Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 20, 2017 12:41:50 GMT
from the SC website andI guess this was in his programme notes
"Following the Supporters Club’s recent Annual General Meeting the Committee met the following week to discuss a major issue that will become public in due course "
and
"Helen Wigmore will continue to organise the Share Scheme for the time being although this may alter if we elect another Director to replace Brian Seymour Smith in due course. The Football Club has indicated they do not see the need for a replacement as they consider one S.C. Director to be more than sufficient in a greatly reduced Board of just four members at present compared with the eight that served on the Board before the takeover. However, we have legally binding agreement for a second BRSC Director, in substitution for the right to appoint an Associate Director, having subscribing for and being allocated 200,000 Subscription Shares. We are currently in negotiations with the FC Chairman regarding this important issue." |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 13:22:23 GMT
Disgrace. Shame on Hamer, Wael and Hani for allowing it to get to this point. Sending a message to the SC and asking for 2 serious candidates is one thing, but essentially waving 2 fingers in the air at us is something entirely different. They bought the club with full knowledge of this supporter' involvement. I'll bet a shiny 50p piece that Ken doesn't see this as sufficient cause to resign  |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 20, 2017 13:48:58 GMT
Disgrace. Shame on Hamer, Wael and Hani for allowing it to get to this point. Sending a message to the SC and asking for 2 serious candidates is one thing, but essentially waving 2 fingers in the air at us is something entirely different. They bought the club with full knowledge of this supporter' involvement. I'll bet a shiny 50p piece that Ken doesn't see this as sufficient cause to resign Hi Bamber, can you explain please whats a Disgrace ? I don't know of the in's and out's of the SC relationship with the club so can you give some info Thanks for your help in this matter |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 13:50:34 GMT
Disgrace. Shame on Hamer, Wael and Hani for allowing it to get to this point. Sending a message to the SC and asking for 2 serious candidates is one thing, but essentially waving 2 fingers in the air at us is something entirely different. They bought the club with full knowledge of this supporter' involvement. I'll bet a shiny 50p piece that Ken doesn't see this as sufficient cause to resign Hi Bamber, can you explain please whats a Disgrace ? I don't know of the in's and out's of the SC relationship with the club so can you give some info Thanks for your help in this matter Behave, you know full well what the process is that's lead to us having 2 full Directors sitting on the board. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 14:46:15 GMT
Stand by for huge focus on and outrage about an irrelevance, and a wholesale missing of the point.
1. The number 'two' is conceptual and not, in itself, worth dying in a ditch over. The SC people used to constitute about a quarter of the board; to maintain that level it now needs to have one, not two, members. The principle of it ought to matter more than the letter of it.
2. The two that we've had in the past, with the exception of Kim Stuckey, have done the square root of F-all in providing fans' voice in decision making or keeping fans in the loop. √(F-all) is of no less value than 2(√(F-all)). The concept of not getting value from the SC Directors was waived away years ago. Jim Chappell can wind his neck in if he's going to get shirty about an irrelevant technicality, having presided over the wholesale devaluing of the whole concept throughout.
3. The board is now an operational exercise; real decisions are made in Amman, so the circus has moved on. It's a quibble about seats in an empty tent.
The whole thing needs a rethink. It sounds like that motion's coming from the board and being met with frozen stupefaction by the SC.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 20, 2017 14:55:31 GMT
Stand by for huge focus on and outrage about an irrelevance, and a wholesale missing of the point. 1. The number 'two' is conceptual and not, in itself, worth dying in a ditch over. The SC people used to constitute about a quarter of the board; to maintain that level it now needs to have one, not two, members. The principle of it ought to matter more than the letter of it. 2. The two that we've had in the past, with the exception of Kim Stuckey, have done the square root of F-all in providing fans' voice in decision making or keeping fans in the loop. √(F-all) is of no less value than 2(√(F-all)). The concept of not getting value from the SC Directors was waived away years ago. Jim Chappell can wind his neck in if he's going to get shirty about an irrelevant technicality, having presided over the wholesale devaluing of the whole concept throughout. 3. The board is now an operational exercise; real decisions are made in Amman, so the circus has moved on. It's a quibble about seats in an empty tent. The whole thing needs a rethink. It sounds like that motion's coming from the board and being met with frozen stupefaction by the SC. I would agree with a lot of that Jims first comment is interesting. Is the major issue an SC one, and FC one or both? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 15:05:20 GMT
Stand by for huge focus on and outrage about an irrelevance, and a wholesale missing of the point. 1. The number 'two' is conceptual and not, in itself, worth dying in a ditch over. The SC people used to constitute about a quarter of the board; to maintain that level it now needs to have one, not two, members. The principle of it ought to matter more than the letter of it. 2. The two that we've had in the past, with the exception of Kim Stuckey, have done the square root of F-all in providing fans' voice in decision making or keeping fans in the loop. √(F-all) is of no less value than 2(√(F-all)). The concept of not getting value from the SC Directors was waived away years ago. Jim Chappell can wind his neck in if he's going to get shirty about an irrelevant technicality, having presided over the wholesale devaluing of the whole concept throughout. 3. The board is now an operational exercise; real decisions are made in Amman, so the circus has moved on. It's a quibble about seats in an empty tent. The whole thing needs a rethink. It sounds like that motion's coming from the board and being met with frozen stupefaction by the SC. I would agree with a lot of that Jims first comment is interesting. Is the major issue an SC one, and FC one or both? Who knows? Either say it or keep quiet until you're ready to do so, I'd have thought. Save us the 'something nasty in the woodshed' act (channelling 'my' Aunt Ada Doom). The old set-up didn't work; fingers crossed something better can be arranged. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 20, 2017 15:23:20 GMT
Stand by for huge focus on and outrage about an irrelevance, and a wholesale missing of the point. 1. The number 'two' is conceptual and not, in itself, worth dying in a ditch over. The SC people used to constitute about a quarter of the board; to maintain that level it now needs to have one, not two, members. The principle of it ought to matter more than the letter of it. 2. The two that we've had in the past, with the exception of Kim Stuckey, have done the square root of F-all in providing fans' voice in decision making or keeping fans in the loop. √(F-all) is of no less value than 2(√(F-all)). The concept of not getting value from the SC Directors was waived away years ago. Jim Chappell can wind his neck in if he's going to get shirty about an irrelevant technicality, having presided over the wholesale devaluing of the whole concept throughout. 3. The board is now an operational exercise; real decisions are made in Amman, so the circus has moved on. It's a quibble about seats in an empty tent. The whole thing needs a rethink. It sounds like that motion's coming from the board and being met with frozen stupefaction by the SC. On a technicality Dwane Sports only own 92% of the football club. As the other 8% effectively can't make any decisions on running the football club why shouldn't Dwane Sports just purloin the 8% they don't own for nothing? The answer is legally they can't and if there is a legally binding agreement between the football club and the supporters club / sharescheme giving the right to appoint 2 associate directors then Dwane Sports need to put forward proposals to change that legally binding agreement and to do that they will need to offer some form of consideration. The ability or effectiveness of the 2 appointees is irrelevant to the legally binding agreement unless there is some stipulation in it ie perhaps said nominees need to be a season ticket holder. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 16:19:35 GMT
a major issue that will become public in due course "
if the sc are saying major it must be a biggun
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,424
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 20, 2017 17:01:50 GMT
What is more interesting to me is the number of Non BRSC members who clearly are up in arms about something they purport to know a lot about .....BRSC business. It was in Saturday's programme.
I do not know why it was not discussed at the BRSC AGM when Mr Seymour-Smith resigned his position. Before anyone mentions this ...there will not be an open top bus tour at the end of this season.
Relations with all supporter groups is being investigated by the Commercial Director as part of the root and branch report.
Should BRSC now withhold their 50/50 funds towards the BR Youth Academy until another Fans Director is appointed to replace BSS ?
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Nov 20, 2017 17:13:09 GMT
I would be fully behind a decision to tell the entire BRSC to f**k off to be honesst the bunch of self serving spineless dinosaurs.
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Nov 20, 2017 17:17:15 GMT
BRSC said and did nothing for years as the club was taken to the brink of bankruptcy and football oblivion. Wael doesnt see the need for 2 fake directors from BRSC and suddenly they pipe up. Useless and pointless organisation
|
|
|
|
Post by splitter on Nov 20, 2017 17:36:18 GMT
Stand by for huge focus on and outrage about an irrelevance, and a wholesale missing of the point. 1. The number 'two' is conceptual and not, in itself, worth dying in a ditch over. The SC people used to constitute about a quarter of the board; to maintain that level it now needs to have one, not two, members. The principle of it ought to matter more than the letter of it. 2. The two that we've had in the past, with the exception of Kim Stuckey, have done the square root of F-all in providing fans' voice in decision making or keeping fans in the loop. √(F-all) is of no less value than 2(√(F-all)). The concept of not getting value from the SC Directors was waived away years ago. Jim Chappell can wind his neck in if he's going to get shirty about an irrelevant technicality, having presided over the wholesale devaluing of the whole concept throughout. 3. The board is now an operational exercise; real decisions are made in Amman, so the circus has moved on. It's a quibble about seats in an empty tent. The whole thing needs a rethink. It sounds like that motion's coming from the board and being met with frozen stupefaction by the SC. I totally agree with what you are saying about the makeup of the board. Two SC board members in a board that has shrunk by 50% are probably not necessary. If Jim now thinks that the SC should have more clout within the boardroom perhaps he should have paid attention at two key points in the share scheme timeline; 1. The price per share paid by the SC DID matter. 2. The dilution of SC shares without agreeing to it with the membership was a terrible idea. These two decisions alone show that the SC as it is right now, probably shouldn't be in the boardroom beyond the level of an associate director. |
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Nov 20, 2017 17:45:10 GMT
They should call it a day imo
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 17:52:48 GMT
“Oooo look what I know and you don’t”.
Grow up Jim.
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Nov 20, 2017 18:01:20 GMT
We have so much talent in the fan base from podcast creators to merchandise designers. Surely we can do better ? So stuck in the past and lacking in energy and honour since John left
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 18:24:53 GMT
“Oooo look what I know and you don’t”. Grow up Jim. This absolutely. Reporting that in the future there will be news, as news, is stupid. Making announcements that in the future there will be an announcement, is pretentious. Stating one has knowledge without providing any evidence that one knows anything implies one doesn't. Knob. |
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Nov 20, 2017 18:32:09 GMT
I made a serious suggestion for 2 reps to become 1 and that person to be Peter Dunford. Ken Masters should step aside to accomplish this.
Hands for.
Settled.
Proper representation. No silly hustings. Someone that all parties can take seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 18:37:56 GMT
Behave, you know full well what the process is that's lead to us having 2 full Directors sitting on the board. I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand. Directors representing less than 8% of a property 92% owned by Dwane Sports have no power anyway, so perception of any influence is misplaced. BRSC appears to be an irrelevant supine body existing solely to move money from supporters to the football club, without ever presenting anything by way of representation, scrutiny, or advocacy. On the other hand, mainly via the share scheme, BRSC have invested huge sums of supporters' money in BRFC, so anything that reduces or even seems to reduce supporter representation (or the pretence thereof) is unacceptable. You know who I really blame? Us. The victims. Most paid vastly more than I did, so they deserve all the sympathy. But we messed up contributing money, or even by just allowing our fellow gasheads to contribute their money, to a scam. We were hoodwinked and conned, by both BRSC and BRFC. The share scheme should have been shares in a legally enshrined appreciating proportion of The Asset (the Memorial Ground). Then, and only then, as part-landlords of BRFC, would the supporters have real influence. |
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Nov 20, 2017 18:51:47 GMT
Behave, you know full well what the process is that's lead to us having 2 full Directors sitting on the board. I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand. Directors representing less than 8% of a property 92% owned by Dwane Sports have no power anyway, so perception of any influence is misplaced. BRSC appears to be an irrelevant supine body existing solely to move money from supporters to the football club, without ever presneting anything by way of representation, scrutiny, or advocacy. On the other hand, mainly via the share scheme, BRSC have invested huge sums of supporters' money in BRFC, so anything that reduces or even seems to reduce supporter representation (or the pretence thereof) is unacceptable. You know who I really blame? Us. The victims. Most paid vastly more than I did, so they deserve all the sympathy. But we messed up contributing money, or even by just allowing our fellow gasheads to contribute their money, to a scam. We were hoodwinked and conned, by both BRSC and BRFC. The share scheme should have been shares in a legally enshrined appreciating proportion of The Asset (the Memorial Ground). Then, and only then, as part-landlords of BRFC, would the supporters have real influence. The supporters Club do not even own the other 8% of shares. I think they own about 5% and the other 3% are owned by individual supporters who bought shares when the old Board did a share issue. So it is lucky to have one Board Member. |
|
