Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 10:09:26 GMT
The sharescheme was/is a fraud.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 10:25:20 GMT
The sharescheme was/is a fraud. Well, that's a given. I guess it's a valid answer to the suggestion that we all chip in and help out in the transfer market, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 11:04:51 GMT
The sharescheme was/is a fraud. Well, that's a given. I guess it's a valid answer to the suggestion that we all chip in and help out in the transfer market, though. I'd never trust the club with a significant amount of money, the board have proven time and time again they can't run a football club properly.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 8, 2016 14:43:13 GMT
The sharescheme was/is a fraud. Unfortunately that is what happens when good people do nothing. The then chair (GoD) certainly didn't want us pesky fans having any real say. It's all very sad as we have been a fantastic fanbase and have given generously. The share scheme was set out really very well and if it were able to have kept to its original structure, it was a superb idea. Such a travesty that it was hijacked and abused, misused.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 14:59:34 GMT
Should we still phone David Brain? I thought he'd been spat out because, well, it suited. Well meaning, misguided, but deserved better. Was David spat out, or did he just decide that he had had enough of it? As I recall, he stood against BSS and one other person who I can't remember now, was it Ron Cox? But David didn't actively campaign, the rational being that if people felt he was the right man he would continue, if not then he would be happy to stand aside.
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Jan 8, 2016 19:38:07 GMT
The sharescheme was/is a fraud. Unfortunately that is what happens when good people do nothing. The then chair (GoD) certainly didn't want us pesky fans having any real say. It's all very sad as we have been a fantastic fanbase and have given generously. The share scheme was set out really very well and if it were able to have kept to its original structure, it was a superb idea. Such a travesty that it was hijacked and abused, misused. Did dunford ever respond to a question asked about whether fans were miss old? I'd like to his his answer to a direct question on the matter. Makes me very angry and bitter. Under the predecessor to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 we were miss old as a supporters club. Are pyramid schemes illegal?
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jan 8, 2016 21:23:26 GMT
Unfortunately that is what happens when good people do nothing. The then chair (GoD) certainly didn't want us pesky fans having any real say. It's all very sad as we have been a fantastic fanbase and have given generously. The share scheme was set out really very well and if it were able to have kept to its original structure, it was a superb idea. Such a travesty that it was hijacked and abused, misused. Did dunford ever respond to a question asked about whether fans were miss old? I'd like to his his answer to a direct question on the matter. Makes me very angry and bitter. Under the predecessor to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 we were miss old as a supporters club. Are pyramid schemes illegal? I've no memory now of questions and answers, but I think the SC committee are happy enough with how it all panned out. "As the Chairmen of our respective groups, Geoff and I were later joint signatories on the Share Scheme Agreement that was to save Bristol Rovers from financial meltdown in 2002. I am proud to have shared that honour with a true Rovers legend." Jim Chappell Chair Bristol Rovers Supporters Club August 18, 2014
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Jan 8, 2016 21:38:25 GMT
Did dunford ever respond to a question asked about whether fans were miss old? I'd like to his his answer to a direct question on the matter. Makes me very angry and bitter. Under the predecessor to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 we were miss old as a supporters club. Are pyramid schemes illegal? I've no memory now of questions and answers, but I think the SC committee are happy enough with how it all panned out. "As the Chairmen of our respective groups, Geoff and I were later joint signatories on the Share Scheme Agreement that was to save Bristol Rovers from financial meltdown in 2002. I am proud to have shared that honour with a true Rovers legend." Jim Chappell Chair Bristol Rovers Supporters Club August 18, 2014 It would be interesting to re-read the basis to how shares were sold or advertised by the supporters club to fans and to re-read the basis of how Bristol Rovers Plc sold or advertised the share idea to the Supporters Club. Especially given the quote above. Thank you Angas
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jan 8, 2016 21:58:31 GMT
This pretty much covers how it was sold to fans. I can't find the original literature, but BSS has neatly cannibalised the gist of it here to suit the modern era. (He appears to have cunningly missed out the key aim of a 28% shareholding for the SC, but hey ho, history likes to be re-written.) bristolroverssc.co.uk/share-scheme/
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jan 8, 2016 22:05:24 GMT
As an original subscriber to the share scheme, who was very unhappy how it turned out, the statement from Jim Chappell beggars belief. Made worse by BSS completely ignoring why I invested and means I will never never invest any of my money in any scheme involving the Supporters Club (well meaning but simply not up to the job of managing such a scheme). Share scheme turned out to be glorified donation scheme and that is not why I invested or was its original objective. An absolute joke.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jan 8, 2016 22:09:42 GMT
This pretty much covers how it was sold to fans. I can't find the original literature, but BSS has neatly cannibalised the gist of it here to suit the modern era. (He appears to have cunningly missed out the key aim of a 28% shareholding for the SC, but hey ho, history likes to be re-written.) bristolroverssc.co.uk/share-scheme/"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jan 8, 2016 22:10:45 GMT
am admiral suggestion but unfortunately just another opportunity for the BOD to waste money
|
|
|
Post by davehuddscousin on Jan 8, 2016 23:01:34 GMT
Its very difficult for fans to get involved in this when every fee the club pays or receives is 'undisclosed.' I started supporting Rovers just before Larry Lloyd was transferred to Liverpool. Whether people thought the £50,000 fee was good business or not, we had something to debate. Now under 'Tony the till' every transfer deal is shrouded in mystery.
I'm sure fans WOULD fund raise to pay the transfer fee for a Gaffney or whoever, but any fund raiser will tell you there needs to be a tangible financial target to aim at. If bands can pay for their recoding studio time by crowdfunding why not a football crowd buying a player the same way?
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Jan 8, 2016 23:23:54 GMT
As an original subscriber to the share scheme, who was very unhappy how it turned out, the statement from Jim Chappell beggars belief. Made worse by BSS completely ignoring why I invested and means I will never never invest any of my money in any scheme involving the Supporters Club (well meaning but simply not up to the job of managing such a scheme). Share scheme turned out to be glorified donation scheme and that is not why I invested or was its original objective. An absolute joke. Tantamount to PPI miss-selling. Either or both should be made accountable and at the very least apologise or give their short, sharp statement. If the board are reluctant to sell to an investor until they meet the valuation for their shareholding and loans then they should confirm whether the SS has enabled them to financially gain and whether they will pass anything back to the supporters.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 9, 2016 17:34:36 GMT
As an original subscriber to the share scheme, who was very unhappy how it turned out, the statement from Jim Chappell beggars belief. Made worse by BSS completely ignoring why I invested and means I will never never invest any of my money in any scheme involving the Supporters Club (well meaning but simply not up to the job of managing such a scheme). Share scheme turned out to be glorified donation scheme and that is not why I invested or was its original objective. An absolute joke. Tantamount to PPI miss-selling. Either or both should be made accountable and at the very least apologise or give their short, sharp statement. If the board are reluctant to sell to an investor until they meet the valuation for their shareholding and loans then they should confirm whether the SS has enabled them to financially gain and whether they will pass anything back to the supporters. Unfortunately it's a case of too many just doing nothing. The share scheme was a terrifying idea and could have been the start of the club pushing on, with the fans really involved and feeling a part, an integral cog in the wheel that is Bristol Rovers but, once again, we have seen that our then and current chairmen have both seen fit to debase the fans and to degrade something that truly had the makings of being a groundbreaking scheme and one that maybe could have brought about a positive change, one that maybe would have seen more people invest and the team progress but what we got was a kick in the nether regions and even the SC didn't seem to make any real effort to fight, to keep the share scheme kept to it's original agenda. We have a weak leadership, they are profoundly paranoid and have treated us with a disdain that one would think was only used towards a perceived enemy. Closing forums, twice now, banning people ( more than the one btw) and everything being undisclosed. People having to sign non disclosure papers etc. It doesn't take anyone overly clever to see that there is much to hide, at least that's how I see it anyway. There really should be no need to feel such a need for secrecy but that's the new Rovers ethos, under our current chairman and his trusty sidekick TW. So, those who have carried on contributing now got a plaque and a couple of meals per season. Hardly the best way to reward those that put a million quid into the club and when it was most needed. It's hard not to be bitter. What gets me are those that still persist in saying we have a great Gashead as our chairman
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jan 10, 2016 6:58:36 GMT
Tantamount to PPI miss-selling. Either or both should be made accountable and at the very least apologise or give their short, sharp statement. If the board are reluctant to sell to an investor until they meet the valuation for their shareholding and loans then they should confirm whether the SS has enabled them to financially gain and whether they will pass anything back to the supporters. Unfortunately it's a case of too many just doing nothing. The share scheme was a terrifying idea and could have been the start of the club pushing on, with the fans really involved and feeling a part, an integral cog in the wheel that is Bristol Rovers but, once again, we have seen that our then and current chairmen have both seen fit to debase the fans and to degrade something that truly had the makings of being a groundbreaking scheme and one that maybe could have brought about a positive change, one that maybe would have seen more people invest and the team progress but what we got was a kick in the nether regions and even the SC didn't seem to make any real effort to fight, to keep the share scheme kept to it's original agenda. We have a weak leadership, they are profoundly paranoid and have treated us with a disdain that one would think was only used towards a perceived enemy. Closing forums, twice now, banning people ( more than the one btw) and everything being undisclosed. People having to sign non disclosure papers etc. It doesn't take anyone overly clever to see that there is much to hide, at least that's how I see it anyway. There really should be no need to feel such a need for secrecy but that's the new Rovers ethos, under our current chairman and his trusty sidekick TW. So, those who have carried on contributing now got a plaque and a couple of meals per season. Hardly the best way to reward those that put a million quid into the club and when it was most needed. It's hard not to be bitter. What gets me are those that still persist in saying we have a great Gashead as our chairman Yep, that's me hooked. Spot on my friend..
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jan 10, 2016 8:31:32 GMT
Tantamount to PPI miss-selling. Either or both should be made accountable and at the very least apologise or give their short, sharp statement. If the board are reluctant to sell to an investor until they meet the valuation for their shareholding and loans then they should confirm whether the SS has enabled them to financially gain and whether they will pass anything back to the supporters. Unfortunately it's a case of too many just doing nothing. The share scheme was a terrifying idea and could have been the start of the club pushing on, with the fans really involved and feeling a part, an integral cog in the wheel that is Bristol Rovers but, once again, we have seen that our then and current chairmen have both seen fit to debase the fans and to degrade something that truly had the makings of being a groundbreaking scheme and one that maybe could have brought about a positive change, one that maybe would have seen more people invest and the team progress but what we got was a kick in the nether regions and even the SC didn't seem to make any real effort to fight, to keep the share scheme kept to it's original agenda. We have a weak leadership, they are profoundly paranoid and have treated us with a disdain that one would think was only used towards a perceived enemy. Closing forums, twice now, banning people ( more than the one btw) and everything being undisclosed. People having to sign non disclosure papers etc. It doesn't take anyone overly clever to see that there is much to hide, at least that's how I see it anyway. There really should be no need to feel such a need for secrecy but that's the new Rovers ethos, under our current chairman and his trusty sidekick TW. So, those who have carried on contributing now got a plaque and a couple of meals per season. Hardly the best way to reward those that put a million quid into the club and when it was most needed. It's hard not to be bitter. What gets me are those that still persist in saying we have a great Gashead as our chairman A frustratingly accurate summary which no-one can argue against - but good reason why BOD cannot be trusted with any more supporters money
|
|