kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 3, 2020 1:07:32 GMT
The Wimbledon Bond Scheme is an attempt by The Fans Trust to ensure serious funding shortfalls are met in order to allow Buckingham to complete their Plough Lane ground whilst maintaing control for the Supporters Trust. The chances of them getting their money back are slim IMHO. If you don't believe me, ask Swiss Gas. Also, for the last time, the AlQs have no interest in any crowd-funding scheme that dilutes their shareholding. If you don't believe, phone up Tifosy and ask. They will willingly tell you that they pitched the platform to BRFC and the AlQs were not interested in contemplating ANY such scheme. I liked the idea of Tifosy as it is FCA compliant, which the Wimbledon Bond Scheme is not. DYOR. Crowd-funding will come, but only after the Fantasist has woken up to the fact that the tide has come in and he is up to his waist. Interesting use of words, up to his waist ,
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Mar 3, 2020 22:21:12 GMT
Until the powers that be change either at the club or supporters club nothing will happen on the ‘Ken Masters’ issue.
The supporters club have no legal basis to force Ken Masters onto the board, and the present powers that be will never let him back on the board, the supporters club will not nominate anyone new.
The new status quo. The sound of silence.
Wonder how many members of the scheme are left contributing compared to the orginal members (me being one if them).
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 4, 2020 8:39:55 GMT
Until the powers that be change either at the club or supporters club nothing will happen on the ‘Ken Masters’ issue. The supporters club have no legal basis to force Ken Masters onto the board, and the present powers that be will never let him back on the board, the supporters club will not nominate anyone new. The new status quo. The sound of silence. Wonder how many members of the scheme are left contributing compared to the orginal members (me being one if them). The thing is, it is more/most embarassing to the SC. However good or bad the AQs are, they own 92%of the club and go do and say what they want. I still have no idea what the SC want or hope to achieve with this (do they even know?) And they dont seem very accountable to their members right now
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 10:26:34 GMT
Until the powers that be change either at the club or supporters club nothing will happen on the ‘Ken Masters’ issue. The supporters club have no legal basis to force Ken Masters onto the board, and the present powers that be will never let him back on the board, the supporters club will not nominate anyone new. The new status quo. The sound of silence. Wonder how many members of the scheme are left contributing compared to the orginal members (me being one if them). The thing is, it is more/most embarassing to the SC. However good or bad the AQs are, they own 92%of the club and go do and say what they want. I still have no idea what the SC want or hope to achieve with this (do they even know?) And they dont seem very accountable to their members right now I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Mar 4, 2020 11:54:09 GMT
The thing is, it is more/most embarassing to the SC. However good or bad the AQs are, they own 92%of the club and go do and say what they want. I still have no idea what the SC want or hope to achieve with this (do they even know?) And they dont seem very accountable to their members right now I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected. You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,177
|
Post by eppinggas on Mar 4, 2020 12:01:49 GMT
I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected. You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. That's the problem with the constitution (if I understand things correctly)... that the Board can veto anyone the SC puts forward? Critical voices can be easily side-lined. We currently effectively have a two man Board. How can that possibly constitute proper governance? It's almost like it's a never ending sh*t show. Edit: it is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 12:09:01 GMT
I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected. You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. Masters spoke up for the supporters?? Really?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 12:10:08 GMT
You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. That's the problem with the constitution (if I understand things correctly)... that the Board can veto anyone the SC puts forward? Critical voices can be easily side-lined. We currently effectively have a two man Board. How can that possibly constitute proper governance? It's almost like it's a never ending sh*t show. Edit: it is. Any board or majority shareholders can block a director appointment. Nothing unusual there
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 12:16:30 GMT
You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. That's the problem with the constitution (if I understand things correctly)... that the Board can veto anyone the SC puts forward? Critical voices can be easily side-lined. We currently effectively have a two man Board. How can that possibly constitute proper governance? It's almost like it's a never ending sh*t show. Edit: it is. No company / FC in the world would ever, never ever, not in a million years, just blindly accept any candidate put forward, they couldn't as the primary responsibility of Directors is to protect the interests of the company / investors / shareholders, so it's normal and perfectly correct for nominations to be ratified prior to appointment. It's also normal for Board members to be able to be removed, that's just how companies function. I have no idea what a Rovers Board meeting actually looks like now, I shouldn't think it would be just Wael and Hani sat at a table, I'm sure they have other people there whose opinions they respect, but that doesn't seem to include Ken. Edit. Oldie beat me to it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 12:31:35 GMT
I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected. You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. Sorry, can you explain what 'trap' I've fallen in to please?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Mar 4, 2020 13:04:31 GMT
Isn't the rumour that he was talking to Bristol City Council without any authorisation?
The SC are a basket-case in terms of tactics. Instead of putting pressure on the owners with another representative, they are prepared to delay and wallow in the martyrdom of Ken Masters.
Good old Ken.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 4, 2020 13:09:07 GMT
I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected. You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. you can't/couldn't even contact Ken unless it was by Carrier Pigeon, so not sure how he spoke up for anyone
And I will say again for the umpteenth time, if the position is that pointless why aren't the SC banging on about that instead of trying to fight for Ken
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 4, 2020 13:14:01 GMT
You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. you can't/couldn't even contact Ken unless it was by Carrier Pigeon, so not sure how he spoke up for anyone
And I will say again for the umpteenth time, if the position is that pointless why aren't the SC banging on about that instead of trying to fight for Ken
that sounds spot on to me PP can anyone (including fanatical) think of any instance where KM has been caught 'speaking up for the supporters' in this context? It sounds like agenda-driven misinformation IMO
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 4, 2020 13:15:15 GMT
by the way, is it my hearing or are KM's lawyers (or the SC's lawyers acting on behalf of the SC, or on behalf of KM, we're not sure) very very quiet?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 13:32:52 GMT
Isn't the rumour that he was talking to Bristol City Council without any authorisation? The SC are a basket-case in terms of tactics. Instead of putting pressure on the owners with another representative, they are prepared to delay and wallow in the martyrdom of Ken Masters. Good old Ken. Totally agree Vaughan. It's hard to be certain, that's why a 3 way conversation with whoever gave Ken his marching orders, Jim and Ken himself would be interesting. It's difficult to fathom what the SC are trying to achieve here that can benefit anybody other than Ken himself, when he could just keep his head down and devote his full energy to the thing that he seems to have always wanted to do anyway, which is work with the community dept.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 4, 2020 16:15:26 GMT
Isn't the rumour that he was talking to Bristol City Council without any authorisation? The SC are a basket-case in terms of tactics. Instead of putting pressure on the owners with another representative, they are prepared to delay and wallow in the martyrdom of Ken Masters. Good old Ken. Maybe wait until the reason becomes clear How can anyone apply pressure when they are not told of meetings ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 16:56:10 GMT
You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. Masters spoke up for the supporters?? Really? That made me spit my San Miguel out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 16:56:47 GMT
I would like to hear a 3 way conversation between whoever it is that has made these accusations against Ken, Ken himself, and Jim. Something doesn't quite add up here. But whatever happens, as Manchester says, Ken has to accept that his time as Supporters' Director is over and applications to replace him should be invited, but in the meantime, a member of the SC committee should, by agreement with the FC, be co-opted to fill the position on a temporary basis until a new Director can be elected. You have fallen into the Al-Qadi/Starnes trap. They are obliged to have a SC representative on the Board but they obviously want a 'patsy', as opposed to someone who speaks up for the supporters. Like the previous Board before them, decisions are taken when supporters reps are not around. 2 representatives.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:16:44 GMT
That's the problem with the constitution (if I understand things correctly)... that the Board can veto anyone the SC puts forward? Critical voices can be easily side-lined. We currently effectively have a two man Board. How can that possibly constitute proper governance? It's almost like it's a never ending sh*t show. Edit: it is. No company / FC in the world would ever, never ever, not in a million years, just blindly accept any candidate put forward, they couldn't as the primary responsibility of Directors is to protect the interests of the company / investors / shareholders, so it's normal and perfectly correct for nominations to be ratified prior to appointment. It's also normal for Board members to be able to be removed, that's just how companies function. I have no idea what a Rovers Board meeting actually looks like now, I shouldn't think it would be just Wael and Hani sat at a table, I'm sure they have other people there whose opinions they respect, but that doesn't seem to include Ken. Edit. Oldie beat me to it. Always 😂😂☎️
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Mar 4, 2020 17:46:11 GMT
You force the issue by holding an election, passing 2 reps to BOD (don't laugh) and wait for them to accept / reject and insist they those reps have to attend Board Meetings.
It's called having a bloody backbone and representing the Supporters who have paid for such representation.
|
|