Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Jun 2, 2016 15:47:03 GMT
So assuming the SC directors were shunted to box 3 (and ignoring BSS' own words that he has spoken to someone about issues) and haven't spoken to the boss/board if they were in box 3 what did they actually do, or what are they going to do about it? s there some magical force field around box 1 that stopped them confronting the chairman or WAQ? This would seem to be a reasonable observation. I'd go so far as to think it must be almost impossible for them not to have encountered them. Are they waiting for some sort of formal introduction, or are they just a bit shy? How long do they think it's reasonable to wait to be asked to dance? Maybe they should join the Gloucester Road Drinkers: they've managed it. We don't just accept anyone in the GRDA you know.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jun 2, 2016 16:12:56 GMT
But of course the Chairman knew of the BRSC representatives to the board and their roles representing us 3500 plus BRSC members' interests. In fact the new board have already taken on board our suggestions. One example being, more Rovers' historical photos around the stadium of all the various teams over our history. Another example, a museum suggested by BRSC will now be incorporated in the design of the new UWE stadium. The new board are receptive to many suggestions and you may well see a Bristol Rovers Women's team and news of a new training base very soon. Happy days indeed Are you serious, the SC are responsible for us bailing from the farcical training facilities. You are either having a laugh or are just trying to draw a reaction. Of course there will be a museum of sorts in the new stadium, any 6th former would incorporate that into the design, no need to pay a million quid for people to put that idea to the BoD. And of course we will be looking at a Women's team, Wael will make sure of it, have a little look around Google and find out where Wael was on May 30th, nothing whatsoever to do with Masters or Seymour-Smith. Dear Bamber you must get out more ....the original Stadium design had no museum incorporated in it despite the 6th formers. I am not saying BRSC or the SC reps should take the credit for that or that they personally pushed for the Womens team to be reintroduced. My comment about the training ground is repeating something the Club Chairman mentioned at the Shareholders AGM which appears now to be coming to a reality. Believe it or not just trying to be positive ...not interested in points scoring.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jun 2, 2016 16:28:45 GMT
I'll say the same thing again, the Chairman didn't seem to know anything about either Masters or Seymour-Smith a couple of weeks back. Maybe Harry can explain that? Can you imagine the boardroom table, a suited and booted businessmen who was involved in billion dollar international bank merger and is vice Chairman at Asian Football Development Project, sat next to the former Chief Executive of Wembley Stadium and Finance Director of the Football Association, an International merger and acquisitions lawyer, our new Chairman who in 5 mins flat in my opinion repaired more than 5 years of disastrous PR from the previous board. And Ken Masters who may or may not rock up in a shell suit with a powerpoint presentation. But back in Feb we started with a clean slate. Masters and Seymour-Smith will be given duties commensurate with their perceived abilities. It's up to them to demonstrate what they bring to the party. But of course the Chairman knew of the BRSC representatives to the board and their roles representing us 3,500 plus BRSC members interests. In fact the new board have already taken on board our suggestions ...one example being More Rovers historical photos around the stadium of all the various teams over our history. Another example a museum suggested by BRSC will now be incorporated in the design of the new UWE stadium. The new board are receptive to many suggestions and you may well see a Bristol Rovers Womens team and news of a new training base very soon. Happy days indeed Appendix H – BRSC's elected BRFC Director(s) role and responsibilities
H4) Representation H4a) Represent the best interests of all supporters within the overall activities of BRFC.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 16:29:19 GMT
Are you serious, the SC are responsible for us bailing from the farcical training facilities. You are either having a laugh or are just trying to draw a reaction. Of course there will be a museum of sorts in the new stadium, any 6th former would incorporate that into the design, no need to pay a million quid for people to put that idea to the BoD. And of course we will be looking at a Women's team, Wael will make sure of it, have a little look around Google and find out where Wael was on May 30th, nothing whatsoever to do with Masters or Seymour-Smith. Dear Bamber you must get out more ....the original Stadium design had no museum incorporated in it despite the 6th formers. I am not saying BRSC or the SC reps should take the credit for that or that they personally pushed for the Womens team to be reintroduced. My comment about the training ground is repeating something the Club Chairman mentioned at the Shareholders AGM which appears now to be coming to a reality. Believe it or not just trying to be positive ...not interested in points scoring.
Ummm, yes you did say exactly that, I'll remind you,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 16:38:21 GMT
There is a key and consistent theme on this thread - irrelevance of those that once thought they were important. For the third time on this thread, I shout "IT'S OVER". For those who wish to plough on regardless, all I can say is that it's pitiful viewing and any justification built on volunteering, benefit of the club etc. doesn't detract from this. BSS, KM, JC - thanks and good night. Wake up and smell the Wael. Supporter influence within the boardroom died the night the Supporters Club voted to dilute their own shareholding thereby killing the share scheme stone dead. Perhaps if they had acted differently their shareholding would have been sufficient that they would have had to have of been fully consulted about the recent takeover rather than an ex chairman and director who had to agree to the takeover. That was exactly what the share scheme was designed to do not simply donate money to a failing board. As Vaughan said. "IT'S OVER". Perhaps the FFS would like to contact the board to see if they could find a way of having consultations with the new owners, JTS and others seem like an intelligent bunch?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jun 2, 2016 17:38:02 GMT
What would be hilarious would be for JTS to be invited to Jordan for talks..... Melt-down!! Go on Wael, please.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 17:51:29 GMT
This would seem to be a reasonable observation. I'd go so far as to think it must be almost impossible for them not to have encountered them. Are they waiting for some sort of formal introduction, or are they just a bit shy? How long do they think it's reasonable to wait to be asked to dance? Maybe they should join the Gloucester Road Drinkers: they've managed it. We don't just accept anyone in the GRDA you know. g r a d f**king splitters
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jun 2, 2016 18:30:17 GMT
Dear Bamber you must get out more ....the original Stadium design had no museum incorporated in it despite the 6th formers. I am not saying BRSC or the SC reps should take the credit for that or that they personally pushed for the Womens team to be reintroduced. My comment about the training ground is repeating something the Club Chairman mentioned at the Shareholders AGM which appears now to be coming to a reality. Believe it or not just trying to be positive ...not interested in points scoring.
Ummm, yes you did say exactly that, I'll remind you, Does it really matter that much if it is card carrying fully paid up member of the BRSC or a season ticket holder who suggested to Club it would be fantastic to have a museum to display items about our Club ? As DC used to say ....not Clarke but David Cameron ....that we are all in it together.....supporting our Club ..not sniping about things like this.....just totally unnecessary in my humble opinion......
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jun 2, 2016 18:32:43 GMT
I think that sentiment is what started this thread off in the first place.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Jun 3, 2016 4:53:11 GMT
Ummm, yes you did say exactly that, I'll remind you, Does it really matter that much if it is card carrying fully paid up member of the BRSC or a season ticket holder who suggested to Club it would be fantastic to have a museum to display items about our Club ? As DC used to say ....not Clarke but David Cameron ....that we are all in it together.....supporting our Club ..not sniping about things like this.....just totally unnecessary in my humble opinion...... Exactly Harry. Maybe a few of us misread yours and Padstows earlier posts, because they didn't seem to be expressing that sentiment, but if I misunderstood I apologise, because we all really do ultimately want the same thin, success for our side (and if you are who I think you are- that applies in rugby too!)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:21:24 GMT
A word of caution. Beware those that demand absolute control.
I can understand the disdain (if that is what it is) for the two SC Directors (sic), but keep a careful eye on the future.
Things have gone unbelievably well for the new shareholders but even under the old agreement the directors of 1883Ltd could reject any nominated Supporters Club rep put forward as part of the share scheme agreement.
Given that they have, I presume, over 90% of the share capital I see no reason to be "assy" about it, apart from distrust or contempt.
But as it stands there is no voice for the supporters at executive level (if there ever was) and the new shareholders will do as they will, even allowing for lip service to "communication"
That's fine as long as things go well, this is football, it will not always be thus. And, I suspect, the new shareholders did not get into this for charity.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 3, 2016 8:34:14 GMT
A word of caution. Beware those that demand absolute control.
I can understand the disdain (if that is what it is) for the two SC Directors (sic), but keep a careful eye on the future.
Things have gone unbelievably well for the new shareholders but even under the old agreement the directors of 1883Ltd could reject any nominated Supporters Club rep put forward as part of the share scheme agreement.
Given that they have, I presume, over 90% of the share capital I see no reason to be "assy" about it, apart from distrust or contempt.
But as it stands there is no voice for the supporters at executive level (if there ever was) and the new shareholders will do as they will, even allowing for lip service to "communication"
That's fine as long as things go well, this is football, it will not always be thus. And, I suspect, the new shareholders did not get into this for charity. Totally agree, which is why the SC should be reserving some funds for future emergencies, and using the rest of those funds to enlarge and deepen the fan base, not forking it over to a business that currently doesn't appear to need it. IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:48:55 GMT
A word of caution. Beware those that demand absolute control.
I can understand the disdain (if that is what it is) for the two SC Directors (sic), but keep a careful eye on the future.
Things have gone unbelievably well for the new shareholders but even under the old agreement the directors of 1883Ltd could reject any nominated Supporters Club rep put forward as part of the share scheme agreement.
Given that they have, I presume, over 90% of the share capital I see no reason to be "assy" about it, apart from distrust or contempt.
But as it stands there is no voice for the supporters at executive level (if there ever was) and the new shareholders will do as they will, even allowing for lip service to "communication"
That's fine as long as things go well, this is football, it will not always be thus. And, I suspect, the new shareholders did not get into this for charity. The SS is a fixed term scheme I think, what happens when it expires, do the directorships just end and the SC revert to being just a shareholder with the shares in an individual's name?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 3, 2016 9:19:44 GMT
A word of caution. Beware those that demand absolute control.
I can understand the disdain (if that is what it is) for the two SC Directors (sic), but keep a careful eye on the future.
Things have gone unbelievably well for the new shareholders but even under the old agreement the directors of 1883Ltd could reject any nominated Supporters Club rep put forward as part of the share scheme agreement.
Given that they have, I presume, over 90% of the share capital I see no reason to be "assy" about it, apart from distrust or contempt.
But as it stands there is no voice for the supporters at executive level (if there ever was) and the new shareholders will do as they will, even allowing for lip service to "communication"
That's fine as long as things go well, this is football, it will not always be thus. And, I suspect, the new shareholders did not get into this for charity. Les, obviously we don’t know the terms of the takeover (other than the rumour of Geoff getting involved to get Nick to stand aside) but I am sure if The Al-Qadi’s could of (and we don’t know to what extent it has been prevented) they probably would have wanted to take 100% control. I don’t think any of us should be naïve to not think that As it is they have the majority control, so if needs be The SC’s 8% is even less relevant than it was under the old pig-headed board Despite what some people are trying to push on this thread, I think we all want an active and relevant SC. That doesn’t mean that it has to have fans reps on the board necessarily and certainly no longer under the current SS agreement which should be scrapped. It appears the SS money is no longer ‘needed’ so scrap it. If necessary it can be relaunched as a donation scheme (as it basically has become) but one that builds a reserve for The SC in case of a rainy day or whatever. If the new owners are happy for fan representation than it no longer needs to be paid for, it can come either through invite or regular meetings with The SC executive. Again I suspect the new board don’t care either way as they are moving in a their new direction, but acknowledging the supporters club or representatives is probably in their interest for when the honeymoon period stalls if they are trying to present an inclusive FC Of course depending on who you talk to they are either being ignored or their input is being taken on board. Perhaps Jim could clarify in a new set of jotting what the real answer is
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jun 3, 2016 10:27:57 GMT
Actually there are two camps on here, the first (larger) camp that wants someone else to run an active & relevant supporters club, and the second (smaller) camp that realises the same people will volunteer (due to a lack of willing volunteers) to run the supporters club and we can only hope that they change to run an active & relevant supporters club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 10:40:24 GMT
Actually there are two camps on here, the first (larger) camp that wants someone else to run an active & relevant supporters club, and the second (smaller) camp that realises the same people will volunteer (due to a lack of willing volunteers) to run the supporters club and we can only hope that they change to run an active & relevant supporters club. I would wait to see what proposals come from the SC before deciding if I wanted to give time to support the direction they decide to go in. But my suspicion is that this is just a storm in a tea cup and as soon as the fixture list is released it'll all be forgotten, then it'll be business as usual at SCHQ.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jun 3, 2016 10:54:20 GMT
Actually there are two camps on here, the first (larger) camp that wants someone else to run an active & relevant supporters club, and the second (smaller) camp that realises the same people will volunteer (due to a lack of willing volunteers) to run the supporters club and we can only hope that they change to run an active & relevant supporters club. I would wait to see what proposals come from the SC before deciding if I wanted to give time to support the direction they decide to go in. But my suspicion is that this is just a storm in a tea cup and as soon as the fixture list is released it'll all be forgotten, then it'll be business as usual at SCHQ. First paragraph is really chicken and egg. The second paragraph I wholeheartedly agree with and is pretty much what I've been saying all along.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 11:35:07 GMT
A word of caution. Beware those that demand absolute control.
I can understand the disdain (if that is what it is) for the two SC Directors (sic), but keep a careful eye on the future.
Things have gone unbelievably well for the new shareholders but even under the old agreement the directors of 1883Ltd could reject any nominated Supporters Club rep put forward as part of the share scheme agreement.
Given that they have, I presume, over 90% of the share capital I see no reason to be "assy" about it, apart from distrust or contempt.
But as it stands there is no voice for the supporters at executive level (if there ever was) and the new shareholders will do as they will, even allowing for lip service to "communication"
That's fine as long as things go well, this is football, it will not always be thus. And, I suspect, the new shareholders did not get into this for charity. This is absolutely right, which is the reason that, ideally, something would be sorted out. I think the new owners wouldn't want people not of their choice being imposed into the heart of decision making with any meaningful influence, or with a power of veto. The thing is, the last lot didn't either, but paid lip service to it on financial grounds. That's how we got the job titles and talk, which was ignored. What 'we' probably want - and wanted - (dare I speak for more than myself) is some kind of voice to interface with the owners. Hopefully we then feel more part of it and less taken for granted or getting what we're given, and they get valuable stakeholder involvement, which ought to suit both sides. The old set-up of mute and sidelined Directors, a compliant SC, and a policy of 'we only deal with the SC' didn't do it; a new set-up of mute and maybe sidelined / maybe suggesting things Directors, and a sniping SC, won't do that either. Ultimately, at 92%, they can do as they like and ignore 'us'. If there's a better relationship, which would serve both sides in good times and bad, good, let's go for it. I suspect the board would need to initiate it, though, although the best people to do so ought to be the two SC Directors salvaging some useful function from their position. That's 'ideally'. As nothing's on fire, I guess it won't happen. In the meantime, though, please can the official spokesman of the supporters be less sneering of people who, so far, are doing well. If and when something sensible needs saying, then please can it be said constructively. That way, there's more chance of 'us' being listened to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 11:48:19 GMT
I would wait to see what proposals come from the SC before deciding if I wanted to give time to support the direction they decide to go in. But my suspicion is that this is just a storm in a tea cup and as soon as the fixture list is released it'll all be forgotten, then it'll be business as usual at SCHQ. First paragraph is really chicken and egg. The second paragraph I wholeheartedly agree with and is pretty much what I've been saying all along. The SC have made a start asking questions, so maybe there will be some movement, if things are heading in the right direction and there's something I think I can add, and if they want me, I'm more than happy to give my time. The missing bit is that the SC could well become an irrelevance if they don't modernise. What I mean is, if the SC stand still they will become the next Woolworths, or BHS, or Blockbusters, it will be a matter of time before a group like Jon's FFSclub offer more of what the punters want, his group grows and eclipses the SC. No doubt the SC loyalists will laugh at that suggestion, but the owners of those businesses named above thought they were set fair and nothing would change. Maybe Jon will be the Netflix to Jim's Blockbusters
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jun 3, 2016 12:04:20 GMT
First paragraph is really chicken and egg. The second paragraph I wholeheartedly agree with and is pretty much what I've been saying all along. The SC have made a start asking questions, so maybe there will be some movement, if things are heading in the right direction and there's something I think I can add, and if they want me, I'm more than happy to give my time. The missing bit is that the SC could well become an irrelevance if they don't modernise. What I mean is, if the SC stand still they will become the next Woolworths, or BHS, or Blockbusters, it will be a matter of time before a group like Jon's FFSclub offer more of what the punters want, his group grows and eclipses the SC. No doubt the SC loyalists will laugh at that suggestion, but the owners of those businesses named above thought they were set fair and nothing would change. Maybe Jon will be the Netflix to Jim's Blockbusters Beg my ignorance but what are the aims and objectives of Netflix (sorry) FFS please ?
|
|