Resolution 10i is worded rather strangely.

It starts with “The Members give the existing Trustees their full support and mandate…”

Why use the word “existing”?

At the time of the voting for 10i at the AGM, the existing Trustees will (still) be Peter Chidzey, David Williams, Dick Holland, Nigel Bruce-Robertson, Ian Aldridge, Ian Coleby, Nick Nicholls. (We believe the two Ians, although up to re-election, remain as Trustees under their previous election until the end of the AGM.)

At the end of the AGM it is quite possible that none of the seven Trustees mentioned above will remain as Trustees.

So what on earth is the point of this resolution?

We ask again – why use the word “existing”?

It may just be a poorly worded resolution.

We simply do not know what it means.

And common sense alone dictates: if you don’t understand, you don’t sign.

How does WSRA+ feel about the freehold question? Given the appropriate safeguards and mutual agreements with affected parties, the WSRA+ team would like to see the freehold held by a charity, like the WSRA, rather than a commercial company, like the Plc. But not this way…

WSRA+ suggests the wording of this resolution raises concerns and we will not give such a mandate to the “existing” Trustees.

It’s just our view, but we strongly advise members to spend extra time mulling over this one before voting.