|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 3, 2016 17:56:42 GMT
My fellow shareholders, supporters and fans. As you know I and a few other concerned supporters applied for an 'EGM' to discuss and vote on the resolutions that might lead to the plans forged, with great care, by the Trust using tried and tested models as used by many other clubs facing financial oblivion and getting advice from associated bodies as to how to proceed and implement such a change.
I regret to inform you that after last Thursdays fiasco of a 'PRE-EGM' organised by our current 'Inner Board' i.e. Trust members of the Board were excluded from discussions with the rest of the Board prior to that meeting and indeed were equally surprised that said 'Pre-EGM' was notified to both the 'Trust Club Board' members via an article in the 'Worcester News' rather than a mailshot to all shareholders. Fortunately I look at the 'WN' online but if I didn't would would have been totally unaware of such a meeting as indeed would any other shareholder who do not live in or near to Worcester which was either very remiss or a deliberate attempt to keep me away from the meeting. What I witnessed on the night was a shambolic and amateurish attempt to run an meeting by Anthony, who had arrived without notes facts and figures to back up any of his more ridiculous comments and statements. The firm of solicitors the Club used were professional and outlined the point of the forthcoming 'EGM' meeting on the 7th July and each of the four resolutions that would be discussed and voted on by shareholders. the solicitors were, judging by their faces somewhat aghast that not all 'Board' members had been privy to discussions nor had the Board shown the solicitors been shown a copy of the Trust plan so they could take a fair view and advise the the Club of their findings, something the solicitors will now do prior to the 7th July. We had a presentation from our team manger 'Carl Healey' who the 'Inner Board' had asked to look into raising funds for the club rather than the job he is employed for. Much though Carl gave a good presentation and account of himself, unlike anyone else before us, solicitors and Martin Pinch exempt. Most of the rest of the meeting revolved around questions from the floor, which we thought was the point of the meeting in the first place and a floundering and obviously out of his depth and agitated because of it Anthony trying to bring the meeting to a premature end which in my opinion it finally was. There was no explanation as to why the Board had never discussed the Trust plan with shareholders in the four years it has been known about or why we had had to request an 'EGM' to get here. The 'Inner Board' and I think under private discussions and leadership from the old 'Board' members who are vehemently opposed to the 'Trust' plans, I believe out of vindictiveness and to settle old scores rather than caring about the future of the Club and shareholders like me. This same old Board who signed up after probably being hoodwinked by Hallmark to the Nunnery Plan. Who if they had had a ounce of common sense sold and immediately moved out of SGL when £7million was on the table but were probably greedily hoping land prices would rise further and lost the Club neigh on 50% of that when the sale completed. The fabled 'Plan B' raised it's head again but details could not be disclosed to shareholders, but if you listened and read the scant statements since they indicate they are looking at options. So it's taken them, the 'Inner Board' 4 long years and we are still only looking at options! It beggars belief and suggests to me it is nothing more than a red herring and delaying tactic to cast doubt in the mind of shareholder voters, rather like I felt Carl's presentation was a distraction and not really relevant in the big scheme of things. No the long and short of this is that it looks unlikely that the constitution will not change as the 'Inner Board' old 'Board members and one or two shareholders unwilling to gift their shares to the Trust will have have sufficient votes to prevent the resolutions reaching the required 75% of votes as it will be counted by share holdings for or against not a show of hands. Basically the Club id now doomed in my opinion and will fold in 2 to 3 years. So if you are angry when this happens you know who to blame!
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 3, 2016 18:13:30 GMT
My fellow shareholders, supporters and fans. As you know I and a few other concerned supporters applied for an 'EGM' to discuss and vote on the resolutions that might lead to the plans forged, with great care, by the Trust using tried and tested models as used by many other clubs facing financial oblivion and getting advice from associated bodies as to how to proceed and implement such a change. I regret to inform you that after last Thursdays fiasco of a 'PRE-EGM' organised by our current 'Inner Board' i.e. Trust members of the Board were excluded from discussions with the rest of the Board prior to that meeting and indeed were equally surprised that said 'Pre-EGM' was notified to both the 'Trust Club Board' members via an article in the 'Worcester News' rather than a mailshot to all shareholders. Fortunately I look at the 'WN' online but if I didn't would would have been totally unaware of such a meeting as indeed would any other shareholder who do not live in or near to Worcester which was either very remiss or a deliberate attempt to keep me away from the meeting. What I witnessed on the night was a shambolic and amateurish attempt to run an meeting by Anthony, who had arrived without notes facts and figures to back up any of his more ridiculous comments and statements. The firm of solicitors the Club used were professional and outlined the point of the forthcoming 'EGM' meeting on the 7th July and each of the four resolutions that would be discussed and voted on by shareholders. the solicitors were, judging by their faces somewhat aghast that not all 'Board' members had been privy to discussions nor had the Board shown the solicitors been shown a copy of the Trust plan so they could take a fair view and advise the the Club of their findings, something the solicitors will now do prior to the 7th July. We had a presentation from our team manger 'Carl Healey' who the 'Inner Board' had asked to look into raising funds for the club rather than the job he is employed for. Much though Carl gave a good presentation and account of himself, unlike anyone else before us, solicitors and Martin Pinch exempt. Most of the rest of the meeting revolved around questions from the floor, which we thought was the point of the meeting in the first place and a floundering and obviously out of his depth and agitated because of it Anthony trying to bring the meeting to a premature end which in my opinion it finally was. There was no explanation as to why the Board had never discussed the Trust plan with shareholders in the four years it has been known about or why we had had to request an 'EGM' to get here. The 'Inner Board' and I think under private discussions and leadership from the old 'Board' members who are vehemently opposed to the 'Trust' plans, I believe out of vindictiveness and to settle old scores rather than caring about the future of the Club and shareholders like me. This same old Board who signed up after probably being hoodwinked by Hallmark to the Nunnery Plan. Who if they had had a ounce of common sense sold and immediately moved out of SGL when £7million was on the table but were probably greedily hoping land prices would rise further and lost the Club neigh on 50% of that when the sale completed. The fabled 'Plan B' raised it's head again but details could not be disclosed to shareholders, but if you listened and read the scant statements since they indicate they are looking at options. So it's taken them, the 'Inner Board' 4 long years and we are still only looking at options! It beggars belief and suggests to me it is nothing more than a red herring and delaying tactic to cast doubt in the mind of shareholder voters, rather like I felt Carl's presentation was a distraction and not really relevant in the big scheme of things. No the long and short of this is that it looks unlikely that the constitution will not change as the 'Inner Board' old 'Board members and one or two shareholders unwilling to gift their shares to the Trust will have have sufficient votes to prevent the resolutions reaching the required 75% of votes as it will be counted by share holdings for or against not a show of hands. Basically the Club id now doomed in my opinion and will fold in 2 to 3 years. So if you are angry when this happens you know who to blame! Regardless of what you think, I will be there on Thursday to vote in support of the Trust proposals. I would urge everyone else to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 3, 2016 18:34:27 GMT
Hi Mark, I am sure the Trust and fellow supporters and shareholders appreciate that. The rumours I have are that probably most if not all of the old 'Board' members will or have sent in Proxy votes against. Mind you it has not escaped my attention that if they were to vote in favour they would probably buy more than the £3,000 share limit as the way the Board has structured the resolution means any shareholder can buy more. Then they could potentially buy all the remaining shares and scupper the Trust Plans that way so whether the vote is won or lost these old Board members are going to have a lot of influence.
Now this is just my personal suggestion and I hasten to add before the 'Board' think the Trust are in league with me and vice versa, which they are not but if the resolution is lost or the discredited old 'Board' buy up all remaining shares supporters boycott all home games or protest at all home games to show your displeasure with both the current and old Board. I suggest nobody volunteers to help in anyway with running the Club and let the Board pick up the slack since they have such disdain for the average shareholder or fan. The Trust plan for me is the only sensible solution for the 'Clubs' future and with no tangible alternative forthcoming from the 'Inner Board' and their backers in their bunkers you draw your own conclusions!
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 3, 2016 20:08:05 GMT
Now this is just my personal suggestion and I hasten to add before the 'Board' think the Trust are in league with me and vice versa, which they are not but if the resolution is lost or the discredited old 'Board' buy up all remaining shares supporters boycott all home games or protest at all home games to show your displeasure with both the current and old Board. I suggest nobody volunteers to help in anyway with running the Club and let the Board pick up the slack since they have such disdain for the average shareholder or fan. Although I see where you're coming from, but if the vote fails, - I would suggest everyone goes to as many home games as possible, volunteer to help the club, and make as much noise about your unhappiness with the board as possible. Talk with your football friends about how they are killing the club, how they are clueless idiots that shouldn't be blocking progress, sing songs, make banners, anything to make us heard. If attendances drop by 15-20% or so because of disdain with the board, they will simply say it is because we're at Bromsgrove and/or the football isn't enjoyable. We will get no press about it. I think they should feel embarrassed to be killing the club, and it will be our job to embarrass them. Make them look small in front of the away fans, and the visiting directors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 20:51:04 GMT
So they are willing to spend relatively large sums of money to buy shares in a company that they themselves admit will fail in "2 - 3 years". Why?
There must be a financial gain.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 3, 2016 21:25:39 GMT
Hi Archie, Their primary motive is to get the majority shareholding they could then persuade all shareholders to change the constitution so shares can be sold and then pay both themselves all shareholders back some or all of their money though I am sure they would make sure they got their full stake moneys back first ahead of all other shareholders who may just end up with a percentage of what's left just before the Club runs out of cash and folds. Quite frankly I don't trust these people as far as I could throw them. They have a proven track record of being unscrupulous, deceitful and economical with the truth as was shown with the 'Nunnery Way' debacle.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 3, 2016 22:48:13 GMT
So they are willing to spend relatively large sums of money to buy shares in a company that they themselves admit will fail in "2 - 3 years. Why? There must be a financial gain. As I have said on another thread, I am totally baffled by the attitude of (some of) the board.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 4, 2016 6:55:08 GMT
Well Mark, let's float a hypothetical scenario out there. Say the constitution is changed to enable people to buy more than the current 3,000 shares and instead becomes limitless within the number of shares issued. Then say our Board have been having tentatively having talks with say the the Cricket, Rugby or Worcester Uni clubs to use their facilities.Of those three which one would you say would be a closer fit to our immediate needs? Well I think we can narrow it down to the Rugby club being the better fit. We know they have training facilities outside of the main stadium and I am sure I read either in the 'WN' or on their Club website that they were creating at least one 3G pitch. Who is to say our Board and/or members of the old Board might have bitten the bullet and gone cap in hand to the Owner with the carrot of him being able to buy up those unsold shares and then in conjunction with the Board and discredited former Board members achieve a majority share holding and move our Club to play on the 3G pitch. This is just me surmising what might constitute the 'Plan B' the Board are dangling before shareholders and of course I could be completely off target but without any other feasible ideas that spring to mind that I can think of bar a rich millionaire appearing out of nowhere it is possibly what the Board are up to.
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 4, 2016 7:36:50 GMT
Now this is just my personal suggestion and I hasten to add before the 'Board' think the Trust are in league with me and vice versa, which they are not but if the resolution is lost or the discredited old 'Board' buy up all remaining shares supporters boycott all home games or protest at all home games to show your displeasure with both the current and old Board. I suggest nobody volunteers to help in anyway with running the Club and let the Board pick up the slack since they have such disdain for the average shareholder or fan. Although I see where you're coming from, but if the vote fails, - I would suggest everyone goes to as many home games as possible, volunteer to help the club, and make as much noise about your unhappiness with the board as possible. Talk with your football friends about how they are killing the club, how they are clueless idiots that shouldn't be blocking progress, sing songs, make banners, anything to make us heard. If attendances drop by 15-20% or so because of disdain with the board, they will simply say it is because we're at Bromsgrove and/or the football isn't enjoyable. We will get no press about it. I think they should feel embarrassed to be killing the club, and it will be our job to embarrass them. Make them look small in front of the away fans, and the visiting directors. and here lies the reason why football club directors know that they can get away with murder at clubs across the country. They know that football watchers will never make that ultimate sacrifice. Its why the bosses always win. They treat you like s***, they sell your grounds, they squander your money, they take your club to the wall, and all fans do is "make as much noise about your unhappiness" Do you think a football club director at any club actually cares about a bit of noise? Do you think Tony Agombar felt any embarrassment? Go ahead, sing a song, that'll really make a difference! Capitalism works on the same principles, do what you like, because you know that your everyday average joe public hasn't got the stomach to put up a fight.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 4, 2016 7:59:39 GMT
Of course should my suspicious mind prove to have any grain of truth in the future days, weeks or months please remember the following:-
- It was those 'Board' of old who turned Cecil down when he made overtures to that then Board to take over and develop the Club. - Those old 'Board' members still have influence behind the scenes that are denied to the rest of us shareholders. - With Anthony being the leading face of our current Board, Cecil might be more interested but I hope he knows what is going on behind the scenes and that those who turned him down before are still there pulling strings - Joe Public shareholders like me and you who are the majority in number of shareholdings would not being consulted or listened to. - Cecil if he uses his business brain will buy out all other shareholders to rid him of the bad shareholders i.e. 'Old Board' and any influence they had, which would be a good thing but of course shareholders like the rest of us would have none either. - Would you trust our Board given their lousy track record in negotiations not to cock this up again!
Enough of my musings as to what 'Plan B' could be but I wish we shareholders could vote by a show of hands to oust the Board as I have absolutely no faith in their autocratic, disrespectful style of management and the disgraceful way they are thwarting the Trust while pretending up until now to support their aims and if my surmising ultimately proves true, why they let the Trust waste time and money trying to make their plan watertight when the 'Board' and their backers have had absolutely no intention of letting their proposals come into fruition. As for Colin citing 'FC United' having a bit of a wobble to suggest CBS ownership was an unsafe model, while ignoring the many that have succeeded like AFC Wimbledon and Exeter City and completely ignoring all the failed teams under their style of business model was a shameful comment. A very economical with the truth comment from Colin in my opinion, who I thought better of than to do that.
Now chew over my thoughts and dismiss them if you like but do mull them over in your mind before Thursday if you are a shareholder, as I think there is a lot more going on here than was presented by the 'Board' at the 'Pre EGM' last Thursday and why Anthony was so keen to wind the meeting up prematurely and escape answering those questions we wanted to to ask and get answers for from the 'Board'.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 4, 2016 8:08:58 GMT
One of my friends has been reading my musings and has informed me that he does not think Cecil is still in charge at the Rugby club, my apologies for my ignorance to that fact but I do not follow rugby so don't following the comings and goings up at 'Sixways' and stand corrected for any future musings on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 4, 2016 8:10:29 GMT
Although I see where you're coming from, but if the vote fails, - I would suggest everyone goes to as many home games as possible, volunteer to help the club, and make as much noise about your unhappiness with the board as possible. Talk with your football friends about how they are killing the club, how they are clueless idiots that shouldn't be blocking progress, sing songs, make banners, anything to make us heard. If attendances drop by 15-20% or so because of disdain with the board, they will simply say it is because we're at Bromsgrove and/or the football isn't enjoyable. We will get no press about it. I think they should feel embarrassed to be killing the club, and it will be our job to embarrass them. Make them look small in front of the away fans, and the visiting directors. and here lies the reason why football club directors know that they can get away with murder at clubs across the country. They know that football watchers will never make that ultimate sacrifice. Its why the bosses always win. They treat you like s***, they sell your grounds, they squander your money, they take your club to the wall, and all fans do is "make as much noise about your unhappiness" Do you think a football club director at any club actually cares about a bit of noise? Do you think Tony Agombar felt any embarrassment? Go ahead, sing a song, that'll really make a difference! Capitalism works on the same principles, do what you like, because you know that your everyday average joe public hasn't got the stomach to put up a fight. 50ft banners can be quite embarrassing. Just ask Worcester City Council...
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 4, 2016 8:33:03 GMT
Yes agree with you 'citytoon' but when rumours abound that a certain current board member may know something about the strange disappearance of that said banner after the 'FC Utd' game you better make sure any banners made from now on stay in your control before during and after any game. Also I don't know how many fans follow this site and I do not have a 'Facebook' or 'Twitter' account (nor want one) like many do so could you or someone reading this spread the word out there for the wider fan and shareholder public to see to start trying to rally support for a protest at home games if you think the boycott would be less productive. We need to make this thick skinned, death, blind, manipulative 'Board' know what the true feelings of fans and shareholders alike are and continue to do this to the end of the season or up to if and when the 'Board' have a genuine, tangible change of opinion and action or ideally step down.
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 4, 2016 8:44:31 GMT
But they are not hard headed football Directors, and they had an electorate to appease and an election to win. And on that subject, wouldn't it have been even better if the football club had been on our side then? They didn't want any of the activities that took place against FCUM to happen. They had no interest in the community day, didn't want to reduce prices, didn't help in any way with banners, in fact one director after the game said that he didnt think it had even been a success because "all those kids got in for free!" Directors of football clubs don't listen to fans, they listen only to kerchinggg!! Do you think Mike Ashley cares one iota what Newcastle fans think of him? He knows they'll turn up next week whatever he does, and a couple of Ashley Out banners are hardly going to get him choking on a prawn sandwich. Football fans are easy meat, it doesnt matter how badly a club treats them, they're never going to react any more than sing a little song! And they'll actually go to the ground and pay money for the privilege of singing a naughty boy song to Directors!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 8:50:57 GMT
So, Jem, do you think it would be more productive to boycott or attend and protest? It seems the fans are screwed either way.
It seems very small minded of the directors to play a game that involves rinsing the bank balance just before the bailiffs arrive. Surely they stand a better chance of making more money by supporting the new stadium plans - and somehow rinsing the millions that would slosh around then?
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jul 4, 2016 8:55:56 GMT
It strikes me that `the inner board` are planning to run the Club into the ground. The exclusion of Board members from meetings is unlawful and it is clear that the Chairman is an incompetent buffoon. Is he still in cahoots with the old Board, I wonder !
It begins to look like all the work the Trust activists have put in will come to nowt and maybe they would have been better to have taken the Hereford route to re-generation.
Why is it that WCFC has been in boardroom turmoil for all of the seventy years I have followed the Club ?
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 4, 2016 9:44:15 GMT
Yes agree with you 'citytoon' but when rumours abound that a certain current board member may know something about the strange disappearance of that said banner after the 'FC Utd' game you better make sure any banners made from now on stay in your control before during and after any game. Just to correct you on this.
Yes, there is dispute over the account of one of the board members in terms of what he was told/relayed to others with regards to the permission granted for the banners to be left up after the FCUM game. However to say that he "may know something" about their disappearance is misleading/not correct. I know feelings are currently running high but just be careful when posting about others to make sure your facts are right. I am not defending the board member in question (far from it) but incorrect rumours and false accusation are not helpful.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 4, 2016 9:55:33 GMT
You're right, there's no chance of forcing them out, we're all doomed, screw my season ticket, screw the club, forget the players, forget friends made at the football, it's not worth it. Lets all just stay in our garden sheds on a Saturday and grumble to ourselves about how much we hate Hampson & co.
No. You might think it foolish, well call me a fool. I will still go to matches, I will still volunteer, I will still support my club, and I will continue to enjoy my Saturdays, cheering on the team with my old man and some brilliant people I've come to call my friends - all while making it known as much as possible exactly what I think of those killing the club I've supported since I could walk.
100 people boycotting games just means less of an atmosphere. 100 people making Hampson feel as small as a rat each game means other casual fans will know why the club is in the situation it is. Any banners, or signs saying 'Hampson Out' etc will be seen on the YouTube recordings, no doubt get featured in local press, and if enough get behind the campaign, perhaps get into national press such as the non league paper & mag.
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 4, 2016 10:31:16 GMT
Now is the time to fight harder than ever. I for one can't just lie down and let these directors pull my club apart.
Will reserve judgment until Thursday but if there is no change in the club's constitution my flag producers will be getting a call.
Now then Verner. Fire me across those Bromsgrove stand dimensions.
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 4, 2016 10:59:57 GMT
Well bugger me, I never realised Hampson was so soft skinned to give a damn about someone somewhere seeing a video of a banner somewhere saying Hampson out. I actually have respect for Hampson for his sheer belligerence. Do you really think that Hampson or any of the directors, including me, give a damn about feeling "as small as a rat" ? Stick to your white bread cosy little world, why not invite them round to talk over it with a cup of tea and slice of cake? Don't worry, some of us are prepared to put up a fight to save the club. And what if we don't? I bet your brilliant people you call your friends will still be around as friends, won't they? But there will be no football to watch, no team to cheer on. And yes it is worth it, its worth putting the effort in to save the club, its worth spending an extortionate amount of time and money over the last few years creating a proposal to give a future to the club. Its worth it learning company law in the early hours to figure out how to go through legal process to create a change. Its worth it, travelling down to London to meet with Supporters Direct and getting knowledge on company constitution options. Its worth it meeting and talking with other clubs who have gone through the same processes. Its worth it being sat in a boardroom, presenting a case, and being shot down in flames over and over, and its worth it getting up again and continuing to fight the cause. Its worth it meeting with councillors of all political colours to lobby for support, its worth it to stand up at shareholder meetings and press the board on every opportunity. There's a few of us doing it, and to me, these are the real supporters of the football club - not the football team, but the football club. These are the people who want Worcester City FC to form an integral part of the sporting fabric of Worcester, because we have great pride in our City. Many of us have sacrificed being able to watch games in order to fight for the survival of the club. I remember phoning Rob Crean one Tuesday evening, there's a game at Aggborough, but Rob's fighting the cause at the Guildhall. I'm sat in the car park at Aggborough on the phone to Supporters Direct, and didnt see a ball kicked!! There's a few of us going the extra mile, funny I never see you around. And yes we can force changes, through bloody hard work, and making sacrifices. Sure, no-one can demand that fans stop going to games, thats your choice, but you're right about one thing. If we carry on doing what we're doing, we are doomed - thats not me saying it, its not the Supporters Trust saying it, thats what Anthony Hampson said at the shareholder meeting. 2/3 years and the money runs out. Personally, I don't want to wait 2/3 years before we have an alternative solution, so I can't just stand around at Bromsgrove singing songs to club directors for the next 2/3 years. Been there, done that, Sack The Board banners at SGL, waving red cards in the faces of club directors, it makes no odds. One day football fans will wake up and realise, club directors (at all clubs other than fan owned clubs) really don't give a damn about who you are, or what you do, so long as you hand over the cash at the gate, you can do what you like! The only time they'll listen is when it hits them in the pocket. Hampson makes his position totally clear on this one, and he is right, the board of directors are responsible and answerable to only one set of people, the shareholders! Protecting shareholders investment comes even before protecting the company itself. Thats the law, if directors do anything for the good of the company which could damage shareholders interests, they are liable for legal action against them. Fans on the other hand? They mean absolutely nothing in terms of directors responsibilities, get it, YOU mean nothing at all to Worcester City Football Club Ltd. or any other football club. No decisions are made in your interest, and why should they be? after all, however badly they mistreat you as a customer, you'll go back for more, and you'll pay for the privilege. You'll even pay for the privilege of volunteering to help them carry out their plans which don't involve or help you in any way. That's your choice, and they know it. And for the record, I don't hate Hampson & Co. Why should I? Hate is nothing but a pointless and futile emotion, I hate no-one, I've got no time for hate. There's a job of trying to save a football club to do, which involves a lot of tough decisions and sacrifices. I'm not in this to be liked or to be popular, or to make friends, strangely enough, neither are Hampson & Co. There's a business to be sorted out here, watching football doesn't even come into the equation for me. I'm making 200 mile round trips just to get to Club and Trust meetings each week, getting back down to Uxbridge way past midnight, and I think its worth it.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 4, 2016 14:10:16 GMT
Well Jem that was quite some outburst there. I hope you didn't hire that soapbox on company expenses. Ha! Ha!
What you have just read above are the feelings of a man who passionately believes and works tirelessly for a future for our club and along with Rob Crean, Dave Wood, Mike Davis, Rich Widdowson Jane and Norm Clarke, Millie Gaffey, Kevin Preece, Julian Pugh, Bosco, recently elected Ken Johnson, plus a few other supporters and past Trust Board members. They have all worked tirelessly for several years now, not seeking praise but support from supporters, fans and shareholders alike, who care about our club and want to not only keep it alive but provide it with a sustainable future we all can be a part of and proud of but and this is the big BUT kind words alone will not be sufficient and unpleasant or offensive songs and banners will not help. Personal attacks on Board members will not win many friends or the influence you hope it will, probably the opposite. Like Jem, I do not hate Anthony, Colin or any members of the Board, far from it, I just fundamentally believe that the course they are trying to steer the Club in is flawed and will not work, as I am sure is their view of the Trust proposals. The difference is that the Trust proposals have been fully researched and continue to be updated as rules on available grants and possible funding streams change and freely made available for scrutiny, where as in the secretive world of the 'Inner Board' nothing is made available to shareholders to see what research the Board has done into any alternative plan or plans they have been investigating, citing a need for confidentiality. My fear is that confidentiality is what lead to the calamitous 'Nunnery Way' fiasco and the failure to secure the £7 million from 'Careys' when it was first agreed on, which ended up as just half of that because the Board made the mistake of not letting SGL go sooner. Everything the Board is doing needs to be made available to shareholders to read, study and scrutinise prior to anything being signed up for in our name, and they had an opportunity to pull the rabbit out of the bag last Thursday and refused with not any sort of hint as to what they were looking at which all sounded a bit hurried and woolly to me. Sorry but this is no way to run a business in my opinion and does not invoke trust in the Board or their possible plans. If you want to help the Trust by all means make banners perhaps showing your support for the Trust plans, or asking the Board to come clean with their alternatives but most definitely nothing offensive be it songs or banners and can those who think it is funny please, please, please, refrain from bringing any more smoke bombs to any home or away matches. Apart from possibility of someone getting burnt by one of them like a children or and elderly fans who have limited mobility, think about people who could get hurt/injured trying to get away from one and what about people who have respiratory problems like asthma. In addition to which the club gets fined, so unless you are prepared to pay that fine no more smoke bombs please! If anyone has any ideas for fundraising or volunteering or ideas that could help the Trust Board and relieve a bit of the strain and pressure they encounter during match days trying to do too much, or indeed the trust work and research they do in their own time, please make yourself known to a member of the Trust Board and don't just limit your help to just match days. You might be a Trust member, a shareholder or a regular fan but any help you can afford in time, ideas or fundraising has got to be the priority from now on if we are ever to reach that hoped for fan owned community based club. So can we all please act responsibly and do what ever you can to help in any way you can and work together for the greater good and survival of the Club and if we can carry or friends and colleagues from the Board with us too at some point all the better and they would be very welcome as intrinsically we all have the same aim just different views on how to achieve that.
Thanks for leaving the Soapbox Jem and it's now available for the next person.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 4, 2016 15:59:47 GMT
The talk of groundsharing with the WRFC I find difficult to understand, I was always under the impression that the FA insisted on primacy of fixtures for any football club sharing with a rugby club.Surely this would be something WRFC would not give to WCFC.
Should however it did come about what a soulless experience that would be stood in a ground built for 14000 spectators with just another few hundred for company at a football match.
I also find it despicable that shareholders who do not attend matches not even the EGM or AGM and yet may cast a vote that influences the demise of the Club. What is in it for them. The shares are worthless and probably always will be if the Chairmans forecast of a 2/3 year life left for the Club.
Finally I do not understand why the Chairman would risk alienating the goodwill and work provided by various people surrounding the Club pursueing his objective.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 4, 2016 16:13:04 GMT
I don't think you could make this up if you tried!! More Jam Tomorrow anyone? confirmation that there is NO plan in place. They havent even started talking with Anthony Collins & Co regarding constitutional change options, yet the Supporters Trust have worked with Supporters Direct and DWF for the last 4 years and have gone through this very same evaluation process that the club have yet to start, built a comprehensive business plan, highlighted potential grant funding to include in the business plan, and also put together a planning application for a community sports facility at Perdiswell! In that same timeframe, the club have exercised the financing plan that the Chairman mentioned at the shareholder meeting, that is, raising finance through share issues - and how much have they raised in 4 years? The grand total of £5,349.00 ! Last year this financing plan raised £50! The Supporters Trust have received more in grants for feasibility studies in the last 12 months than the club has raised through its financing plan in 4 years! I don't believe that anything that we have been saying as shareholders or the Supporters Trust has been factually incorrect, its based on the performance of the business as per the accounts, its based on the performance of similar football businesses who have moved to community owned (whether CBS or CIC), and whatsmore, the club have never come out with any other facts to counter the comments made by the Supporters Trust. We are days from an EGM, yet still the football club are keeping shareholders in the dark over their "plans" and just saying "It's ok, we've got enough money to last 2/3 years, but don't worry, we assure you everything is going to be alright!" www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/14597149.Worcester_City_s_bosses_hit_back_at____scaremongering_tactics____and_vow_to_create_a__vibrant__future/?action=success#comment_16500014
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Jul 4, 2016 17:15:22 GMT
Will people voting at the meeting on the 7th need to bring share certificates along in order to vote?
Thanks Steve
|
|
jonnyred
Reserve Teamer
c'mon u bluuuues!
Posts: 112
|
Post by jonnyred on Jul 4, 2016 17:30:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 4, 2016 17:35:47 GMT
Hi Steve, You shouldn't need to really as they should have a list of all shareholders like they did at last weeks 'Pre-EGM' and tick you off as you arrive but as this Boards organisational skills seem to be lacking a bit of late it won't hurt to take them and/or some kind of ID just in case of another cock up. Mind you if as i suspect they are reading this they will make sure there are no cock ups and I presume the lovely Margaret will sign you in like last week.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 4, 2016 18:35:36 GMT
I don't think you could make this up if you tried!! More Jam Tomorrow anyone? confirmation that there is NO plan in place. They havent even started talking with Anthony Collins & Co regarding constitutional change options, yet the Supporters Trust have worked with Supporters Direct and DWF for the last 4 years and have gone through this very same evaluation process that the club have yet to start, built a comprehensive business plan, highlighted potential grant funding to include in the business plan, and also put together a planning application for a community sports facility at Perdiswell! In that same timeframe, the club have exercised the financing plan that the Chairman mentioned at the shareholder meeting, that is, raising finance through share issues - and how much have they raised in 4 years? The grand total of £5,349.00 ! Last year this financing plan raised £50! The Supporters Trust have received more in grants for feasibility studies in the last 12 months than the club has raised through its financing plan in 4 years! I don't believe that anything that we have been saying as shareholders or the Supporters Trust has been factually incorrect, its based on the performance of the business as per the accounts, its based on the performance of similar football businesses who have moved to community owned (whether CBS or CIC), and whatsmore, the club have never come out with any other facts to counter the comments made by the Supporters Trust. We are days from an EGM, yet still the football club are keeping shareholders in the dark over their "plans" and just saying "It's ok, we've got enough money to last 2/3 years, but don't worry, we assure you everything is going to be alright!" www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/14597149.Worcester_City_s_bosses_hit_back_at____scaremongering_tactics____and_vow_to_create_a__vibrant__future/?action=success#comment_16500014How can Hampson state we have a viable and vibrant future when only last week he told shareholders the Club only had a 2 to 3 year life.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jul 5, 2016 11:37:12 GMT
I shall be attending AND taking my share certificates with me, and I'll be voting in favour of a CBS, but I shall be doing so with a heavy heart as I see the Board of the club I love hopelessly split when there is no way they will survive without pulling together.
It would seem there are two classes of director: those in the know and those not, and it would appear to me as an unbiased observer from the side-lines, that the directors appointed by the Supporters Trust have not been taken into the confidence of the other directors.
I have already said that "the house divided against itself must surely fall" (not an original quote - it's in the Bible I believe) and that's the way it seems to be to me. I am desperately sad at this state of affairs.
Regrettably it'll be like the referendum, with brother against brother so to speak, and I may choose the wrong side but a choice will have to be made. I'm on the side of the Supporters Trust, if only because they have been more open and have put proposals on the table. I thank them for all the hard work they have done on our behalf.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 5, 2016 12:54:08 GMT
Tim - you are right in your comments, and one of the reasons that we stood down from the Board was so that the Board could, if they so wish, carry out their strategy for the future of the club in an unfettered way, with no split at board level. If the Board wins the vote at the EGM, then we all have to accept that the club will continue down the route it already is, as a privately owned business operating for the benefit purely for shareholders (that is the one and only remit for companies limited by shares) and that there is no appetite at board level for a fan owned democratic club serving the community of Worcester. None of us have ever had any intention of operating in a divisive way, we can disagree at board level, but must always be seen to be in unity for the good of the club, and if that isn't the case, if directors are being deliberately excluded from boardroom discussion, then it would be churlish and irresponsible of us to fight between ourselves. This is one of the major differences between a community owned club and a Ltd. company. The Ltd. company operates in the interests only of the shareholders, in the case of Worcester City FC Ltd. this is around 30/40 active shareholders. I'm afraid fans wishes are disregarded (not just at WCFC but at all Ltd. company football clubs) Anthony Hampson is right when he states that winding up the company might be an option, because he is taking the correct stance of protecting shareholder interests, he has no choice but to do that. A community owned club operates for the benefit of all of its members, so every fan who becomes a member has a vote, and the board of a Community owned club is responsible for the interests of ALL of its members. At most football clubs a very high percentage of fans become members (owners) and are represented at all meetings, and are involved directly in decision making processes. And its not just FCUM, its clubs like Lewes FC, Enfield, Dorchester and most recently Grays Athletic, who are giving their fans the opportunity to own and be involved in the running of their footbal clubs. Ask yourself why they are doing this? Enfield Town FC were the first community owned club, they've been trading this way for the last 15 years. Enfield fans have been a major part in the clubs success rising from the Essex Senior League to the Ryman Premier Division. They've helped their club build a new stadium. They've all worked with the experts in the field of community ownership (not just CBS) , the people that have been shunned by Worcester City FC Ltd.
|
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on Jul 5, 2016 16:47:24 GMT
Just seen this online, disgusted!
This is from Ollie Wilcox in reply to Mike, Jem and Rob quitting the board. He is Esteemed manager of our U18's floodlit team and son of the slide button presser!
"I don't get annoyed very often, but what a bunch of wankers!!
All 3 of these directors as well as 1 former director have only ever tried to make it a club about themselves and not a fans club! When they say a community club, these are the people who don't talk to anyone, not known in worcester however much they try and kid themselves!! They have been involved in discussions, but multiply times confidential club information found its way into the press due to them. Statements were made as directors of worcester to boost the personal gain and not at the best interest of the club! The club invite them into the board to help, but since they have joined they have never done anything but cause problems! I hope this finds its way to them cuz they don't have a clue what they are doing. Now I beg everyone not to fall into this trap because this could be the end of Worcester City if you believe there bullshit!! "
|
|