TOPIC: United Trust's Call for Answers

www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/la....VZU3c98peZo.twitter

Carlisle United answered the News & Star’s 10 questions on the investment mystery on Saturday – and claimed they were in talks with a billionaire. But with details still scarce, their supporters’ trust are now calling for more answers.

Q1. When will supporters be given details of the mystery investor and his/her approach?
Club’s answer: We understand the frustration of supporters but we cannot add any further detail until such time as he agrees to lift the confidential condition and we are nearer to the completion of a deal.

United Trust: As the second largest shareholder in the holding company which owns Carlisle United, the trust should be included in the confidentiality agreement, especially if the investor and club genuinely recognise the trust’s position regarding supporter representation and value the views of those supporters – no agreement can be reached without the trust’s involvement.

Q2. To what extent have discussions continued since Andrew Jenkins’ last statement on June 2?
Club: We have had two further direct contacts with the agent for the investor via conference calls since that date. On both occasions, talks have been positive and we have been trying to establish where and when everyone can get together. Holidays, illness and the investor’s business commitments have got in the way of us trying to establish a meeting which would eventually involve a visit to Carlisle. Meanwhile, they have all the financial information they requested from the club and are going through that in some detail.

Trust: Conference calls with agents do not constitute a direct contact with the investor. Billionaires aren’t usually beholden to EasyJet schedules – if they want to be somewhere, they’ll be there. We need to be around the table with the club and the investor to gauge first-hand on behalf of the supporters just how genuine, realistic and enthusiastic the individual really is and to see if that matches the current yardstick.

Further delay will impact negatively on the club’s financial position, uncertainty on the investment situation will lead to a reduction in income causing various knock-on effects.

When the trust were invited to the negotiations with Andrew Lapping, both John Nixon and Andrew Jenkins indicated that the club’s financial security was down to the chairman’s own generosity, but that this couldn’t continue. So what does the current scenario mean? Selling the very assets which could help us back to League One, such as Kyle Dempsey? Does this mean that Andrew Jenkins will continue with his bailouts to keep the club afloat for now, but thereby increasing the club’s debt at the same time?

Q3. Is there a deadline for the mystery investor to table a firm proposal – and an official timescale on the current confidentiality agreement?
Club: There is no timescale – the most important issue is to have the right outcome for the club. However, major investment like this in any football club can take some considerable amount of time to finalise.

Trust: We are heading into July and time and cash flow are critical. Had we continued with the Andrew Lapping proposal then July 1 would have seen the new regime take their seats at Brunton Park atop the wave of optimism on which we finished the season. Since then the wind of momentum has dropped and we have been left treading water in the doldrums, making do on scant rations of information. If this is a genuine proposal then the sooner it is finalised and implemented the better.

If it is neither genuine, nor in the best interests of the club then we cannot waste any more time or create any increased debt. We need the details of the investor and the deal ASAP so we can decide to either go with it, return to discussions with Andrew Lapping, or see an amalgamation of the proposals into one. If the club are unable to commit to a reasonable time scale for negotiations we risk losing the goodwill of Lapping and his consortium of local business investors; we could be left with no investors at all.

Q4. Can you confirm or deny vice-president Andy Bell’s claim that the new party is a billionaire?
Club: Information obtained from our own research indicates that this is indeed the case.

Trust: If the potential investor is indeed a billionaire, how does this square with the level of cash input required by the club? Is the fact that he is a billionaire actually relevant if the deal is supposed to mirror the Andrew Lapping proposal?

Q5. Why have the United Trust, who own 25.4 per cent of the club’s holding company, not yet been given any details of the new investor?
Club: As per the first question, we have to wait for him to end his confidential approach before more detail can be given. However, I would add that we fully recognise and respect the Trust’s key role in the infrastructure of the football club and its future.

Trust: If the club/investor respect the trust’s/supporter’s position, then why have we been shut out? Can we ask the investor to expand the confidentiality agreement to cover the trust immediately so we can examine the proposal and ascertain if it is actually in the best interests of the club/supporters? We need to see the proposal, discuss it with the investor, consider it, make a recommendation to the membership and vote on it.

Q6. Have you encouraged the new investor to seek dialogue with the Trust?
Club: The investor is aware of movements made during the past few months.

Trust: We really aren’t sure what that answer means; again, we need to be brought into the fold with immediate effect, to expedite this process, to avoid plunging the club further into debt and potentially harming the on-field potential that this season desperately needs.

Q7. Does the club believe the Trust’s vote in March to dilute their shareholding – which they insist only related to the Andrew Lapping plan – should apply in any alternative restructure, and has the club sought legal advice on this position?
Club: Any investment is likely to need share purchase options which will involve dilution of all existing shareholders.

Trust: We must view each case on its merits. After careful consideration, trust members made it clear that ‘the Andrew Lapping proposal in itself’ warranted a dilution of the trust’s and other shareholdings to secure the future for the club.

Any other proposal would require the trust to undertake the same approach. We would refer back to John Nixon’s earlier statement: “The club respects the position of the Trust and its right to negotiate its share percentage of the club with future investors.”

Q8. If discussions break down, will the club seek to re-engage with Andrew Lapping and his consortium? If not, what is Plan C?
Club: The club will actively seek to fully consider all options, as long as it results in the introduction of significant and genuine new funds to the club. This includes exploring ways in which the club can work closely with the local business community.

Trust: As we understood it the Lapping proposal was being ‘shelved’ whilst the club undertook investigations of the investor and his proposal. If it subsequently comes to nothing, then what would have changed to make us not revert back to the seemingly acceptable proposal put forward by Andrew Lapping and his consortium of almost exclusively local business people?

Q9. Was Lapping’s claim on May 19 correct that the club’s lawyers had not “fully engaged” in the process of legal and financial due diligence – and if so, why?
Club: The club lawyers were engaged with CUFC Holdings and Andrew Lapping. Work has been completed at club level for the financial and legal due diligence.

Trust: It wouldn’t be prudent to comment on this one without speaking to Andrew Lapping.

Q10. Does the club intend at this stage to proceed with new stadium scheme Project Blue Yonder until and beyond the current lock-out agreement, which we understand to end in October – and when will details be made public?
Club: The club has always looked for ways to either significantly improve the existing stadium or create a new facility. This process will go on.

Trust: We look forward to finding out more details regarding Project Blue Yonder and engaging in discussions with all relevant parties once the lockout agreement has ended.

Trust words supplied on behalf of their board by Nigel Davidson.

Well,that didn't take long.

I've had my fair share of issues with the Trust 'as ani fule kno' but this is a very good response and probably worth the wait.

Agreed, excellent responses which very strongly reflect the groundswell of opinion in the fanbase.

Hopefully the trust really hold the dynamic duo's feet firmly to the flames on this one now.

Excellent points but I'm not holding my breath for a response from Nixon

The point about the trust not being included in the confidentiality clause is something I've wondered about, even if it is just the leader of the trust that was included. At least we the supporters can trust his opinion and fully know if this billionaire exists or is what most of us think is a phantom billionaire.
Is the billionaire wanting to take over or just invest money in the club? If the later then he could have joined in with Andrew lapping's proposal.

'significant and genuine new funds'
A pop at Andrew Lapping or am i being cynical again.

Reads that way to me too Melbourne.

Very, very pleased to see this! Great responses! Now what action will be taken if this is completely ignored? Which is the most likely response from these two....

Which of course is the next 10 words.........what will people/Trust do........

cufcdeano wrote:
That's what I thought when I first read it. Nixon doesn't seem to understand that we are more likely to trust the bloke who communicates and doesn't shy away. Who comes across as the party with nothing to hide?

cufcdeano wrote:
Me too.

As the second biggest shareholder they are entitled to be in the talks. Nixon and Jenkins hold your heads in shame. Poor judgement and total nil respect for the Trust.

Am I the only one who thinks that it is utterly farcical that the only option for the Trust is to communicate with Nixon and Jenkins via the local press? Farcical on the club's part obviously. They should be actively engaging with the Trust through all this.

Don't get me wrong it's great that we get to see the correspondence out in the open and good on the Trust for publically raising these questions, but it's f*cking petulant and embarrassing that the communication has to happen this way in the first place.

With each passing day I hate these two more and more. I used to hold back on my criticism of Jenkins because of all the money he's put in (although I've always said that he wouldn't have had to if the club was run properly) but no holds barred now, he's complicit in all this and deserves as much grief as Nixon in allowing things to get this far. F*ck the both of them.

It's like when two kids fall out and aren't talking to each other so they pass messages on through a middle man. Well done, Carlisle United. F*cking embarrassing.

Politicians answers. Yes, no, and maybe, all at the same time.

I have never had any time for the trust, will never join it. But this time the trust is blameless, as a major shareholder they should indeed be involved.

But, Nixon and Jenkins will still keep on pissing in our faces and telling us its raining.

You would think that even the two incompetents would have laid siren a time limit for this mystery bidder to come forward with concrete proposals and as already stated if it is just an investment he could have joined with the Lapping bid.

Everything in the Trust's statement has been posted on here weeks ago. The local press might must as well publish a couple of threads off here. They are weeks behind, this is a start, but in my view, too little too late.

Lakelandterrier wrote:
they've total nil respect for anyone. nixons probably got nil repect for jenkins too, just see's him as a cash cow.

I didn't realise the Trust were shareholders in the holding company as I thought they only had shares in the club itself which makes their exclusion from any information even more ridiculous.

Slow response but good response none the less.

It is ridiculous that the trust as a major shareholder is out of the loop. At least a representative as mentioned earlier. It is also wrong that other board members are not included.
The arrogance of nixon to shut the others out is just incredible.

melbourneblues wrote:
When you consider that they're trying to convince us that there really is a 'genuine' second investor, the irony and hypocrisy are mind-blowing...

Dear god.
We really are run by Big Top Clowns Incorporated.
The more that comes out the more absurd and farcical it gets.

AJ, JN it's time to come clean boys....Give the game up and go back to Andrew Lapping, apologise and pray he's still interested.
Give Fred his JCB back and stop digging this hole any deeper.

If the N and S read this I'd love them to press Story for his views on this. As a very successful business man, he surely cannot condone the goings on at BP. Should feel a certain responsibility for leaving these two incharge aswell, and want to put a statement out maybe even an apology. Makes you think the conspiracy theories maybe not be theories.

Prawncrackhead wrote:
With all the land Story has aquired over the north west of the country would he really be masterminding a 10 year plan to get 1 small chunk of land on a flood plain?. In my view its highly doubtful. One thing he is guilty of however is leaving these clowns in charge.

Before we all get carried away, we must not forget the damage the Trust did to Carlisle Utd, at the time it was far more damaging than JN and AJ's current silly shenanigans.

thesilentone wrote:
Actually, you do need to forget. It's time to draw a line in the sand and move on. People like me who are trying to get involved with the Trust, re-brand it, and move it forward into something more positive and representative of the fans cannot change what happened 10 years ago. We can change what happens now though.

thesilentone wrote:
How many of those involved in that debacle are still in positions of power within the trust?
Is Mileson still pulling the strings & funding a 'back-door' takeover? (there's an obvious answer to that)

I don't think the Trust do enough but.....
So much water has gone under the bridge since that given the response released by the current Trust -the subject for this thread, I'm prepared to forgive past indiscretions if this is the new path they're following, the responses are exactly what I'd hope from them and reflect the general feeling among supporters as I see it....if they get something right, don't slate them for it.

Was behind JN in the queue at Tesco t'other day of all places.... While he was paying for his stuff I was desperate for the young cashier to take his money "shelve it" before waiting 3 hours to see if anyone else came forward with.... Well.... Money!

The whole thing stinks and I don't for one minute think it's genuine! after all didn't they say there'd be no significant investment for at least 12 months! Utter Bar stools!

cufcdeano wrote:
To be fair, I do think the Trust are trying to move on but they can say "it's time to draw a line in the sand" until their blue in the face and it doesn't mean jack to the average supporter.

How many times have you heard the Trust saying it's time to draw a line in the sand (i'm not saying you Deano, it's been said by a few at the Trust) but there's not the slightest hint of contrition never mind an apology from the people who were very much involved in the previous "issues".

I know there's talk of trying to get new blood involved but that'll never happen when there's a perception that it's the old clique. They all need to stand down and stand for re-election.

Having said all that, I think the Trust have, with this statment, pushed this as much as they possibly can and are as in the dark as the rest of us. That's perhaps more indicative of them than anything else - mistrusted by a large portion of public and viewed as irrelevant by the rest of the board.........and yet still i joined!

Armo wrote:
Many of those who were previously involved, are no longer involved - so you could be waiting a very long time for an apology - though it might not be a bad idea for the Trust to issue a statement apologising for what's occurred in the past. I mentioned a mass stand-down and re-election, but realistically that's not going to happen. There's only ~375 members at the moment. The current Trust board were voted in by those members. If you want them to re-stand for election, they'll likely be re-elected, unless there's a mass intake of new members. There are members on the Trust board who weren't involved years ago, and are doing their best, under difficult circumstances, to create change. Gradual change is happening, and hopefully that continues and starts picking up pace.

As I say, I wasn't trying to have a pop at you persoanlly.

But, off the top of my head, without checking, both Norman Steel and Al Woodcock are very much involved. They were definetly around during the time we're being asked to draw a line under. Given Norman's position now and his position then, I don't think what i'm suggesting is unreasonable.

Your probably right about the re-election and I wouldn't of had a problem if they were re-elected especially if it was by a wider base (after the ST auto sign-up) - sadly it looks like this ain't happening any time soon.

Norman is still Chairman, that's correct. Al is still involved as secretary but no longer on the board.

I know of at least 1 other board member who joined the board during the Fred Story situation, recommended by somebody heavily involved with the club, in an attempt to diffuse the situation.

Other than that, I think the majority have changed. For what it's worth, I submitted my application to join the Trust board yesterday. The AGM is at the end of the month, so I'll find out then whether I've been successful or not.

Well, I for one, will be voting for you. You've always come across as sensible and reasonable on here.

Deano,
As you know, I think you would make a difference to the Trust.
But for them to keep on asking people to draw a line in the sand is not going to happen until there is at least some kind of change with them.
To date, there has been nothing, apart from "trust us, we are changing"
Actions needed, not (untrue) words

I don't disagree with you CW - that was me asking for a line to be drawn, though I realise it's probably something they've mentioned themselves in the past. The old saying, actions speak louder than words - definitely the case here. Things will change if I'm given the chance, I promise that much.

walwynlegend wrote:
It appears walwyn ,you like many others, don`t understand the makeup of the club - CUFC Holdings ARE THE OWNERS OF THE CLUB - the TRUST are the next largest share holders in CUFC HOLDINGS after AJ and JN -therefore in anybody`s language they should be included in any major takeover/investment deal

The Board of CUFC HOLDINGS ie AJ and JN, however ,just see them as a nuisance and really don`t recognise their position as part owners of the club!! This needs to change and I`d suggest a showdown with AJ/JN to thrash this out as to why they are frozen out of everything that`s important to any new investment etc.

Prawncrackhead wrote:
They have asked for an interview which was declined by FS -mmmmmmm why?

cufcdeano wrote:

What about Trust Member number 1 Deano - look at his antics during the meeting prior to the vote to dilute the Trust`s shares, he is obviously against any change and was happy for AJ to keep financing the club and was against Lapping and probably a.n other, full stop.

His opinion counts for just as much as Trust member number 1906 (me). He voiced his opposition to AL's proposal, but was in the minority. The majority favoured the proposal, and were (still are) fully behind the change.

For those of us with long memories AS is too much of a reminder of what went wrong with the Trust - I know he isn`t involved except as a member, but something still prevents me from getting totally behind them....stupid it may seem so will work on it!!

Deano,

It is impossible to ' forgive and forget ' you know the history of our club, we have had one chance in the last two decades to move forward, this was destroyed by the Trust. I agree most of the individuals involved have moved on, but they were acting with the support of the Trust.

So, the message is loud and clear, stop talking and start doing, disband the Trust, get rid of the baggage and then,you may get rank and file support.

But please, stop asking everyone to forget, it is extremely important we do not forget.