The valley gold committee consists of five members, the club appoint 2, 2 fans reps are appointed by the committee, and originally were supposed to only serve a short period of 2 years. The chair is also appointed by the committee, as far as I was aware they all have a vote.
This set up worked when there was a central CASC from which to draw the reps, and when fans and club were far closer. I think the rules and regs may have changed slightly recently though.
It would be difficult to change tack, and probably easier to start a new one. However you would need an organisation to handle the lottery element, there are legal issues around that, you would also lose the matchday draw I expect, and all club advertising.
You would also politicise Valley Gold or its successor, essentially whereas now it is apolitical in a sense. Is that a good thing?
In some ways it might inadvertantly be destroying something special, then again perhaps it has already been destroyed when KM declared the club no longer needed the VIP money, and sold off products of our academy for undisclosed amounts
There could be a way ahead if VG was democratised with 4 positions drawn from and voted for by its members, and club people attending in an advisory way, finances would also need to be seperated out as I think the club CFO does those.
I very much doubt the club would accept that though, and given the struggle WP had getting responses from the last two ownerships, they very much take for granted what is a major 'sponsor'. VG is a large contributor, the VIP scheme was supposed to be a loan, in which contributors received a discount on their season ticket if they paid for a number of years in advance - although for a small number they did end up paying a bit more, I dont think it amounted to anything like the VG contribution.
What may happen is membership continues to drop making it effectively defunct, and the club no longer need what it can give, and seperate off the lottery part.
In essence we may be looking at a very changed VG if current trends continue, if it survives. In some ways it it the last relic of that unique collaboration Charlton Athletic and its fans.
If many do decide to cancel there are other groups that fans can give to, not sure donating to the club under the current regime is going to be high on their agendas.
I couldn't disagree with you more Barnie. The current committee works together exceptionally well and both Paul and myself hold the club to account. The club don't have votes on donations. We're all subject to 3 year tenures, and these all started one year ago with the rules revision (primarily to reflect there is no official CASC any more). David Joyes does manage the finance but this is a benefit - it adds no value to pay someone to do it, and he's considerably better qualified than I am.
It is all subject to and compliant with the gambling act.
There's a standing agenda to which we work and the majority involves VG's staff reporting on activity. Note that among other impacts, those two people would lose their jobs if people stopped their memberships, and the scheme would collapse without them. As it happens, membership is quite healthy, although a few have dropped off citing the current issues as the reason.
I understand people's desire to protest, but this is not a club organisation and it's a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your own face.
Saw my parents last night and my Dad is urging my Mum to cancel. They signed up on day one but as my Dad says all your contribution is doing now is funding an academy where the sole aim is to produce talent to sell as soon as possible to make a quick buck. I'd hope that all that cancel now will rejoin when any takeover goes through and we have an owner that values the academy as something other than a cash cow.
I agree, that is why I am reluctant to leave it, but I don't want KM anywhere near it. She has shown total contempt to me and fellow fans and you would think being on the committee of such a scheme, she would understand that we are not just ordinary customers. These cheap lines are hurtful and disrespectful and you will be feeling this anger too I'm sure. Of course, I am but one member, but if enough others feel the same, maybe the club could head this off at the pass by replacing her with somebody like Chris Parkes, who I'm sure commands the trust of most of us. I would rather the influence is limited from the club's reps at the moment - what is the benefit of KM's influence? Can you give us a recent example?
I pay annually (stupidly) and mine does not run out until July. Will not renew if the madman and the wicked witch are still here. Am not helping to discover young talent for them to flog and make a quick profit on.
The valley gold committee consists of five members, the club appoint 2, 2 fans reps are appointed by the committee, and originally were supposed to only serve a short period of 2 years. The chair is also appointed by the committee, as far as I was aware they all have a vote.
This set up worked when there was a central CASC from which to draw the reps, and when fans and club were far closer. I think the rules and regs may have changed slightly recently though.
It would be difficult to change tack, and probably easier to start a new one. However you would need an organisation to handle the lottery element, there are legal issues around that, you would also lose the matchday draw I expect, and all club advertising.
You would also politicise Valley Gold or its successor, essentially whereas now it is apolitical in a sense. Is that a good thing?
In some ways it might inadvertantly be destroying something special, then again perhaps it has already been destroyed when KM declared the club no longer needed the VIP money, and sold off products of our academy for undisclosed amounts
There could be a way ahead if VG was democratised with 4 positions drawn from and voted for by its members, and club people attending in an advisory way, finances would also need to be seperated out as I think the club CFO does those.
I very much doubt the club would accept that though, and given the struggle WP had getting responses from the last two ownerships, they very much take for granted what is a major 'sponsor'. VG is a large contributor, the VIP scheme was supposed to be a loan, in which contributors received a discount on their season ticket if they paid for a number of years in advance - although for a small number they did end up paying a bit more, I dont think it amounted to anything like the VG contribution.
What may happen is membership continues to drop making it effectively defunct, and the club no longer need what it can give, and seperate off the lottery part.
In essence we may be looking at a very changed VG if current trends continue, if it survives. In some ways it it the last relic of that unique collaboration Charlton Athletic and its fans.
If many do decide to cancel there are other groups that fans can give to, not sure donating to the club under the current regime is going to be high on their agendas.
I couldn't disagree with you more Barnie. The current committee works together exceptionally well and both Paul and myself hold the club to account. The club don't have votes on donations. We're all subject to 2 year tenures, and these all started one year ago with the rules revision (primarily to reflect there is no official CASC any more). David Joyes does manage the finance but this is a benefit - it adds no value to pay someone to do it, and he's considerably better qualified than I am.
It is all subject to and compliant with the gambling act.
There's a standing agenda to which we work and the majority involves VG's staff reporting on activity. Note that among other impacts, those two people would lose their jobs if people stopped their memberships, and the scheme would collapse without them. As it happens, membership is quite healthy, although a few have dropped off citing the current issues as the reason.
I understand people's desire to protest, but this is not a club organisation and it's a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your own face.
Does this mean, as I suggested above, that Valley Gold can hold donations and not pass them to CAFC until they are satisfied that they will be used properly?
If the answer is yes would Valley Gold be prepared to do that?
I think the fan reps should call a meeting and propose indefinite suspension of payments to CAFC in order to protect the income, i.e. people's willingness to contribute. If everybody leaves it will cause a lot of long-term damage to the scheme, but if the money is ring-fenced for now it achieves the same object. This has been proposed before by previous committee members, I think, although I can't remember what was agreed.
If the fan reps vote for this motion then it's up to the chair, who I would regard as genuinely independent. However, if the motion falls then there should be a campaign to get everyone to cancel, which would have similar effect but with any damage the consequence of the committee's own decision.
More generally, the problem with Valley Gold is that the fan reps are effectively selected by the chair. As it is a private members' club I don't know whether this is legally robust, but the Valley Party solicitor has previously offered to investigate this issue and that could be arranged, I'm sure - however, I'm not offering any view as to their suitability in saying that. I'm pretty confident the club is not allowed to have control because it is also the main beneficiary of the lottery.
rikofold I understand what you say. A lot of fans only have a vague idea of the detail of where the money goes which might be a problem. The notion of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is true of Katrien though. We, the weird, are alienated so we can build a better tomorrow together, sounds like a nose/face situation to me. Interestingly this is about hard cash investment, such an investment comes after the spiritual investment, and it is the spiritual investment this regime is destroying.
The valley gold committee consists of five members, the club appoint 2, 2 fans reps are appointed by the committee, and originally were supposed to only serve a short period of 2 years. The chair is also appointed by the committee, as far as I was aware they all have a vote.
This set up worked when there was a central CASC from which to draw the reps, and when fans and club were far closer. I think the rules and regs may have changed slightly recently though.
It would be difficult to change tack, and probably easier to start a new one. However you would need an organisation to handle the lottery element, there are legal issues around that, you would also lose the matchday draw I expect, and all club advertising.
You would also politicise Valley Gold or its successor, essentially whereas now it is apolitical in a sense. Is that a good thing?
In some ways it might inadvertantly be destroying something special, then again perhaps it has already been destroyed when KM declared the club no longer needed the VIP money, and sold off products of our academy for undisclosed amounts
There could be a way ahead if VG was democratised with 4 positions drawn from and voted for by its members, and club people attending in an advisory way, finances would also need to be seperated out as I think the club CFO does those.
I very much doubt the club would accept that though, and given the struggle WP had getting responses from the last two ownerships, they very much take for granted what is a major 'sponsor'. VG is a large contributor, the VIP scheme was supposed to be a loan, in which contributors received a discount on their season ticket if they paid for a number of years in advance - although for a small number they did end up paying a bit more, I dont think it amounted to anything like the VG contribution.
What may happen is membership continues to drop making it effectively defunct, and the club no longer need what it can give, and seperate off the lottery part.
In essence we may be looking at a very changed VG if current trends continue, if it survives. In some ways it it the last relic of that unique collaboration Charlton Athletic and its fans.
If many do decide to cancel there are other groups that fans can give to, not sure donating to the club under the current regime is going to be high on their agendas.
I couldn't disagree with you more Barnie. The current committee works together exceptionally well and both Paul and myself hold the club to account. The club don't have votes on donations. We're all subject to 2 year tenures, and these all started one year ago with the rules revision (primarily to reflect there is no official CASC any more). David Joyes does manage the finance but this is a benefit - it adds no value to pay someone to do it, and he's considerably better qualified than I am.
It is all subject to and compliant with the gambling act.
There's a standing agenda to which we work and the majority involves VG's staff reporting on activity. Note that among other impacts, those two people would lose their jobs if people stopped their memberships, and the scheme would collapse without them. As it happens, membership is quite healthy, although a few have dropped off citing the current issues as the reason.
I understand people's desire to protest, but this is not a club organisation and it's a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your own face.
When I cancelled my DD in November I sent the following covering email to Sharron. Do you know if this sort of correspondence gets forwarded onto the committee or does Katrien just think people are leaving for unspecified reasons?
"I'm cancelling my VG membership while Roland Duchâtelet owns the club and is pursuing his apparent current strategy of turning us into a player farm with no concern for the first team's performance on the pitch.
I fully support Valley Gold and the work it does but while I'm reviewing my family's budgets I'm afraid I can't justify donating money to a billionaire's experiment. I also feel that by underinvesting in the squad we're being forced to blood the youngsters in the team at an early age and putting unfair expectations on their shoulders, which I would argue is not in the interests of their long term development.
In short, the minute Roland leaves the club, or Katrien Meire manages to explain a compelling strategy (rather than just a set of objectives without an argument regarding how we will meet them), then I will be rejoining Valley Gold and intend to continue to support it for many more years to come.
Unfortunately, until that point, I'm out.
Please be aware that this decision in no way shape or form should be considered being due to anything you or your team have or haven’t done - I think you're all great at what you do under what are I'm sure difficult circumstances and I fully support you. I don't support the current board and their "strategy" however."
Before I go any further, I'll be clear I am not a member of VG. So you might want to take anything I say with a pinch of salt anyway.
I think the idea of ring-fencing any monies is a good one. And if that can't be agreed, I'd find the notion of continuing as is quite strange. It is hard to believe that any VG members are happy with the way things are going at the moment. The money collection side of things may be all above board and I'm sure that those involved are all decent Charlton fans doing the best they can to support the club, but I can't see how it's right that the owner can sell the resulting talent after a couple of months with no recourse whatsoever. I'm not personally convinced that the damage caused by not supporting VG would be as great as carrying on regardless. In the short term, RD has very deep pockets and very short arms, but he can fund the academy to the level he desires. As for the danger of re-building the scheme when the experiment is over, is it not more dangerous to carry on in the current climate and acting as a conduit to take money out of fans' pockets in into Duchatelet's?
Saw my parents last night and my Dad is urging my Mum to cancel. They signed up on day one but as my Dad says all your contribution is doing now is funding an academy where the sole aim is to produce talent to sell as soon as possible to make a quick buck. I'd hope that all that cancel now will rejoin when any takeover goes through and we have an owner that values the academy as something other than a cash cow.
That's exactly my interpretation on what KM said.....
It's a tough one , I remember ringing up to cancel years back, no idea why and Steve Dixon ( can't remember what his job description was at the time ) ringing back and talking me out of it , maybe Kat will call to talk me out of it , yeah righto
Saw my parents last night and my Dad is urging my Mum to cancel. They signed up on day one but as my Dad says all your contribution is doing now is funding an academy where the sole aim is to produce talent to sell as soon as possible to make a quick buck. I'd hope that all that cancel now will rejoin when any takeover goes through and we have an owner that values the academy as something other than a cash cow.
That's exactly my interpretation on what KM said.....
I can't find what I was looking for, but was it not something along the lines of. "Players will come through the academy and sold on to the premiership" I think like most we understand that is how it happens, but players like Lookman are being rumoured to be moved on after half a dozen games is hardly a return on a VG investment. Surely if the owner can knock back potential VIP members based "no longer needing the money" then VG members are equally surplus to requirements. Maybe I'm wrong?
Saw my parents last night and my Dad is urging my Mum to cancel. They signed up on day one but as my Dad says all your contribution is doing now is funding an academy where the sole aim is to produce talent to sell as soon as possible to make a quick buck. I'd hope that all that cancel now will rejoin when any takeover goes through and we have an owner that values the academy as something other than a cash cow.
That's exactly my interpretation on what KM said.....
I can't find what I was looking for, but was it not something along the lines of. "Players will come through the academy and sold on to the premiership" I think like most we understand that is how it happens, but players like Lookman are being rumoured to be moved on after half a dozen games is hardly a return on a VG investment. Surely if the owner can knock back potential VIP members based "no longer needing the money" then VG members are equally surplus to requirements. Maybe I'm wrong?
It used to be a young player would come through and we would get 1-2 maybe 3 seasons out of him. Nowadays it's 20 games at a push and that isn't on, as far as I am concerned. As for Lookman, he hardly a VG product.
If I recall rightly a £50,000 VG donation was was presented to the Academy during half time at one of the last matches, Does anyone know how much money has been handed over since RD arrived. I will be writing to the committee expressing my concerns at having KM on the committee, and will await a response before deciding whether to carry on being a member.
I think the fan reps should call a meeting and propose indefinite suspension of payments to CAFC in order to protect the income, i.e. people's willingness to contribute. If everybody leaves it will cause a lot of long-term damage to the scheme, but if the money is ring-fenced for now it achieves the same object. This has been proposed before by previous committee members, I think, although I can't remember what was agreed.
If the fan reps vote for this motion then it's up to the chair, who I would regard as genuinely independent. However, if the motion falls then there should be a campaign to get everyone to cancel, which would have similar effect but with any damage the consequence of the committee's own decision.
More generally, the problem with Valley Gold is that the fan reps are effectively selected by the chair. As it is a private members' club I don't know whether this is legally robust, but the Valley Party solicitor has previously offered to investigate this issue and that could be arranged, I'm sure - however, I'm not offering any view as to their suitability in saying that. I'm pretty confident the club is not allowed to have control because it is also the main beneficiary of the lottery.
works for me ... I would rather not leave Valley Gold so if the money can be ring-fenced, that solves my dilemma.
Going to watch the youth play and develop is one of my few Charlton pleasures left. I get no joy in what is happening in all the other parts of the club. I have been a Valley Gold member since it started. I will continue to be a member for the foreseeable future. I can totally understand why people are cancelling their subscription.
After reading the rules on the links Dansk_Red supplied, I note that as members, we can demand a general meeting be held. We would need 10% of current members to have the power to call a meeting of members to discuss such business they deem necessary.
Given Airman's post about looking into withholding funds from the club but maintaining the scheme (yes I believe it was suggested previously too), perhaps this option could be considered? Do we have a member of the Management Committee who would support this move?
As 30 days notice are required, this would need to be organised quickly in order to keep those of us disaffected from cancelling and having no direct influence.
The rules don't make clear that we members can vote a withholding of funds as suggested. Would this be possible?
I must say at this point that as I am geographically remote from SE London, I would find it very hard to have much of a role in this but would help where I can.
Whatever happens, I really don't think that VG can continue as is whilst RD and KM continue on the path they are clearly determined to follow. We must send them the strongest possible message that their way is not the Charlton way and hitting them via VG would enforce that message in a way that isn't possible in too many other ways.
GENERAL MEETINGS
(a) Meetings of Members Convened by the Management Committee: The Management Committee shall have the power (but shall not be obliged to do so) to call a meeting of the Members at any time on 30 days’ notice to discuss such business as it deems necessary. Notice shall be in writing to each Member’s last notified address.
(b) Meetings of Members Convened by Members: Any group of Members representing not less than 10% in number of the then-current Members shall have the power (but shall not be obliged) to call a meeting of the Members at any time on 30 days’ notice to discuss such business as they deem necessary. Notice shall be in writing to each Member’s last notified address.
(c) Chair: The Chair shall preside at any such meeting of Members or in the Chair’s absence, an Officer.
DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP
(a) Dissolution: If at any meeting of the Management Committee a resolution for the dissolution of the Club is passed unanimously the Management Committee shall dissolve the Club by winding it up in the following manner. The Management Committee shall as soon as reasonably practicable:
a.1 notify all Members of the dissolution of the Club;
a.2 discharge all liabilities of the Club;
a.3 proceed to realise the property of the Club; and
a.4 deal with the outstanding liabilities or assets (as the case may be) in accordance with paragraphs 13.2 and 13.3 below.
(b) Outstanding Liabilities: Any excess of liabilities over assets on a winding up shall be borne equally by all Members as at the date of issue of the notice of dissolution to Members and the Members shall provide such equal contribution within 7 days of being requested to do so by the Management Committee.
(c) Outstanding Assets: Any excess of assets over liabilities on a winding up shall be applied for the main purposes of the Club as set out in its objects and no such assets shall be distributed in any way to Members.
Before I go any further, I'll be clear I am not a member of VG. So you might want to take anything I say with a pinch of salt anyway.
I think the idea of ring-fencing any monies is a good one. And if that can't be agreed, I'd find the notion of continuing as is quite strange. It is hard to believe that any VG members are happy with the way things are going at the moment. The money collection side of things may be all above board and I'm sure that those involved are all decent Charlton fans doing the best they can to support the club, but I can't see how it's right that the owner can sell the resulting talent after a couple of months with no recourse whatsoever. I'm not personally convinced that the damage caused by not supporting VG would be as great as carrying on regardless. In the short term, RD has very deep pockets and very short arms, but he can fund the academy to the level he desires. As for the danger of re-building the scheme when the experiment is over, is it not more dangerous to carry on in the current climate and acting as a conduit to take money out of fans' pockets in into Duchatelet's?
Agree with this, and like Stig not a member, but had a feeling that this line of 'transparency' shall we say was going to be an issue for VG which was why I mentioned it at the trust AGM with the VG representative. Hope my posting is seen as constructive and not trying to stir things up.
There's never been a general meeting to my knowledge and it would be a huge inconvenience to the club to have one. It also has the advantage that it doesn't place all the weight on the two fan reps or the chair to change policy and confront the club's reps. I don't see how the chair could refuse to support a motion from them to hold such a meeting in current circumstances just because the club didn't want it. The club would then have a problem whether it attended or not because the meeting would have a locus to discuss the club's behaviour before making any policy changes and it not attending would effectively make the case for change, because it would be snubbing the scheme's funders.
The 10 per cent provision is poorly drafted. It could be read to imply that it is the 10 per cent wanting the meeting who have the responsibility to notify members of the meeting, yet they would not have or be allowed access to the data to do so - or even, though more easily overcome, to identify the 10 per cent in the first place!
Comments
It is all subject to and compliant with the gambling act.
There's a standing agenda to which we work and the majority involves VG's staff reporting on activity. Note that among other impacts, those two people would lose their jobs if people stopped their memberships, and the scheme would collapse without them. As it happens, membership is quite healthy, although a few have dropped off citing the current issues as the reason.
I understand people's desire to protest, but this is not a club organisation and it's a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your own face.
By the way, why is there a CASC rep on the committee? The supporters club has been a moribund organisation for the best part of 5 years.
Not sure how we disagree?
Also Paul Nottage has been on there for far longer than 2 years, although I know there were reasons for that.
If the answer is yes would Valley Gold be prepared to do that?
If the fan reps vote for this motion then it's up to the chair, who I would regard as genuinely independent. However, if the motion falls then there should be a campaign to get everyone to cancel, which would have similar effect but with any damage the consequence of the committee's own decision.
More generally, the problem with Valley Gold is that the fan reps are effectively selected by the chair. As it is a private members' club I don't know whether this is legally robust, but the Valley Party solicitor has previously offered to investigate this issue and that could be arranged, I'm sure - however, I'm not offering any view as to their suitability in saying that. I'm pretty confident the club is not allowed to have control because it is also the main beneficiary of the lottery.
The notion of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is true of Katrien though. We, the weird, are alienated so we can build a better tomorrow together, sounds like a nose/face situation to me.
Interestingly this is about hard cash investment, such an investment comes after the spiritual investment, and it is the spiritual investment this regime is destroying.
"I'm cancelling my VG membership while Roland Duchâtelet owns the club and is pursuing his apparent current strategy of turning us into a player farm with no concern for the first team's performance on the pitch.
I fully support Valley Gold and the work it does but while I'm reviewing my family's budgets I'm afraid I can't justify donating money to a billionaire's experiment. I also feel that by underinvesting in the squad we're being forced to blood the youngsters in the team at an early age and putting unfair expectations on their shoulders, which I would argue is not in the interests of their long term development.
In short, the minute Roland leaves the club, or Katrien Meire manages to explain a compelling strategy (rather than just a set of objectives without an argument regarding how we will meet them), then I will be rejoining Valley Gold and intend to continue to support it for many more years to come.
Unfortunately, until that point, I'm out.
Please be aware that this decision in no way shape or form should be considered being due to anything you or your team have or haven’t done - I think you're all great at what you do under what are I'm sure difficult circumstances and I fully support you. I don't support the current board and their "strategy" however."
I think the idea of ring-fencing any monies is a good one. And if that can't be agreed, I'd find the notion of continuing as is quite strange. It is hard to believe that any VG members are happy with the way things are going at the moment. The money collection side of things may be all above board and I'm sure that those involved are all decent Charlton fans doing the best they can to support the club, but I can't see how it's right that the owner can sell the resulting talent after a couple of months with no recourse whatsoever. I'm not personally convinced that the damage caused by not supporting VG would be as great as carrying on regardless. In the short term, RD has very deep pockets and very short arms, but he can fund the academy to the level he desires. As for the danger of re-building the scheme when the experiment is over, is it not more dangerous to carry on in the current climate and acting as a conduit to take money out of fans' pockets in into Duchatelet's?
Given Airman's post about looking into withholding funds from the club but maintaining the scheme (yes I believe it was suggested previously too), perhaps this option could be considered? Do we have a member of the Management Committee who would support this move?
As 30 days notice are required, this would need to be organised quickly in order to keep those of us disaffected from cancelling and having no direct influence.
The rules don't make clear that we members can vote a withholding of funds as suggested. Would this be possible?
I must say at this point that as I am geographically remote from SE London, I would find it very hard to have much of a role in this but would help where I can.
Whatever happens, I really don't think that VG can continue as is whilst RD and KM continue on the path they are clearly determined to follow. We must send them the strongest possible message that their way is not the Charlton way and hitting them via VG would enforce that message in a way that isn't possible in too many other ways.
GENERAL MEETINGS
(a) Meetings of Members Convened by the Management Committee: The Management Committee shall have the power (but shall not be obliged to do so) to call a meeting of the Members at any time on 30 days’ notice to discuss such business as it deems necessary. Notice shall be in writing to each Member’s last notified address.
(b) Meetings of Members Convened by Members: Any group of Members representing not less than 10% in number of the then-current Members shall have the power (but shall not be obliged) to call a meeting of the Members at any time on 30 days’ notice to discuss such business as they deem necessary. Notice shall be in writing to each Member’s last notified address.
(c) Chair: The Chair shall preside at any such meeting of Members or in the Chair’s absence, an Officer.
DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP
(a) Dissolution: If at any meeting of the Management Committee a resolution for the dissolution of the Club is passed unanimously the Management Committee shall dissolve the Club by winding it up in the following manner. The Management Committee shall as soon as reasonably practicable:
a.1 notify all Members of the dissolution of the Club;
a.2 discharge all liabilities of the Club;
a.3 proceed to realise the property of the Club; and
a.4 deal with the outstanding liabilities or assets (as the case may be) in accordance with paragraphs 13.2 and 13.3 below.
(b) Outstanding Liabilities: Any excess of liabilities over assets on a winding up shall be borne equally by all Members as at the date of issue of the notice of dissolution to Members and the Members shall provide such equal contribution within 7 days of being requested to do so by the Management Committee.
(c) Outstanding Assets: Any excess of assets over liabilities on a winding up shall be applied for the main purposes of the Club as set out in its objects and no such assets shall be distributed in any way to Members.
@rikofold would you be willing to propose a meeting immediately?
I will renew once she and her boss have left the football club.
An e mail will go off in the future to Jack and Sharron confirming the above.
The 10 per cent provision is poorly drafted. It could be read to imply that it is the 10 per cent wanting the meeting who have the responsibility to notify members of the meeting, yet they would not have or be allowed access to the data to do so - or even, though more easily overcome, to identify the 10 per cent in the first place!