So if we vote NO, then at the AGM the current board faces being voted off by those who don't want this to go to a vote again and replaced by potentially more AFAP board?
That sums it up. The concept of branch-stacking comes to mind.
Let's face it, the MBF board (now back to being trustees) exercised their right under the rules (agreed-to by the AFAP in 2007) to resume the trusteeship of the MBF.
Then, all of a sudden, after the event, the AFAP has a spak attack dummy spit and demands all manner of this and that, threw in a few red herrings such as Austair's role, "far-reaching rule changes", cunningly confusing trusteeship with rule changes, scaremongering over the cost of FSR compliance, voting on the trusteeship, "staying just off the radar screen" and on it goes.
The response from the AFAP demonstrates only one thing; they are mightily miffed over losing the trusteeship of the MBF. For decades, they didn't have it and after they were given it by the MBF trustees, for months and months they made no noise about the process but some obviously thought "hey this is good!". Then, when the MBF decided return the trusteeship to the MBF board members, it's on for young and old. Why is that I wonder?
In 2007, before handing over trusteeship, the then MBF trustees very wisely created rule 14D4. Given the current situation, the MBF members should be very grateful that they did.
If the current MBF trustees are voted off, only one thing will result; an MBF trusteeship stacked with AFAP sympathisers. THAT would be a crying shame and something MBF members should not be wishing for.