Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Jun 13, 2019 6:17:31 GMT
I am actually one of the - very few- people who seems to think Hamer comes across quite well. However, a chairman taking a holiday when the AGM is on, that is piss poor.
I just read elsewhere that is wife is ill , hence his absence, if that is the case, I apologise for the above remark.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jun 13, 2019 7:42:24 GMT
Had to do a double take there. TWO factual, well-reasoned, calm and unbiased posts from manc and maltman. Thanks both.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Jun 13, 2019 8:28:20 GMT
Please see reply to Bamber's post above. Fair enough. I think we can agree that communication from the Board since UWE collapse has been extremely poor. Some of the little information we have had, has been deliberately misleading. I thought that highlighting the AGM may have been a good idea in terms of improving communication with the wider fan-base. However given the sh*tshow that ensued at the AGM (maybe this was foreseen by the Club), I can now see why it the official web-site would have chosen to pretend it didn't exist.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Jun 13, 2019 8:53:34 GMT
The suggestion that the Auditors should have been in attendance or could have for a fee shows the degree of nonsense and complete lack of knowledge some people have about how company's work. Due to nature of my employment I probably attended 1500 at least AGMs as given no choice, and not once ever have I seen the external Audit firm in attendance. Even if they were (and they wouldnt) they could say absolutely nothing due to client confidentiality and would limit comment to the audit opinions already in the accounts. If GT the 5th largest audit firm in country went to AGMs of audit clients they'd go to 100000 meetings across the UK every year!! I have no idea what some people think an auditor does. In respect of the accounts they test the entries against ledgers and perform statutory tests to enable them to to draft their opinion. They do not provide assurance that everything is ok, veracity of the figures (assuming tests are ok) or comment on the organisations future, other than the going concern opinion which is a requirement of the professional standards. I have seen Rovers accounts for over 40 years I doubt I have seen a single one where the auditors opinion didnt require the owner to say that they are willing to fund the business for a further 12 months. That is not to say that they WILL ONLY support for 12 months as some have concluded. The auditor only needs to know about 12 months and further than that is out of scope of this type of audit. Why people think this line in the accounts means a definite cut and run in 12 months is beyond ridiculous. Which takes me to the next point. you simply cant rock up to a meeting and slander people unless you have hard facts to support the accusation. Im sich of hearing Hani wont do this, Mr AQ senior wants that from people who have never spoken to either of these people, or if they had they never asked these question and even if they did never got an answer!! Frankly if people want to see what happens when the AQs get sick of club, the quickest way to find out is make unsubstantiated allegation based on no truth or evidence and what some trouble maker has started as a rumour, probably for entertainment purposes. For goodness sake those involved, grow up, find a hobby or at least tie your 'sauce' to a lie detector before you start spreading their words....... Ive left the forum for many months to avoid nonsense like this, and hope never to return... Well I was there last night. Like Manc for the sake of my own mental health I now try to avoid the message boards as much as I can. I went into the meeting "cold" because I didn't know what the latest rumour or popular opinion was. Very quickly it became apparent that there were a few people with a clear agenda against the current Board. It is also clear now that the Supporters Club and Presidents Club have issues with the Board. The reality is that the owners may do what they want, the days of lobbying individual members of the Board with a particular point of view to further a cause are long gone. The simple fact is that both of these supporters groups need to find a new role to make themselves relevant not just to the Board but to the fan base. It wasn't the best presented AGM I have attended and if I am honest a bit toe curling at times, this feeling came both from the floor and the top table who did not cover themselves in glory. However when a Board of Directors is faced with a few individuals who seem hell bent on causing the maximum amount of embarrassment then you have recipe for disaster. When an individual suggests to the President of a company that he knows what his brother thinks about the internal affairs of that organisation then inevitably things will be difficult. I say that as a vociferous critic of the previous regime, but my opinions and questions to them were evidence based. None of the criticisms or questions I heard last night were evidenced based. In the end I felt that the Board dealt with most of the questions fairly and honestly but there were a couple of gaps that I felt were left hanging. The Supporters Club had a legitimate question about the issue of their share certificates in respect of the Share Scheme but they should have raised it within the official business and they should have insisted it be recorded within that time, I didn't find the response entirely convincing. I was concerned about the lack of participation by the Supporters Club Board representative during the meeting and would suggest that there maybe a link between that and the issue of the certificates, why has he not been able to resolve that issue? We had a passage during the meeting when a couple of individuals complained about spending, but when challenged about what their specific worries were they were not able to explain them. Did they really want a return to the rank incompetence of the previous regime.....errr no coherent response. There was also criticism that Board members were not actually Rovers supporters, well welcome to the new reality of professional football...... I found myself thinking that if I was in the position of Wael given the level of hostility from a few individuals I would be asking myself what I was doing wasting my time and money in this enterprise. Well he gave the answer towards the end of the meeting rounding on his critics. I still feel that the club is now in better hands then it was under the previous regime, but I felt less easy than I did 12 months ago last night but that was partly due to what I consider to be a poorly chaired meeting. The simple fact is that there are no local business people who are willing to fund Football League clubs incurring the level of annual losses that a club such as ours as was the case in the "old days". if you can find them, then good luck. Kind regards John Malyckyj Excellent write up and I don't disagree with what you have to say. Apart from the bit in bold. I do not believe that the Club should be racking up losses. At all. We have had average gates of around 8,662 over the last 4 years. I accept that there were outgoings associated with the failed UWE deal - but the annual losses are horrific. I am 100% behind a sustainable approach which sees us operate on an even keel. If that means tier 4 football in the short term - so be it. The old paradigm of Directors chucking a hundred grand a year in to balance the books has gone. Football hyper-inflation (largely bloated salaries for average players and parasitic agents) is with us and the current 'model' (for our Club and others) is totally unsustainable. I think we will see a raft of Clubs going to the wall as financial reality kicks in. I don't want us to be one of those Clubs. Our current owners do not appear to have a grasp of how to run professional organisation. I give you the London Office my learned friend. They have no credible strategy. And I'll leave it at that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 9:41:46 GMT
Now that we've had a bit of fun pretending to be upset that the date etc of the AGM wasn't made public, can I just remind everybody that back on May 16th, in the 'New owners being announced last October' thread, AMPG stated the date that the AGM was being held.
Nobody cared then, but for some reason we've all decided to get twitchy about it now.
Almost as if there's not much going on in the football world to keep us entertained. Apart of course from girlies playing in shorts when they should be wearing skirts.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 13, 2019 9:57:09 GMT
Now that we've had a bit of fun pretending to be upset that the date etc of the AGM wasn't made public, can I just remind everybody that back on May 16th, in the 'New owners being announced last October' thread, AMPG stated the date that the AGM was being held. Nobody cared then, but for some reason we've all decided to get twitchy about it now. Almost as if there's not much going on in the football world to keep us entertained. Apart of course from girlies playing in shorts when they should be wearing skirts. have we. I couldn't give a feck
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 10:10:16 GMT
Now that we've had a bit of fun pretending to be upset that the date etc of the AGM wasn't made public, can I just remind everybody that back on May 16th, in the 'New owners being announced last October' thread, AMPG stated the date that the AGM was being held. Nobody cared then, but for some reason we've all decided to get twitchy about it now. Almost as if there's not much going on in the football world to keep us entertained. Apart of course from girlies playing in shorts when they should be wearing skirts. have we. I couldn't give a feck Oh well, so much for inclusivity. Having said that, you did seem worried that SC members should have been canvassed in case they had questions that they wanted asked on their behalf. But that was 2 days ago now, so maybe you forgot
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 13, 2019 10:21:06 GMT
have we. I couldn't give a feck Oh well, so much for inclusivity. Having said that, you did seem worried that SC members should have been canvassed in case they had questions that they wanted asked on their behalf. But that was 2 days ago now, so maybe you forgot Ah you mis-interpret my concern for others concern about it and not subtle criticism of The SC as concern of my own. (If you catch my drift)
I merely raised a point that given there was an AGM and a number of people have concerns, that perhaps the SC should have reached out to it's members/share holders. It appears though (from reports) they didn't need to as they and the presidents club made a 'nuisance' of themselves.
I will happily debate the Accounts and the AGM with anyone. As to when it was held, or whether it was communicated or not, who cares
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Jun 13, 2019 10:25:25 GMT
Oh well, so much for inclusivity. Having said that, you did seem worried that SC members should have been canvassed in case they had questions that they wanted asked on their behalf. But that was 2 days ago now, so maybe you forgot Ah you mis-interpret my concern for others concern about it and not subtle criticism of The SC as concern of my own. (If you catch my drift)
I merely raised a point that given there was an AGM and a number of people have concerns, that perhaps the SC should have reached out to it's members/share holders. It appears though (from reports) they didn't need to as they and the presidents club made a 'nuisance' of themselves.
I will happily debate the Accounts and the AGM with anyone. As to when it was held, or whether it was communicated or not, who cares
In a nutshell... “This is a local club for local people. We don’t want your type here...”
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 13, 2019 10:28:44 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 10:31:52 GMT
Oh well, so much for inclusivity. Having said that, you did seem worried that SC members should have been canvassed in case they had questions that they wanted asked on their behalf. But that was 2 days ago now, so maybe you forgot Ah you mis-interpret my concern for others concern about it and not subtle criticism of The SC as concern of my own. (If you catch my drift)
I merely raised a point that given there was an AGM and a number of people have concerns, that perhaps the SC should have reached out to it's members/share holders. It appears though (from reports) they didn't need to as they and the presidents club made a 'nuisance' of themselves.
I will happily debate the Accounts and the AGM with anyone. As to when it was held, or whether it was communicated or not, who cares
<iframe width="35.76" height="7.81999999999999" id="MoatPxIOPT0_45614122" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: -5px; width: 35.76px; height: 7.82px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="35.76" height="7.81999999999999" id="MoatPxIOPT0_90425319" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 1717px; top: -5px; width: 35.76px; height: 7.82px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="35.76" height="7.81999999999999" id="MoatPxIOPT0_77654752" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 328px; width: 35.76px; height: 7.82px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="35.76" height="7.81999999999999" id="MoatPxIOPT0_30181036" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 1717px; top: 328px; width: 35.76px; height: 7.82px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> No, I don't 'catch your drift' at all. It was clear from what you said that you felt that the fact, if not the exact time and location, of the event should have been publicised by the SC, how else would they, in your own word, 'canvass' anything?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 10:36:47 GMT
Think I may join, just so that I can go and watch this in action. We know it's at 7-30, all we don't know is the date!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 13, 2019 10:50:41 GMT
Ok Bamber. Let me start again. I couldn’t care less about when the AGM was or whether it was communicated 1) Because I am not a share holder 2) I am not a supporters club/share scheme member 3) Therefore I am unable to attend or influence anything
For those concerned about when it was and it being communicated or not, I merely made the point that perhaps The SC could have made it known seeing as it a shareholder on behalf of the share scheme members and has a full director of the club and canvassed it’s membership (Again which I am not/no longer a member off and thus have little or no influence on).
That was more a dig at the SC (as shareholders and having a full director on the board) and their responsibilities on my part then anything else.
I will happily argue or shoot down anything regarding the accounts or AGM as it arises from anybody else
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jun 13, 2019 11:03:29 GMT
Think I may join, just so that I can go and watch this in action. We know it's at 7-30, all we don't know is the date! I believe the meeting is for last 17/18 membership.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 11:10:06 GMT
Think I may join, just so that I can go and watch this in action. We know it's at 7-30, all we don't know is the date! I believe the meeting is for last 17/18 membership. It's all a bit academic if they are keeping the date secret
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 13, 2019 11:47:31 GMT
Ah you mis-interpret my concern for others concern about it and not subtle criticism of The SC as concern of my own. (If you catch my drift)
I merely raised a point that given there was an AGM and a number of people have concerns, that perhaps the SC should have reached out to it's members/share holders. It appears though (from reports) they didn't need to as they and the presidents club made a 'nuisance' of themselves.
I will happily debate the Accounts and the AGM with anyone. As to when it was held, or whether it was communicated or not, who cares
In a nutshell... “This is a local club for local people. We don’t want your type here...” Then again they do have a right to be concerned about the increasing debt, just a pity they didn't put their concerns across in a structured manner. Why didn't one shareholder take the lead and organise the questions beforehand instead of the meeting seemingly turning into a free for all.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 13, 2019 11:52:34 GMT
In a nutshell... “This is a local club for local people. We don’t want your type here...” Then again they do have a right to be concerned about the increasing debt, just a pity they didn't put their concerns across in a structured manner. Why didn't one shareholder take the lead and organise the questions beforehand instead of the meeting seemingly turning into a free for all. you mean like the supporters club
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 11:57:37 GMT
Then again they do have a right to be concerned about the increasing debt, just a pity they didn't put their concerns across in a structured manner. Why didn't one shareholder take the lead and organise the questions beforehand instead of the meeting seemingly turning into a free for all. you mean like the supporters club
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Jun 13, 2019 11:59:59 GMT
In a nutshell... “This is a local club for local people. We don’t want your type here...” Then again they do have a right to be concerned about the increasing debt, just a pity they didn't put their concerns across in a structured manner. Why didn't one shareholder take the lead and organise the questions beforehand instead of the meeting seemingly turning into a free for all. You mean like they did under Higgs? Silly me, the self same people backed Higgs and before that Geoff Dunford to the hilt, effectively silencing any of us who were even slightly critical. The stench of hypocrisy is strong, especially within the SC committee, many of whom have been there since Eastville let alone Twerton.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jun 13, 2019 12:34:15 GMT
Then again they do have a right to be concerned about the increasing debt, just a pity they didn't put their concerns across in a structured manner. Why didn't one shareholder take the lead and organise the questions beforehand instead of the meeting seemingly turning into a free for all. You mean like they did under Higgs? Silly me, the self same people backed Higgs and before that Geoff Dunford to the hilt, effectively silencing any of us who were even slightly critical. The stench of hypocrisy is strong, especially within the SC committee, many of whom have been there since Eastville let alone Twerton. Yes - the SC seems to be trying to reinvent/reposition itself as a critical friend of the club (perhaps less the friend currently) and a champion of supporters concerns, which is exactly what it should always have been doing. The problem is that there is a lack of credibility in the eyes of many when it has spent most of the last 20 years singularly refusing to play that role and instead acting as a cheerleader for previous regimes despite their unpopularity among many fans. Too often it felt like the SC were representing the board/club/owners to the fans not the other way round. So it's hard to take their new sense of critical engagement seriously - especially as they don't seem to be terribly good at it and many of its key movers seem to maintain the attitude of an 8 year old child in a playground when challenged - 'if you don't like it then bring your own ball in, I'm going home'.
|
|