Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 16:10:07 GMT
I agree with BG 100%. The young are the ones with the ideas and enthusiasm to generate a new Supporters Organisation. It's a different world. The like of Masters is dead. Just waiting for Jim Chappell to fall on his plastic sword. I know we've had our spats, but I'm sure that when a new SC emerges, we'll both contact whoever it is setting the thing up and offer whatever support we can. Whether our skill sets will be of any use to them, who knows, but that's the direction of travel, no point resisting it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 16:50:31 GMT
We've had away matchdays less active on the Guzzler than this blow-up. There really is no soap opera quite like Bristol Rovers. Pass the popcorn.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Apr 3, 2020 16:56:57 GMT
One thing I do know.
If SC have reported Wael to EFL as alleged, then we are in BRFC Bay of Pigs territory. This goes straight to what matters to him most: his reputation in football circles.
Ridiculous stance, given the parlous state of football finances. Swiss has also been reckless with his HMRC and locked gates innuendoes. Dangerous talk and actions as he could use the Coronavirus situation to walk away.
I think that he is a fantasist, but he is the one funding us.
The opportunity is actually a decent one. The impact of lockdown and Hani going presents an opportunity for him to reduce spending and find outside investment. An opportunity for him and him one to say, I am committed but we start again.
|
|
|
Post by lavalamp on Apr 3, 2020 16:57:12 GMT
So let's look at the timeline -
10/17 BSS resigns 03/18 £3m loss announced 03/19 KM attends last board meeting 05/19 £3.4m loss announced 11/19 SH leaves 01/20 KM suspended 03/20 £3.4m loss announced 04/20 KM resigns, the SC and PC support him and report WAQ to the EFL for not being fit and proper.
So Rovers lost almost £10m during this period.
The main question is why the hell have KM, the SC and the PC waited this long to go public?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 17:29:21 GMT
So let's look at the timeline - 10/17 BSS resigns 03/18 £3m loss announced 03/19 KM attends last board meeting 05/19 £3.4m loss announced 11/19 SH leaves 01/20 KM suspended 03/20 £3.4m loss announced 04/20 KM resigns, the SC and PC support him and report WAQ to the EFL for not being fit and proper. So Rovers lost almost £10m during this period. The main question is why the hell have KM, the SC and the PC waited this long to go public? That's a good question, but there's another one that's getting lost in all of the noise of the last couple of days, namely, why was Ken suspended in the first place? Was anybody at, or does anybody have minutes from the last AGM? Just interested to know if the owners gave a personal guarantee to cover losses up until a future date? In fact, PP or Swiss, this may be covered in the accounts?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Apr 3, 2020 18:04:58 GMT
One thing I do know. If SC have reported Wael to EFL as alleged, then we are in BRFC Bay of Pigs territory. This goes straight to what matters to him most: his reputation in football circles. Ridiculous stance, given the parlous state of football finances. Swiss has also been reckless with his HMRC and locked gates innuendoes. Dangerous talk and actions as he could use the Coronavirus situation to walk away. I think that he is a fantasist, but he is the one funding us. The opportunity is actually a decent one. The impact of lockdown and Hani going presents an opportunity for him to reduce spending and find outside investment. An opportunity for him and him one to say, I am committed but we start again. I deny being reckless Vaughan but admit at times to being a tad venturesome If Wael decides to walk away and let Rovers fold it won't be because of anything written on an internet forum. But your last sentence is interesting because I am sure in any other business some advisers would be suggesting that his best option would be to stop pouring £ 3 million per year into a business model which is broken and start afresh with a new business model where that £ 3 million per year would yield much better results. However, this is football and so it is not such an easy feat to pull off because of EFL regulations. Yesterday Oldie pointed out that Company House records would show if shares had been allocated in return for the share scheme money handed over to the club. If you check you will see that the number of ordinary shares issued has remained at 8,176,166 since 2017 so it appears that no shares have been allocated since Dwane Sports took over even though money has been paid in.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 3, 2020 18:09:49 GMT
So let's look at the timeline - 10/17 BSS resigns 03/18 £3m loss announced 03/19 KM attends last board meeting 05/19 £3.4m loss announced 11/19 SH leaves 01/20 KM suspended 03/20 £3.4m loss announced 04/20 KM resigns, the SC and PC support him and report WAQ to the EFL for not being fit and proper. So Rovers lost almost £10m during this period. The main question is why the hell have KM, the SC and the PC waited this long to go public? That's a good question, but there's another one that's getting lost in all of the noise of the last couple of days, namely, why was Ken suspended in the first place? Was anybody at, or does anybody have minutes from the last AGM? Just interested to know if the owners gave a personal guarantee to cover losses up until a future date? In fact, PP or Swiss, this may be covered in the accounts? The accounts for the last 3 years that cover AQ period, say that the signing of the accounts by Hani mean they will fund the club as a going concern for the next 12 month period Whether it was said at the AGM who knows
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 18:12:41 GMT
there's another one that's getting lost in all of the noise of the last couple of days, namely, why was Ken suspended in the first place? I can't imagine Ken unsettled the dressing room by having an affair with a senior player's wife. There must be some other reason in this particular case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 18:15:52 GMT
That's a good question, but there's another one that's getting lost in all of the noise of the last couple of days, namely, why was Ken suspended in the first place? Was anybody at, or does anybody have minutes from the last AGM? Just interested to know if the owners gave a personal guarantee to cover losses up until a future date? In fact, PP or Swiss, this may be covered in the accounts? The accounts for the last 3 years that cover AQ period, say that the signing of the accounts by Hani mean they will fund the club as a going concern for the next 12 month period Whether it was said at the AGM who knows Thanks PP. So do you know if the present undertaking would include covering losses accrued in the present trading period?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 3, 2020 18:52:00 GMT
The accounts for the last 3 years that cover AQ period, say that the signing of the accounts by Hani mean they will fund the club as a going concern for the next 12 month period Whether it was said at the AGM who knows Thanks PP. So do you know if the present undertaking would include covering losses accrued in the present trading period? The wording give or take is Mr H Al Qadi has agreed to support the club for a period of at least 12 months from the signing of the accounts. So technically 20/2/2020 until 19/2/2021
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,412
|
Post by harrybuckle on Apr 3, 2020 19:40:26 GMT
Thanks PP. So do you know if the present undertaking would include covering losses accrued in the present trading period? The wording give or take is Mr H Al Qadi has agreed to support the club for a period of at least 12 months from the signing of the accounts. So technically 20/2/2020 until 19/2/2021 Is anyone old enough to remember the split between the Supporters club and the football club in the mid 1960s Eric Godfrey was a supporters club representative on the board and the two parties fell out big time. There was even a report issued if prompted I may try and find it.I loaned it to Jim Chappell about 6 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 19:42:58 GMT
Thanks PP. So do you know if the present undertaking would include covering losses accrued in the present trading period? The wording give or take is Mr H Al Qadi has agreed to support the club for a period of at least 12 months from the signing of the accounts. So technically 20/2/2020 until 19/2/2021 Thanks again. I'm struggling here. Can I lean on your accounts expertise again please? If Hani has underwritten losses until 19.2.2021, can you think of a scenario in which Ken could have been personally liable for company losses?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 3, 2020 20:09:56 GMT
The wording give or take is Mr H Al Qadi has agreed to support the club for a period of at least 12 months from the signing of the accounts. So technically 20/2/2020 until 19/2/2021 Thanks again. I'm struggling here. Can I lean on your accounts expertise again please? If Hani has underwritten losses until 19.2.2021, can you think of a scenario in which Ken could have been personally liable for company losses? Not obviously, barring Ken himself doing illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 20:13:49 GMT
One thing I do know. If SC have reported Wael to EFL as alleged, then we are in BRFC Bay of Pigs territory. This goes straight to what matters to him most: his reputation in football circles. Ridiculous stance, given the parlous state of football finances. Swiss has also been reckless with his HMRC and locked gates innuendoes. Dangerous talk and actions as he could use the Coronavirus situation to walk away. I think that he is a fantasist, but he is the one funding us. The opportunity is actually a decent one. The impact of lockdown and Hani going presents an opportunity for him to reduce spending and find outside investment. An opportunity for him and him one to say, I am committed but we start again. I deny being reckless Vaughan but admit at times to being a tad venturesome If Wael decides to walk away and let Rovers fold it won't be because of anything written on an internet forum. But your last sentence is interesting because I am sure in any other business some advisers would be suggesting that his best option would be to stop pouring £ 3 million per year into a business model which is broken and start afresh with a new business model where that £ 3 million per year would yield much better results. However, this is football and so it is not such an easy feat to pull off because of EFL regulations. Yesterday Oldie pointed out that Company House records would show if shares had been allocated in return for the share scheme money handed over to the club. If you check you will see that the number of ordinary shares issued has remained at 8,176,166 since 2017 so it appears that no shares have been allocated since Dwane Sports took over even though money has been paid in. So, after this being done, I think quarterly, the SC have allowed 3 3/4 years to lapse without telling anybody, they still have a link to a form to join the Share Scheme on their website; bristolroverssc.co.uk/club-information/share-scheme/membership-form/and at the same time it's been suggested on here that they are throwing around accusations of other people being not 'fit and proper' to hold office. You've gotta laugh, or you would cry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 20:43:38 GMT
I deny being reckless Vaughan but admit at times to being a tad venturesome If Wael decides to walk away and let Rovers fold it won't be because of anything written on an internet forum. But your last sentence is interesting because I am sure in any other business some advisers would be suggesting that his best option would be to stop pouring £ 3 million per year into a business model which is broken and start afresh with a new business model where that £ 3 million per year would yield much better results. However, this is football and so it is not such an easy feat to pull off because of EFL regulations. Yesterday Oldie pointed out that Company House records would show if shares had been allocated in return for the share scheme money handed over to the club. If you check you will see that the number of ordinary shares issued has remained at 8,176,166 since 2017 so it appears that no shares have been allocated since Dwane Sports took over even though money has been paid in. So, after this being done, I think quarterly, the SC have allowed 3 3/4 years to lapse without telling anybody, they still have a link to a form to join the Share Scheme on their website; bristolroverssc.co.uk/club-information/share-scheme/membership-form/and at the same time it's been suggested on here that they are throwing around accusations of other people being not 'fit and proper' to hold office. You've gotta laugh, or you would cry. I think that this puts into shade the time the SC handed over the first months share scheme money without the agreement having been signed. At least the intentions then were honourable. . . On both sides.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Apr 3, 2020 21:03:56 GMT
Do the SC really need to suggest to the EFL that Wael is not fit and proper simply over the issuing of a share certificate? Or is that just part of the claims being made to the EFL regarding Wael? Although who actually is legally responsible for issuing, I'd have thought that was down to the CEO not the club President?
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Apr 3, 2020 22:32:23 GMT
Bristol Rovers President’s Club Statement by David Thomas | Apr 3, 2020 | News Football has, not surprisingly, taken a back seat of late though these are difficult times for many of the nation’s football clubs, not least the club we all support, Bristol Rovers. News that Supporters Club Director Ken Masters resigned his position this week because he was, in effect, ostracised by the club’s owner came on the back of news that the club was some £25m in debt. Over the course of the last 12 months The Bristol Rovers President’s Club and the Bristol Rovers Supporters Club have worked closely on a number of projects and Ken’s input has been most valid and very welcome. And now that link, between Boardroom and Support groups, has disappeared with no logic or explanation. The club can no longer claim to have a reputation for being a family one and we view Ken’s departure with dismay. Issued earlier today. It is sad to have to take sides on what appears to be a chasm developing between supporters and owner and we fear for the very future of our club. However, we fully support Ken and Bristol Rovers Supporters Club moving forward and hope for a satisfactory conclusion to these troubled times. While we all hope and pray that the coronavirus will be beaten sooner rather than later and that we all come through unscathed, it may seem trivial to worry about sport and football in particular, but we felt we could not let two significant issues in our club’s recent history pass without comment. We hope that you are all staying safe and well. John Harding Chairman Does anyone know exactly how many members the Presidents Club has now? This was the group that initially wouldn't let the SC sell 50/50 draw tickets in the Centenary Suite because they saw it as a threat to their own fundraising. I don't wish to be unkind but whenever I see them on the pitch making some sort of presentation they look like a set of undertakers on a team building exercise. Their influence has dwindled because (like the Supporters Club) they have failed to move with the times. Kind Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 22:54:13 GMT
Bristol Rovers President’s Club Statement by David Thomas | Apr 3, 2020 | News Football has, not surprisingly, taken a back seat of late though these are difficult times for many of the nation’s football clubs, not least the club we all support, Bristol Rovers. News that Supporters Club Director Ken Masters resigned his position this week because he was, in effect, ostracised by the club’s owner came on the back of news that the club was some £25m in debt. Over the course of the last 12 months The Bristol Rovers President’s Club and the Bristol Rovers Supporters Club have worked closely on a number of projects and Ken’s input has been most valid and very welcome. And now that link, between Boardroom and Support groups, has disappeared with no logic or explanation. The club can no longer claim to have a reputation for being a family one and we view Ken’s departure with dismay. Issued earlier today. It is sad to have to take sides on what appears to be a chasm developing between supporters and owner and we fear for the very future of our club. However, we fully support Ken and Bristol Rovers Supporters Club moving forward and hope for a satisfactory conclusion to these troubled times. While we all hope and pray that the coronavirus will be beaten sooner rather than later and that we all come through unscathed, it may seem trivial to worry about sport and football in particular, but we felt we could not let two significant issues in our club’s recent history pass without comment. We hope that you are all staying safe and well. John Harding Chairman Does anyone know exactly how many members the Presidents Club has now? This was the group that initially wouldn't let the SC sell 50/50 draw tickets in the Centenary Suite because they saw it as a threat to their own fundraising. I don't wish to be unkind but whenever I see them on the pitch making some sort of presentation they look like a set of undertakers on a team building exercise. Their influence has dwindled because (like the Supporters Club) they have failed to move with the times. Kind Regards John Malyckyj You OK Anagram Boy? Check blue highlighted bit in that statement, obviously they've found out why Masters was kicked off of the Board and out of half of the ground to be able to come to the decision to support him. When do you reckon they'll let us know what they obviously know?
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Apr 3, 2020 23:20:10 GMT
Bristol Rovers President’s Club Statement by David Thomas | Apr 3, 2020 | News Football has, not surprisingly, taken a back seat of late though these are difficult times for many of the nation’s football clubs, not least the club we all support, Bristol Rovers. News that Supporters Club Director Ken Masters resigned his position this week because he was, in effect, ostracised by the club’s owner came on the back of news that the club was some £25m in debt. Over the course of the last 12 months The Bristol Rovers President’s Club and the Bristol Rovers Supporters Club have worked closely on a number of projects and Ken’s input has been most valid and very welcome. And now that link, between Boardroom and Support groups, has disappeared with no logic or explanation. The club can no longer claim to have a reputation for being a family one and we view Ken’s departure with dismay. Issued earlier today. It is sad to have to take sides on what appears to be a chasm developing between supporters and owner and we fear for the very future of our club. However, we fully support Ken and Bristol Rovers Supporters Club moving forward and hope for a satisfactory conclusion to these troubled times. While we all hope and pray that the coronavirus will be beaten sooner rather than later and that we all come through unscathed, it may seem trivial to worry about sport and football in particular, but we felt we could not let two significant issues in our club’s recent history pass without comment. We hope that you are all staying safe and well. John Harding Chairman Does anyone know exactly how many members the Presidents Club has now? This was the group that initially wouldn't let the SC sell 50/50 draw tickets in the Centenary Suite because they saw it as a threat to their own fundraising. I don't wish to be unkind but whenever I see them on the pitch making some sort of presentation they look like a set of undertakers on a team building exercise. Their influence has dwindled because (like the Supporters Club) they have failed to move with the times. Kind Regards John Malyckyj I think that's just acts as some sort of truism for life in general. Every aspect of our world (including this forum to a degree) is full of old farts saying 'These youngsters just don't understand how things work' , when of course the truth is the youngsters are just seeing a better way to make things work. Rovers seem to have an ageing support . I grew up on the Oldbury Court estate in Fishponds where, at a guess, I would say 90% + of people interested in football would class themselves as Rovers fans . I haven't lived in Fishponds for years but when I do go there, I regularly see City shirts and the same in Kingswood. I live in Hanham now and it is definitely more of a City area as are most parts of Bristol. If we could just find some way of getting more young people involved in the running of - I'll say a supporters club, but I think it needs to be a modern version of that- then we might be able to find some way of stopping Bristol becoming a one team city.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Apr 3, 2020 23:28:53 GMT
Please tell me who is left from before the Al-Qadi's arrived who has any influence in running the Club? at Board level? Supporters? Publicity? Stadium Management? Program? Team Management? Auditors? There appears to me to be a pattern, but not to you? And therein lies the issue.
From the narrative of the clique that is around the Supporters Club and Presidents Club the Nick Higgs era was a kind of golden period of fan engagement because they had unprecedented access provided they towed the party line and drank the Kool Aid that everything was going to be alright in the end. Backing Nick Higgs was representing Supporters as far as they were concerned because the sun shone out of his behind. Therefore everything that has subsequently happened has been terrible for fans representation because these people now find themselves on the outside looking in - all I can say is welcome to the club, thanks to your failure to effectively represent or even give voice to fans concerns over the years that's how the rest of us have felt for 15 years!
This only has credibility as an internal logic between those who accept these ridiculous assumptions and never engage with people outside that limited bubble. For the vast majority of Gasheads I know the Nick Higgs era was a total and complete catastrophe and a total betrayal of the fanbase with a permanent stench of paranoia and incompetency. Yet the SC never once intervened, never once represented the concerns of Rovers fans and went along as happy cheerleaders for the board as we spiralled into total incompetence that peaked with non-league status.
I couldn't be happier if every single one of the people who acquiesed in that farce were cleaned out. In fact clearing house would be one of the few things I'd give the AQ's any credit for. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the blundering incompetence and paranoid cronyism of that era either. There is absolutely nothing positive to come out of that period at all rather than the decay of the club and total delusion among those cheerleaders for Higgs. Even the AQ's are Nick Higgs baby - he doesn't escape responsibility for selling to them here. It completes his failure.
To now try and desperately re-position themselves as the supporters champions fighting against a malevolent ownership doesn't just lack credibility, it's comical in its level of hypocrisy. They've had their chance to represent the fans to the board and they didn't do it - instead they represented the board to the fans for Donkeys years. To which the standard response is - who is going to represent the fans if they don't? Well I imagine a lack of effective fan representation on the board will look exactly the same as it has done for the last 15 years to most of us.
Brilliant, just brilliant, a superb summary of the situation. I found the campaign around the stadium project very difficult because I felt that much of it was driven by the then local MP and people fell for it hook, line and sinker. I think they (the old guard of the SC) never thought that they would get into a situation where they would fall out with the Football Club. The seeds of their current predicament were sown in 2006, they were no doubt glad to see the back of those of us who had tried to haul the SC into the 21st century. They were quite happy to have two representatives on the Board who would be subservient and "non-political", they then assisted the then Board in holing the Share Scheme beneath the waterline making it's objectives totally un-achievable. Back to pre-2002 everything was fine and hunky-dory, we will carry on as we were...... However, there was always going to come a point where they would have a disagreement with the Board (whatever their composition) and as has been clearly seen they were hopelessly ill prepared for it. I watched Masters very carefully at last year's FC AGM and it was quite clear then that all was not well. He said barely a word of any note. I simply do not understand how he could sit there as "SC representative" and not say that something was wrong (I don't mean at the meeting). I am afraid that he simply failed as a director representing the supporters. His work for the community department is admirable, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS ELECTED TO DO (yes caps are deliberate). He came from no-where when he first stood, he had shown no interest in the SC whatsoever, nobody knew him. Why would anyone with no previous interest in the SC all of a sudden want to become a director representing that organisation? His standing when Jane Browne was elected had a direct influence on that result because there were people in the room who wanted to stop Roger Cooper from winning but didn't want to vote for the former. That was a disaster because eventually another election had to take place to replace Browne. Masters stood again, this time against David Brain because Kim Stuckey had been elevated to full director. David Brain won. I was in the chair that night and as I walked out of the Clubhouse with the losing candidate he was very animated about his desire to have a position, I've never forgotten those moments, I couldn't really understand his motivation. Later I was to understand that, and it came as no surprise to me after my departure that he involved himself so heavily in the community department. But I repeat that wasn't what he was elected to do. I have seen and talked with him in the bars and I have to say that there were moments when I contacted him about certain issues and he did assist, but I do feel that it was partly because of the position that I had held (he always showed me the upmost respect even if he didn't agree with me). However this does not excuse his lack of engagement with the wider fan base and his inability to address issues that have now come to light. His reports tended to concentrate on matters that were not directly related to his position as Supporters Club director. If we'd wanted a SC representative in the Community Trust then that could have been done, their work is a credit to them Adam Tutton is second to none, but there seems to be a narrative developing that Masters was the driving force ignoring the people that make it happen. We had a situation last year where a long-standing (and now deceased) supporter accused him of attempting to get him to leak information. Neither party came out of it well and I made that point at the AGM when the issue was raised. It didn't look good. Somewhere along the line the SC really forgot the purpose of having representatives on the Board, as long as everything was fine and everyone was in agreement, what the directors did, really didn't seem to matter. But it did and if the Director representing the supporters felt there was a problem then he should have been saying so last year, or even the year before. If he felt so strongly (as he appears to now) he should have said it publicly. That may have meant that he had to fall on his sword (see Kim Stuckey), but he didn't, why not? It is hard not to conclude that staying on the Board of a Football Club was more important, or was there another motive which "textgate" appears to suggest may have been the case? The lack of political judgement is inexcusable. The Supporters Club lies in tatters and the honourable thing is now, sadly I believe to fold the organisation. They should have seen the takeover of the club as an opportunity to review its purpose, but they didn't. They had the deep embarrassment of the £50k going out of the bank account, if it had happened on my watch I would have been hammered but would have taken responsibility. This is a very sad day for the Supporters Club, it breaks my heart to see it in this position, but it was always coming. Regards John Malyckyj
|
|