NLV turn down a place on the board

[Sonny]

With all the spinning Leamony does I'm surprised he hasn't got twisted blood,

 

Taken from the The Sentinel;

 

But Deakin responded: "Following our meeting with NLV, we discussed the fact they couldn't meet the club's Articles of Association in terms of investment or taking financial responsibility for the position.

 

"In the interim, we offered them a seat on the board which included no sponsorship, investment or financial responsibilities, but would still allow them to represent supporters at board meetings.

 

"They asked them for time to discuss this, and we agreed to this request. Now they have sent me a note rejecting the offer, which has left me open-mouthed because I don't know what they want."

 

The key word is interim, placate SEO and then let them melt away I am beginning to despair about the club :(

[Stone Valiant]

This is why I think SEO is foolish as it hurts us fans of the football club more.

 

In my personal opinion people would be better forming an organisation, pooling money together to buy some shares and get an outright seat on the board. This way its then one "group" buying the shares and maybe if the funds allow it could even get 2 people on the board.

 

Its clear we need to break this "battle" cycle that has broken out at the moment. If we don't we have no club - by doing that in a way you could argue that the board wins (if we get back to the battle issue).

 

Although I applaud your idea, the board have already put 2 blockers in to this approach.

 

1. They prevented the ourchase of shares by Mo and Mark Simms as they were deemed known parties working together, therefore, the pooling of resources by a group to purchase shares would be blocked under the same ruling (although we know this is really fabricated to protect their position)

 

2. That is exactly what was proposed by Malcolm Hirst in order to sponsor his seat on the board with current shareholding, but they stated it had to be "new" investment - Why? what is the difference between pooling old shares or new shares in order to place a director on the board?

[Sonny]

This is why I think SEO is foolish as it hurts us fans of the football club more.

 

In my personal opinion people would be better forming an organisation, pooling money together to buy some shares and get an outright seat on the board. This way its then one "group" buying the shares and maybe if the funds allow it could even get 2 people on the board.

 

Its clear we need to break this "battle" cycle that has broken out at the moment. If we don't we have no club - by doing that in a way you could argue that the board wins (if we get back to the battle issue).

 

The board wont agree to the sale of the shares DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ?

[markymark]

If those 3 ******** left today every man and his dog would be at that first home game, I expect a crowd of 5,500, Then it will dwindle to 3,500 over xmas, Only they are to blame.

 

Why do you keep choosing to forget they lost a vote of no confidence!

 

Again your making this personal and not thinking about PVFC. I agree that they current board lack the finances to take us forward, I also don't believe Mo is the answer to the problems - but if thats the only offer on the table when we are driven to our knees, then beggars can't be choosers.

 

The truth is this battle is to blame. We have the board trenched in now and some of the anti board side slating anyone who is believed to want to invest in the club if they are proposed by the board who people seem to have personal agendas against in some cases. We either want investment or not?

[N.kent]

Again your making this personal and not thinking about PVFC. I agree that they current board lack the finances to take us forward, I also don't believe Mo is the answer to the problems - but if thats the only offer on the table when we are driven to our knees, then beggars can't be choosers.

 

The truth is this battle is to blame. We have the board trenched in now and some of the anti board side slating anyone who is believed to want to invest in the club if they are proposed by the board who people seem to have personal agendas against in some cases. We either want investment or not?

 

We need investment but it seems that the only investment we will get is if the investor is going to be a puppet to the 3 puppet masters in the boardroom.They seem to keep changing the goal posts when making decisions that concern investment and progress.

[tisdeano]

This is why I think SEO is foolish as it hurts us fans of the football club more.

 

In my personal opinion people would be better forming an organisation, pooling money together to buy some shares and get an outright seat on the board. This way its then one "group" buying the shares and maybe if the funds allow it could even get 2 people on the board.

 

Its clear we need to break this "battle" cycle that has broken out at the moment. If we don't we have no club - by doing that in a way you could argue that the board wins (if we get back to the battle issue).

 

whats more foolish

 

1) SeO who to date is responsible for none of the losses

 

2) V2001 who are to date 100% responsible for the massive debt we are now in

[ozaic]

quote from Deakin. "In the interim, we offered them a seat on the board which included no sponsorship, investment or financial responsibilities, but would still allow them to represent supporters at board meetings."

so whats the problem?

[Stone Valiant]

whats more foolish

 

1) SeO who to date is responsible for none of the losses

 

2) V2001 who are to date 100% responsible for the massive debt we are now in

 

Not quite true,

 

SEO will be responsible for about 40% of losses this season of estimated figures are anything to go by, but over the 8 years of this board being in place, they will be responsible for only about 3%, the other 97% will be down to this board!

 

However, if the 3 incumbents were to step down, that potential 40% loss by SEO could be converted into a 10% gain as people start to go back to the home games and purchase merchandise!

[fordedem]

The problem is you can't believe a word anyone at that club says anymore !!!

[Stone Valiant]

quote from Deakin. "In the interim, we offered them a seat on the board which included no sponsorship, investment or financial responsibilities, but would still allow them to represent supporters at board meetings."

so whats the problem?

 

I think the bit highlighted in bold says it all. How long do you think this board would allow that interim to be? In this very statement they confirm that there would have to "sponsorship, investment or financial responsibilities" by NLV at some point as dictated by the current board, and that it would have to be according to their terms and conditions, terms and conditions that as NLV have stated in their press release, were obvious that could not be met, thus validating the claim that the offer was "disingenuous"

[Timothius]

Again your making this personal and not thinking about PVFC. I agree that they current board lack the finances to take us forward, I also don't believe Mo is the answer to the problems - but if thats the only offer on the table when we are driven to our knees, then beggars can't be choosers.

 

The truth is this battle is to blame. We have the board trenched in now and some of the anti board side slating anyone who is believed to want to invest in the club if they are proposed by the board who people seem to have personal agendas against in some cases. We either want investment or not?

 

The board do not only lack finance they also lack;

 

1. Any business plan. You can't run a business based on hope.

2. The support of a large proportion of it's customer base, many who are now withholding custom as they are unhappy with the supplier and the product, their right, and the customer should not be blamed for the boards shortcomings.

3. The support of the majority of the shareholders, only their own shareholdings let them cling to their positions after they were all given a vote of no confidence.

4. Integrity.

5. Any idea of how to get us out of this mess.

 

You need not name investors saying they are unsuitable, because any investor wanting control or who threatens the boards positions will be deemed unsuitable. An investor who meets the boards ideals is called a donor and the record the board have on getting such donors to donate, suggests there aren't to many about.

 

The Ameriturf deal has been rightly criticised as it does not match other criteria the board have previously used against other investors. Ameriturf only wanted to sponsor the club, it is Bratt who has turned it into an equity investment with seats on the board and even you know why this is although you will, or course, not admit this.

 

Finally this is a battle and one which will go on. It is a similar battle to that

V2001 took on years ago when trying to oust bell so why should it be condemned now? Change for the good has not been achieved through all the other normal avenues so a battle it is and in war people suffer.

[Timothius]

quote from Deakin. "In the interim, we offered them a seat on the board which included no sponsorship, investment or financial responsibilities, but would still allow them to represent supporters at board meetings."

so whats the problem?

 

In the interim until Malcolm Hirst has found £50k of new money to become a director, that is the problem. Mudie never had to and neither has Adams so why should Malcolm Hirst?

[fairportnick]

Not quite true,

 

SEO will be responsible for about 40% of losses this season

 

Using that logic I blame you for Woolworths , Wedgewoods, Northern Rock, Mike Lloyd Music, and one or two car manufacturers. You cad sir.===

[Santa]

"We're trying to facilitate change and have already offered the North London Valiants the chance to nominate a second board representative.

 

"We had no compulsion to do this, but it was a gesture of sincerity and goodwill."

 

Glenn Oliver, The Sentinel, Friday June 3rd.

[Stone Valiant]

Using that logic I blame you for Woolworths , Wedgewoods, Northern Rock, Mike Lloyd Music, and one or two car manufacturers. You cad sir.===

 

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that lost revenue due to "a loss in consumer confidence in the product being sold then"

 

The customer no longer purchasing can be legitimately blamed for the incurence of losses, but the board has to be blamed for the loss of the customers in the first place leading to that loss - it's all semantics and details I guess