Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 21:28:48 GMT
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. It's over 10 years ago now, but wasn't this the thing where someone, let's name no names here, asked Ken in the SC bar how he voted, Ken tried not to answer but was pressed for a reply and totally lost it? He was stamping around in circles shouting that he 'didn't accept the question' then he slammed his glass on the bar and shuffled off, all red in the face. It was priceless. Not that I was there laughing my head off at him or anything.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Nov 20, 2017 22:31:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 22:52:46 GMT
This is getting confusing in that case, I'm sure that Ken attended a board meeting to ratify this and wouldn't say how he had voted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 23:30:25 GMT
As a prefix this does not inspire the confidence if should.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 23:45:20 GMT
As a prefix this does not inspire the confidence if should. It would have been reported 'in real time' so those dates are almost certainly correct. Could it be that it was agreed at a EGM but still needed to be ratified at a board meeting, or have I just got it wrong? It's over a decade ago, and despite how it may appear on here, matters relating to Brain / Masters / Seymour-Smith / Jim don't exactly consume my every waking hour. Reading that report it appears that some share holders voted against the SC having a 2 year period to take up / pay for their Rights Issue shares. Happy days.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 0:17:16 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. ive heard of him, is he the bloke that gave the fans the bird one game ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 0:53:05 GMT
As a prefix this does not inspire the confidence if should. It would have been reported 'in real time' so those dates are almost certainly correct. Could it be that it was agreed at a EGM but still needed to be ratified at a board meeting, or have I just got it wrong? It's over a decade ago, and despite how it may appear on here, matters relating to Brain / Masters / Seymour-Smith / Jim don't exactly consume my every waking hour. Reading that report it appears that some share holders voted against the SC having a 2 year period to take up / pay for their Rights Issue shares. Happy days. The board were defeated at the actual EGM on a show of hands but pushed it through after a share count the next day. The SC had enough shares at the time to have blocked it. Ken Maters wasn’t there as far as I can remember and David was taking the flack from the floor. You could well be I’ll be right about it being ratified after when Masters was on the scene.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Nov 21, 2017 7:35:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 21, 2017 9:29:50 GMT
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? They may well not know their rights but I wasn't replying, directly, to them.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 21, 2017 12:38:50 GMT
"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? yes to every question except the last one...all members are respected and I do have faith in those elected officials (who are independent from BRFC) and are genuine substantial fundraisers for the Club..ie BRFC.
You only have to ask them direct and you will get an answer and explanation.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 21, 2017 12:44:28 GMT
It would have been reported 'in real time' so those dates are almost certainly correct. Could it be that it was agreed at a EGM but still needed to be ratified at a board meeting, or have I just got it wrong? It's over a decade ago, and despite how it may appear on here, matters relating to Brain / Masters / Seymour-Smith / Jim don't exactly consume my every waking hour. Reading that report it appears that some share holders voted against the SC having a 2 year period to take up / pay for their Rights Issue shares. Happy days. The board were defeated at the actual EGM on a show of hands but pushed it through after a share count the next day. The SC had enough shares at the time to have blocked it. Ken Maters wasn’t there as far as I can remember and David was taking the flack from the floor. You could well be I’ll be right about it being ratified after when Masters was on the scene. Its bloody sad when I read the historical stuff then see that nothing has really changed. It’s back to the who is the best fan bollox eh mate. I used to genuinely think of Rovers as my extended & chosen family. I now feel more at home on here than I do at games. It’s become quite toxic of late and I could see it coming
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 21, 2017 12:47:48 GMT
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? yes to every question except the last one...all members are respected and I do have faith in those elected officials (who are independent from BRFC) and are genuine substantial fundraisers for the Club..ie BRFC.
You only have to ask them direct and you will get an answer and explanation.
That’s just not true Mike. I used to get more from BSS than anyone but even he had enough of it and the feeling of being neutred by the club and it’s increasingly poor way of dealing with us supporters. Tell me, why hasn’t anyone posted any details of the last meeting please ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 12:49:15 GMT
More confirmation that the Supporters Club exists for the club and not the supporters.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 21, 2017 13:58:58 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. And that in essence is the problem - while the SC continues to be viewed by those at top of it as having the same closed-shop organisational logic as a political party or a trade union (a logic which makes sense for those organisations) it will continue it's slow decline into irrelevance. It should actually be applying the organisational logic of a pressure group because that is where it sits in reality in relation to the football club. George Washington would agree with these sentiments not the above ones by the way.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 21, 2017 14:08:35 GMT
"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. And that in essence is the problem - while the SC continues to be viewed by those at top of it as having the same closed-shop organisational logic as a political party or a trade union (a logic which makes sense for those organisations) it will continue it's slow decline into irrelevance. It should actually be applying the organisational logic of a pressure group because that is where it sits in reality in relation to the football club. George Washington would agree with these sentiments not the above ones by the way. Indeed and there is a major issue that the exec committee know about and we all have to wait to find out what it is.
What it is so major, that for whatever reason they cant tell us. If they can't tell us anything, why has Jim even mentioned it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 14:14:24 GMT
"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. And that in essence is the problem - while the SC continues to be viewed by those at top of it as having the same closed-shop organisational logic as a political party or a trade union (a logic which makes sense for those organisations) it will continue it's slow decline into irrelevance. It should actually be applying the organisational logic of a pressure group because that is where it sits in reality in relation to the football club. George Washington would agree with these sentiments not the above ones by the way. Exactly. Plus, in seeking to dress it up in high values, he's got it arse about face: what we've got is 'no representation without payment'. That was an entirely different problem from the same era, and is more the equivalent more recently of a one-party state - only party members count, presided over by a cabal. But, as you point out, this is supposed to be a vehicle for supporters of a 3rd division football club, not a cult of the (self-)elect.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 14:19:38 GMT
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? yes to every question except the last one...all members are respected and I do have faith in those elected officials (who are independent from BRFC) and are genuine substantial fundraisers for the Club..ie BRFC.
You only have to ask them direct and you will get an answer and explanation.
So, having been kept fully informed about this otherwise secret issue already, what is it (or are all members subject to yet another confidentiality agreement)? Personally, I think you're talking nonsense.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 21, 2017 15:25:11 GMT
An extract from the actual BRSC notes from Saturday's match day programme
"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 also to sort out the various positions made vacant during the last eighteen months or so. The club has been without a Vice-Chairman since Chris Walker stood down last season and long-serving Matchday Organiser Phil Draper has stepped-up to undertake this role whilst continuing to run our sales cabin in the car park on match days. Our erstwhile Secretary Sue Williams has also been carrying out the Treasurer’s duties alongside her secretarial role and she has now taken over the former position permanently. This move left a gap filled by David Thomas who has become Club Secretary. David will continue his fine work on our website as well as taking the minutes at meetings in future.
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.
Talking of the Share Scheme, it was nice to have a decent take-up of members to a buffet in the Executive Bar before the Checkatrade Trophy match here against Swindon and this is something we would like to repeat in future but of course it is difficult to fit in availability in a hectic League campaign when all the bars are normally busy. Those who continue to pay into the Scheme certainly deserve some reward for their loyalty.
We are very much need three points today so please get behind the boys in blue and white– Up the Pirates! Jim Chappell"
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 21, 2017 15:58:34 GMT
An extract from the actual BRSC notes from Saturday's match day programme "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 also to sort out the various positions made vacant during the last eighteen months or so. The club has been without a Vice-Chairman since Chris Walker stood down last season and long-serving Matchday Organiser Phil Draper has stepped-up to undertake this role whilst continuing to run our sales cabin in the car park on match days. Our erstwhile Secretary Sue Williams has also been carrying out the Treasurer’s duties alongside her secretarial role and she has now taken over the former position permanently. This move left a gap filled by David Thomas who has become Club Secretary. David will continue his fine work on our website as well as taking the minutes at meetings in future. 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. Talking of the Share Scheme, it was nice to have a decent take-up of members to a buffet in the Executive Bar before the Checkatrade Trophy match here against Swindon and this is something we would like to repeat in future but of course it is difficult to fit in availability in a hectic League campaign when all the bars are normally busy. Those who continue to pay into the Scheme certainly deserve some reward for their loyalty. We are very much need three points today so please get behind the boys in blue and white– Up the Pirates! Jim Chappell" isn't that what I put minus a bit about football in the OP? This what we are discussing Mike
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 16:24:31 GMT
yes to every question except the last one...all members are respected and I do have faith in those elected officials (who are independent from BRFC) and are genuine substantial fundraisers for the Club..ie BRFC.
You only have to ask them direct and you will get an answer and explanation.
So, having been kept fully informed about this otherwise secret issue already, what is it (or are all members subject to yet another confidentiality agreement)? Personally, I think you're talking nonsense. Why bother? He either doesn't understand or is in denial about the structure and legal status of the Share Scheme, that's obvious from what he's said over a prolonged period. Call me argumentative, but if I were on the SC Executive I would want some kind of assurance that the owners were not taking £600,000 out of the club in cash before I handed any more money, given to the SC in good faith, over to them.
|
|