraker]

I'm not so sure you can claim Clem paid anything when it comes to the stadium deal.

He is the sole owner of a business that now has a 50% stake in a Holding Co that owns a single Asset - the stadium, and will presumably be the main vehicle for development.  He paid no consideration for that.

He is also the owner of a football club that now has a 90+ year lease on a football ground for 50% of the amount they were previously paying.  That is an immediate reduction in operating expenses and an immediate re-valuation upwards of an existing asset (the current lease deal was not a long term one, was it? - certainly all but depreciated on the books).

The Balance sheet is transformed over night.

The P&L has a positive impact through no financial risk.

I'm not saying the future doesn't come without costs - the partnership has to finance development somehow.  Just that I'd be a very happy football club owner if that were the end result.

Sure, he has had to pay people their debt back, and now has that all tied up as interest free loans to the football club.  However, he's been given a much easier sell in the future than any predecessor will have had for many a year.

Clem repaid the Andrew Black debenture c. £2M which was repayable on the sale of the club or redevelopment of the ground. Given the sale by SBC stipulates redevelopment has to start within 2 years then there is a cost to the club.

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

Ok, do you (the Trust) think that a convicted criminal should be involved with the club at board level.

Hopefully you would say a definitive No, if that is the case you should be telling Clem & Rob in no uncertain terms that he should be nowhere near the club.

The fact that you (the Trust) haven’t done that publicly would suggest you are either happy with it, or are trying not to rock the boat.

I am not here posting as a spokesperson for the Trust.

However, I will say from my experience of the last 12 months of being on the board of the Trust.. Silence doesn't mean the organisation is doing or saying nothing. We are constantly listening, opinions are expressed when they need to be in audiences that need to be expressed to and the boat is rocked when it needs to be rocked. That said, it's important to remember that the Trust does not own the club or have the authority to dictate how the Club should be run.

The Trust's purpose is to give the fans a voice to those that run the club and protect the longevity of the Club - this hasn't changed and this remains our core focus at all costs.

[Riddick]

In fact, can't the membership force the issue?  Also call for clarity on Chris Kiely's role with the club - require a full response to the question, something that can then be fact checked against.  He may be a top bloke for all I know, but it's just another game of shadows that looks bad.

My understanding is he was the one who recommended/appointed Sandro. So fuck that guy.

[Steak supper]

" That said, it's important to remember that the Trust does not own the club or have the authority to dictate how the Club should be run. " 

That is the nub of it really. 

[Nemo]

That said, it's important to remember that the Trust does not own the club or have the authority to dictate how the Club should be run.

I sympathise with this, but assuming that the advisory board is the main vehicle for Trust:Club communication (at least that isn't to do with the CGJV) then it'd be good to see a bit of "Trust Commentary" or similar in addition to the minutes the club puts out.

For example, in last month's Zav question, which I think was put by the Trust and was something like "What is the situation with Zav's fit and proper person test?", the club minutes just said "Under legal discussion" or similar. I'd like to see the Trust at least acknowledge that to be not a particularly satisfactory answer - and even if we can't push it immediately, stress that it's a situation the fans would like to see resolved one way or another as soon as possible.

As at the moment the minutes stand alone with no comment from any other parties, it kinda looks like the Trust is happy with the answers given - which I imagine is not exactly the case in some instances.

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

I sympathise with this, but assuming that the advisory board is the main vehicle for Trust:Club communication (at least that isn't to do with the CGJV) then it'd be good to see a bit of "Trust Commentary" or similar in addition to the minutes the club puts out.

For example, in last month's Zav question, which I think was put by the Trust and was something like "What is the situation with Zav's fit and proper person test?", the club minutes just said "Under legal discussion" or similar. I'd like to see the Trust at least acknowledge that to be not a particularly satisfactory answer - and even if we can't push it immediately, stress that it's a situation the fans would like to see resolved one way or another as soon as possible.

As at the moment the minutes stand alone with no comment from any other parties, it kinda looks like the Trust is happy with the answers given - which I imagine is not exactly the case in some instances.

I can sympathise with the optics of it all and it's great feedback so I will be sure to raise it at the next Trust board meeting to discuss.

[RobertT]

Clem repaid the Andrew Black debenture c. £2M which was repayable on the sale of the club or redevelopment of the ground. Given the sale by SBC stipulates redevelopment has to start within 2 years then there is a cost to the club.

Which begs more questions - if it was indeed tied to Ground development, then did Clem come out of this a winner as well?  did he negotiate a settlement which would be less than that owed to Black (or whoever it was sold to by Power), knowing full well ink was due on the paper of a deal forcing development soon?  Winner on both sides - asset for free, less debt owed.  No idea - I'd certainly try it if I was the owner.

Again, I'm not pushing this as some sort of anti-Clem narrative, it's just interesting info that maybe shed's some light on why a person may have gone down the road he did.  it's not as easy as saying he's never making any money from this and did it for love.  It may also explain why some of the operational stuff has looked so absent of functioning people.  So long as we don't get relegated and you maintain the Revenue where it is, he's done a pretty good job of getting a business ready for a flip without going nuts on the expenses.  He is still owed all the money after all, he did not write it off.

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

Clem repaid the Andrew Black debenture c. £2M which was repayable on the sale of the club or redevelopment of the ground. Given the sale by SBC stipulates redevelopment has to start within 2 years then there is a cost to the club.

The debentures amount is not accurate but regardless, if it is you want to think about it from the debenture aspect for the Club to acquire 50% of an asset worth £2.3m (£1.15m), a debentures debt at £2m settled has cost more than the asset gained on the debentures alone... Of course, there is potential to increase the value of the asset with the redevelopment but ultimately, that's just more investment into the club.

[Posh Red]

I am not here posting as a spokesperson for the Trust.

However, I will say from my experience of the last 12 months of being on the board of the Trust.. Silence doesn't mean the organisation is doing or saying nothing. We are constantly listening, opinions are expressed when they need to be in audiences that need to be expressed to and the boat is rocked when it needs to be rocked. That said, it's important to remember that the Trust does not own the club or have the authority to dictate how the Club should be run.

The Trust's purpose is to give the fans a voice to those that run the club and protect the longevity of the Club - this hasn't changed and this remains our core focus at all costs.

I get that the Trust can’t make the decision to remove Zav, only Clem can do that, but by not being publicly clear about your position it “could” be viewed that you are happy with his involvement, even if you’re not.

Im not trying to be critical of the Trust, I think in the main part you all do an excellent job, just trying to highlight some of the difficulties of being openly critical of the club’s decisions.

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

I get that the Trust can’t make the decision to remove Zav, only Clem can do that, but by not being publicly clear about your position it “could” be viewed that you are happy with his involvement, even if you’re not.

Im not trying to be critical of the Trust, I think in the main part you all do an excellent job, just trying to highlight some of the difficulties of being openly critical of the club’s decisions.

Totally hear you Posh Red.

[Posh Red]

The debentures amount is not accurate but regardless, if it is you want to think about it from the debenture aspect for the Club to acquire 50% of an asset worth £2.3m (£1.15m), a debentures debt at £2m settled has cost more than the asset gained on the debentures alone... Of course, there is potential to increase the value of the asset with the redevelopment but ultimately, that's just more investment into the club.

I’m led to believe that Clem was keen to fund 50% of the purchase, but by using the Eady Trust money that meant the club (and not Clem) owns it.

I don’t know if you can confirm, but if so was that the case?

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

I’m led to believe that Clem was keen to fund 50% of the purchase, but by using the Eady Trust money that meant the club (and not Clem) owns it.

I don’t know if you can confirm, but if so was that the case?

No idea on Clem being keen to fund the 50% of the purchase but the Eady Trust funding means the ground is owned by the Club, meaning when/ if the club is sold - the 50% ownership in the CGJV is also sold meaning no owner can keep hold of the asset once they sell the club. There are also mechanisms in place to prevent transfer of the Club's 50% share of the ground without the consent of the CGJV board, which then avoids the situation occurring without the Trust and fans knowing about it too.

[Posh Red]

No idea on Clem being keen to fund the 50% of the purchase but the Eady Trust funding means the ground is owned by the Club, meaning when/ if the club is sold - the 50% ownership in the CGJV is also sold meaning no owner can keep hold of the asset once they sell the club. There are also mechanisms in place to prevent transfer of the Club's 50% share of the ground without the consent of the CGJV board, which then avoids the situation occurring without the Trust and fans knowing about it too.

Cheers 👍