Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 19:05:08 GMT
OK this time of year is marked by the more than usual Ken bashing, but did any poster actually go to the AGM and what happened particularly in the Q&As? Yes, I was there. Hardly any questions were asked, just 20 minutes worrying about if the lady who arranges away travel was ill or in hospital, what would happen? The main part of the evening was Adam Tutton talking about the Community Trust - which is Ken's major area of work within the organisation. Ken hinted in his usual way that the FC is basically run by the CEO and, whilst he is the SC board member, there are never any board meetings, so his position is largely ceremonial! Not his fault in my opinion, as he is being pushed out in effect. There is no need for all the Ken-bashing - and comments about cheap/free tickets are unwarranted. Unless Bamber wishes to follow what Ken did in 2008 and put £10,000 of his own money into the Community Trust which would have closed down had he not done so.... Thought not! Hiya, you feeling OK? Check what's been written, it may calm you down a bit. All I've done is praise the Community Dept / Community Trust. As somebody who helped pay for the position that Ken holds, I'll say what I think about the representation he's given, that's normal, isn't it? Don't you think that if there are no Board meetings for Ken to attend that the SC should be writing to the people still paying in to the Share Scheme and explaining that it's not possible to represent the share capital at Board meetings? I do. Then there's the issue of the legal agreement, which Ken stated in his report to the AGM remained unchanged, my understanding of that is that the SC should have 2 Directors. So shouldn't the SC insist that meetings are held and that our 2 reps attend? Those 2 positions have cost us 1.2 million quid, and counting. We don't seem to be getting a lot for our money right now, and whether you like it or not, Ken appears to be allowing that to continue unchallenged without even advising the people who are funding the position he holds.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,412
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 3, 2019 11:44:08 GMT
OK this time of year is marked by the more than usual Ken bashing, but did any poster actually go to the AGM and what happened particularly in the Q&As? Yes, I was there. Hardly any questions were asked, just 20 minutes worrying about if the lady who arranges away travel was ill or in hospital, what would happen? The main part of the evening was Adam Tutton talking about the Community Trust - which is Ken's major area of work within the organisation. Ken hinted in his usual way that the FC is basically run by the CEO and, whilst he is the SC board member, there are never any board meetings, so his position is largely ceremonial! Not his fault in my opinion, as he is being pushed out in effect. There is no need for all the Ken-bashing - and comments about cheap/free tickets are unwarranted. Unless Bamber wishes to follow what Ken did in 2008 and put £10,000 of his own money into the Community Trust which would have closed down had he not done so.... Thought not! Did not know that about Ken ...bambi needs to apologise in my humble opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 11:53:45 GMT
Yes, I was there. Hardly any questions were asked, just 20 minutes worrying about if the lady who arranges away travel was ill or in hospital, what would happen? The main part of the evening was Adam Tutton talking about the Community Trust - which is Ken's major area of work within the organisation. Ken hinted in his usual way that the FC is basically run by the CEO and, whilst he is the SC board member, there are never any board meetings, so his position is largely ceremonial! Not his fault in my opinion, as he is being pushed out in effect. There is no need for all the Ken-bashing - and comments about cheap/free tickets are unwarranted. Unless Bamber wishes to follow what Ken did in 2008 and put £10,000 of his own money into the Community Trust which would have closed down had he not done so.... Thought not! Did not know that about Ken ...bambi needs to apologise in my humble opinion. For what? You seem just as confused as normal. So, again, for the obviously hard of understanding, if you could just clear your head, you would see that all I've done is praise the Community Dept / Trust. All I'm questioning is why Ken feels he needs the position of Supporters' Director to be able to carry out that work. What's hard to understand about that? Of course, sat behind that we have the issue of how the SC are handling the lack of Board meetings and therefore the lack of opportunity to represent the share capital purchased with our £1.2m. Then there's the fact that they are still collecting money, supported by a legal agreement which, if I understand correctly, they aren't presently able to meet the conditions of. Where am I wrong? What do I need to apologise for please?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 12:50:16 GMT
Did not know that about Ken ...bambi needs to apologise in my humble opinion. For what? You seem just as confused as normal. So, again, for the obviously hard of understanding, if you could just clear your head, you would see that all I've done is praise the Community Dept / Trust. All I'm questioning is why Ken feels he needs the position of Supporters' Director to be able to carry out that work. What's hard to understand about that? Of course, sat behind that we have the issue of how the SC are handling the lack of Board meetings and therefore the lack of opportunity to represent the share capital purchased with our £1.2m. Then there's the fact that they are still collecting money, supported by a legal agreement which, if I understand correctly, they aren't presently able to meet the conditions of. Where am I wrong? What do I need to apologise for please? You need to write a little slower.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 13:14:07 GMT
For what? You seem just as confused as normal. So, again, for the obviously hard of understanding, if you could just clear your head, you would see that all I've done is praise the Community Dept / Trust. All I'm questioning is why Ken feels he needs the position of Supporters' Director to be able to carry out that work. What's hard to understand about that? Of course, sat behind that we have the issue of how the SC are handling the lack of Board meetings and therefore the lack of opportunity to represent the share capital purchased with our £1.2m. Then there's the fact that they are still collecting money, supported by a legal agreement which, if I understand correctly, they aren't presently able to meet the conditions of. Where am I wrong? What do I need to apologise for please? You need to write a little slower. Don't know why I bother. Mike hasn't even bothered to read the forum rules. Had he have made the effort to do that he would know that Rule 1 forbids advertising. Anyway, where do you reckon the SC stand legally with this, what I mean is, is there a problem with them still collecting money via the Share Scheme when they aren't able to honour the terms of the legal agreement? I should add though, if I understand the situation correctly, it doesn't sound as if it's the fault of the SC that they find themselves in that position.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 13:19:11 GMT
You need to write a little slower. Don't know why I bother. Mike hasn't even bothered to read the forum rules. Had he have made the effort to do that he would know that Rule 1 forbids advertising. Anyway, where do you reckon the SC stand legally with this, what I mean is, is there a problem with them still collecting money via the Share Scheme when they aren't able to honour the terms of the legal agreement? I should add though, if I understand the situation correctly, it doesn't sound as if it's the fault of the SC that they find themselves in that position. If they aren't happy with the situation then it is their right to challenge the football club but it would appear that they are happy with the situation as it is otherwise their first action would be to stop handing over the share scheme cash unconditionally. Let's be honest though, the share scheme concept ended the night David Brain voted in favour of diluting the SC shareholding thus making the schemes target impossible to achieve. It is now purely a donation exercise.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 3, 2019 13:19:57 GMT
from the other place... But what does he do to warrant his fans director roll? By his own admission - little or nothing since all decisions are now taken by the CEO of the FC and board meetings are rarely held any more. He continues in the role because that's part of the deal with the Share Scheme, so it's a legal requirement. I understand it was agreed we would only have one SC director in the FC after the takeover, but might be wrong on that front! Ken was very open about his role at the AGM last night - it's fair to say he is not a fan of the CEO! I think it’s very bad form that the owners have systematically got rid of the vast majority of the longterm and true blue people, who worked tirelessly and with no pay, for us. They now are breaking all ties with the supporters club. I think it’s crap and it shows they have no respect for tradition and it shows them to seem worried by the people like Keith Brookman and others, who have been excellent in their services to the club. I think it’s very petty
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 13:48:00 GMT
Don't know why I bother. Mike hasn't even bothered to read the forum rules. Had he have made the effort to do that he would know that Rule 1 forbids advertising. Anyway, where do you reckon the SC stand legally with this, what I mean is, is there a problem with them still collecting money via the Share Scheme when they aren't able to honour the terms of the legal agreement? I should add though, if I understand the situation correctly, it doesn't sound as if it's the fault of the SC that they find themselves in that position. If they aren't happy with the situation then it is their right to challenge the football club but it would appear that they are happy with the situation as it is otherwise their first action would be to stop handing over the share scheme cash unconditionally. Let's be honest though, the share scheme concept ended the night David Brain voted in favour of diluting the SC shareholding thus making the schemes target impossible to achieve. It is now purely a donation exercise. I'm a bit lost with this. On the SC website the SS agreement is quite old, they still have this; So, when that was drafted, the Associate Director could be told to naff off at the whim of the Chairman, but wasn't this superseded when we hit £1m. I thought that triggered us having 2 full Directors? We know that the SC monitor what's said on here, so let's give it a couple of weeks and see what happens. After that I may write to them formally and ask for clarification.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 13:55:19 GMT
If they aren't happy with the situation then it is their right to challenge the football club but it would appear that they are happy with the situation as it is otherwise their first action would be to stop handing over the share scheme cash unconditionally. Let's be honest though, the share scheme concept ended the night David Brain voted in favour of diluting the SC shareholding thus making the schemes target impossible to achieve. It is now purely a donation exercise. I'm a bit lost with this. On the SC website the SS agreement is quite old, they still have this; So, when that was drafted, the Associate Director could be told to naff off at the whim of the Chairman, but wasn't this superseded when we hit £1m. I thought that triggered us having 2 full Directors? We know that the SC monitor what's said on here, so let's give it a couple of weeks and see what happens. After that I may write to them formally and ask for clarification. I think Oldie was party to drafting the agreement so hopefully he will clarify. There was certainly a trigger point for the second full director though and from memory I thought it was the £1m mark.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 3, 2019 14:12:32 GMT
Was that Karl? ...and the Labour Party? Groucho Marx from the film duck soup if memory serves me well. There was no please accept my resignation though, he said I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that had me as a member
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Nov 3, 2019 14:20:21 GMT
Sneering at a woman in her mid 60s looks? What a classy bunch of George Clooney lookalikes we have here.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 3, 2019 14:22:16 GMT
She is beyond criticism. I mean, literally no one in mainstream media picks up on her incompetence. It really is quite amazing. And it keeps getting re-elected!? She should take Tom Gorringe/ Kenny job....that would shut Bambi up! Are you serious ? She is vilified on every single thing she is involved in. She is an highly educated person but just is not good in front of cameras. I’m not a fan of hers btw but just stating a fact. The papers have a field day as does antisocial media, at her expense.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 3, 2019 14:29:43 GMT
You need to write a little slower. Don't know why I bother. Mike hasn't even bothered to read the forum rules. Had he have made the effort to do that he would know that Rule 1 forbids advertising. Anyway, where do you reckon the SC stand legally with this, what I mean is, is there a problem with them still collecting money via the Share Scheme when they aren't able to honour the terms of the legal agreement? I should add though, if I understand the situation correctly, it doesn't sound as if it's the fault of the SC that they find themselves in that position. Yes you are right. The owners have been busy in getting rid of loyal servants to the club and cutting ties with the SC
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Nov 3, 2019 14:29:54 GMT
She is beyond criticism. I mean, literally no one in mainstream media picks up on her incompetence. It really is quite amazing. And it keeps getting re-elected!? She should take Tom Gorringe/ Kenny job....that would shut Bambi up! Are you serious ? She is vilified on every single thing she is involved in. She is an highly educated person but just is not good in front of cameras. I’m not a fan of hers btw but just stating a fact. The papers have a field day as does antisocial media, at her expense. A working class woman, who got herself into a grammar school then Cambridge, and as you say, all she gets are sneers and snipes. You're right, she isn't good debating on camera, but she is far more intelligent that the halfwits who criticise her based on that alone.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 3, 2019 14:43:57 GMT
Are you serious ? She is vilified on every single thing she is involved in. She is an highly educated person but just is not good in front of cameras. I’m not a fan of hers btw but just stating a fact. The papers have a field day as does antisocial media, at her expense. A working class woman, who got herself into a grammar school then Cambridge, and as you say, all she gets are sneers and snipes. You're right, she isn't good debating on camera, but she is far more intelligent that the halfwits who criticise her based on that alone. Sadly we have become a style over substance country for quite some time now. If you look back then the really vile stuff started with Neil Kinnock. I don’t want to get political on here but I find it shows just how little a large proportion of the eligible voters pay attention to anything other than looks and superficial content rather than finding out the reality.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,412
|
Post by harrybuckle on Nov 3, 2019 16:01:38 GMT
You need to write a little slower. Don't know why I bother. Mike hasn't even bothered to read the forum rules. Had he have made the effort to do that he would know that Rule 1 forbids advertising. Anyway, where do you reckon the SC stand legally with this, what I mean is, is there a problem with them still collecting money via the Share Scheme when they aren't able to honour the terms of the legal agreement? I should add though, if I understand the situation correctly, it doesn't sound as if it's the fault of the SC that they find themselves in that position. Bambi ….still waiting for that apology for Ken ...the Ken Loach of BR Community Trust
I was not advertising anything about the BRSC just saying you should stand to try and put the organisation back on the straight and narrow.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 16:27:29 GMT
I'm a bit lost with this. On the SC website the SS agreement is quite old, they still have this; So, when that was drafted, the Associate Director could be told to naff off at the whim of the Chairman, but wasn't this superseded when we hit £1m. I thought that triggered us having 2 full Directors? We know that the SC monitor what's said on here, so let's give it a couple of weeks and see what happens. After that I may write to them formally and ask for clarification. I think Oldie was party to drafting the agreement so hopefully he will clarify. There was certainly a trigger point for the second full director though and from memory I thought it was the £1m mark. Hello everyone. Cannot believe this debate is still going on, what, 15 years after that infamous AGM of 2004. Yes I was involved with drafting the original agreement, as I recall the upgrade from Associate Director to to full Executive Director kicked in once the capital value of the scheme reached £700,000. Kim Stuckey was the director who was the recipient of the upgrade, after he was elected Associate Direcor, with Jane Brown as full executive director at that AGM of 2004. Poor Jane was of course hung out to dry as she had zero experience of that kind of role, it was the SC Committe who pushed her forward to keep out Roger Cooper who was on a joint ticket with Kim. They were well aware that there was a group of us keen to make the SC more effective and were keen to leverage the share scheme to put pressure on the then FC Board. Ken stood out of nowhere and diluted the vote, and Roger did not get elected. At that point he had contributed nothing, that's zero, to the share scheme, a fact I pointed out to him at the AGM. There was lingering hostility towards him over that for years. I am not sure anyone gives a f**k now, and some of the governance gaps pointed out in how the SC was run, especially when collecting £100,000s in other peoples money, history has since exposed.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Nov 3, 2019 16:32:25 GMT
She is beyond criticism. I mean, literally no one in mainstream media picks up on her incompetence. It really is quite amazing. And it keeps getting re-elected!? She should take Tom Gorringe/ Kenny job....that would shut Bambi up! Are you serious ? She is vilified on every single thing she is involved in. She is an highly educated person but just is not good in front of cameras. I’m not a fan of hers btw but just stating a fact. The papers have a field day as does antisocial media, at her expense. Yep, serious. If she is potential home secretary material, I despair. The mainstream media as in bbc (whom were forced to issue apologies after QT earlier this year), itv, sky news, channel 4 news that largely give her wide berth in some of the cat crash interviews she's done. I surely don't have to pin reference, do I? Papers, tabloids, I don't indulge in so much. I understand the concept of not being media savvy, celebrity status etc, that's far different from what is actually projected out of her mouth..
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Nov 3, 2019 16:46:37 GMT
Yes, I was there. Hardly any questions were asked, just 20 minutes worrying about if the lady who arranges away travel was ill or in hospital, what would happen? The main part of the evening was Adam Tutton talking about the Community Trust - which is Ken's major area of work within the organisation. Ken hinted in his usual way that the FC is basically run by the CEO and, whilst he is the SC board member, there are never any board meetings, so his position is largely ceremonial! Not his fault in my opinion, as he is being pushed out in effect. There is no need for all the Ken-bashing - and comments about cheap/free tickets are unwarranted. Unless Bamber wishes to follow what Ken did in 2008 and put £10,000 of his own money into the Community Trust which would have closed down had he not done so.... Thought not! ...bambi needs to apologise in my humble opinion. Very humble opinion, coming from the fella whom asked for his (so say) refund on contribution to a charity health giving to a member here. Publicly. Joke or not, disgraceful. Controversy follows hb around to his delight, so bit rich it asking for apologies when it suits..............in my humble opinion!
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Nov 3, 2019 16:57:50 GMT
Are you serious ? She is vilified on every single thing she is involved in. She is an highly educated person but just is not good in front of cameras. I’m not a fan of hers btw but just stating a fact. The papers have a field day as does antisocial media, at her expense. A working class woman, who got herself into a grammar school then Cambridge, and as you say, all she gets are sneers and snipes. You're right, she isn't good debating on camera, but she is far more intelligent that the halfwits who criticise her based on that alone. Mate she can't debate full stop. If you listen to what she says in a role of responsibility it insults intelligence of a comprehensive education.
|
|