Talk:Scott Trust Limited

Tax relief?

I work at the Guardian. The section headed 'Winding up' has an error. It says the Scott Trust was wound up so that it could qualify for SSE (substantial shareholding exemption) tax relief on the sale of part of Trader Media Group, which is incorrect.

First, the chronology is wrong: the sale of the share in TMG happened before the winding up of the Scott Trust - ie while it was still a trust.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/646056/Apax-Partners-buys-stake-Trader-Media-Group/ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42189&c=1

Second, TMG was under the direct ownership of Guardian Media Group, not the Scott Trust, and was sold directly by GMG. So even if the Trust had been wound up before the TMG sale, it would have made no difference. SSE would have applied regardless. Yorkway (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. If it wasn't for tax relief, why was the Scott Trust wound up? cagliost (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Autotrader section now, as it's been over six months now, and the only on-line references I can find to that claim are rehashes of Wikipedia. It seems like there should be more to write (say, about how freely the new owners can dispose of their shares, and how the board will be appointed going forward), but I don't have that information. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this unique?

The website referenced in the article (http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/) says this is a unique form of media ownership in the UK. Is that true across the globe as well? If not was it the first trust owned media group or did it take inspiration from elsewhere? 86.139.225.123 (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trust?

Referred to throughout as "The Trust" which implies it's a neutral trust or charity, when it's evidently a publicly traded limited liability company. Surely this fails NPOV? 81.159.148.1 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Trust Limited is, AFAIUI, a limited liability company but it is not publicly traded and in fact I would be very surprised if the shares are ever traded. It would not surprise me if the company's constitution prohibits the sale of the shares.

Also from 1938-2008 it was not a company at all but a trust. so saying 'the Trust' as a short form of the name seems perfectly reasonable. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is clearly not write for its present form - the bits about the present talks about "trustees" but its own documents call them "directors". The Company is more netural when talking about its existance from 2008 onwards.

Chairmanship

The article says Richard Farquhar Scott was chairman from 1956 to 1984,but his article says he never attended meetings and that his cousin Laurence,not listed here,was chairman in the 1960s. If the pre-Limited "Trust" had a finite lifespan what would have triggered its dissolution? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "other media businesses"?

At the beginning of this article, it says the Scott Trust Limited owns "various other media businesses in the UK" without saying what these businesses are. Why is this the case? --Animal28 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]