So the fate of the York City Supporters' Trust's 25% shareholding in the club is finally being put to a vote. Club chairman (and holder of the other 75% of the club's shares) Jason McGill thinks he deserves to be given YCST's stake, less 1 'golden share' that they will retain. This proposal was initially put to him a few weeks ago and he rejected it out of hand, so something has obviously changed behind the scenes, possibly due to the highly negative reaction towards him when that was revealed. He claims there's no sinister motive behind his desire to have these shares, but many are not so sure. He's contradicted himself too by effectively trying the argument before that the shares aren't really worth anything so YCST may as well give them up, which obviously begs the question as to why he's so keen to get his hands on them that being the case. His veiled threats that he needs the shares in order for him/his company to provide the funds necessary to see the club through to the move into the new stadium also don't really wash - at present all the money that he's previously generously put in (or foolishly squandered, some might say) is in the form of loans which he will get back upon the sale of Bootham Crescent being completed. Previous agreements mean he won't be due any money back in the event of insolvency, so it really isn't in his interests to let the club go under.
At present City are the worst full-time professional team in the country by league position, and can probably argue a good case for being the worst run off the field too given the astonishing spending and losses that have brought us to this position. McGill is at least appearing to show some humility and accept responsibility for the former, though is certainly denying the latter. Would you vote to give him the shares?
At present City are the worst full-time professional team in the country by league position, and can probably argue a good case for being the worst run off the field too given the astonishing spending and losses that have brought us to this position. McGill is at least appearing to show some humility and accept responsibility for the former, though is certainly denying the latter. Would you vote to give him the shares?
Comment