Lisburnranger

There have been no promises made as far as I'm aware. He has indicated that he is keen on supporter representation/ownership and we quoted it in a recent statement. Personally I would like him to say it publicly. He's had and will continue to have plenty of opportunities to do this. Again in my personal opinion he needs to give fans something to back. As far as I can see there is no indication of his plans or even who will run the club if the executives are voted off

Don't really want to get into an argument over Paul Murray but in the interests of furthering this thread, the link below is a profile of the man. http://investing.bus...e=Telesen, Inc. Not a CV of course but I'd imagine it would be nigh on impossible for most people to provide a proper CV for Murray or Stockbridge Similar detail for Stockbridge http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=212470151&ticker=RFC:LN

He's a good goalkeeper and deserves to Fulham's number 1

It's really sad when you look at it. I long for the day I can go back to just moaning or worrying about events on the pitch. I better make it clear, I asked the question about the court case when I was gathering information regarding resolutions 9 and 10 for Thursdays meeting

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a corporate lawyer and I asked his opinion. It was heavily caveated with "based on the information available", but he was of the impression that Murray and co would be successful. A key point here is that there will be much that we haven't heard so far. I only hope the AGM goes ahead as planned regardless of the outcome

I'm feeling the love here guys, much appreciated. On a serious note, I strongly believe that fan ownership is the only way we can secure the long term security of our club. Despite our differences we all have one major thing in common and that is a desire to see our team become successful and sustainable again. As an organisation, the RST has obstacles to overcome in order to grow to a size that will give us a realistic opportunity to achieve our goals. We are always looking to improve as an organisation. I implore anyone who believes in fan ownership, but dislikes the RST for whatever reason, join and change it from within. We have made massive strides in the last 12 months and want to keep that improvement going.

We could go round in circles all day and never agree, so we'll probably need to wait and see. Since I always like to have the last word, a clear statement would have said - The Annual General Meeting of the Company will, therefore, proceed on October 24 2013

Why thank you kind sir

Re. the parts you highlighted. 1. That is one of the reasons they are in court and why I said they had a maximum of 5% 2. Again as per my previous post they tried to have the AGM delayed before the case was heard but failed 3. The petitioners agree, but they only account for between 0.71% and 5.03% of the shareholders. They are saying that they are happy, but they don't speak for the other shareholders. There is an assumption there that there are no other objections. I hope that assumption is correct This place would go mental if it was suggested that Paul Murray was removing shareholders' rights to 21 days consideration of the resolutions which is what would happen if that ruling was binding on all shareholders

At the court of session on 3rd October the requisitionists petitioned to have the agm postponed while their claim was heard as their was a risk they may not have been able to get a court hearing before 24th. The judge refused that request but has scheduled the hearing for tomorrow. Murray and co. told the court that they were happy to go ahead on the 24th if they were successful and they wouldn't invoke their right of 21 days to consider the resolution. That affects them only. Their requisition represents at most just over 5% of the shareholding. Any other shareholder who is not part of that group can invoke their own right of 21 days to consider the resolutions. Neither the board nor the court can revoke that fundamental right of a shareholder. I hope it does go ahead on the 24th because I believe the sooner this is all put to bed one way or another, then our club can move on. For anyone to suggest that it will definitely go ahead on the 24th October, is simply wrong. Nobody can make that guarantee at this stage

He's right about the AGM date. Murray and co may be happy to go ahead as planned but if any resolutions are added or changed, it takes 1 shareholder to demand a clear 21 days and the AGM must be delayed. The court is there to apply the law and the companies act is explicitly clear on this

I think she was banned over the weekend but I am also near certain that when she stated that, she believed it 100%

It was decided at the board meeting that whoever went had to have a solid business background and experience of dealing with financials.

I can honestly say hand on heart that until I turned up at the Swallow Hotel half an hour before the meeting and saw him there I didn't know he was coming. You may call me naive but we had an RST board meeting on Monday night and it was clear and unambiguous who was attending for the RST

We just left those bits out the minutes

Ah ok. Been a long couple of days

I don't understand why he quoted the post he did with the reply

?????

Drew gave his opinion. Without wanting to talk for him, I believe he was particularly unhappy at the way his comments were portrayed. I don't which comments or parts of the article in particular though. I went into the meeting without any pre conceived opinion on Craig Mather or Brian Stockbridge. They both appeared to be credible and were happy to look me in the eye when they were answering questions. That being said, we have been lied to so many times that it's difficult to trust anyone. That's more to do with what has happened before than anything Mather and Stockbridge did or said in the meeting

I was the one who succeeded the most in hiding from the camera crew.My boss didn't know I was there so was quite important

I can assure you there was no hostile attitude from anyone in the room. The meeting was conducted in a professional manner throughout and this led to constructive discussion. I'm not sure what part of the minutes give you that impression but something must be lost in translation

Yes and yes

Now the minutes are out, I can hold my hands up and say I attended the meeting. My personal opinion is that the meeting was positive and open. I'm happy to clarify points that people have. I'm still in the office though and my Mrs (no pics) is going to rip my balls off if I don't get home soon. I'll look in later on

I can only speak for the RST but we will look to receive similar full answers from the requisitionists (assuming they are successful on Monday) and give our members the information to help decide how they will vote on AGM matters