excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:53 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

It does but had we received shares for our donations for the past 8 years as we had done up to that point, that percentage would now be higher making the Trust a more significant investor. I also see his willingness to continue this as a good test of Huw Jenkins intentions towards the Trust.

I am more concerned with the owner after Huw than I am with the current take over, the Trust needs to be in the strongest position possible at the time and having a larger shareholding will strengthen that position.

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 12:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:53 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

It does but had we received shares for our donations for the past 8 years as we had done up to that point, that percentage would now be higher making the Trust a more significant investor. I also see his willingness to continue this as a good test of Huw Jenkins intentions towards the Trust.

I am more concerned with the owner after Huw than I am with the current take over, the Trust needs to be in the strongest position possible at the time and having a larger shareholding will strengthen that position.

If I remember correctly, at he meeting Colin Everett stated that Huw Jenkins had agreed to give 'first refusal' to the Trust if he wanted to sell his shares. I'm less sure about this but I think Colin said that was in the Share Transfer Agreement.

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:03 am I am a supporter of the Trust and it's future. The Trust at the AGM has called for Trust Members views on how they think the Trust should operate in the future. Some months ago, I prepared my own view. Yesterday, as a courtesy and in advance of general publication, I forwarded it to Colin Everett , as a contribution to the debate, I am now setting it out below. Please remember, it is a contribution to the debate. Other Trust members will not agree with some of it or indeed all of it. Some, might also say that some of the points below are for the AFC only. I don't believe that is the case. That is because, firstly, we are still part owners of the AFC and secondly, if we are "important partners" that must allow us to make important contributions to how the AFC is run. So, here is my contribution to what I hope will be a constructive and effective Trust members debate over the next few months.

1. As a matter of urgency, establishing the Trust's legal status as a Community Benefit Society.

Why? The correct legal format of the Trust is vital. If it cannot exist as a matter of law as a CBS then it has no legal status as a CBS. So, it can't enter contracts, it can't hold shares, it can't bring legal proceedings, it can't defend itself against legal proceedings, etc, etc. If that status isn't viable we must find another one.

2. Working in a two-way partnership with the AFC to support directly and indirectly the Vision and aims of both bodies.

Why? Although both bodies may work in different ways to achieve it, they both want the same outcome: a successful Newport County AFC.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

4. Widening the fan base

Why? We should make the support of the AFC more inclusive of all communities in the area. Both because we should be an 'all communities' Club and Trust and it brings in more money to the AFC via the turnstiles and merchandise sales.

5. Encouraging membership of the Trust.

Why? Because it is important in it's partnership with the AFC that a single body, the Trust, is seen to be the unique voice of strength of the majority of the fan base. Further, the more Trust income that can be generated, the easier it is for the aims of the Trust to be achieved.

6. Encouraging the development of an AFC team in women's league football.

Why? Women's football is growing both in terms of player participation and spectator attendance. Without women's football, the Club is absent in a a growing part of the game and risks being criticised as exclusionary.

7. Building up a long term capital reserve.

Why? In case the Trust needed to take back the AFC at some point or there was an 'emergency call' for funds from the AFC.

8. Helping the professionalisation of the AFC and the Trust's 'business' models.

Why: Because the AFC and the Trust may not have all the answers or may not even have all the questions on how to make a better, more successful and more sustainable business model, both individually and as partners.

9.Reinforcing the administration and governance of the trust including the appointment of a Trust Secretary, who is not also a Director of the Trust.

Why? To ensure that the interests of the members through the proper implementation of the Trust Rules and Policies are independently advocated and, when they are not, members are made aware of this by someone, the Trust Secretary who represents their interests and not the Board's.

10. Drawing up a financial strategy for the Trust's Funds that supports the aims of the Trust and is responsive to the needs and actions of our partner and is managed on the Trusts behalf by a Financial Officer and is subject to rigorous audit.

Why: We need to plan where the Trust's money is going both in terms of what we want the money spent on and when we don't want to spend the money. This may mean the stopping of an automatic allocation of money to the AFC.

Jonesy3 wrote:

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:03 am I am a supporter of the Trust and it's future. The Trust at the AGM has called for Trust Members views on how they think the Trust should operate in the future. Some months ago, I prepared my own view. Yesterday, as a courtesy and in advance of general publication, I forwarded it to Colin Everett , as a contribution to the debate, I am now setting it out below. Please remember, it is a contribution to the debate. Other Trust members will not agree with some of it or indeed all of it. Some, might also say that some of the points below are for the AFC only. I don't believe that is the case. That is because, firstly, we are still part owners of the AFC and secondly, if we are "important partners" that must allow us to make important contributions to how the AFC is run. So, here is my contribution to what I hope will be a constructive and effective Trust members debate over the next few months.

1. As a matter of urgency, establishing the Trust's legal status as a Community Benefit Society.

Why? The correct legal format of the Trust is vital. If it cannot exist as a matter of law as a CBS then it has no legal status as a CBS. So, it can't enter contracts, it can't hold shares, it can't bring legal proceedings, it can't defend itself against legal proceedings, etc, etc. If that status isn't viable we must find another one.

2. Working in a two-way partnership with the AFC to support directly and indirectly the Vision and aims of both bodies.

Why? Although both bodies may work in different ways to achieve it, they both want the same outcome: a successful Newport County AFC.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

4. Widening the fan base

Why? We should make the support of the AFC more inclusive of all communities in the area. Both because we should be an 'all communities' Club and Trust and it brings in more money to the AFC via the turnstiles and merchandise sales.

5. Encouraging membership of the Trust.

Why? Because it is important in it's partnership with the AFC that a single body, the Trust, is seen to be the unique voice of strength of the majority of the fan base. Further, the more Trust income that can be generated, the easier it is for the aims of the Trust to be achieved.

6. Encouraging the development of an AFC team in women's league football.

Why? Women's football is growing both in terms of player participation and spectator attendance. Without women's football, the Club is absent in a a growing part of the game and risks being criticised as exclusionary.

7. Building up a long term capital reserve.

Why? In case the Trust needed to take back the AFC at some point or there was an 'emergency call' for funds from the AFC.

8. Helping the professionalisation of the AFC and the Trust's 'business' models.

Why: Because the AFC and the Trust may not have all the answers or may not even have all the questions on how to make a better, more successful and more sustainable business model, both individually and as partners.

9.Reinforcing the administration and governance of the trust including the appointment of a Trust Secretary, who is not also a Director of the Trust.

Why? To ensure that the interests of the members through the proper implementation of the Trust Rules and Policies are independently advocated and, when they are not, members are made aware of this by someone, the Trust Secretary who represents their interests and not the Board's.

10. Drawing up a financial strategy for the Trust's Funds that supports the aims of the Trust and is responsive to the needs and actions of our partner and is managed on the Trusts behalf by a Financial Officer and is subject to rigorous audit.

Why: We need to plan where the Trust's money is going both in terms of what we want the money spent on and when we don't want to spend the money. This may mean the stopping of an automatic allocation of money to the AFC.

I think this is a good set of aims for a relaunched Trust.

Points 3 & 6, though, are matters for the football club and its new owner rather than the Trust. There needs to be a demarcation between the two.

Football operations & administration is not something the Trust should be involved with, in my view.

I cancelled my Trust membership as soon as Huw Jenkins’ bid was approved. My family will continue to be season ticket purchasers as we have for the last 12 years, but it will take root and branch reform of the Trust to convince us to return.

That’ll include no involvement from any of the current Trust directors.

I hope people like you will stand for election, Chris.

Jonesy3 wrote: January 27th, 2024, 12:52 pm

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:03 am I am a supporter of the Trust and it's future. The Trust at the AGM has called for Trust Members views on how they think the Trust should operate in the future. Some months ago, I prepared my own view. Yesterday, as a courtesy and in advance of general publication, I forwarded it to Colin Everett , as a contribution to the debate, I am now setting it out below. Please remember, it is a contribution to the debate. Other Trust members will not agree with some of it or indeed all of it. Some, might also say that some of the points below are for the AFC only. I don't believe that is the case. That is because, firstly, we are still part owners of the AFC and secondly, if we are "important partners" that must allow us to make important contributions to how the AFC is run. So, here is my contribution to what I hope will be a constructive and effective Trust members debate over the next few months.

1. As a matter of urgency, establishing the Trust's legal status as a Community Benefit Society.

Why? The correct legal format of the Trust is vital. If it cannot exist as a matter of law as a CBS then it has no legal status as a CBS. So, it can't enter contracts, it can't hold shares, it can't bring legal proceedings, it can't defend itself against legal proceedings, etc, etc. If that status isn't viable we must find another one.

2. Working in a two-way partnership with the AFC to support directly and indirectly the Vision and aims of both bodies.

Why? Although both bodies may work in different ways to achieve it, they both want the same outcome: a successful Newport County AFC.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

4. Widening the fan base

Why? We should make the support of the AFC more inclusive of all communities in the area. Both because we should be an 'all communities' Club and Trust and it brings in more money to the AFC via the turnstiles and merchandise sales.

5. Encouraging membership of the Trust.

Why? Because it is important in it's partnership with the AFC that a single body, the Trust, is seen to be the unique voice of strength of the majority of the fan base. Further, the more Trust income that can be generated, the easier it is for the aims of the Trust to be achieved.

6. Encouraging the development of an AFC team in women's league football.

Why? Women's football is growing both in terms of player participation and spectator attendance. Without women's football, the Club is absent in a a growing part of the game and risks being criticised as exclusionary.

7. Building up a long term capital reserve.

Why? In case the Trust needed to take back the AFC at some point or there was an 'emergency call' for funds from the AFC.

8. Helping the professionalisation of the AFC and the Trust's 'business' models.

Why: Because the AFC and the Trust may not have all the answers or may not even have all the questions on how to make a better, more successful and more sustainable business model, both individually and as partners.

9.Reinforcing the administration and governance of the trust including the appointment of a Trust Secretary, who is not also a Director of the Trust.

Why? To ensure that the interests of the members through the proper implementation of the Trust Rules and Policies are independently advocated and, when they are not, members are made aware of this by someone, the Trust Secretary who represents their interests and not the Board's.

10. Drawing up a financial strategy for the Trust's Funds that supports the aims of the Trust and is responsive to the needs and actions of our partner and is managed on the Trusts behalf by a Financial Officer and is subject to rigorous audit.

Why: We need to plan where the Trust's money is going both in terms of what we want the money spent on and when we don't want to spend the money. This may mean the stopping of an automatic allocation of money to the AFC.

I think this is a good set of aims for a relaunched Trust.

Points 3 & 6, though, are matters for the football club and its new owner rather than the Trust. There needs to be a demarcation between the two.

Football operations & administration is not something the Trust should be involved with, in my view.

I cancelled my Trust membership as soon as Huw Jenkins’ bid was approved. My family will continue to be season ticket purchasers as we have for the last 12 years, but it will take root and branch reform of the Trust to convince us to return.

That’ll include no involvement from any of the current Trust directors.

I hope people like you will stand for election, Chris.

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 12:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:53 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

It does but had we received shares for our donations for the past 8 years as we had done up to that point, that percentage would now be higher making the Trust a more significant investor. I also see his willingness to continue this as a good test of Huw Jenkins intentions towards the Trust.

I am more concerned with the owner after Huw than I am with the current take over, the Trust needs to be in the strongest position possible at the time and having a larger shareholding will strengthen that position.

If I remember correctly, at he meeting Colin Everett stated that Huw Jenkins had agreed to give 'first refusal' to the Trust if he wanted to sell his shares. I'm less sure about this but I think Colin said that was in the Share Transfer Agreement.

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 7:50 pm

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 12:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:53 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

It does but had we received shares for our donations for the past 8 years as we had done up to that point, that percentage would now be higher making the Trust a more significant investor. I also see his willingness to continue this as a good test of Huw Jenkins intentions towards the Trust.

I am more concerned with the owner after Huw than I am with the current take over, the Trust needs to be in the strongest position possible at the time and having a larger shareholding will strengthen that position.

If I remember correctly, at he meeting Colin Everett stated that Huw Jenkins had agreed to give 'first refusal' to the Trust if he wanted to sell his shares. I'm less sure about this but I think Colin said that was in the Share Transfer Agreement.

I assume that Huw would set the price?

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 7:50 pm

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 12:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:53 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

It does but had we received shares for our donations for the past 8 years as we had done up to that point, that percentage would now be higher making the Trust a more significant investor. I also see his willingness to continue this as a good test of Huw Jenkins intentions towards the Trust.

I am more concerned with the owner after Huw than I am with the current take over, the Trust needs to be in the strongest position possible at the time and having a larger shareholding will strengthen that position.

If I remember correctly, at he meeting Colin Everett stated that Huw Jenkins had agreed to give 'first refusal' to the Trust if he wanted to sell his shares. I'm less sure about this but I think Colin said that was in the Share Transfer Agreement.

I assume that Huw would set the price?

Well, as the seller, that is very likely to be the case. However, the seller's price is determined by the buyer's ability to pay. But we don't know the exact terms of the Share Transfer Agreement. It could be that the Trust has first refusal provided it matches a third party offer.

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:13 pm

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:13 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 7:50 pm

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 12:31 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:53 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:46 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 11:26 am

Chris Davis wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:53 am

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:52 am Some interesting ideas to start the ball rolling. I'm not being critical, but I'm unsure about number 3.

3. Improving the Academy status.

Why? Because this may (A) improve the playing resources of the AFC and (B) provide greater income from sales of the best players whilst maintaining a production line of talented players, including attracting better academy level players and better loanees .

I would prefer to see that side of things firmly in the remit and responsibility of the AFC.

I put this in because as investors in the AFC, it could be amongst our best investment decisions. I also thought that it might not be a top priority for expenditure in the AFC, so Hj might appreciate some dedicated Trust support. I also believe that a lot of Trust members support the idea of Trust money being used to support the Academy.

In my view, we will only be investors in AFC if we return to the position before the Trust took control of receiving AFC shares in return for our donations.

I have no idea why this principle was dropped and as far as I am aware, it was done without consultation with members. I believe this was a big mistake and it may prove difficult to revert which will be a good test of the ongoing relationship.

The Trust owns 27% of the AFC' shareholding. For me, that makes the Trust a significant investor.

It does but had we received shares for our donations for the past 8 years as we had done up to that point, that percentage would now be higher making the Trust a more significant investor. I also see his willingness to continue this as a good test of Huw Jenkins intentions towards the Trust.

I am more concerned with the owner after Huw than I am with the current take over, the Trust needs to be in the strongest position possible at the time and having a larger shareholding will strengthen that position.

If I remember correctly, at he meeting Colin Everett stated that Huw Jenkins had agreed to give 'first refusal' to the Trust if he wanted to sell his shares. I'm less sure about this but I think Colin said that was in the Share Transfer Agreement.

I assume that Huw would set the price?

Well, as the seller, that is very likely to be the case. However, the seller's price is determined by the buyer's ability to pay. But we don't know the exact terms of the Share Transfer Agreement. It could be that the Trust has first refusal provided it matches a third party offer.

It could also be matching a share price offer.

If the third party offered £30 per share, it would need to buy HJ's 52% of shares to take control.

Eventually the trust might own close to 48%, so could only require 4% of shares from HJ.

The actual amount necessary could have also be agreed as a claw back clause, due to the share transfer agreement being at nil value.