|
Post by fanatical on Mar 4, 2020 17:51:05 GMT
Call that a ban?
I'd call it a mercy given some of the garbage spouted by people last time I went in there!!
(I see you are actually referring to the exec boxes. rather than the enclosure)
I think we may be getting closer to the truth here. really?Obviously I have no information, but my best guess would be that they can't see what value he adds and have asked the SC to get him to stand down as Share Scheme Director, so have said that his presence is no longer required in Box 1. All just guesswork. you said itNone of that means that he can't continue doing community department stuff, if in fact any of the good work being done there is anything to do with him. I believe Ken says how he sees things while gashead1981 puts out what Wael tells him to - believe what you think is correct
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 18:01:19 GMT
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. I thought HAQ was on the board of DS, but not BRFC/1883.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Mar 4, 2020 18:10:00 GMT
The bloke's a waste of space anyway. Should have been ditched years ago. And the basis for your comment is because you do such more for the football club? - explain please OR are you just being rude?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 18:18:45 GMT
Angas is not a rude person. Her words about Ken are uncharacteristic of her prose and her manner.
My guess is that this was because she is dismayed by what an absolute fraud KM was as a supporters' representative, how he never fulfilled this rôle, how he freeloaded onto a board position secured by a million pounds of other people's money, and demonstrated contempt for the members investing in good faith into the scheme, to whom subscriptions were, with hindsight, mis-sold.
But Angas can speak for herself; the above's just my gut feeling.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 4, 2020 18:26:29 GMT
I think we may be getting closer to the truth here. really?Obviously I have no information, but my best guess would be that they can't see what value he adds and have asked the SC to get him to stand down as Share Scheme Director, so have said that his presence is no longer required in Box 1. All just guesswork. you said itNone of that means that he can't continue doing community department stuff, if in fact any of the good work being done there is anything to do with him. I believe Ken says how he sees things while gashead1981 puts out what Wael tells him to - believe what you think is correct Go on, give us an example of where Ken says how he sees things...
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 4, 2020 18:29:37 GMT
The bloke's a waste of space anyway. Should have been ditched years ago. And the basis for your comment is because you do such more for the football club? - explain please OR are you just being rude? I don't think how much someone does for the club is any measure of another person's waste of spaceness So another non sequitur
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Mar 4, 2020 18:46:59 GMT
And the basis for your comment is because you do such more for the football club? - explain please OR are you just being rude? I don't think how much someone does for the club is any measure of another person's waste of spaceness So another non sequitur Well, yes it does - you are obviously a real champion waste of space compared with anyone who works for the benefit of Bristol Rovers and its supporters. So go on - tell us how valuable you are.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 4, 2020 18:53:25 GMT
I don't think how much someone does for the club is any measure of another person's waste of spaceness So another non sequitur Well, yes it does - you are obviously a real champion waste of space compared with anyone who works for the benefit of Bristol Rovers and its supporters. So go on - tell us how valuable you are. reported you're 75 years old and resort to insulting someone on a forum. Have you no sense of shame or embarrassment?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 4, 2020 19:00:26 GMT
I don't think how much someone does for the club is any measure of another person's waste of spaceness So another non sequitur Well, yes it does - you are obviously a real champion waste of space compared with anyone who works for the benefit of Bristol Rovers and its supporters. So go on - tell us how valuable you are. also it reminds me of that Jimmy Savile argument - people didn't want to hold him to the standards of behaviour required of others because of the amount he did for the poor kids in the hospitals...
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Mar 4, 2020 19:04:04 GMT
I think we may be getting closer to the truth here. really?Obviously I have no information, but my best guess would be that they can't see what value he adds and have asked the SC to get him to stand down as Share Scheme Director, so have said that his presence is no longer required in Box 1. All just guesswork. you said itNone of that means that he can't continue doing community department stuff, if in fact any of the good work being done there is anything to do with him. I believe Ken says how he sees things while gashead1981 puts out what Wael tells him to - believe what you think is correct And what are those things then Roy? Be specific. What I think is sad is that KM actually did/does some really good things for this football club. But they usually say pride come before a fall.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 19:13:37 GMT
The bloke's a waste of space anyway. Should have been ditched years ago. And the basis for your comment is because you do such more for the football club? - explain please OR are you just being rude? the blokes a parasite on the back of 1 point 2 million pounds, plain and simple
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 19:48:20 GMT
I think we may be getting closer to the truth here. really?Obviously I have no information, but my best guess would be that they can't see what value he adds and have asked the SC to get him to stand down as Share Scheme Director, so have said that his presence is no longer required in Box 1. All just guesswork. you said itNone of that means that he can't continue doing community department stuff, if in fact any of the good work being done there is anything to do with him. I believe Ken says how he sees things while gashead1981 puts out what Wael tells him to - believe what you think is correct I know that he said that he wanted to be a Share Scheme Director, without even joining the frigging scheme! But since he did get himself elected, I'm struggling to see that he's leaving much of a legacy for somebody who has held the position for the thick end of 15 years. Looks like I was wrong when I guessed that he was just useless and that's why he got kicked out not only of the position, but also half of the stadium, if that's all there was too it then it's a simple show of hand or count of shares, a resolution is passed and he's out of there with no need for solicitors to get involved.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Mar 4, 2020 19:52:19 GMT
I believe Ken says how he sees things while gashead1981 puts out what Wael tells him to - believe what you think is correct I know that he said that he wanted to be a Share Scheme Director, without even joining the frigging scheme! But since he did get himself elected, I'm struggling to see that he's leaving much of a legacy for somebody who has held the position for the thick end of 15 years. Looks like I was wrong when I guessed that he was just useless and that's why he got kicked out not only of the position, but also half of the stadium, if that's all there was too it then it's a simple show of hand or count of shares, a resolution is passed and he's out of there with no need for solicitors to get involved. Well the AGM is coming up...don’t expect to see him sat on the top table again. This is the bonkers thing that I don’t understand with the legal nonsense. Even IF KM did have a case for something (I don’t know if he does or not as I don’t know what he’s done) there is still no way back as Wael can just vote him off. It’s a hiding to nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 20:10:01 GMT
I don't think how much someone does for the club is any measure of another person's waste of spaceness So another non sequitur Well, yes it does - you are obviously a real champion waste of space compared with anyone who works for the benefit of Bristol Rovers and its supporters. So go on - tell us how valuable you are. I piled a load of dosh in to create the position that Masters held, so I'll say whatever I like about the snivelling little weasel.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 5, 2020 0:24:54 GMT
Angas is not a rude person. Her words about Ken are uncharacteristic of her prose and her manner. My guess is that this was because she is dismayed by what an absolute fraud KM was as a supporters' representative, how he never fulfilled this rôle, how he freeloaded onto a board position secured by a million pounds of other people's money, and demonstrated contempt for the members investing in good faith into the scheme, to whom subscriptions were, with hindsight, mis-sold. But Angas can speak for herself; the above's just my gut feeling. Nothing more for me to add. Spot on, Mr. Duck.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Mar 5, 2020 10:16:57 GMT
The SC made fundamental mistakes all the way along. They seem naive (comments on why the share price was important?) and agreed to dilution of the shareholding and also fundamentally do not seem to have understood what power the club had in the agreement on directorships. They seemed however happy with that when the board were 'gasheads' or 'one of them' and the board would throw them the odd bit of info to make them feel important and certain members of the SC were ITK. The SC board representatives never from what I can tell ever exercised an independent role from the board or provided any bridge to the board and the wider fan base. I think BSS tried. To be honest the SC reps seemed totally and utterly pointless in the end, a point BSS seemed to agree with as he resigned, but Ken didn't seem to agree.
Things then changed in the relationship between the SC and Club with the new regime (and the old relationship was not productive as the SC simply went along with everything with no comment) and I think the chickens have come home to roost.
Ken Masters will never be on the board under the present regime, that boat has sailed, but the SC seem intent of trying to push him on the board but they have no power to do so. So the status quo will be no 'fan' representation on the board despite investing £ 1.2 million pounds. As others have said, the SC should nominate two new reps immediately and then call the clubs bluff. But they seem tactically inept and thats ignoring the fact they have been strategically inept all the way through. A very sorry state of affairs. The SC have been played, they have been played from the start, but its their fault. Pity I invested money in this sorry scheme. Never again if the SC have an involvement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 10:24:22 GMT
The SC made fundamental mistakes all the way along. They seem naive (comments on why the share price was important?) and agreed to dilution of the shareholding and also fundamentally do not seem to have understood what power the club had in the agreement on directorships. They seemed however happy with that when the board were 'gasheads' or 'one of them' and the board would throw them the odd bit of info to make them feel important and certain members of the SC were ITK. The SC board representatives never from what I can tell ever exercised an independent role from the board or provided any bridge to the board and the wider fan base. I think BSS tried. To be honest the SC reps seemed totally and utterly pointless in the end, a point BSS seemed to agree with as he resigned, but Ken didn't seem to agree. Things then changed in the relationship between the SC and Club with the new regime (and the old relationship was not productive as the SC simply went along with everything with no comment) and I think the chickens have come home to roost. Ken Masters will never be on the board under the present regime, that boat has sailed, but the SC seem intent of trying to push him on the board but they have no power to do so. So the status quo will be no 'fan' representation on the board despite investing £ 1.2 million pounds. As others have said, the SC should nominate two new reps immediately and then call the clubs bluff. But they seem tactically inept and thats ignoring the fact they have been strategically inept all the way through. A very sorry state of affairs. The SC have been played, they have been played from the start, but its their fault. Pity I invested money in this sorry scheme. Never again if the SC have an involvement. This latest episode is just one more example of the utter incompetence of the SC committee. Twas always thus.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Mar 5, 2020 10:25:30 GMT
The SC made fundamental mistakes all the way along. They seem naive (comments on why the share price was important?) and agreed to dilution of the shareholding and also fundamentally do not seem to have understood what power the club had in the agreement on directorships. They seemed however happy with that when the board were 'gasheads' or 'one of them' and the board would throw them the odd bit of info to make them feel important and certain members of the SC were ITK. The SC board representatives never from what I can tell ever exercised an independent role from the board or provided any bridge to the board and the wider fan base. I think BSS tried. To be honest the SC reps seemed totally and utterly pointless in the end, a point BSS seemed to agree with as he resigned, but Ken didn't seem to agree. Things then changed in the relationship between the SC and Club with the new regime (and the old relationship was not productive as the SC simply went along with everything with no comment) and I think the chickens have come home to roost. Ken Masters will never be on the board under the present regime, that boat has sailed, but the SC seem intent of trying to push him on the board but they have no power to do so. So the status quo will be no 'fan' representation on the board despite investing £ 1.2 million pounds. As others have said, the SC should nominate two new reps immediately and then call the clubs bluff. But they seem tactically inept and thats ignoring the fact they have been strategically inept all the way through. A very sorry state of affairs. The SC have been played, they have been played from the start, but its their fault. Pity I invested money in this sorry scheme. Never again if the SC have an involvement. This couldn’t be any more spot on.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 5, 2020 10:38:16 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. What if, as at Rovers, the chairman/owners just continue to disregard this and have meetings,without that person or people present ? This is what has been happening. It happened under NH but at least there was a board & it continues to happen now, although it seems there are hardly any times where a true meeting happens, as I am led to believe ?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 5, 2020 10:39:55 GMT
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. I thought HAQ was on the board of DS, but not BRFC/1883. Does anybody really know ?
|
|