APPENDIX 4: Email from David Hinde to Peter Aldis, Ralph Pike and Mike Abrahams, dated 4 October 2003
From: David C. Hinde ANH [ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org ]
Sent: 04 October 2003 20:00
To: Peter Aldis; Ralph A Pike; Mike Abrahams (NAHS) Cc: Dr Rob Verkerk
Subject: NAHS, HFMA & ANH co-operation
Dear Peter, Ralph and Mike
I am now writing following my telephone conversations with Andrew Lockley and Peter yesterday.
As I indicated to them ANH does still wish to pool resources with NAHS and HFMA in bringing a joint challenge. The synergies and advantages in so doing are many.
Indeed you will recall that we initiated the idea of co-operation in the first place.
However following the meeting in Nuneaton last week and receipt of the draft Heads of Agreement on Thursday we have been considering the matter with key supporters and our lawyers and we keep coming back to the same key sticking point.
You will recall that we had extensive and sometimes heated exchanges during the meeting on Tuesday 29 September. Much of the heat centred around the difficulty the ANH representatives had in accepting the so called "leap of faith" proposal of NAHS / HFMA.
NAHS were telling us that they had a challenge up and ready to go but we would have to pay "£50,000 to obtain a seat at the table" first before we could learn anything of the challenge.
We would have to accept that NAHS would not provide any detail whatsoever on their case, including detail of the letter before action, grounds for challenge, state of readiness of data and witness statements, etc. prior to ANH signing a written binding agreement with ANH providing 50 % of the funds for Phase 1 of the action and committing to pay the other 50% and ceding control of the action to a majority vote.
We remonstrated over this giving a number of analogies to explain our concern. To take just two; buying a house without a viewing, or marrying without being allowed to see the bride beforehand. However hard we pushed to explain our need to have some indication of state of readiness or detail of the case, we were met with blank refusals.
Despite this, our desire (like yours we believe) to have a single joint action was very great (and remains so) and thus we considered that any differences between parties could be ironed out by making modifications as necessary to the draft Heads of Agreement.
But when we actually received the draft agreement on Thursday and took it to our advisory board and strategy committee (which contain representatives in the industry and complementary health fields, in a number of different countries) it became increasingly clear that without further information, or pre-conditions, we would be foolish to proceed on the basis being proposed.
IAHF Home Page