From the original post it strikes me that the directors of the “Club” have not understood their legal status or responsibilities.
1) Reading between the lines I can only conclude that the club appears not to have a lease on the circuit, otherwise they would have legal protection over its use.
2) The Directors of the Club appear to have the attitude that the circuit was theirs when clearly it wasn’t.
3) A “Limited by Guarantee” entity cannot be acquired by another entity (individual or Ltd) as it does not have any share capital to acquire. The assets and cash of a Club limited by Guarantee can only be used for the benefit of its members, not its directors.
4) Given that the Ltd company had decided to terminate the Clubs right to use the circuit (presumable due to falling out of individuals) and the Club not having an appropriate lease/legal right to use the circuit, the only way the Club could have continued at the circuit was to appoint directors acceptable to the circuit owner. The directors of the Club having decided against this course of action have effectively consigned the ”original” Club to the History books.
5) The directors of the Club should have called a special AGM and put the issues and options to the members and let them vote on the action the Club should take. Particularly any decsions around spending money on legal action. The failure to do this has left everyone in the dark as to why the dispute arose and whether it could have been resolved. It may be the members would have agreed not to cooperate with the circuit owner (for legitimate reasons) but in view of how things are working out we will never know.
PS. These are the observations of a neutral bystander who has no connection with either party.
|
|