Whatever the pros and cons of getting a member of the ST on the club board is something we should all discuss when/if the opportunity arrives. In the meantime I think everyone accepts that the club requires all the members it can get paying into the lottery.

I have signed up with a couple today so lets start getting some more signed up and see how far we can get with this.

2 more hopefully here as well.

I was impressed with MC last night. Couple of points on his view if there are 5k in the ground paying full price he would take that over 8K given the number of freebies the club were giving out so he is intent on tightening this up.

No segregation but reserving the right to introduce it if required.

No doubt he is in charge and I really got the impression he tells it as it is.

I bet the nights fly in your house!

Jinjer, we have always been talking about an investment of £100,000 for a seat on the Board even when we were investigating a share issue so the figure is not a surprise to us.

I believe Michael said last night that there are only 2 directors and they have invested a fair bit more than £100,000.

Increasing membership of Club 1873 seems to me to offer us a better chance of a seat on the Board than the share offer, even if we had managed to get around the legalities.

Essentially, the club are asking the ST to sell 1873 memberships and if they do so successfully, they'll be offered a seat on the BoD; I don't see why that's either a negative or a confusing thing - it makes perfect sense and strikes me as a typically hardnosed accountant's approach to the issue. Good on MC - it's a workaround that benefits all stakeholders.

As for the hand-wringing about representation - join the ST and be involved in the election; if you're not a member, you have no right to argue with the outcome, and if you are a member and you don't like the rep, vote for someone else next time around.

It's neither difficult to understand or especially complicated!

This is a good point.

I understand why the club would want to veto someone they wouldn't want to work with, but the Richardson regime for definite was blighted by yes men/women cozying up to the top table for personal gain and status. That can never be allowed to happen again.

Just to clarify and put it it legal speak, the club has to approve the individual put forward by the Trust but that approval cannot be unreasonably withheld. In essence the Club has to have a valid reason to veto the individual. They just cannot refuse the nomination because they feel the individual will not be a yes man or woman ot they simply don't like them.

Please accept my humble apologies on behalf of mater and pater for not "getting it on" at a time more to your suiting.

Good. I hope someone is picked who will fight our corner and ask the difficult questions if required and the demand answers. The trust rep has to have their fair say whether that fits with the club or not, especially if we are going to continue with the together we are stronger strapline.

This.

Will the ST representative be a director of the company for the period of their election?

I second your proposal to be elected, that's the spirit.

So we can assume AgentXiii is out of the running then?

Why would you want Jimmy on the trust!!!!