Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 11:47:31 GMT
Probably best to apologise anyway, she did turn up. More in the know nonsense. I have now been advised that the Q & A are considered to be part of the AGM and on that basis it is only open to Shareholders.
I accept that answer, clearly my assumptions on this specific point, were incorrect and for that I apologise for misleading anyone.
I have also now been advised, who the individuals who turned up were and they are clearly longstanding Gasheads, as you well know.
"More in in the know nonsense" has nothing to do with this thread, to which I could respond but would not dignify causing upset to the people concerned.
End of Tthread
Probably wouldn't bother going on those peoples advise again, you might start calling more people liars.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 11:50:12 GMT
I have now been advised that the Q & A are considered to be part of the AGM and on that basis it is only open to Shareholders.
I accept that answer, clearly my assumptions on this specific point, were incorrect and for that I apologise for misleading anyone.
I have also now been advised, who the individuals who turned up were and they are clearly longstanding Gasheads, as you well know.
"More in in the know nonsense" has nothing to do with this thread, to which I could respond but would not dignify causing upset to the people concerned.
End of Tthread
Hmm, interesting.
When asked when the next 'Q&A' session was on Twatter, one of our Fans Directors (BSS) said "AGM 1st week March open session after that for all fans Bri" (Tweeted 20 Feb at 10:17am)
He was obviously also mistaken.
Or mislead
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 4, 2015 12:00:48 GMT
Summary from the Gas List:-
Easter and Clark will return to non contact training Thursday, contact training Friday and will be assessed for Saturdays match. To be honest, DC did not sound fully confident that either would be available.
There were no other injuries from Saturday’s game, Parkes is OK
We are looking at bringing in a midfield player on loan.
If we do not get promoted this season we will lose out on £400k+ in guaranteed revenues. We will also lose out on the Youth team revenues, not sure if that is within the £400K or will be in addition to it.
The Directors are confident that the Sainsbury court case will go in our favour. They do have a plan b,c,d if we do not win and on the suggestion to nurses accommodation at The Mem for Southmead hospital, they just smiled.
UWE are still on-board with the development.
The confidential clause still applies as we do not want to give Sainsbury any leverage to use against us.
The court case is now set to commence on 14th May and not the date previously given.
All the papers are now at the Court and apparently can be inspected but I do not have a link.
The BT Sport revenue for televised games is £7k for a home game and £1k for an away game, we lose money on televised home games due to fewer spectators but we cannot refuse to allow them to televise games.
DC likes players to take quick throw ins, it is not permissible to use the multi ball system, Gateshead are allowed to as their ground is an athletic stadium!!!!!!
I wonder how great and what the Plan B, Cs and Ds are? I mean if we lost the court case and get nothing and have a massive loan and costs to repay how viable are B, C and D and if they are that good....
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 4, 2015 12:12:02 GMT
I have also now been advised, who the individuals who turned up were and they are clearly longstanding Gasheads, as you well know.
Probably wouldn't bother going on those peoples advise again, you might start calling more people liars. Quite. "If you look at the posting from nittygnome55, he is a first time poster and what he said was total oarlocks and I'll suggest he did not turn up at all and his posting was just to "stir it up" "
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Mar 4, 2015 12:13:25 GMT
From the 'Fishal site:
PUBLISHED
11:26 4th March 2015
The club would like to thank all the shareholders who attended last night’s AGM.
Tuesday night gave the Board the chance to talk to shareholders at the AGM, where we gave an update on the Club’s position both on and off the field.
Nick Higgs and Edward Ware updated the shareholders on the High Court action against Sainsbury’s and the date was confirmed as 14 May 2015.
Chris Jelf updated shareholders on why the Company had refinanced away from Barclays, explaining the need to create the finance to fund the Court Action with Sainsbury’s.
Darrell Clarke then took questions on playing matters and we hope everyone’s questions were answered satisfactorily.
Thank you once again for your continued support of Darrell and the players and also of the board, during the on-going battle with Sainsbury’s.
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Mar 4, 2015 12:14:23 GMT
Looks like we've stopped calling Sainsbury's our 'partners' now
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 12:27:19 GMT
So they don't have the money to fund the court case, or aren't confident enough to go to the cash point and draw it out.
What happens then if Sainsbury's win and no costs are awarded to Jelf and his mates?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 4, 2015 12:28:47 GMT
So they don't have the money to fund the court case, or aren't confident enough to go to the cash point and draw it out. What happens then if Sainsbury's win and no costs are awarded to Jelf and his mates? plan B,C and D apparently (see above)
|
|
nsgas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 61
|
Post by nsgas on Mar 4, 2015 12:35:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 4, 2015 12:51:27 GMT
As this was not the case, the very least we should have is a set of minutes published, via the club or supporters club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 12:53:57 GMT
So they don't have the money to fund the court case, or aren't confident enough to go to the cash point and draw it out. What happens then if Sainsbury's win and no costs are awarded to Jelf and his mates? plan B,C and D apparently (see above) Wonder why, when Higgs explained B,C and D to Barclays they weren't sufficciently confident to extend the existing facility? As always with Rovers, nothing makes much sense, and when the things that people are telling you don't make much sense, there's usually a very good reason.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 4, 2015 13:10:22 GMT
plan B,C and D apparently (see above) Wonder why, when Higgs explained B,C and D to Barclays they weren't sufficciently confident to extend the existing facility? As always with Rovers, nothing makes much sense, and when the things that people are telling you don't make much sense, there's usually a very good reason. It doesn't make much sense to me. The board have other plans if we don't win the case, yet the club will be even more worse off financially. They must be good plans
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 13:11:11 GMT
So they don't have the money to fund the court case, or aren't confident enough to go to the cash point and draw it out. What happens then if Sainsbury's win and no costs are awarded to Jelf and his mates? One word Administration
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 13:13:15 GMT
plan B,C and D apparently (see above) Wonder why, when Higgs explained B,C and D to Barclays they weren't sufficciently confident to extend the existing facility? As always with Rovers, nothing makes much sense, and when the things that people are telling you don't make much sense, there's usually a very good reason. Maybe Barclays did offer money but a rate which was far higher then what was available from our current finance package
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 13:20:33 GMT
So they don't have the money to fund the court case, or aren't confident enough to go to the cash point and draw it out. What happens then if Sainsbury's win and no costs are awarded to Jelf and his mates? One word Administration What would that achieve? MSP would still be paid, the administrators don't exactly work for free, then out of any residual funds you could pay yourself back some of the money you had lent your own company.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 13:24:30 GMT
So, the OP has declared 'End of thread' now s/he has accepted the original post was wrong, the sneering at people who weren't going to something that wasn't going to happen was unfounded, and retracted calling the person who, from an informed stance, gave the correct position, a liar. That's that then. Much ado about nothing. As you were.
However, before we file it away simply as a self-righteous person being shown to be an arse, I think there's something else to observe about it.
Traditionally, there is a public Q&A after the AGM, albeit it's usually mainly the manager discussing selections and tactics rather than the business of the night. Last May we were told we were going to have regular Q&A sessions for fans to talk to the board because that would be 'a good thing'. The first was in July or August. By memory, I think there was talk of a next one in 'probably October'. BSS was clearly expecting an open Q&A session just 7 days before the AGM: the OP considered it beyond question that there wouldn't be one, and probably wasn't the only one. That smacks of a delivery of the exact opposite of the policy declared last summer: 'regular Q&As' has been realised as 'a Q&A in 6 or 8 weeks time when people have calmed down a bit, and then abolishing the one per year we used to have'. What's that about?
Secondly, as they've invested over £1 million in this enterprise, the SC might be expected to take an interest in its AGM (notwithstanding they're supposed to get regular reports from its representative Direcltors in the board). What can they tell us?
Has the daft no-one must know anything because they might not like it omertà been ratcheted up? If so, why?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 13:30:06 GMT
So, the OP has declared 'End of thread' now s/he has accepted the original post was wrong, the sneering at people who weren't going to something that wasn't going to happen was unfounded, and retracted calling the person who, from an informed stance, gave the correct position, a liar. That's that then. Much ado about nothing. As you were. In fairness, there was an apology from the OP. That's more than a lot of people on this forum seem to be capable of.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 13:39:28 GMT
So, the OP has declared 'End of thread' now s/he has accepted the original post was wrong, the sneering at people who weren't going to something that wasn't going to happen was unfounded, and retracted calling the person who, from an informed stance, gave the correct position, a liar. That's that then. Much ado about nothing. As you were. In fairness, there was an apology from the OP. That's more than a lot of people on this forum seem to be capable of. You're right, I should maybe have made more of that. I alluded lower down to his assumption that there would be an open Q&A session actually being quite reasonable and probably matched most people's expectations. I think it was the 'End of thread' statement that I thought was a bit of a cheek, because having mentioned it, I think it raised other issues. But fair shout they put their hand up.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,164
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 4, 2015 14:21:28 GMT
Probably best to apologise anyway, she did turn up. More in the know nonsense. I have now been advised that the Q & A are considered to be part of the AGM and on that basis it is only open to Shareholders.
I accept that answer, clearly my assumptions on this specific point, were incorrect and for that I apologise for misleading anyone.
I have also now been advised, who the individuals who turned up were and they are clearly longstanding Gasheads, as you well know.
"More in in the know nonsense" has nothing to do with this thread, to which I could respond but would not dignify causing upset to the people concerned.
End of Tthread
Thanks The Gas for taking the time to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 4, 2015 14:56:41 GMT
plan B,C and D apparently (see above) Wonder why, when Higgs explained B,C and D to Barclays they weren't sufficciently confident to extend the existing facility? As always with Rovers, nothing makes much sense, and when the things that people are telling you don't make much sense, there's usually a very good reason. Having some recent experience in the banking sector I suspect Barclay's took it as an opportunity to divest themselves of some non-core business. Happening a lot in British banking particularly in the loan sector. Of course people can completely close their minds to this possibility as they did last time I offered it as a 'possible' explanation. You might also refer to the Co-ops experience in holding loans against a club going bust (as many seem to assume we are). Sheff Wed to make your search a bit easier. Perfectly highlights why a bank would consider a small football club as non- core business.
|
|