Possible legal challenge confirmed

[Valiant Haze]

So we come back to the fact that we could be left with the club in limbo and then this will be the fault of the people pushing to remove the board.

 

What is the point of having a battle when all we are actually causing damage to the overall thing that we are all meant to be protecting. That goes for both sides and I do worry that what ever happens on Wednesday or maybe over the months following we are going to see a split club.

 

Lets be honest, V2001 stay in power and fail - people will say "told you so". Mo take power and Vale fail, he sells the ground, ruins the club - V2001 say "told you so". This bickering is going to be never ending and it seems like we have so many groups now founded doing different things against the club, you do wonder if we will ever get the focus back onto good things for the club.

 

All the many groups you mention, share one belief - that PVFC would be a better place without the current directors steering the ship.

 

The point of the battle is to remove those who have previously appeared, but have now proven, that the will have to leave their positions kicking and screaming.

 

The damage being done to the club is by those 5 men. If the majority of shareholders want them gone, then why don't they just go ?

[saintvaliant]

So we come back to the fact that we could be left with the club in limbo and then this will be the fault of the people pushing to remove the board.

 

What is the point of having a battle when all we are actually causing damage to the overall thing that we are all meant to be protecting. That goes for both sides and I do worry that what ever happens on Wednesday or maybe over the months following we are going to see a split club.

 

 

I would argue that if the majority want change, which seems likely, the fault will lie in the minority holding the majority back from pressing ahead.

 

After all, isn't PVFC 'For Us All'? As Legal Beagle has said, actions speak louder than words.

 

If there is a challenge to it than goes against the wishes of the majority then I'm afraid the fault will not lie at the feet of those seeking change.

[markymark]

Talk of legal loopholes and challenges is disgraceful - no other word for it.

 

Strange quote from someone in law. If everyone felt the same then you wouldn't have a job.

 

Are you also saying LB that you would not suggest a legal challenge if V2001 won the vote and you could find a loophole to exploit?

 

I think this is a case of pot calling kettle

[werstayinup]

It does state in the letter originally sent out to shareholders by the club that if the special resolution isn't passed then the election of an interim board would not go ahead as they would be unable to take up their positions.

 

It's nothing new.

 

What would happen then,if they are all voted off?

[Loggerheads Sage]

From Bennett's quotes, it looks to me like he's trying to muddy the waters a little by confusing the Companies Act with the Articles of Association.

 

The club's articles stipulate that there need to be four directors in place, however the legal minimum is two.

 

Well Mark Simms has got Broxaps sponsorship and Mike Thompstone is exempt from the £50k rule as he was previously a Director - so there are 2. I don't think Bratt/Jackson will take legal actions That would mean showing there true colours - ie it is personnal and all about them and they do not have PVFC's best interests at heart. I don't think they would dare. I think it is a last desperate bluff to try and make shareholders think again. No chance Bratt!! For us all eh Bill. Shall not be getting my ST until they are definatly gone mind.:(

[tisdeano]

Strange quote from someone in law. If everyone felt the same then you wouldn't have a job.

 

Are you also saying LB that you would not suggest a legal challenge if V2001 won the vote and you could find a loophole to exploit?

 

I think this is a case of pot calling kettle

 

your morale compass is way off the mark,

 

if the majority of share holders want change, the board should facilitate this

 

get some morals

[markymark]

Dear Markymark,

 

Do you not agree the board represent the shareholders, and that if the shareholders vote in a certain way that the board has a moral and legal obligation to respect and accept that decision?

 

The bickering to which you refer only occurs if the board DO NOT accept the decision of the shareholders.

 

It is not about both sides - it is simply about the board not accepting the decision of the majority.

 

Regards

 

LB you know though that this will not go away and the first sign of failure and some people will be throwing it all back. You will see the comments of the claims made before the take over and then the comments like "what if we had left v2001 in charge?".

 

Personally I have reached the point where I just want it settled one way or the other - fairly that is. I really worry about the impact this will all have on the teams performance on the pitch.

[Guest TommyMac]

So we come back to the fact that we could be left with the club in limbo and then this will be the fault of the people pushing to remove the board.

 

What is the point of having a battle when all we are actually causing damage to the overall thing that we are all meant to be protecting. That goes for both sides and I do worry that what ever happens on Wednesday or maybe over the months following we are going to see a split club.

 

Lets be honest, V2001 stay in power and fail - people will say "told you so". Mo take power and Vale fail, he sells the ground, ruins the club - V2001 say "told you so". This bickering is going to be never ending and it seems like we have so many groups now founded doing different things against the club, you do wonder if we will ever get the focus back onto good things for the club.

 

How many more times? Mo Chaudry has NO intention of selling the ground. He doesn't own it. It makes NO commercial sense for him to sell the ground. The ground is held by the council as surety against a £2m loan. There is just as much chance of Peter Jackson selling the ground.

 

I despair, I really do.

[CAVALIER]

Who is paying? I would suggest that given the solicitor is jacksons then the cost will be off set against his companies and then we will pay him back as fans. I honestly see this turning nasty. All due process has been followed and if they don't move aside then the majority won't be happy. I can see not 1500 protesting but 4000. Once more than fans are treated like ****.

[Loggerheads Sage]

Jean regardless of the rights and wrongs this board are proving to be just as evil as some of us have claimed and have been vilified for saying it.

Surely now even the most sympathetic of fans must see that Bratt, Jackson & Oliver are just as bad as the likes of myself have laid claim. Personally I can't tell you about the level of contempt that I hold this Vile lot in. In my book they are acting in a dispicable manner.

 

Correct my long lost cousin! They are worse than Billy Bell, he at least owned the club and he did the right thing at the end. (as well as givng us some bliddy good times)

[TheLegalBeagle]

Strange quote from someone in law. If everyone felt the same then you wouldn't have a job.

 

Are you also saying LB that you would not suggest a legal challenge if V2001 won the vote and you could find a loophole to exploit?

 

I think this is a case of pot calling kettle

 

Dear Markymark,

 

I note you have not answered my question.

 

I will however show you the courtesy of answering your question.

 

If we lose the vote we will walk away - that is and has always been our position, and you will not find any statement or press release to the contrary. Without the backing of the fans there is simply no point.

 

No contradiction and so please do not presume to speak for me.

 

I would still be grateful for your response to my question.

 

Regards.

[werstayinup]

LB you know though that this will not go away and the first sign of failure and some people will be throwing it all back. You will see the comments of the claims made before the take over and then the comments like "what if we had left v2001 in charge?".

 

Personally I have reached the point where I just want it settled one way or the other - fairly that is. I really worry about the impact this will all have on the teams performance on the pitch.

 

This is again the boards fault for allowing it to drag on for so long imo:yes:

[Jinkin John Jeffers]

LB you know though that this will not go away and the first sign of failure and some people will be throwing it all back. You will see the comments of the claims made before the take over and then the comments like "what if we had left v2001 in charge?".

 

Personally I have reached the point where I just want it settled one way or the other - fairly that is. I really worry about the impact this will all have on the teams performance on the pitch.

 

That is exactly how the board should think, for the good of the club.

[markymark]

Dear Markymark,

 

I note you have not answered my question.

 

I will however show you the courtesy of answering your question.

 

If we lose the vote we will walk away - that is and has always been our position, and you will not find any statement or press release to the contrary. Without the backing of the fans there is simply no point.

 

No contradiction and so please do not presume to speak for me.

 

I would still be grateful for your response to my question.

 

Regards.

 

LB I thought I answered your question in the post underneath. However I will go back and check.

[werstayinup]

I beg all fans who can get there Wednesday to turn up and protest outside the ground