Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Sept 20, 2021 12:05:58 GMT
I found it an interesting read. Mention of Col Gibson has done nothing to persuade me he should be here. As for the rest, it just increases my sadness at the state of BRFC and my feelings of disconnect and concern as to what comes next.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Sept 20, 2021 12:12:03 GMT
the line about itb's (I presume it's his) letter seems odd....'his letter has been placed in the hands of the Supporters’ Club’s solicitors' no suggestion that they are going to do anything about it, just trying to sound scary by giving the letter to someone else? a bit like when the KM situation was referred to the SC's solicitors if so. Never heard another squeak about it, did we? I would not bet against it if I were you As for Jim , I would have resigned months ago after the loss of his grandson .Who needs the hassle after life deals you such a bum hand. But at least he will be spared the long e mails sent to him at mid night on Saturdays often with abusive content
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 20, 2021 12:18:20 GMT
the line about itb's (I presume it's his) letter seems odd....'his letter has been placed in the hands of the Supporters’ Club’s solicitors' no suggestion that they are going to do anything about it, just trying to sound scary by giving the letter to someone else? a bit like when the KM situation was referred to the SC's solicitors if so. Never heard another squeak about it, did we? I would not bet against it if I were you As for Jim , I would have resigned months ago after the loss of his grandson .Who needs the hassle after life deals you such a bum hand. But at least he will be spared the long e mails sent to him at mid night on Saturdays often with abusive content that last line - good points well made I'll be astounded if anything comes of the solicitors thing though
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 12:34:05 GMT
Apologies if I come across as a bit of a tool. I logged on at lunchtime expecting to read our manager has been sacked. Instead I read this and it’s all a bit underwhelming and I’m a bit irritated about it all agree this is very underwhelming compared to the (not unreasonable) expectation that Joeybag would be sacked this morning. Heigh ho.. We've had a lot more managers than we've had Chairmen of the SC, so it's kind of important to me. And I'm glad that Jim has got that stuff off his chest. The relationship between his version of the FC and the SC is totally broken anyway, so he may as well have just had his say. He also gave a bit of detail to that safeguarding issue, will be interesting to see if that gets challenged on here or accepted.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,424
|
Post by harrybuckle on Sept 20, 2021 14:18:23 GMT
Interesting and noteworthy summary of events by the long standing chairman who has highlighted what many feel is a widening gap between the owners and the fans.
Difficult times lay ahead and I sincerely hope those willing keyboard warriors step forward to take over the various positions in the new age SC ....but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 14:22:13 GMT
Interesting and noteworthy summary of events by the long standing chairman who has highlighted what many feel is a widening gap between the owners and the fans. Difficult times lay ahead and I sincerely hope those willing keyboard warriors step forward to take over the various positions in the new age SC ....but I won't hold my breath. Rather than your usual barbed comments why don't you do it Harry.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 20, 2021 14:46:13 GMT
the line about itb's (I presume it's his) letter seems odd....'his letter has been placed in the hands of the Supporters’ Club’s solicitors' no suggestion that they are going to do anything about it, just trying to sound scary by giving the letter to someone else? a bit like when the KM situation was referred to the SC's solicitors if so. Never heard another squeak about it, did we? I would not bet against it if I were you As for Jim , I would have resigned months ago after the loss of his grandson .Who needs the hassle after life deals you such a bum hand. But at least he will be spared the long e mails sent to him at mid night on Saturdays often with abusive content I'm interested in what version of the email he read, because in that email to which he refers, I never accused him of anything. In fact, i attested that I hoped he wasnt involved and I wanted to show him who it was so he could deal with it and not bring the SC into disrepute. But rather than deal with it, he didnt even ackowledge it, he assumed I was threatening him, so has threatened me via press release with solicitors. Whatever. The truth shall out if it needs to so I have nothing to fear and once again another misrepresentative line from the SC. The letter which I attached, was sent to me annoymously at my business from someone in the SC or PC I guess, I still dont know to this day who that was!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 20, 2021 14:57:49 GMT
the line about itb's (I presume it's his) letter seems odd....'his letter has been placed in the hands of the Supporters’ Club’s solicitors' no suggestion that they are going to do anything about it, just trying to sound scary by giving the letter to someone else? a bit like when the KM situation was referred to the SC's solicitors if so. Never heard another squeak about it, did we? They wanted WAQ to engage with them regarding restructuring because the SC shareholding would reduce . Did they cotton on, 14 years late?? Maybe Jim just forgot the SC voted in favour of giving up their rights
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Sept 20, 2021 15:07:21 GMT
the line about itb's (I presume it's his) letter seems odd....'his letter has been placed in the hands of the Supporters’ Club’s solicitors' no suggestion that they are going to do anything about it, just trying to sound scary by giving the letter to someone else? a bit like when the KM situation was referred to the SC's solicitors if so. Never heard another squeak about it, did we? They wanted WAQ to engage with them regarding restructuring because the SC shareholding would reduce . Did they cotton on, 14 years late?? Imagine being the head of an organisation that spent in excess of a million quid to reduce its shareholding in a fourth tier football club 🤦♂️
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,158
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 20, 2021 15:07:40 GMT
Aside from the points mentioned a number of others stuck out to me 1) the fit and proper complaint to the FA goes unmentioned 2) JC mentions putting to a vote the sum of £50k requested by the club. Doesn't seem to have been bothered about putting other important matters to the members in the past..... 3) Why only now he is going do they put forward names for the 2 Supporters Directors roles and, as I suspect, are those names contentious?
JC has probably put in a lot of work in the past but his blinkered actions in the years since the Al Qadis takeover have done him no favours and destroyed most of his past credibility. It is a shame that the BRSC could not have offered the same unblinking support in recent years that it offered to previous Chairmen and Boards. Sadly I have become totally ambivalent to their current plight which is mostly self inflicted. I hope people will stand up to take the roles and a new relationship built between the Club and BRSC and the 'unfortunately' named Presidents Club, to quote JC.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 20, 2021 16:04:19 GMT
Aside from the points mentioned a number of others stuck out to me 1) the fit and proper complaint to the FA goes unmentioned2) JC mentions putting to a vote the sum of £50k requested by the club. Doesn't seem to have been bothered about putting other important matters to the members in the past..... 3) Why only now he is going do they put forward names for the 2 Supporters Directors roles and, as I suspect, are those names contentious? JC has probably put in a lot of work in the past but his blinkered actions in the years since the Al Qadis takeover have done him no favours and destroyed most of his past credibility. It is a shame that the BRSC could not have offered the same unblinking support in recent years that it offered to previous Chairmen and Boards. Sadly I have become totally ambivalent to their current plight which is mostly self inflicted. I hope people will stand up to take the roles and a new relationship built between the Club and BRSC and the 'unfortunately' named Presidents Club, to quote JC. This was something I had noticed as well.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 20, 2021 16:05:41 GMT
Aside from the points mentioned a number of others stuck out to me 1) the fit and proper complaint to the FA goes unmentioned 2) JC mentions putting to a vote the sum of £50k requested by the club. Doesn't seem to have been bothered about putting other important matters to the members in the past..... 3) Why only now he is going do they put forward names for the 2 Supporters Directors roles and, as I suspect, are those names contentious? JC has probably put in a lot of work in the past but his blinkered actions in the years since the Al Qadis takeover have done him no favours and destroyed most of his past credibility. It is a shame that the BRSC could not have offered the same unblinking support in recent years that it offered to previous Chairmen and Boards. Sadly I have become totally ambivalent to their current plight which is mostly self inflicted. I hope people will stand up to take the roles and a new relationship built between the Club and BRSC and the 'unfortunately' named Presidents Club, to quote JC. There is more to disentangle, but on your third point, Jim indicates "According to the Share Scheme Agreement that I am a signatory to, the Supporters Club is entitled to two Directors on the Board and we have two nominations that are being forwarded to the Football Club."
According to the SC rules:13. Football Club Director(s) 13.1 BRSC shall elect a person or persons to represent the BRSC Membership as Director on the Board of BRFC.
Genuine question, but does anyone know when these two nominees were elected? Particularly if the SC cannot manage to conduct business via 'Zoom' [sic].
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 20, 2021 16:11:32 GMT
Aside from the points mentioned a number of others stuck out to me 1) the fit and proper complaint to the FA goes unmentioned2) JC mentions putting to a vote the sum of £50k requested by the club. Doesn't seem to have been bothered about putting other important matters to the members in the past..... 3) Why only now he is going do they put forward names for the 2 Supporters Directors roles and, as I suspect, are those names contentious? JC has probably put in a lot of work in the past but his blinkered actions in the years since the Al Qadis takeover have done him no favours and destroyed most of his past credibility. It is a shame that the BRSC could not have offered the same unblinking support in recent years that it offered to previous Chairmen and Boards. Sadly I have become totally ambivalent to their current plight which is mostly self inflicted. I hope people will stand up to take the roles and a new relationship built between the Club and BRSC and the 'unfortunately' named Presidents Club, to quote JC. This was something I had noticed as well. For clarification, was the Fit and Proper Person's challenge separate to the safeguarding allegation?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 20, 2021 16:14:50 GMT
Aside from the points mentioned a number of others stuck out to me 1) the fit and proper complaint to the FA goes unmentioned 2) JC mentions putting to a vote the sum of £50k requested by the club. Doesn't seem to have been bothered about putting other important matters to the members in the past..... 3) Why only now he is going do they put forward names for the 2 Supporters Directors roles and, as I suspect, are those names contentious? JC has probably put in a lot of work in the past but his blinkered actions in the years since the Al Qadis takeover have done him no favours and destroyed most of his past credibility. It is a shame that the BRSC could not have offered the same unblinking support in recent years that it offered to previous Chairmen and Boards. Sadly I have become totally ambivalent to their current plight which is mostly self inflicted. I hope people will stand up to take the roles and a new relationship built between the Club and BRSC and the 'unfortunately' named Presidents Club, to quote JC. There is more to disentangle, but on your third point, Jim indicates "According to the Share Scheme Agreement that I am a signatory to, the Supporters Club is entitled to two Directors on the Board and we have two nominations that are being forwarded to the Football Club."
According to the SC rules:13. Football Club Director(s) 13.1 BRSC shall elect a person or persons to represent the BRSC Membership as Director on the Board of BRFC.
Genuine question, but does anyone know when these two nominees were elected? Particularly if the SC cannot manage to conduct business via 'Zoom' [sic].
That doesnt say they have to be elected by the membership though.so maybe the exec committee have 'elected' them Either way, this is clearly we are allowed this and being done is such away as the SC think/or know the board will not ratify them, so they can go back and criticise the club for not accepting them
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Sept 20, 2021 16:25:16 GMT
There is more to disentangle, but on your third point, Jim indicates "According to the Share Scheme Agreement that I am a signatory to, the Supporters Club is entitled to two Directors on the Board and we have two nominations that are being forwarded to the Football Club."
According to the SC rules:13. Football Club Director(s) 13.1 BRSC shall elect a person or persons to represent the BRSC Membership as Director on the Board of BRFC.
Genuine question, but does anyone know when these two nominees were elected? Particularly if the SC cannot manage to conduct business via 'Zoom' [sic].
That doesnt say they have to be elected by the membership though.so maybe the exec committee have 'elected' them Either way, this is clearly we are allowed this and being done is such away as the SC think/or know the board will not ratify them, so they can go back and criticise the club for not accepting them Surely "BRSC" is made of the members? I know quite a few people previously joined in order to get a vote in the election for Fans' Directors.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 20, 2021 16:37:30 GMT
There is more to disentangle, but on your third point, Jim indicates "According to the Share Scheme Agreement that I am a signatory to, the Supporters Club is entitled to two Directors on the Board and we have two nominations that are being forwarded to the Football Club."
According to the SC rules:13. Football Club Director(s) 13.1 BRSC shall elect a person or persons to represent the BRSC Membership as Director on the Board of BRFC.
Genuine question, but does anyone know when these two nominees were elected? Particularly if the SC cannot manage to conduct business via 'Zoom' [sic].
That doesnt say they have to be elected by the membership though.so maybe the exec committee have 'elected' themEither way, this is clearly we are allowed this and being done is such away as the SC think/or know the board will not ratify them, so they can go back and criticise the club for not accepting them If that is the case then the EC is, at best, playing fast and loose with their own rules.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 20, 2021 16:41:07 GMT
One other thing that struck a cord:
"Our own Supporters Club AGM could not have been held by ‘Zoom’ that we have now become so used to because the committee reasoned that many of our older members, indeed any member not on the internet, would not have been able to participate so it was held over and will now take place on October 28th."
And yet at the very start of the letter he says this:
"Whilst watching our football on phones and laptops became the norm"
So if someone can use ifollow to watch Rovers, they can use Zoom. Both are app based and require a log in and password.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 20, 2021 16:42:26 GMT
That doesnt say they have to be elected by the membership though.so maybe the exec committee have 'elected' themEither way, this is clearly we are allowed this and being done is such away as the SC think/or know the board will not ratify them, so they can go back and criticise the club for not accepting them If that is the case then the EC is, at best, playing fast and loose with their own rules.
The only other explanation is, if there are only two candidates to vote for, than they are automatically selected and put forward. Of course the SC have only chosen to do this now when they have had months to do so in any form of EGM or election that they could have held As I say, I suspect it is being done because the SC expect the FC to reject them, so they can do some points scoring themselves
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 16:46:06 GMT
Never a dull moment at BRFC.
Good bye Jim and well done for everything that you have done for yourself over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 20, 2021 16:58:00 GMT
If that is the case then the EC is, at best, playing fast and loose with their own rules.
The only other explanation is, if there are only two candidates to vote for, than they are automatically selected and put forward. Of course the SC have only chosen to do this now when they have had months to do so in any form of EGM or election that they could have held As I say, I suspect it is being done because the SC expect the FC to reject them, so they can do some points scoring themselves Then any victory (or defeat) would be pyrrhic.
I'll admit that the lack of transparency/ accountability is the main reason I stopped renewing my BRSC membership. I'm sure some would say that I'm no longer entitled to a view of their business as a result.
|
|