United?

[tchereford]

Nov 15, 2024 21:35:46 GMT ST Andrew said:

171 ain't a landslide. So there lies the problem.

Hopefully you'll at some point beaware that a landslide in a vote doesn't refer to the total number of votes, but to the way in which they have voted.

[tchereford]

Nov 15, 2024 17:39:59 GMT Barney still in B-Block said:

Bottom line is, unless I’ve misunderstood the A of A’s, is that a small number of wealthy people will decide if the club is return to United.

While obviously not exclusively the case, wealthy people will generally make decisions to best suit themselves personally, or best suit their business interests.
Five men bought a train set, it remains their train set, they can call it what they want. No matter how excited the talking shop around said train set might get.

I’d prefer, while absolutely understanding the nays, a return to United. I suspect I’ll be disappointed.

Except the biggest single owner of the trainset is HUST at 50%, but yes it does seem as though the other shareholders will hold the cards and that does seem incredibly unjust.

[Barney still in B-Block]

Nov 15, 2024 21:35:46 GMT ST Andrew said:

171 ain't a landslide. So there lies the problem.

With respect, it's a considerable majority in favour of 'United'. 

For sure, there may be a few who the process has somehow passed by, but I would offer that the significant majority of those who cared enough either way to vote, have done so. 

Add in the offer by the change vote  to  fund the whole process, then if the owners say no, they will be doing so because it's what they, against a majority view, wish for.

[tchereford]

Nov 16, 2024 0:07:17 GMT Barney still in B-Block said:

Nov 15, 2024 21:35:46 GMT ST Andrew said:

171 ain't a landslide. So there lies the problem.

With respect, it's a considerable majority in favour of 'United'. 

For sure, there may be a few who the process has somehow passed by, but I would offer that the significant majority of those who cared enough either way to vote, have done so. 

Add in the offer by the change vote  to  fund the whole process, then if the owners say no, they will be doing so because it's what they, against a majority view, wish for.

Hear hear. Sadly I think already this is shining a great big light on the intentions of those running the club and how flawed it's inception may have been.

It was always to be HUFC again, until it wasn't. Now be quiet and pay us £20 on the door every week.

[PAD]

Nov 16, 2024 0:07:17 GMT Barney still in B-Block said:

Nov 15, 2024 21:35:46 GMT ST Andrew said:

171 ain't a landslide. So there lies the problem.

With respect, it's a considerable majority in favour of 'United'. 

For sure, there may be a few who the process has somehow passed by, but I would offer that the significant majority of those who cared enough either way to vote, have done so. 

Add in the offer by the change vote  to  fund the whole process, then if the owners say no, they will be doing so because it's what they, against a majority view, wish for.

This is it! The original Benefactors (their choice of name, not mine) hold all the cards and their A of A dictates, and restricts, the future of their club.

They had an overwhelming vote to do this. We all ( vast majority, sadly including me) voted for it.

These original folk with their 50K each donations, and any subsequent funding such as the much lauded matching of fans offerings for the squad builder this year, have total control over everything this club can do or achieve.

The A of A are much more restrictive in allowing any further investment in Hereford (small fc) and are significantly more important to address than a decisive (I'd rather be united but would be happy without the FC horse shite) bun fight.

If the Bennies had any integrity then they would at least want to discuss these issues, but they no doubt see this differently.

[ST Andrew]

Nov 15, 2024 22:19:59 GMT tchereford said:

Nov 15, 2024 21:35:46 GMT ST Andrew said:

171 ain't a landslide. So there lies the problem.

Hopefully you'll at some point beaware that a landslide in a vote doesn't refer to the total number of votes, but to the way in which they have voted.

I suggest you look at the No votes the Abstentions and those that couldn't be bothered. The outcome is very obvious.

[White Lightning]

Nov 16, 2024 7:32:22 GMT ST Andrew said:

Nov 15, 2024 22:19:59 GMT tchereford said:

Hopefully you'll at some point beaware that a landslide in a vote doesn't refer to the total number of votes, but to the way in which they have voted.

I suggest you look at the No votes the Abstentions and those that couldn't be bothered. The outcome is very obvious.

On that basis almost every vote ever hasn't counted.

[sortitoutwebbbull]

Nov 16, 2024 3:26:03 GMT PAD said:

Nov 16, 2024 0:07:17 GMT Barney still in B-Block said:

With respect, it's a considerable majority in favour of 'United'. 

For sure, there may be a few who the process has somehow passed by, but I would offer that the significant majority of those who cared enough either way to vote, have done so. 

Add in the offer by the change vote  to  fund the whole process, then if the owners say no, they will be doing so because it's what they, against a majority view, wish for.

This is it! The original Benefactors (their choice of name, not mine) hold all the cards and their A of A dictates, and restricts, the future of their club.

They had an overwhelming vote to do this. We all ( vast majority, sadly including me) voted for it.

These original folk with their 50K each donations, and any subsequent funding such as the much lauded matching of fans offerings for the squad builder this year, have total control over everything this club can do or achieve.

The A of A are much more restrictive in allowing any further investment in Hereford (small fc) and are significantly more important to address than a decisive (I'd rather be united but would be happy without the FC horse shite) bun fight.

If the Bennies had any integrity then they would at least want to discuss these issues, but they no doubt see this differently.

May I therefore, and respectfully asked you why you voted for it – there were several discerning voices at the Welsh Club “that evening” pleading with the audience to be extremely cautious about voting in, and subsequently agreeing the A’s of A as it/they could lead to future, potential “issues” – they had a point.

[PAD]

Because at the time I didn't fully comprehend how restrictive the A and A were. It seemed like the only option (and probably was in reality) to get back to ES. I also know/knew one of the Bennies reasonably well and didn't forsee the amount of input/control they would maintain behind the scenes for the relatively small amount of cash (for wealthy folk) each put in.

IIRC the vote was massivly in favour at the time and would probably be so again if it was done now, given the limited options.

I don't think the Bennies are inherently a bad thing, but its clear that the set up is a hinderence to further investment going forward.

I also didn't forsee the FC being made as big a part of the club as it is.

[Incognito]

Had the A of A's been published when the Welsh Club vote was taken?

[colebridgebull]

From memory either not, or at the very last minute. Whatever, there was no time for them to be properly considered before the vote.

The eventual fall out played no little part in the demise of Bulls Banter

[White Lightning]

Nov 16, 2024 12:44:11 GMT colebridgebull said:

From memory either not, or at the very last minute. Whatever, there was no time for them to be properly considered before the vote.

The eventual fall out played no little part in the demise of Bulls Banter

We need to start up a BBBB campaign.