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.
WSRA+ 
The resolution is largely pointless and does not bind anyone to do anything, nor does it give anyone authority to do anything. It is completely meaningless as far as company law is concerned. There has been a lot of ill-informed speculation by conspiracy theorists on the subject who seem to have little knowledge of the law. It is a complete red herring and the result of the ballot is irrelevant. The legal action that has started, and may well be added to shortly is far more important and it is crucial that people think before saying anything that might prejudice this. There is a very strong possibility that the AGM and EGMs will be postponed and the whole process started again. There is nothing to be gained by careless talk.
It has been stated by the WSRA that if the freehold was held by a charity this would make the property inalienable and therefore protect it from speculators. Sadly this is not the case. If such a charity got into financial trouble and had to be liquidated the assets would have be sold off to the highest bidder. Charitable status does not prevent this. In any case the SCC have made it very clear that they have no plans to sell the freehold.
Finally does anyone seriously think that the SCC would sell it to the WSRA after all the damaging recent publicity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It may be pointless but folks will still vote on it and the trustees will still make something of it, if it goes in their favour.
As for the legal action, in our view that has nothing to do with the freehold. As we understand it, the legal action is about the alleged unlawful termination of a membership and therefore has nothing to do with this topic.
Whilst we agree the freehold being held by a charity does not fully safeguard the line, it is (in our view) much less threatened than if it was owned by a commercial company faced with an income shortfall with no cash cow to call on. But that is a debate for another day, Peter.
As for SCC’s decision not to sell – well, the SCC (like all councils) is a political beast and policies, decisions, people change like the wind. Things could change overnight.
LikeLike
The motion has no legal force whatsoever so it makes not one jot of difference which way people vote. That is why I say it is a non issue and we should not be diverted from more serious issues.It has no bearing whatsoever of the freehold as it is a ploy to divert attention from elsewhere. Don’t underestimate the effect of the legal action. If Paul wins then the AGM with have to be postponed and the whole thing rerun. This might well be under the supervision of the Court. There is, AIUI, further litigation likely. It is quite possible that the Court could disqualify the 6 directors because of their actions. That is the REAL issue!
LikeLiked by 1 person
We agree with you, Peter.
LikeLike
Re what’s the point of this motion, if the existing trustees survive the AGM, approval of this would give them a strong position even if the Review comes out against freehold ownership. If they don’t survive, it would give them the validation to set up a separate freehold purchase organisation.
LikeLike
I would anticipate that a huge number of proxies will magically appear and subsequent attempts to validate them will be dodged. There are quite a few precedents in the last 12 months.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps the BBC and the Police could be asked to co-ordinate a dawn raid to seize SK’s laptop ? 🙂
LikeLike