Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 19:05:13 GMT
I don't think complete fan ownership is a sustainable model but I do think supporters should have a significant shareholding in their football club. The £1m plus that Rovers supporters have "donated" (per Barry Bradshaw) should ensure that the fans collective voice is heard. Clearly this hasn't happened at BRFC and for the reasons outlined in this thread it is my opinion that the SC will never be the right organisation to contribute to BRFC strategy or hold the board to account. Any board of directors who were serious about building bridges and utilising the talent of our fans should donate and ring-fence 25% of total shares in lieu of the fans £1m investment to an Independent Trust. I appreciate this would upset the SC but I think that organisation should be left to concentrate on their strengths. The two significant issues are, firstly, most of the people who had the ability to make a success of partial fan ownership have been crapped on from a very great height and have found other hobbies. Secondly, the board, including Nick Higgs, have shown no desire to promote fan ownership. In fact they have shown that they are hell bent on stamping out any growth. For that reason I think your endeavors will be fruitless and I suspect that like last time, you will find you have very little support other than the occasional message of goodwill. in a nutshell Sadly true
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 19:15:58 GMT
Til Oi Die As someone who is involved with the set up of the share scheme and the scenario that lead up to that scheme being set up I can tell you that a) the timelines on here are wrong, negotiations with the then BoD started in 2000/1 b) there were three fan groupings involved c) One group defined the capital requirement d) the share price reflected the capital requirement divided by a 28% shareholding that thus prevented and EGM resolution if required, but not a takeover e) You are ignoring pre-emption rights, which no existing shareholder is going to just hand over and in any event could not without an EGM resolution. The share scheme was dead way before the events of 2006 and the resignation of some of then leading directors / shareholders. in fact it died in May 2004 when having achieved the target of share purchases the election of fans directors came into being. On the share scheme committee (within the SC) were certain people who had very definite ideas and conviction of how things needed to change. They included, Steve Martell, Roger Cooper, Kim Stuckey Yours Truly, and an acceptance from one SC stalwart in John M. The main SC committee disliked us intensely and sought to block the election of any of us, although we had designed the scheme, drafted the agreement and led the negotiations with the BoD. Reason? They didn't understand it, had zero, as in none, commercial experience (Bamber is right the then treasurer of the SC, back in 2001 when we were at a formal meeting with GD discussing share pricing amongst other things, we being the Gas Trust, the SC and yours truly representing Premier Blue ( a ltd co set up to buy shares) had this discussion. GD: So what price do you think the shares should sold at. Gas Trust: £12. SC: Why is that important? Premier Blue £1.15p (net asset value divided by proposed share capital) So I bristle at the comments you make, but as you were not around and not involved (and that was something we got wrong, misinterpreting the passion of support as a desire to get involved) I accept of course your comments are not based on any knowledge of what actually happened Are you able to answer till oi die original point of why there wasn't a clause to prevent the dilution of the SC holding? I did We were attempting to enter into a commercial agreement with the company and with a minority shareholding. Given that would you really expect the majority shareholders to forego their pre emption rights? And if they did, it would be by EGM resolution which meant the scheme members would forego their rights as well? Would you seriously negotiate away that position?
Not that you were involved with anything at all, ever.....but hey, enjoy the G&T from your self proclaimed balcony of isolation
|
|
|
Post by davehuddscousin on Jul 17, 2015 19:33:33 GMT
Perhaps those who were involved in the Gas Trust should get in touch with Mark. To me the share scheme was always a con, but a proper independent trust on the Supporters Direct model should be tried again. (And its most hostile opponent - GoD is no longer a Director).
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Jul 17, 2015 21:22:40 GMT
I don't think complete fan ownership is a sustainable model but I do think supporters should have a significant shareholding in their football club. The £1m plus that Rovers supporters have "donated" (per Barry Bradshaw) should ensure that the fans collective voice is heard. Clearly this hasn't happened at BRFC and for the reasons outlined in this thread it is my opinion that the SC will never be the right organisation to contribute to BRFC strategy or hold the board to account. Any board of directors who were serious about building bridges and utilising the talent of our fans should donate and ring-fence 25% of total shares in lieu of the fans £1m investment to an Independent Trust. I appreciate this would upset the SC but I think that organisation should be left to concentrate on their strengths. The two significant issues are, firstly, most of the people who had the ability to make a success of partial fan ownership have been crapped on from a very great height and have found other hobbies. Secondly, the board, including Nick Higgs, have shown no desire to promote fan ownership. In fact they have shown that they are hell bent on stamping out any growth. For that reason I think your endeavors will be fruitless and I suspect that like last time, you will find you have very little support other than the occasional message of goodwill. I was really impressed with a lot you wrote here, but don't know if the last bit is about what I was involved in last year ( The Wellie Group) ? How much support did we have ? Do you know ? I'd rather if others said what we did or did not achieve BUT we did get The people who run the club to actually contact us and then finally after much pressure hold a Q & A which you could have attended and asked questions. Did we get all the things we wanted ? NO, not by a long shot, but you could say we MAY have had some positive effect because the club we love got immediate promotion back to the league ! Cheers, Mark
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Jul 17, 2015 21:23:16 GMT
Perhaps those who were involved in the Gas Trust should get in touch with Mark. To me the share scheme was always a con, but a proper independent trust on the Supporters Direct model should be tried again. (And its most hostile opponent - GoD is no longer a Director). Thanks to you - and yes please do !
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Jul 17, 2015 21:27:51 GMT
Hmmm, this is all fascinating stuff. What is absolutely clear is that we have some very knowledgeable members on this forum who all would give up their own time to improve the lot of our club. The BoD rely on apathy to maintain the status quo. The Supporters Club are not what they purport to be. The dilution of shares and the 199 Two Mile Hill shenanigans smack of rank amateurism. I'm sure there is a way ahead but apathy gets in the way. When you think of all the good people who have been chewed up and spat out by their involvement in trying to get things better it's disgraceful. So don't be one of the apathetic ones ! Come along and listen and chat and let's see if we can make a positive, tangible start
|
|
jackthegas
David Pritchard
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 313
|
Post by jackthegas on Jul 17, 2015 22:35:03 GMT
I don't think complete fan ownership is a sustainable model but I do think supporters should have a significant shareholding in their football club. The £1m plus that Rovers supporters have "donated" (per Barry Bradshaw) should ensure that the fans collective voice is heard. Clearly this hasn't happened at BRFC and for the reasons outlined in this thread it is my opinion that the SC will never be the right organisation to contribute to BRFC strategy or hold the board to account. Any board of directors who were serious about building bridges and utilising the talent of our fans should donate and ring-fence 25% of total shares in lieu of the fans £1m investment to an Independent Trust. I appreciate this would upset the SC but I think that organisation should be left to concentrate on their strengths. The two significant issues are, firstly, most of the people who had the ability to make a success of partial fan ownership have been crapped on from a very great height and have found other hobbies. Secondly, the board, including Nick Higgs, have shown no desire to promote fan ownership. In fact they have shown that they are hell bent on stamping out any growth. For that reason I think your endeavors will be fruitless and I suspect that like last time, you will find you have very little support other than the occasional message of goodwill. I was really impressed with a lot you wrote here, but don't know if the last bit is about what I was involved in last year ( The Wellie Group) ? How much support did we have ? Do you know ? I'd rather if others said what we did or did not achieve BUT we did get The people who run the club to actually contact us and then finally after much pressure hold a Q & A which you could have attended and asked questions. Did we get all the things we wanted ? NO, not by a long shot, but you could say we MAY have had some positive effect because the club we love got immediate promotion back to the league ! Cheers, Mark Sorry that last sentence is ambiguous. It should read, For that reason I think your endeavors will be fruitless. I suspect that like last time the idea of establishing an independent organisation was discussed, you will find you have very little support other than the occasional message of goodwill. If you decide to proceed finding enough people who are willing and capable of helping will be an enormous challenge. As I say, those who were interested have drifted away. I wasn't involved last time but one of the groups posted several messages on here asking for more support and greater numbers and I don't think their call to arms was answered in the affirmative.
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Jul 18, 2015 0:42:42 GMT
I wish you luck but I more hope you don't invest so much of your time for a cause that can't or won't be acknowledged. Time has a value and if we know that the fruits of our labour will end in a product then it's easy to invest in it. However, history is not on (y)our side.
The best way a club can run is as a unit but it can only run as such if the shareholders, legally protected, decide in a 180 degree about turn. Whether with a new stadium or not Bristol Rovers will never provide what the common supporter wants and that is togetherness, a sense of respect and a club that treats everyone with fair regard.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 18, 2015 9:12:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 18, 2015 9:16:15 GMT
Are you able to answer till oi die original point of why there wasn't a clause to prevent the dilution of the SC holding? I did We were attempting to enter into a commercial agreement with the company and with a minority shareholding. Given that would you really expect the majority shareholders to forego their pre emption rights? And if they did, it would be by EGM resolution which meant the scheme members would forego their rights as well? Would you seriously negotiate away that position?
Not that you were involved with anything at all, ever.....but hey, enjoy the G&T from your self proclaimed balcony of isolation
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 18, 2015 10:01:56 GMT
I did We were attempting to enter into a commercial agreement with the company and with a minority shareholding. Given that would you really expect the majority shareholders to forego their pre emption rights? And if they did, it would be by EGM resolution which meant the scheme members would forego their rights as well? Would you seriously negotiate away that position?
Not that you were involved with anything at all, ever.....but hey, enjoy the G&T from your self proclaimed balcony of isolation
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme. and to put it crudely but corrctly - the supporters were shafted by the BOD
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 10:56:41 GMT
I did We were attempting to enter into a commercial agreement with the company and with a minority shareholding. Given that would you really expect the majority shareholders to forego their pre emption rights? And if they did, it would be by EGM resolution which meant the scheme members would forego their rights as well? Would you seriously negotiate away that position?
Not that you were involved with anything at all, ever.....but hey, enjoy the G&T from your self proclaimed balcony of isolation
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme. We were badly let down by the SC Committee who gave money to the club before we had negotiated the agreement and indeed signed it.
But you are wrong. The share capital was increased by 250,000 to 2,500,000 to create the space for the purchase of 700,000 shares at £5, which created the value of £3.5M we thought the club needed to re capitalise (at that time) To do that you have to hold an EGM of the then current shareholders and pass that resolution, which they did in good faith. They also passed a resolution that no ground could be sold without an EGM resolution. As you know (I think) no EGM resolution can pass without gaining the approval of 75% of the shareholding. Thus the share scheme prevented dilution by that blocking vote. (Because you cannot increase share capital without an EGM resolution) Later in 2006/7 they gave away that blocking ability by voting FOR a resolution that withdrew pre-emption rights from the Articles of Association. But from the outset, in 2002/3, nobody in their right mind would say we would NEVER EVER need to issue new shares, if so, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would insist that pre-emption rights be removed at the point of contract thus denying the share scheme members the first opportunity to maintain their % shareholding. Would you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 11:09:42 GMT
Hmmm, this is all fascinating stuff. What is absolutely clear is that we have some very knowledgeable members on this forum who all would give up their own time to improve the lot of our club. The BoD rely on apathy to maintain the status quo. The Supporters Club are not what they purport to be. The dilution of shares and the 199 Two Mile Hill shenanigans smack of rank amateurism. I'm sure there is a way ahead but apathy gets in the way. When you think of all the good people who have been chewed up and spat out by their involvement in trying to get things better it's disgraceful. So don't be one of the apathetic ones ! Come along and listen and chat and let's see if we can make a positive, tangible start Marc. With all due respect, this sounds and feels very much like last year. Around 50 people turned up to the first meeting, a few people vented their frustration, bits of paper were handed around asking questions, and then...... the fixture lists came out and people lost interest and started watching the team. Sorry if my memory is playing tricks on me, but didn't you scuttle off to a secret meeting with Jelf and Ware? If so, can you remind me what happened at that meeting and why that needed to happen in secret? My view, for what it's worth, you are going about this backwards. I think that you should decide what you are actually trying to achieve, consider what's required to achieve that, design a mechanism to deliver your objectives. Then consider what funding and personnel are needed. When you have this in place would be time to hold meetings to garner opinion and fine-tune and see if it's possible to raise the required cash and recruit the skills needed. I suspect that you will be tempted to respond saying that the point of the meeting would be to discuss what people want etc, but all that will produce is hot air. If this is going to get off the ground you need to come up with a plan and see if it inspires people to offer their time and energy (and cash). I think that Jack is wrong about the SC not being a viable vehicle to effect change. They have around 3000 members and access to many more supporters via their databases. Just look at BSS, came from nowhere, not even a share scheme member, he was sat in the boardroom in the blink of an eye. I'm not quite sure how Jack thinks the FC gifting 25% of their equity to a new organisation, to represent money paid via the Share Scheme is going to work? Maybe he could add some detail?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 18, 2015 11:15:08 GMT
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme. We were badly let down by the SC Committee who gave money to the club before we had negotiated the agreement and indeed signed it.
But you are wrong. The share capital was increased by 250,000 to 2,500,000 to create the space for the purchase of 700,000 shares at £5, which created the value of £3.5M we thought the club needed to re capitalise (at that time) To do that you have to hold an EGM of the then current shareholders and pass that resolution, which they did in good faith. They also passed a resolution that no ground could be sold without an EGM resolution. As you know (I think) no EGM resolution can pass without gaining the approval of 75% of the shareholding. Thus the share scheme prevented dilution by that blocking vote. (Because you cannot increase share capital without an EGM resolution) Later in 2006/7 they gave away that blocking ability by voting FOR a resolution that withdrew pre-emption rights from the Articles of Association. But from the outset, in 2002/3, nobody in their right mind would say we would NEVER EVER need to issue new shares, if so, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would insist that pre-emption rights be removed at the point of contract thus denying the share scheme members the first opportunity to maintain their % shareholding. Would you?
What a better informative answer that is. But reading through that the SC could only prevent the dilution of there shareholding if they first got to 25% (which I'm not sure they ever have). So in theory there was protection but actually they could never have enforced that protection. Hence a dilution clause would've been better. The flipside is that had they got to 25% holding and there was a need to raise, say, another £1.5m by issuing new shares then if they agreed to the issue of new shares unless there was some clause offering them free or substancially reduced price shares they would have had no ability to suddenly raise the £375k necessary to prevent there holding being dilution.
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Jul 18, 2015 12:09:58 GMT
So don't be one of the apathetic ones ! Come along and listen and chat and let's see if we can make a positive, tangible start Marc. With all due respect, this sounds and feels very much like last year. Around 50 people turned up to the first meeting, a few people vented their frustration, bits of paper were handed around asking questions, and then...... the fixture lists came out and people lost interest and started watching the team. Sorry if my memory is playing tricks on me, but didn't you scuttle off to a secret meeting with Jelf and Ware? If so, can you remind me what happened at that meeting and why that needed to happen in secret? My view, for what it's worth, you are going about this backwards . I think that you should decide what you are actually trying to achieve, consider what's required to achieve that, design a mechanism to deliver your objectives. Then consider what funding and personnel are needed.
When you have this in place would be time to hold meetings to garner opinion and fine-tune and see if it's possible to raise the required cash and recruit the skills needed. I suspect that you will be tempted to respond saying that the point of the meeting would be to discuss what people want etc, but all that will produce is hot air. If this is going to get off the ground you need to come up with a plan and see if it inspires people to offer their time and energy (and cash). I think that Jack is wrong about the SC not being a viable vehicle to effect change. They have around 3000 members and access to many more supporters via their databases. Just look at BSS, came from nowhere, not even a share scheme member, he was sat in the boardroom in the blink of an eye. I'm not quite sure how Jack thinks the FC gifting 25% of their equity to a new organisation, to represent money paid via the Share Scheme is going to work? Maybe he could add some detail? Bingo ! That's what's going to happen You make it all sound so easy Bamber. Surely you're not suggesting one person has all the answers and he preaches and directs everyone to go along with it ?
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Jul 18, 2015 12:25:36 GMT
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme. and to put it crudely but corrctly - the supporters were shafted by the BOD Wrong. The SC and Share Scam committee were shafted by the BOD. Some of us saw through it and opposed it from Day 1 (I fed Radio Bristol a lot of questions to put to Steve Burns, bless him), yet were chastised and ostracised by the masses for heresy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 12:27:20 GMT
Marc. With all due respect, this sounds and feels very much like last year. Around 50 people turned up to the first meeting, a few people vented their frustration, bits of paper were handed around asking questions, and then...... the fixture lists came out and people lost interest and started watching the team. Sorry if my memory is playing tricks on me, but didn't you scuttle off to a secret meeting with Jelf and Ware? If so, can you remind me what happened at that meeting and why that needed to happen in secret? My view, for what it's worth, you are going about this backwards . I think that you should decide what you are actually trying to achieve, consider what's required to achieve that, design a mechanism to deliver your objectives. Then consider what funding and personnel are needed.
When you have this in place would be time to hold meetings to garner opinion and fine-tune and see if it's possible to raise the required cash and recruit the skills needed. I suspect that you will be tempted to respond saying that the point of the meeting would be to discuss what people want etc, but all that will produce is hot air. If this is going to get off the ground you need to come up with a plan and see if it inspires people to offer their time and energy (and cash). I think that Jack is wrong about the SC not being a viable vehicle to effect change. They have around 3000 members and access to many more supporters via their databases. Just look at BSS, came from nowhere, not even a share scheme member, he was sat in the boardroom in the blink of an eye. I'm not quite sure how Jack thinks the FC gifting 25% of their equity to a new organisation, to represent money paid via the Share Scheme is going to work? Maybe he could add some detail? Bingo ! That's what's going to happen You make it all sound so easy Bamber. Surely you're not suggesting one person has all the answers and he preaches and directs everyone to go along with it ? I didn't suggest that it would be easy, it won't. I didn't say that you should tell people what to go along with. But this feels very much like last year's effort and very much like B&G. And you are still going about it backwards. Think the problem through, design a solution, sell the idea but be flexible enough to accomodate new thoughts and improvements. If you just call another meeting, as last year, you will struggle to get 30 people attend and nothing will come of it. Did you miss the question about a covert meeting with Jelf & Ware?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 12:30:12 GMT
We were badly let down by the SC Committee who gave money to the club before we had negotiated the agreement and indeed signed it.
But you are wrong. The share capital was increased by 250,000 to 2,500,000 to create the space for the purchase of 700,000 shares at £5, which created the value of £3.5M we thought the club needed to re capitalise (at that time) To do that you have to hold an EGM of the then current shareholders and pass that resolution, which they did in good faith. They also passed a resolution that no ground could be sold without an EGM resolution. As you know (I think) no EGM resolution can pass without gaining the approval of 75% of the shareholding. Thus the share scheme prevented dilution by that blocking vote. (Because you cannot increase share capital without an EGM resolution) Later in 2006/7 they gave away that blocking ability by voting FOR a resolution that withdrew pre-emption rights from the Articles of Association. But from the outset, in 2002/3, nobody in their right mind would say we would NEVER EVER need to issue new shares, if so, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would insist that pre-emption rights be removed at the point of contract thus denying the share scheme members the first opportunity to maintain their % shareholding. Would you?
What a better informative answer that is. But reading through that the SC could only prevent the dilution of there shareholding if they first got to 25% (which I'm not sure they ever have). So in theory there was protection but actually they could never have enforced that protection. Hence a dilution clause would've been better. The flipside is that had they got to 25% holding and there was a need to raise, say, another £1.5m by issuing new shares then if they agreed to the issue of new shares unless there was some clause offering them free or substancially reduced price shares they would have had no ability to suddenly raise the £375k necessary to prevent there holding being dilution. You are quite correct on your point on the timing of acheiving the minimum 25% and in the draft agreement I wrote, we addressed this by them agreeing to not increase the share capital during that initial period. There was already plenty of room in the newly issued share capital which had been increased tenfold, so there were plenty of "uncalled" shares available. But here it falls apart. There were other clauses around existing directors loans which were being contested by the BoD. It held things up and it was during this period that the SC totally undermined our position by handing cash to the Bod from the rapidly accumulating fund. I remember a fateful meeting in Victoria Station where we concluded the scheme was dead in terms of the vision we had for it. I wanted a scorched earth reaction, but the majority did not, majority on the SS Committee. I continued my gold membership until the Egm of 2004 when the final nail in the coffin of the scheme was acted out when the SC prevented Roger Cooper from being elected. We all know what has happened since. o
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Jul 18, 2015 13:35:54 GMT
Bingo ! That's what's going to happen You make it all sound so easy Bamber. Surely you're not suggesting one person has all the answers and he preaches and directs everyone to go along with it ? I didn't suggest that it would be easy, it won't. I didn't say that you should tell people what to go along with. But this feels very much like last year's effort and very much like B&G. And you are still going about it backwards. Think the problem through, design a solution, sell the idea but be flexible enough to accomodate new thoughts and improvements. If you just call another meeting, as last year, you will struggle to get 30 people attend and nothing will come of it. Did you miss the question about a covert meeting with Jelf & Ware? pm and i'll invite you to the meeting and at the end of it I'll give you an answer about the so-called secret meeting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 13:40:16 GMT
I didn't suggest that it would be easy, it won't. I didn't say that you should tell people what to go along with. But this feels very much like last year's effort and very much like B&G. And you are still going about it backwards. Think the problem through, design a solution, sell the idea but be flexible enough to accomodate new thoughts and improvements. If you just call another meeting, as last year, you will struggle to get 30 people attend and nothing will come of it. Did you miss the question about a covert meeting with Jelf & Ware? pm and i'll invite you to the meeting and at the end of it I'll give you an answer about the so-called secret meeting. I thought we were all invited to an open meeting already? Just tell us about the meeting with board members and why you didn't disclose it. It's a question of credibility isn't it?
|
|