Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 13:07:44 GMT
Not really. Its quite simple. There was an agreement in place that for the £1m plus supporters got two EXECUTIVE directorships. If, as Brian now tells us, he was disallowed from operating as an executive director, he should have told us, and gave us an option. He should have resigned immediately. That he did not has no ryme nor reason, except self interest. Whatever conclusion can there be? I'm sure with all this dissatisfaction with Brian we'll have a lot of people standing to replace him when he is up for reelection. But it would be interesting if the new owners seek to purchase the Sharescheme shares what provision was included in the agreement for that potential situation? To be honest I dont recall. But the point about why the sharescheme shares not being bought had more to with a public declaration of value which I am sure the majority shareholders did not want. Dont you think? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 13:13:12 GMT
I'm sure with all this dissatisfaction with Brian we'll have a lot of people standing to replace him when he is up for reelection. But it would be interesting if the new owners seek to purchase the Sharescheme shares what provision was included in the agreement for that potential situation? To be honest I dont recall. But the point about why the sharescheme shares not being bought had more to with a public declaration of value which I am sure the majority shareholders did not want. Dont you think? No, as previously stated, I think the 8% of shares not purchased was to avoid any leaks of the deal happening. Find it strange (no I'm actually lying there but it was a slightly different answer than I was expecting) you can't remember if there was any mechanism built into the sharescheme to allow for those shares to be sold & what would happen with the proceeds. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 13:32:48 GMT
To be honest I dont recall. But the point about why the sharescheme shares not being bought had more to with a public declaration of value which I am sure the majority shareholders did not want. Dont you think? No, as previously stated, I think the 8% of shares not purchased was to avoid any leaks of the deal happening. Find it strange (no I'm actually lying there but it was a slightly different answer than I was expecting) you can't remember if there was any mechanism built into the sharescheme to allow for those shares to be sold & what would happen with the proceeds. Well it was nearly fourteen years ago Paul. And there were bigger issues. I dont agree with you, they could have bought the shares under a confidentiality clause. They could do so now, but they would have to offer the same price. The finances would be there for all to see in that case. It doesnt really matter, now though. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 13:48:50 GMT
No, as previously stated, I think the 8% of shares not purchased was to avoid any leaks of the deal happening. Find it strange (no I'm actually lying there but it was a slightly different answer than I was expecting) you can't remember if there was any mechanism built into the sharescheme to allow for those shares to be sold & what would happen with the proceeds. Well it was nearly fourteen years ago Paul. And there were bigger issues. I dont agree with you, they could have bought the shares under a confidentiality clause. They could do so now, but they would have to offer the same price. The finances would be there for all to see in that case. It doesnt really matter, now though. Feel free to disagree, I know you wouldn't agree with anything you hadn't thought of first. As to confidentiality agreements they would have had to make those with every shareholder, not just the supporters club. It would've just taken one person to refuse to sign it & then blabbed that the club had asked him to sign one to give the game away. Agree that they would've had to offer the same price & I don't doubt that would be significantly less than the sharescheme has been buying shares. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 14:01:59 GMT
Well it was nearly fourteen years ago Paul. And there were bigger issues. I dont agree with you, they could have bought the shares under a confidentiality clause. They could do so now, but they would have to offer the same price. The finances would be there for all to see in that case. It doesnt really matter, now though. Feel free to disagree, I know you wouldn't agree with anything you hadn't thought of first. As to confidentiality agreements they would have had to make those with every shareholder, not just the supporters club. It would've just taken one person to refuse to sign it & then blabbed that the club had asked him to sign one to give the game away. Agree that they would've had to offer the same price & I don't doubt that would be significantly less than the sharescheme has been buying shares. Oh God, the usual sniping and irrationality. Enjoy |
|
zfc
Bobby Zamora
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 441 
|
Post by zfc on Mar 6, 2016 14:12:14 GMT
If BSS had resigned his credibility would have risen ten fold and would surely have given everyone the indication that all was not right in the way the board meetings were being held and what the fans directors were privvy to.
Masters was a lost cause from the day he lost the first election and no one expected anything of him so we couldn`t be disappointed.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Mar 6, 2016 14:32:48 GMT
Hi 1. Thank you all for your very kind and honest answers. 2. I see the role of the fans directors as a position where we are able to play a full and active role in all decision making including financial ones which affect the wellbeing of every supporter together with all aspects of the business of BRFC. Some may argue that Equity directors are the only ones who have the right to make financial decisions as as the Equity Directors are the ones who continue to fund the club out of their own pockets. I would never decry this and I thank those who have and continue to do this. However, I would add that thanks to your efforts with the Share Scheme, your contribution has over the years,been far in excess of £1m and this should grant us equity status. I would also add that both the Supporters club, The Fans Forum, The Presidents Club, Helpline and many more all contribute to the club annually and I would like to think that this offers the Fan Directors a representative voice in all aspects of the club. I would personally also like to see further fans representation but that would depend entirely on the new owners. 3. Can I just add I am not Chairman of the Sharescheme and have not been for over 2 years, although my name keeps appearing on documentation. I will offer an update in the Mansfield game of the latest figures. This is repeated on the Supporters Club website. I would also like to see a re-launch of the scheme. However, we are all in new uncharted waters and we have to look to every revenue stream to see how these can best support and boost the future of our club. best wishes Brian Thanks Brian - that is interesting. I'm glad that this is something that you are thinking about. A bit unsure about what a new share scheme would look like in this new era but I think it's fair to say that such an idea would be in its early stages given the pace of change we've seen in the last week. Not asking for all the plans and answers, that would be unreasonable - just that fans directors would be thinking about these issues and working with gasheads to figure out the best approach so that fans can have the relationship with the club that they want.
What I'm really getting at here though (and this is for anyone) is how the massive change on the ownership side is going to influence the relationship between the club and the fans? For pretty much as long as anyone can remember official role of the fans as far as the club has been concerned is to act as a backstop and fundraising source. The club has lived a hand to mouth existence so, on the basis of every little helps, we had the helpline, 50/50, Presidents Club, share scheme, various other fundraising schemes over the years etc. People accepted that the club lived on a financial precipice, chipped in accordingly and that is what defined the relationship between the fans and the club. At its best it was an 'we're all in this together' attitude-at worst there were major disagreements within the fanbase about the purpose of these schemes and who had ultimate control over them (some of which seem to be playing out on this particular thread) and the previous owners of the club clearly saw some aspects of them as a threat to their position or an annoyance.
That dynamic, good and bad, has now been completely swept away. Are people going to be willing to continue to fund helpline/50-50 etc now that they are not going to be about the clubs immediate survival? If not, what kind of purpose could these schemes serve at a club that was financial secure? I'm sure people would be quite willing to give the club money still but it's not going to be along the lines of 'come on folks put your hand in your pocket to keep Rovers going cos otherwise we may not have a club somewhere down the line' - it's probably going to be more directed and possibly related to fan influence in some way. Therefore, there needs to be a discussion of what the new relationship looks like and what people expect. Are we still going to have tombola's on the pitch at halftime? If so, what purpose is that going to serve now? There are a large number of people that have given a great deal of time and energy to these things over the years within the previous set-up and the club would not have survived without them. But, what will that relationship look like now? Because I think if we just assume things are basically all going to carry on as before with the same basic assumptions, systems and people we could be missing an opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 14:42:23 GMT
If BSS had resigned his credibility would have risen ten fold and would surely have given everyone the indication that all was not right in the way the board meetings were being held and what the fans directors were privvy to. Exactly. As Oldie mentions, you have to wonder what the motivation was to continue in the position when he was clearly not able to fulfil the objective of representing us and our £1,000,000. Brian, did you not think to investigate whether other directors, maybe Jelf, Ware and King had invested £1,000,000 each? A large part of me wants to draw a line under Higgs' time here and move on, but statements like this from Brian do raise serious questions about his understanding of his responsibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 16:13:50 GMT
Feel free to disagree, I know you wouldn't agree with anything you hadn't thought of first. As to confidentiality agreements they would have had to make those with every shareholder, not just the supporters club. It would've just taken one person to refuse to sign it & then blabbed that the club had asked him to sign one to give the game away. Agree that they would've had to offer the same price & I don't doubt that would be significantly less than the sharescheme has been buying shares. Oh God, the usual sniping and irrationality. Enjoy My mistake after your personal snipe at Brian & his self-interest (& there can’t be anything more personal than that) I stupidly forgot, after all these years, that you can give it out but can’t take it. But more importantly there obviously is a reason why the 8% of shares weren’t purchased. I’ll stick with my opinion that it was to protect any leak, particularly as there was no press release from the club to say they were negotiating a sale with anyone. However that isn’t to completely discount your theory which I’m guessing is that the old board didn’t want the price per share disclosed (I have to guess because for some unfathomed reason you would rather insinuate than articulate your thoughts), though you did then argue against that reasoning by correctly pointing out the share price could’ve remained undisclosed via a confidentiality agreement (though that wouldn’t have stopped word of the deal escaping necessarily). The truth could, if you think rationally, be a mix of the two. As I’m sure neither of us has spoken to the new owners perhaps we’ll never know. But as you say ‘it doesn’t really matter, now though’. Much like Brian’s reasons for remaining in his position under the old board. Of course what will be interesting is if the new owners make an offer for the remaining shares and what the Sharescheme agreement says about accepting or rejecting an offer (though I suspect under current law the new owners can force through the purchase of the shares, I also suspect the remaining shareholders could force the purchase of their shares) and what happens to any proceeds from the sale of the shares. |
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Mar 6, 2016 18:14:25 GMT
There is a very simple solution to those who consider Brian was disonerable, as well as Ken in not resigning from the board and that is to stand against them when their posts are up for re-election.
There are obviously those who think they should have resigned and there are those who obviously think they served us better by staying where they were.
Lets not let this spoil what now appears to be a new beginning with new owners who have already shown what they thought of the previous regimes banning orders, should we not act in a similar way towards those we may have a grievance towards ?
As has been previously mentioned what now is the purpose of the fund raising schemes we have, are they now required by the new owners ?
Maybe the supporters club need to quickly find out from the new owners what they perceive their role to be in the future so may be we can quickly bring to an end this apparent hand wringing going on between fans.
Perhaps that should be one of the first things the Fans Directors and Supporters Club Chairman should address with the new board. UTG !
'Bridgey'
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 18:48:16 GMT
If BSS had resigned his credibility would have risen ten fold and would surely have given everyone the indication that all was not right in the way the board meetings were being held and what the fans directors were privvy to. Exactly. As Oldie mentions, you have to wonder what the motivation was to continue in the position when he was clearly not able to fulfil the objective of representing us and our £1,000,000. Brian, did you not think to investigate whether other directors, maybe Jelf, Ware and King had invested £1,000,000 each? A large part of me wants to draw a line under Higgs' time here and move on, but statements like this from Brian do raise serious questions about his understanding of his responsibilities. This. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Mar 6, 2016 18:52:42 GMT
Oh God, the usual sniping and irrationality. Enjoy My mistake after your personal snipe at Brian & his self-interest (& there can’t be anything more personal than that) I stupidly forgot, after all these years, that you can give it out but can’t take it. But more importantly there obviously is a reason why the 8% of shares weren’t purchased. I’ll stick with my opinion that it was to protect any leak, particularly as there was no press release from the club to say they were negotiating a sale with anyone. However that isn’t to completely discount your theory which I’m guessing is that the old board didn’t want the price per share disclosed (I have to guess because for some unfathomed reason you would rather insinuate than articulate your thoughts), though you did then argue against that reasoning by correctly pointing out the share price could’ve remained undisclosed via a confidentiality agreement (though that wouldn’t have stopped word of the deal escaping necessarily). The truth could, if you think rationally, be a mix of the two. As I’m sure neither of us has spoken to the new owners perhaps we’ll never know. But as you say ‘it doesn’t really matter, now though’. Much like Brian’s reasons for remaining in his position under the old board. Of course what will be interesting is if the new owners make an offer for the remaining shares and what the Sharescheme agreement says about accepting or rejecting an offer (though I suspect under current law the new owners can force through the purchase of the shares, I also suspect the remaining shareholders could force the purchase of their shares) and what happens to any proceeds from the sale of the shares. There is no way I want my shares brought back by the new owners and I do not know of any other shareholders who want theirs brought back.
My five shares cost £100 many years ago and as far as I was concerned, I wrote that money off when I brought them.
It allows me to attend the AGM's and quiz the Board on aspects regarding the finances of BRFC. Long may it last.
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 19:04:21 GMT
My mistake after your personal snipe at Brian & his self-interest (& there can’t be anything more personal than that) I stupidly forgot, after all these years, that you can give it out but can’t take it. But more importantly there obviously is a reason why the 8% of shares weren’t purchased. I’ll stick with my opinion that it was to protect any leak, particularly as there was no press release from the club to say they were negotiating a sale with anyone. However that isn’t to completely discount your theory which I’m guessing is that the old board didn’t want the price per share disclosed (I have to guess because for some unfathomed reason you would rather insinuate than articulate your thoughts), though you did then argue against that reasoning by correctly pointing out the share price could’ve remained undisclosed via a confidentiality agreement (though that wouldn’t have stopped word of the deal escaping necessarily). The truth could, if you think rationally, be a mix of the two. As I’m sure neither of us has spoken to the new owners perhaps we’ll never know. But as you say ‘it doesn’t really matter, now though’. Much like Brian’s reasons for remaining in his position under the old board. Of course what will be interesting is if the new owners make an offer for the remaining shares and what the Sharescheme agreement says about accepting or rejecting an offer (though I suspect under current law the new owners can force through the purchase of the shares, I also suspect the remaining shareholders could force the purchase of their shares) and what happens to any proceeds from the sale of the shares. There is no way I want my shares brought back by the new owners and I do not know of any other shareholders who want theirs brought back.
My five shares cost £100 many years ago and as far as I was concerned, I wrote that money off when I brought them.
It allows me to attend the AGM's and quiz the Board on aspects regarding the finances of BRFC. Long may it last.
I only said you possibly could not that you should or would. But best hope the new owners don't come trying to force through the purchase of the remaining shares. |
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 6, 2016 20:34:53 GMT
For some time I thought that BSS should have resigned on principle. His hands were tied and he had an unworkable relationship under the previous regime. But to resign - would achieve nothing. Just puts another puppet in his place. So nothing would have changed. And he would have had less chance of changing anything by bitching and moaning from the out-side than from the inside. So better to grit his teeth and work as best as he could under very tough conditions - praying for the day when the old regime goes and we have new owners. His prayers were answered. It would be fantastic if the owners were able to address the issue of the share scheme. Maybe they are looking at it now? Maybe BSS is bringing this to their attention. Give the guy a break. The sort of attacks his post has attracted will just drive him away. This is the best chance we have had in years to 100% UNITE. So leave the past where it belongs. Leave your bitterness behind. Look to the future. UTG. Very much this. |
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Mar 6, 2016 22:08:56 GMT
If BSS had resigned his credibility would have risen ten fold and would surely have given everyone the indication that all was not right in the way the board meetings were being held and what the fans directors were privvy to. Exactly. As Oldie mentions, you have to wonder what the motivation was to continue in the position when he was clearly not able to fulfil the objective of representing us and our £1,000,000. Brian, did you not think to investigate whether other directors, maybe Jelf, Ware and King had invested £1,000,000 each? A large part of me wants to draw a line under Higgs' time here and move on, but statements like this from Brian do raise serious questions about his understanding of his responsibilities. I agree, though I do have some sympathy for Brian's situation. Had he spoken out he may well have been getting a special hand delivered half time letter, and the club have no record of his address to deliver any olive branches. |
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Mar 6, 2016 22:29:50 GMT
I have the image now of Brian being forced to vote for his own exclusion to make it unaminous. Wonder what way the other fans rep would have voted?
P.S. This is a joke!
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 6, 2016 22:50:57 GMT
No sympathy from me I'm afraid. It's not just the job in the boardroom that he apparently couldn't do properly. He also couldn't publish regular updates on the Share Scheme during the two years he was its chairman, nor manage to get his name removed from Share Scheme documents in the two years following his departure from said position.
As for the question of why the SC have been allowed to retain their shares? I read that as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the new owners, who appear to genuinely value the club's supporters.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 13:14:43 GMT
I have absolutely no issues with Brian resuming his proper role as a director and wish him all the best for the future. I do have a private issue with Brian and it will remain that as it has absolutely nothing to do with Bristol Rovers or any other supporter. Any issues with me and Bristol Rovers football club were buried last Saturday and I feel very positive for the future of the club and for the supporters. If it's a private issue why bring it up on here? Just back posting & its the same 'I know more than you' crap that you always posted before. I was actually replying to KP so with respect keep your ignorant nose out.  |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 7, 2016 13:33:18 GMT
If it's a private issue why bring it up on here? Just back posting & its the same 'I know more than you' crap that you always posted before. I was actually replying to KP so with respect keep your ignorant nose out. I'd keep your ego off public forums if you don't want people putting their ignorant noses in. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Mar 7, 2016 13:50:23 GMT
What the heck is everyone bitching about? BSS provided an honest assessment of how things were, we have no real idea yet how the new Board will operate, although early indications are positive. And now posters are getting very personal with each other. As they say in "The Sweeney", "leave it aaat!!"
|
|
