EGM is set for 17th October

[Diggerthedog]

Mike has contacted me to say that he has asked Tamplin for a comment on this rumour for Diggerdagger.com. Tamplin has said that it is untrue and that he wants more, not less, people coming to the club. Mike will write it up next week, as he's just getting on a plane.

What has this got to do with Tamplin? It's no secret that the East consortium have no time for the current regime (not including Tamplin). Tamplin accused all those sitting at the back of the TBS of abusing his son which turned out to be lies but sure lets now believe everything that comes out of his mouth he probably knows nothing about this matter. I hope if Tamplin does get in the Easts stay, they a great people.

Surely they could have called the AGM earlier dragging this out for another 3 weeks is going to be excruciating.

[Alan]

There is a legal requirement to give 21days notice of the meeting.

As to what's it got to do with Tamplin, I am told that he's going on record on behalf of his consortium as saying members of the rival consortium won't be banned if his consortium wins. That's the end of this argument, isn't it?

[Diggerthedog]

There is a legal requirement to give 21days notice of the meeting.

As to what's it got to do with Tamplin, I am told that he's going on record on behalf of his consortium as saying members of the rival consortium won't be banned if his consortium wins. That's the end of this argument, isn't it?

Thanks for confirming about the 21 day.

But it's not him saying they are not welcome if they lost out is it, It's The North Korean lot. some strange names on that consortium.

[Alan]

If I were Thommo, I would be pissed off at people who wanted me sacked, and don't get me wrong, in any industry outside of football he would have been sacked for getting us here and for his behaviour towards supporters - but isn't the thing to take from this that Tamplin is saying that it won't be happening, so even if Thommo wanted it, he ain't getting it?

[diggerdagger1]

Surely we don't have to wait for Mike? The allegation mr tamplin is that you have told members of the east/Goodwin consortium that should they lose the vote they will no longer be welcome at the club. You have apparently also indicated that the easts would also lose there presidents positions. So you are denying this and say the allegations are untrue. As you love texting and emailing why don't you contact the individuals concerned and tell them that they have nothing to worry about. Then somebody could post these texts or emails on this forum for all to see? Go on mr tamplin the ball is in your court and your response is awaited with interest.

[diggerdagger1]

Alan......your help please? The letter sent to members states only a majority vote is needed not 75 per cent is that allowed?

[Alan]

Perhaps the Easts should make a statement about it instead of this? Then Tamplin will be forced to respond. They have been remarkably quiet of late, after the very proactive start that their consortium made with the media.

[Alan]

Alan......your help please? The letter sent to members states only a majority vote is needed not 75 per cent is that allowed?

Think that's correct. Nothing in the club's constitution that requires a special resolution and I cannot see any requirement for a special resolution in the companies act - I am not a corporate lawyer though!

[Auntie Merge]

All the documents sent to the members can be currently found here. With exception of the proxy form, for obvious reasons.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dqllafhdc8rq ... QZ75a?dl=0


I've a few initial thoughts, but I'd be interested to see what others think.

[Alan]

All the documents sent to the members can be currently found here. With exception of the proxy form, for obvious reasons.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dqllafhdc8rq ... QZ75a?dl=0


I've a few initial thoughts, but I'd be interested to see what others think.

Looking at it objectively, the Tamplin bid is superior. It is more money up front, more money overall and he is guaranteeing the sums he is investing. Flip side is that three directors who got us to this position are involved in getting us out, although one might argue they are doing so with their own cash.

I just don't think the East's consortium have enough money to compete and they've not tried to sell their bid to explain why less is more.

[diggerdagger1]

Alan.....I drink in the upstairs bar after matches. The easts come out of the boardroom and chat to supporters. They have told us on more then one occasion that mr tamplin has told them that should they lose rhey are no longer welcome at the club. So I do not believe the easts need to comment further. You implied that after speaking to Mike that mr tamplin is denying this. All I said was why do we need to wait for Mike. As mr tamplin loves texting and emailing all he needs to do is either email or text the easts and put a copy of that communication on the forum. Surely that is not unreasonable Alan? Imo mr tamplin cannot lose as if he does this people will start saying another untruth by the anti tamplin mob

[Alan]

This is playground behaviour - if they are saying he said it, they should make a statement and confront him asking for assurances that they will not be banned. They could send someone to Time FM again? Or make a statement on here if they maintain they are under threat of a ban? Why are they not doing that? I dare say Mike will ask the Easts for comment when he gets back from holiday to write the article.

[Auntie Merge]

All the documents sent to the members can be currently found here. With exception of the proxy form, for obvious reasons.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dqllafhdc8rq ... QZ75a?dl=0


I've a few initial thoughts, but I'd be interested to see what others think.

Looking at it objectively, the Tamplin bid is superior. It is more money up front, more money overall and he is guaranteeing the sums he is investing. Flip side is that three directors who got us to this position are involved in getting us out, although one might argue they are doing so with their own cash.

I just don't think the East's consortium have enough money to compete and they've not tried to sell their bid to explain why less is more.

Is that really an objective view?
I have only looked in part through some of the offers

On paper the Tamplin offer is more cash but

1. The money is a personal guarantee from Tamplin v the Easts offer being guaranteed by the bank
2. There appears to be nothing in the Tamplin offer to stop him buying other people's shares and gaining overall control of the club
3. The initial £600,000 is 'less costs' - whose costs? One sides?
Both sides? How much are these costs?
4. Several people in the Tamplin offer are people who got us into this mess in the first place

There are more holes in Tamplin's offer than in a pack of polos.
Yet all people seem to be swayed by is the cash figures bandied around.

[Alan]

A personal guarantee is a guarantee against his assets. So if he doesn't pay, his house or any other assets could be sold to pay the debt.

There is nothing in the Easts' offer to stop the Easts selling their shares to anyone they choose - including Tamplin.

I would assume the costs club's of the transaction.

Agree re the people who got us into the mess.