Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 19:06:43 GMT
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. I knew it was 'less than 8%', but not as low as 5%. In return for rather a lot of working people's wages. There we are. 5% surely entitles them to one director on a board of twenty, or (um) one fifth of a director on a board of four. At least we may enjoy the election of a director to be sliced into five distinct pieces, four of which segments will not be permitted to attend board meetings. I nominate Ken Masters.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 19:31:06 GMT
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. I knew it was 'less than 8%', but not as low as 5%. In return for rather a lot of working people's wages. There we are. 5% surely entitles them to one director on a board of twenty, or (um) one fifth of a director on a board of four. At least we may enjoy the election of a director to be sliced into five distinct pieces, four of which segments will not be permitted to attend board meetings. I nominate Ken Masters. Special shout out to Masters and Brain for not even resisting dilution of the SC share capital. But that's not the point today, where we are today is that the owners have bought Rovers with 2 spaces around the table for supporters' reps, we paid unsecured funds, not yielding 6% for the privilege, I'm disgusted that the owners are proposing what they are and that Hamer is prepared to carry the message. Shame on them. As said above, if they had sent a message back suggesting that, These 2 bring nothing to the party, do you have anyone else, someone that can do a job for the BoD please? That would be understandable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 19:32:54 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. Come on mate. Over 75% and at an EGM the majority shareholders can do as they please. Their is a legal mechanism for minority shareholders, but do you think the SC get that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 19:39:00 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. Hang on just a second, we know nothing about him, as far as I'm aware he's never commented on the SC or the Share Scheme. I know the SC website is a bit rubbish and this may not be up to date, but Peter's name isn't shown on the Share Scheme Members' Plaque, so I presume he's not interested in the scheme?
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 20, 2017 19:52:28 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 Please,please nominate them as BRSC committee members and let them a have a go. I have been saying this for years...but clearly they cant be bothered. It takes time, effort attending monthly meetings, standing out in the rain selling 50/50 tickets, programmes etc on a matchday. Some prefer to spend their matchday drinking and eating so I get told so they wont volunteer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:03:20 GMT
Just to sum up, the whole thing was supposed to give us insight into, and involvement in, the running of the club. All this about the training ground, UWE, the 'please will someone tell us what's going on' vibe and the 'well I heard' and speculation stuff, that's what this was there for.
That was neutered very early on, and the buzz phrase 'confidentiality agreement' was landed on, prior to a long and deafening silence from those involved. We hear nothing from them.
Their own existence is now subject to the same hint and rumour, and we still hear nothing, even on that subject. Do they know what's going on? Do they have a view? Even on whether or not there's any point to them? Who knows? And there's the rub: there clearly isn't any point to them.
Hopefully a better set-up for communication and/or involvement can be established, but either way there's no point in perpetuating this farce, which isn't just hopeless, but acts as chaff for the need for proper channels. It's good that someone's recognised that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:08:14 GMT
Alright, I'll bite, again. BRFC keep their BRSC Director, elected by BRSC, in lieu of the share scam. He is not actually sliced into five distinct segments. A second Supporters Director to which Bamber says we are entitled is created. He or she is elected annually as BRSTA Director by BRSTA members. Every season ticket contains a unique BRSTA membership number and voter ID. Every September or whatever, every season ticket holder gets to vote online. Mass participation of season ticket holders is established in the election. The annually elected BRSTA Director thus provides real representation. BRSTA evolves as a massive Bristol Rovers Season Ticket Association. Think of a better name if you like. EDIT: Please,please nominate them as BRSC committee members and let them a have a go. I have been saying this for years...but clearly they cant be bothered. It takes time, effort attending monthly meetings, standing out in the rain selling 50/50 tickets, programmes etc on a matchday. Some prefer to spend their matchday drinking and eating so I get told so they wont volunteer. I do not see why joining the commitee of a defunct organisation, attending monthly meetings, standing in the rain, selling lottery tickets, or selling programmes, is a prerequisite to having one's talents exploited by BRFC. I respect those who do these BRSC things, but these are surely not the minimum criteria for validity. I also do not see why I should show interest in an organisation which slags off gasheads for eating and drinking on matchdays. I an sure people who buy pints and pasties alongside season or matchday tickets are also vital to the success of BRFC. Maybe to stop slagging them off is a good place to start. Oh Harry/Mike/John/Kegan...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:30:45 GMT
The Share Scheme was over the night the Supporters Club voted in favour of diluting their own shareholding thereby ending any chance they ever had of reaching the 26% required to stop any major decisions such as selling the club or its ground without their approval. That was the original aim of the share scheme and it died that night. I’m amazed that people have continued to fund an agreement that ended some time ago.
I back the owners decision to remove one of the chairs from the boardroom it’s just a shame they didn’t remove both of them.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Nov 20, 2017 20:36:53 GMT
At school, when we didn't want someone to play with us, we'd remove a chair from our table and they'd have to sit somewhere else.
Plastic chairs, plastic position and false in every practical way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:39:45 GMT
At school, when we didn't want someone to play with us, we'd remove a chair from our table and they'd have to sit somewhere else. Plastic chairs, plastic position and false in every practical way. If somebody had moved my chair I would have punched them. 😉
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:47:22 GMT
the Supporters Club voted in favour of diluting their own shareholding thereby ending any chance they ever had of reaching the 26% required to stop any major decisions such as selling the club or its ground without their approval, [t]hat was the original aim of the share scheme Every time I see this fact written, I still find it just as implausible. Just which Turkeys' representatives voted for this abonimable Christmas? Who would do this?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 20, 2017 20:49:01 GMT
I back the owners decision to remove one of the chairs from the boardroom it’s just a shame they didn’t remove both of them. disagree with the 2nd bit I thought it was a very astute political move by the new owners to by 92%, and to retain supporter representation. I think that that move has not yet been fully 'leveraged'. Which isn't the fault of the new owners, necessarily
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 20, 2017 20:51:17 GMT
The Share Scheme was over the night the Supporters Club voted in favour of diluting their own shareholding thereby ending any chance they ever had of reaching the 26% required to stop any major decisions such as selling the club or its ground without their approval. That was the original aim of the share scheme and it died that night. I’m amazed that people have continued to fund an agreement that ended some time ago. I back the owners decision to remove one of the chairs from the boardroom it’s just a shame they didn’t remove both of them. Quite right. When the SC resort to the reporting of a major issue but won’t divulge it then you must know it’s over, surely ?
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 20, 2017 20:53:49 GMT
Alright, I'll bite, again. BRFC keep their BRSC Director, elected by BRSC, in lieu of the share scam. He is not actually sliced into five distinct segments. A second Supporters Director to which Bamber says we are entitled is created. He or she is elected annually as BRSTA Director by BRSTA members. Every season ticket contains a unique BRSTA membership number and voter ID. Every September or whatever, every season ticket holder gets to vote online. Mass participation of season ticket holders is established in the election. The annually elected BRSTA Director thus provides real representation. BRSTA evolves as a massive Bristol Rovers Season Ticket Association. Think of a better name if you like. EDIT: Please,please nominate them as BRSC committee members and let them a have a go. I have been saying this for years...but clearly they cant be bothered. It takes time, effort attending monthly meetings, standing out in the rain selling 50/50 tickets, programmes etc on a matchday. Some prefer to spend their matchday drinking and eating so I get told so they wont volunteer. I do not see why joining the commitee of a defunct organisation, attending monthly meetings, standing in the rain, selling lottery tickets, or selling programmes, is a prerequisite to having one's talents exploited by BRFC. I respect those who do these BRSC things, but these are surely not the minimum criteria for validity. I also do not see why I should show interest in an organisation which slags off gasheads for eating and drinking on matchdays. I an sure people who buy pints and pasties alongside season or matchday tickets are also vital to the success of BRFC. Maybe to stop slagging them off is a good place to start. Oh Harry/Mike/John/Kegan... "No Taxation Without Representation"! I believe this started the American Revolution....you cant change something you don't like by standing outside that organisation and stamping your feet up and down with a banner saying Down with Jim, while drinking a pint and eating a Cornish pasty.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:55:15 GMT
Well connected as I am, I know something you lot don't know, and I'm not going to tell you lot, because I don't answer to you lot. That's essentially what Jim is so proudly Jotting. Jot off. EDIT: "No Taxation Without Representation"! I believe this started the American Revolution....you cant change something you don't like by standing outside that organisation and stamping your feet up and down with a banner saying Down with Jim, while drinking a pint and eating a Cornish pasty. Sorry? I don't think you read my post. I proposed a BRSTA Director elected by season ticket holders. Buying a season ticket contributes rather more 'taxation' than a BRSC subscription, Sir. By a long way, no? The point is, most gasheads don't want BRSC representation, because BRSC don't want to represent most gasheads. I do not know what BRSC do want, other than to attend committee meetings and to stand in the rain. Respect and all, but you do not represent gasheads, and your leaders voted to dilute the representation of gasheads who invested a staggering amount of money via your share scam. It doesn't matter how many times or how many ways you tell gasheads who buy pints or pasties to duck off. Each time you look less relevant. If you really thought you were the vanguard of the revolution, then genuinely I would fear for your state of mind. But you know, as well as I do, that you are nothing of the sort. BRSC RIP
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 21:08:51 GMT
the Supporters Club voted in favour of diluting their own shareholding thereby ending any chance they ever had of reaching the 26% required to stop any major decisions such as selling the club or its ground without their approval, [t]hat was the original aim of the share scheme Every time I see this fact written, I still find it just as implausible. Just which Turkeys' representatives voted for this abonimable Christmas? Who would do this? Front and centre Masters and Brain. To add some context. Masters had been trying to get elected for some time and had just managed to do so, taking the position vacated by Kim Stuckey I think. My reading was that having waited so long to get the position he wasn't going to throw it away by arguing this point during his first few weeks. David seemed to think that it was better to be in the tent peeing out. And I think that at least one board member got to him and convinced him somehow that doubling the price of shares made them better value. But having said all of that, whilst I think he was very wrong here, David is one of life's good guys.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Nov 20, 2017 21:10:42 GMT
At school, when we didn't want someone to play with us, we'd remove a chair from our table and they'd have to sit somewhere else. Plastic chairs, plastic position and false in every practical way. If somebody had moved my chair I would have punched them. 😉 What if you couldn't work out which of the 4 around the table had moved it? I find it hard to believe both on the BRSC website and in the programme notes there's the suggestion something "major" is about to happen but then give no clues what it might be. Next SH will say rumours started on social media are affecting the players.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 21:11:24 GMT
Alright, I'll bite, again. BRFC keep their BRSC Director, elected by BRSC, in lieu of the share scam. He is not actually sliced into five distinct segments. A second Supporters Director to which Bamber says we are entitled is created. He or she is elected annually as BRSTA Director by BRSTA members. Every season ticket contains a unique BRSTA membership number and voter ID. Every September or whatever, every season ticket holder gets to vote online. Mass participation of season ticket holders is established in the election. The annually elected BRSTA Director thus provides real representation. BRSTA evolves as a massive Bristol Rovers Season Ticket Association. Think of a better name if you like. EDIT: I do not see why joining the commitee of a defunct organisation, attending monthly meetings, standing in the rain, selling lottery tickets, or selling programmes, is a prerequisite to having one's talents exploited by BRFC. I respect those who do these BRSC things, but these are surely not the minimum criteria for validity. I also do not see why I should show interest in an organisation which slags off gasheads for eating and drinking on matchdays. I an sure people who buy pints and pasties alongside season or matchday tickets are also vital to the success of BRFC. Maybe to stop slagging them off is a good place to start. Oh Harry/Mike/John/Kegan... "No Taxation Without Representation"! I believe this started the American Revolution....you cant change something you don't like by standing outside that organisation and stamping your feet up and down with a banner saying Down with Jim, while drinking a pint and eating a Cornish pasty. Go on then, sell me the sizzle. Were you, as a member, able to discuss this big issue at the AGM? Are you expecting to be consulted, when they choose to disclose it? Have you fed in your take on BSS not being replaced, which first became apparent in the summer? Have you had an explanation about all this from the inner sanctum, to the outside of which your tenner gives you elite access? D'you know what they're up to? Or are you treated with the same disregard as the rest of us by the anorak squad in their bubble?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 21:21:43 GMT
If somebody had moved my chair I would have punched them. 😉 What if you couldn't work out which of the 4 around the table had moved it? I find it hard to believe both on the BRSC website and in the programme notes there's the suggestion something "major" is about to happen but then give no clues what it might be. Next SH will say rumours started on social media are affecting the players. I did say them. 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 21:23:07 GMT
Every time I see this fact written, I still find it just as implausible. Just which Turkeys' representatives voted for this abonimable Christmas? Who would do this? Front and centre Masters and Brain. To add some context. Masters had been trying to get elected for some time and had just managed to do so, taking the position vacated by Kim Stuckey I think. My reading was that having waited so long to get the position he wasn't going to throw it away by arguing this point during his first few weeks. David seemed to think that it was better to be in the tent peeing out. And I think that at least one board member got to him and convinced him somehow that doubling the price of shares made them better value. But having said all of that, whilst I think he was very wrong here, David is one of life's good guys. From memory I don’t think Masters had come ome then and only David was on the board following Kim’s resignation.
|
|