Be interesting to see what comes out of it.
Seen some comments elsewhere from someone I associate with SoS which might indicate that SoS (or at least this individual) are claiming this to be a lot bigger than it is, which could leave them with egg on their faces, but we'll see. Sounds like it's still being worked on.
"Representation" could and will mean different things to dfferent people. One side could claim that it means having control over a decision making process. The other side could claim it means just being allowed to go wahwahwah we don't like this and have a boardroom strop but ultimately have no power to control what goes on. "Representation" would tend to suggest the latter to me: that fans are allowed to put across their point of view: that's it. Let's see what it does actually mean in legal terms when both the club and SoS have come to a final agreed position, or what they THINK they've agreed to.
There is a concept in contractual law called 'consideration' which basically means you have to pay something (the "consideration" i.e. money) in order to get something. This doesn't look like any sort of contract to me. I don't sense there will be money changing hands. The supporters will get something for nothing, which sounds great in theory but in legal terms it may mean that it it worthless to a degree. If one party backs out then there is no opportunity to sue for breach of contract, because there was never a contract in the first place. If you bought next door's sister for a camel, the camel is the consideration, there's a contract. If you didn't pay the camel, there is no contract and you don't own next door's sister, and rightly so, you shouldn't be owning next door's sister in Liverpool, this isn't the Sahara desert you know.
That leaves us in the realm of company law. The LFC statement on LFCTV mentions enshrining this agreement in the 'articles of association' of LFC (sort of internal rules regarding shareholders, directors, meetings etc), which sounds great on the face of it, but the articles of association are controlled by the board of directors. Just as the board of directors are free to give the fans something for nothing, they are free to take it away again, because they are the board. They could give the fans something on Monday and then just take it away again on Tuesday, so as a form of comfort blanket for the fanbase, it's actually pretty worthless, possibly even totally worthless depending how LFC's board and shareholders are made up.
Articles require 75% control of the board to change them (company law in UK). The fanbase representatives would therefore need at least 25% voting rights to block having their new 'powers' being taken away from them again. As far as I know, the fanbase representatives have 0.00% voting rights. So if FSG decided at any point that the fanbase representatives are becoming a gigantic pain in the arse, they can just cut all this consultation stuff almost at the drop of a hat. They'd have to call a special board meeting but then all they have to do is vote to change the articles again to get rid of the fanbase consultation stuff. Bang. It's gone again, just like that.
So "legally binding" sounds like a comfort on the face of it, but if the board took away the fans' input again, as they can, leaving the fans with nothing again, then that would also be legally binding.
For me the only way to 'enshrine' anything into the articles of association would be to gain the necessary blocking vote on the board and I'd imagine that would require the fans getting 25%, which means paying consideration for it. So LFC fans would have to find a lot of money, or camels if FSG accept camels, and FSG would have to agree to cede 25% of the shareholding to the fans. Seems extraordinarily unlikely that this would ever take place without UK government legislation, and as a general principle UK law can't be applied retrospectively so I just don't see that any current owner of a football club could be forced to sell part of their shareholding. The UK government could legislate to make it a rule that any NEW purchase of a football club must allot a certain portion of the shares to fan representative bodies, but I am almost as sure as a sure thing that they could not apply this law retrospectively. That would go against fundamental principles of UK law. So I firmly believe FSG could not be forced to sell 25% of their shares to the fans; not even by the government.