|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 21, 2023 5:12:12 GMT
I understand that last night Chris Gibson asked a shareholder to leave the BRFC 1883 Ltd AGM because, he said, the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting.
On June 8th 2021 the club announced that Chris Gibson had been appointed to the Board of Directors but this incorrect because if he had been appointed a notice would have been filed at Companies House. So it appears that BRFC 1883 Ltd have tasked someone who is not an officer of the company with ejecting a shareholder from its AGM in violation of the company’s rules. This is because the Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly state that any shareholder is entitled to attend and vote at an AGM.
Sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 allow a shareholder to petition the court if he believes his rights as a shareholder have been unfairly prejudiced.
But I think the most sensible way to rectify this mistake would be for Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Chris Gibson to make a public apology to the shareholder and to give a commitment that in future all shareholders right to attend and vote at an AGM will be upheld.
|
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Jan 21, 2023 8:10:47 GMT
No idea why the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting?
|
|
|
|
Post by One F in Dunford on Jan 21, 2023 8:11:45 GMT
What is the name of the shareholder and what is alleged that he has done for the owner to not want him at the AGM?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,134 
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 21, 2023 8:59:13 GMT
If anyone attended the AGM, a brief report would be appreciated.
Because at the moment, without any meaningful communication from the Football Club, it's difficult to know what is going.
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 372
|
Post by bondigas on Jan 21, 2023 9:26:24 GMT
Wouldn't the Supporters Club directors know who it was, aren't they meant to be representing the shareholders ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 11:39:21 GMT
Good Laugh FC
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 21, 2023 12:09:51 GMT
Tin pot and fragile egos
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 21, 2023 13:18:33 GMT
I understand that last night Chris Gibson asked a shareholder to leave the BRFC 1883 Ltd AGM because, he said, the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting. On June 8th 2021 the club announced that Chris Gibson had been appointed to the Board of Directors but this incorrect because if he had been appointed a notice would have been filed at Companies House. So it appears that BRFC 1883 Ltd have tasked someone who is not an officer of the company with ejecting a shareholder from its AGM in violation of the company’s rules. This is because the Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly state that any shareholder is entitled to attend and vote at an AGM. Sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 allow a shareholder to petition the court if he believes his rights as a shareholder have been unfairly prejudiced. But I think the most sensible way to rectify this mistake would be for Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Chris Gibson to make a public apology to the shareholder and to give a commitment that in future all shareholders right to attend and vote at an AGM will be upheld. That really is appalling and shows that our owner still does not respond well to criticism and questioning. It’s only going to get worse if we do not get any news on a stadium and JB will walk, it’s only a matter of time. People want to progress and not tread water. Seems our bright new dawn has faded into being the same old rovers just with a diffrunt clique |
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jan 21, 2023 14:46:01 GMT
I understand that last night Chris Gibson asked a shareholder to leave the BRFC 1883 Ltd AGM because, he said, the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting. On June 8th 2021 the club announced that Chris Gibson had been appointed to the Board of Directors but this incorrect because if he had been appointed a notice would have been filed at Companies House. So it appears that BRFC 1883 Ltd have tasked someone who is not an officer of the company with ejecting a shareholder from its AGM in violation of the company’s rules. This is because the Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly state that any shareholder is entitled to attend and vote at an AGM. Sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 allow a shareholder to petition the court if he believes his rights as a shareholder have been unfairly prejudiced. But I think the most sensible way to rectify this mistake would be for Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Chris Gibson to make a public apology to the shareholder and to give a commitment that in future all shareholders right to attend and vote at an AGM will be upheld. I assume nobody can corroborate this, the person allegedly involved doesn’t want to be named and you are unwilling/unable to provide any context if indeed such a conversation took place? Lovely stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Bamber Gashead on Jan 21, 2023 14:50:51 GMT
I understand that last night Chris Gibson asked a shareholder to leave the BRFC 1883 Ltd AGM because, he said, the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting. On June 8th 2021 the club announced that Chris Gibson had been appointed to the Board of Directors but this incorrect because if he had been appointed a notice would have been filed at Companies House. So it appears that BRFC 1883 Ltd have tasked someone who is not an officer of the company with ejecting a shareholder from its AGM in violation of the company’s rules. This is because the Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly state that any shareholder is entitled to attend and vote at an AGM. Sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 allow a shareholder to petition the court if he believes his rights as a shareholder have been unfairly prejudiced. But I think the most sensible way to rectify this mistake would be for Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Chris Gibson to make a public apology to the shareholder and to give a commitment that in future all shareholders right to attend and vote at an AGM will be upheld. Do we know who and why? Was it because said shareholder was going to ask an awkward question? |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 21, 2023 16:58:57 GMT
I understand that last night Chris Gibson asked a shareholder to leave the BRFC 1883 Ltd AGM because, he said, the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting. On June 8th 2021 the club announced that Chris Gibson had been appointed to the Board of Directors but this incorrect because if he had been appointed a notice would have been filed at Companies House. So it appears that BRFC 1883 Ltd have tasked someone who is not an officer of the company with ejecting a shareholder from its AGM in violation of the company’s rules. This is because the Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly state that any shareholder is entitled to attend and vote at an AGM. Sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 allow a shareholder to petition the court if he believes his rights as a shareholder have been unfairly prejudiced. But I think the most sensible way to rectify this mistake would be for Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Chris Gibson to make a public apology to the shareholder and to give a commitment that in future all shareholders right to attend and vote at an AGM will be upheld. I assume nobody can corroborate this, the person allegedly involved doesn’t want to be named and you are unwilling/unable to provide any context if indeed such a conversation took place? Lovely stuff. It seems a bit convenient that a known anti board poster, who I believe doesn't even live in the UK, is the only poster across the two forums who's heard that a shareholder was asked to leave. |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,134
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 21, 2023 17:11:26 GMT
I assume nobody can corroborate this, the person allegedly involved doesn’t want to be named and you are unwilling/unable to provide any context if indeed such a conversation took place? Lovely stuff. It seems a bit convenient that a known anti board poster, who I believe doesn't even live in the UK, is the only poster across the two forums who's heard that a shareholder was asked to leave. To be fair I have never known swissgas to lie. He speculates, sometimes wildly. He is highly critical of the Board, with some justification IMHO. I can't believe that the person alleged to have been asked to lave the AGM would want to plead anonymity... So - who was it? Does his name rhyme with Bevin Denser? |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 21, 2023 19:02:00 GMT
I understand that last night Chris Gibson asked a shareholder to leave the BRFC 1883 Ltd AGM because, he said, the owner didn’t want this shareholder at the meeting. On June 8th 2021 the club announced that Chris Gibson had been appointed to the Board of Directors but this incorrect because if he had been appointed a notice would have been filed at Companies House. So it appears that BRFC 1883 Ltd have tasked someone who is not an officer of the company with ejecting a shareholder from its AGM in violation of the company’s rules. This is because the Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly state that any shareholder is entitled to attend and vote at an AGM. Sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 allow a shareholder to petition the court if he believes his rights as a shareholder have been unfairly prejudiced. But I think the most sensible way to rectify this mistake would be for Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and Chris Gibson to make a public apology to the shareholder and to give a commitment that in future all shareholders right to attend and vote at an AGM will be upheld. I was at the meeting and was totally unaware that this happened so perhaps you could let us all know where you got this information from, it can't be a very big field because there was only about 20 people there? Can you elaborate on what you were told about the circumstances? Chris Gibson was appointed as a NON-executive director, so I am not sure that would need to be notified to Companies House, but to suggest that he doesn't have a position is stretching things a little? If he was acting under the direction of the owner then I am not sure what your issue is? The owner owns the business and as in any business it is his final decision as to who might visit his premises. It isn't something that would be done lightly so what could the reason be, you must know that? Regards John Malyckyj A non-executive director is a member of the board of directors who does not play a role in the day-to-day management of the company. Chris Gibson was announced as a non-executive director and member of the board of directors so a notice of his appointment should have been filed at Companies House. You may be confusing this title with that of an executive director who does play a day-to-day role in the management of the company, such as a sales director or technical director, but is not a member of the board of directors. Notice of the appointment of an executive director does not need to be filed at Companies House. With a limited company we usually refer to the owner as the person controlling the majority share and that’s why we often say Wael owns Rovers. But there are also minority shareholders in BRFC 1883 Ltd and these people have rights which are enshrined in the Company’s Memorandum & Articles of Association. One of those rights is to attend and vote at an AGM and, as explained in my original post, anyone preventing the shareholder from exercising those rights is acting contrary to the law. I don’t want to go into further detail about the incident because I’m hoping that in the next few days the club and Chris Gibson will recognize their error and contact the shareholder with an apology and an assurance that in future all shareholders rights will be upheld. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 21, 2023 19:37:52 GMT
A non-executive director is a member of the board of directors who does not play a role in the day-to-day management of the company. Chris Gibson was announced as a non-executive director and member of the board of directors so a notice of his appointment should have been filed at Companies House. You may be confusing this title with that of an executive director who does play a day-to-day role in the management of the company, such as a sales director or technical director, but is not a member of the board of directors. Notice of the appointment of an executive director does not need to be filed at Companies House. With a limited company we usually refer to the owner as the person controlling the majority share and that’s why we often say Wael owns Rovers. But there are also minority shareholders in BRFC 1883 Ltd and these people have rights which are enshrined in the Company’s Memorandum & Articles of Association. One of those rights is to attend and vote at an AGM and, as explained in my original post, anyone preventing the shareholder from exercising those rights is acting contrary to the law. I don’t want to go into further detail about the incident because I’m hoping that in the next few days the club and Chris Gibson will recognize their error and contact the shareholder with an apology and an assurance that in future all shareholders rights will be upheld. I bow to your superior knowledge of company law, however you now seem to be saying that he does hold a position, so which is it? You didn't make a distinction with your initial post. Casting my mind back to the period when the Supporters Club had Associate Directors I don't recall them being listed at Companies House until they became FULL directors. Your final paragraph and your initial post are a disgrace. Why did you put this in the public domain when you are not prepared to back it up with some facts. If you are so certain of what happened why not deal with it in a discrete manner rather than attempting to smear the Football Club? Instead of which it's more "I know something that you don't". You must know the reason why so why not at least enlighten us on that point? As I say I was there and was totally unaware that this had happened and arrived at 5.20pm. Perhaps if you told us what exactly happened and WHO told you I might have more sympathy for your approach if you could at least furnish us with this information? Why didn't your informant raise it in the meeting if he/she felt so strongly about it instead of telling tales to you. Why tell you who lives overseas and not raise it in the meeting. I don't come on these boards very often and I am now reminded firmly of the reason why. In the end if it did happen, then the individual will be identified, why don't you just get on with it and name, names? I’ve sent you A PM John. |
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jan 21, 2023 19:57:39 GMT
I was at the meeting and was totally unaware that this happened so perhaps you could let us all know where you got this information from, it can't be a very big field because there was only about 20 people there? Can you elaborate on what you were told about the circumstances? Chris Gibson was appointed as a NON-executive director, so I am not sure that would need to be notified to Companies House, but to suggest that he doesn't have a position is stretching things a little? If he was acting under the direction of the owner then I am not sure what your issue is? The owner owns the business and as in any business it is his final decision as to who might visit his premises. It isn't something that would be done lightly so what could the reason be, you must know that? Regards John Malyckyj A non-executive director is a member of the board of directors who does not play a role in the day-to-day management of the company. Chris Gibson was announced as a non-executive director and member of the board of directors so a notice of his appointment should have been filed at Companies House. You may be confusing this title with that of an executive director who does play a day-to-day role in the management of the company, such as a sales director or technical director, but is not a member of the board of directors. Notice of the appointment of an executive director does not need to be filed at Companies House. With a limited company we usually refer to the owner as the person controlling the majority share and that’s why we often say Wael owns Rovers. But there are also minority shareholders in BRFC 1883 Ltd and these people have rights which are enshrined in the Company’s Memorandum & Articles of Association. One of those rights is to attend and vote at an AGM and, as explained in my original post, anyone preventing the shareholder from exercising those rights is acting contrary to the law. I don’t want to go into further detail about the incident because I’m hoping that in the next few days the club and Chris Gibson will recognize their error and contact the shareholder with an apology and an assurance that in future all shareholders rights will be upheld. And there it is. A long winded post about companies house and law but no substance to the claims he made. I’m calling bullish!t. |
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Jan 21, 2023 20:11:19 GMT
So let me get this straight..
So Swiss who isn’t a director and lives in America says someone was chucked out, not welcome, asked to leave, ejected…delete as appropriate. However won’t say who it is or substantiate anything with any proof.
John M, who was actually there says it didn’t happen, didn’t see it happen, or if it did happen, it was done very discreetly, so discreetly that 20 other people didn’t witness anything.
Basically, is this bollocks or not? If it’s not bollocks, who tried to get in and what’s he done to upset our owner?
Only then could we know if it’s justified or not, however, all I will say, is that I’ve been to one of these shareholders meetings once before, and what I witnessed was nothing more than a sustained vitriolic attack on both owner and the appointed executives.
Quite a lot of bulls**t was flying around that evening too, which wasn’t much surprising considering the mouths of the persons it was emitting from and equally it wouldn’t come as much of surprised if the owner has binned those people off.
|
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Jan 21, 2023 20:29:07 GMT
I have read Swiss's PM and I am cross that he has sent it to me putting me in an impossible position and have told him so. I am very annoyed that he has done this and have suggested that he put it in the public domain, pointing out that he only has one side of the story. For the record he hasn't named names. It is so stupid because in the end the truth will out, so why not get on with it? To be honest John, it’s mostly just a couple of grumbly old men now that for some reason, just don’t like our ownership. Whether it’s a subconscious racism or whether it’s steeped in good intention I don’t know as the lines have become so blurred over the years due to the lies, wild speculation, accusations and apparent ITK offerings. I get it, a small minority of old dunfordites who hate the fact they are no longer wanted, but honestly, what do you lot gain from this? I for one would just love to understand that bit. I admit I don’t agree with all our owner has done, I do despair at the stadium situation and I also would do things differently. But that’s the difference between me and WAQ and the fortune he has. I don’t have it, so why should I throw stones from the sidelines? Some people on this board need to give their head a wobble. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 20:32:33 GMT
So let me get this straight.. So Swiss who isn’t a director and lives in America says someone was chucked out, not welcome, asked to leave, ejected…delete as appropriate. However won’t say who it is or substantiate anything with any proof. John M, who was actually there says it didn’t happen, didn’t see it happen, or if it did happen, it was done very discreetly, so discreetly that 20 other people didn’t witness anything. Basically, is this bollocks or not? If it’s not bollocks, who tried to get in and what’s he done to upset our owner? Only then could we know if it’s justified or not, however, all I will say, is that I’ve been to one of these shareholders meetings once before, and what I witnessed was nothing more than a sustained vitriolic attack on both owner and the appointed executives.
Quite a lot of bulls**t was flying around that evening too, which wasn’t much surprising considering the mouths of the persons it was emitting from and equally it wouldn’t come as much of surprised if the owner has binned those people off. I couldn't attend this years AGM and the last face to face AGM I went to was about 4 years ago and I concur with the above. It was by far the most embarrassing AGM I've ever attended and I've been going for 30 odd years. There were a couple of people accusing the owner (cant remember about what but it may have included share scheme certificates?), shouting questions randomly without going through the protocol of raising your hand, the floor couldnt get a word in and the meeting degenerated. I felt a bit sorry for the chair of the meeting although he did not manage the situation well (he is no longer on the board). It did end in huge show of support for WAQ however.
I think the above was the last 'in person' AGM, and they have since been on line until this year.
It may well be that someone was discreetly asked not to attend, and if the above issues at that AGM is anything to go by I am not suprised and would welcome it (irresespectibe of whether technically you should do it or not) and im sure the majority would too, if indeed its connected, because the behaviour of some at that AGM was a disgrace.
Our American based friend will do anything to show the club ownership in a poor light and people will draw their own conclusions. Personally I think he should get out more.
Reading through this thread there is potential for a reformed Monty Python sketch, or perhaps some decent material for Ricky Gervais next stage show. I think people should read it in that context.
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by bloogas on Jan 21, 2023 20:39:27 GMT
[quote author=" irenestoyboy" source="/post/269345/thread" timestamp="1674332947"To be honest John, it’s mostly just a couple of grumbly old men now that for some reason, just don’t like our ownership. Whether it’s a subconscious racism or whether it’s steeped in good intention I don’t know as the lines have become so blurred over the years due to the lies, wild speculation, accusations and apparent ITK offerings. [/quote] Well well ITB, you've used a word that's long been on my mind. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 20:42:57 GMT
I suspect you're not the only one
|
|
