|
EGM
Oct 23, 2008 18:31:04 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 23, 2008 18:31:04 GMT
I understand that an EGM request has been submitted.
Does anybody know what the proposed resolution is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:24:05 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 9:24:05 GMT
Yes, I imagine the people who submitted the request and the people who received it would know.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:26:40 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 9:26:40 GMT
Jeremy, you are as helpful as ever!
Perhaps Mr Widdowson or perhaps camper can enlighten us as to what the EGM resolution states?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:32:23 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 9:32:23 GMT
I see no reason why either the Board or the EGM proposers should publicise the details of what is effectively a legal process.
Does anyone happen to know dave's bank account details and credit card pin?
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:34:52 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 9:34:52 GMT
The resolution is going to be put to shareholders, so I will get my answer at that stage anyway.
Do the people who have requested the EGM have something to hide?
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:39:46 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 9:39:46 GMT
Perhaps I should stop beating around the bush...
I am led to believe that the EGM request may ask for the resignation of all existing directors to be replaced by four members of the SHAG and Colin Layland (as Trust Representative)
If this is the case then I would be more concerned than ever that the Trust Board have been in discussions with and accepted a place on the Board with SHAG but would not accept one with the current Board, again all done in secret without notifiying Trust Members.
I really hope my information is duff on this one, otherwise it will confirm all my worst fears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:45:53 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 9:45:53 GMT
The resolution is going to be put to shareholders, so I will get my answer at that stage anyway. Do the people who have requested the EGM have something to hide? Do the Board have something to hide? Does dave have something to hide? In your next phone call to Mr Boddy, can you thank him for letting you know that this is now going to be put to shareholders!
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 9:47:49 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 9:47:49 GMT
I have spoken to Mr Boddy once on the phone in my life and I have no immediate plans to speak with him again.
I have absolutely nothing to hide, my anger at the way the Trust is going about things is something I make no attempt to hide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 10:10:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 10:10:40 GMT
Two choices then dave, challenge (like the shareholders are challenging the board) or walk away. There is a third choice, which is idle tittle-tattle and rumour-mongering of course, which get's you a reputation for being a bit of a t**t, (I have a reputation for being a bit of a t**t, do you really want to stoop to my level?)
BTW, SHAG isn't some kind of gentlemans club requiring membership, there are no members, it doesn't exist.
I guess you should raise your issues with the Trust Board directly, which I imagine you will already have done.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 10:13:58 GMT
Post by almasno9 on Oct 24, 2008 10:13:58 GMT
As a City Supporter it's a shame that it has become necessary for an EGM to be called. The blame for this can only be laid at the door of the current board with their persistent dodging and deceit in avoiding an AGM. Even if the City ended up with a ground that resembled the Nou Camp I could never trust the current board on any matter now or in the future.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 10:26:17 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 10:26:17 GMT
I am considering the best way forward Jem, and being a bit of a t**t is something I can live with if necessary, but frankly I think I will end up just walking away from the whole thing altogether. It is time for me to forget the politics and enjoy the football for as long as it lasts.
I have raised my concerns with the Trust Board chairman in an e-mail and hopefully he will respond to me.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 10:49:01 GMT
Post by richwidd on Oct 24, 2008 10:49:01 GMT
Jeremy, you are as helpful as ever! Perhaps Mr Widdowson or perhaps camper can enlighten us as to what the EGM resolution states? No sorry, I won't enlighten you. There is a due process which either the Board will follow or the shareholders who sent in the requisition will follow. The requisition will be sent to the shareholders and the shareholders will vote for whoever they want to represent them. They will be given the chance to vote for an alternative Business Plan, which they will get the chance to see before the EGM. There will be no public meeting or press statement. This will be a matter for the shareholders of the Company.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 11:00:29 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 11:00:29 GMT
Ok perhaps I should ask you to put your other hat on and tell me as a Trust Member, whether or not the Trust Board have discussed and agreed for a Trust Representative (Colin Layland) to be included in the EGM proposed resolution as a new Director?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 11:24:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 11:24:40 GMT
Ok perhaps I should ask you to put your other hat on and tell me as a Trust Member, whether or not the Trust Board have discussed and agreed for a Trust Representative (Colin Layland) to be included in the EGM proposed resolution as a new Director? Isn't that a matter to be discussed with all members of the Supporters Trust, not just the few who might read this message board? In the interests of democracy of course!
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 14:40:28 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 14:40:28 GMT
Ideally yes Jeremy it would be, but as the EGM should be imminent, I would like to know whether a Trust Representative has been put forward as a proposed Director as part of the EGM resolution, with or without the knowledge of the Trust Board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 15:00:17 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 15:00:17 GMT
Yes but why should you be privvy to information that others within the Supporters Trust aren't privvy to? That doesn't sound all that democratic
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 15:04:14 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 15:04:14 GMT
Then a statement issued via the Trust website, the press or perhaps a letter to all Trust members may be the best way forward.
I am not asking very difficult questions Jeremy, I am just trying to ascertain whether or not the Trust is being used by certain individuals to further their own cause, perhaps without the knowledge and consent of the Trust Board, let alone the Trust Members at large.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 15:52:14 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 15:52:14 GMT
On the basis that the Supporters Trust don't carry 10% of the shares, and therefore can't make any kind of constitutional challenge to the company, I doubt that using the Trust to further any individuals cause would really be a sensible way to go about it, particularly considering the Supporters Trust is very new. Surely the best way to further ones own cause would be to tag along with a group who were likely to be able to take some form of control, like a group of shareholders??? Or more sensibly the present Board!!! It worked for IDIFF.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 17:03:19 GMT
Post by creaner on Oct 24, 2008 17:03:19 GMT
Ok perhaps I should ask you to put your other hat on and tell me as a Trust Member, whether or not the Trust Board have discussed and agreed for a Trust Representative (Colin Layland) to be included in the EGM proposed resolution as a new Director? The answer to that would be no, and to issue a statement saying we hadn't discussed an EGM that we had no idea was happening would have been difficult! As I mentioned elsewhere Dave, the only thing agreed was decided, minuted and available on the download (wcfcst.co.uk) from Sept 3rd meeting was this: "Elected Trust member on the Board of WCFC – Colin was nominated and unanimously elected as Trust representative in case significant changes were made to the current Board and a Trust rep was needed at short notice." "If significant changes were made or Trust rep needed at short notice". There have been no significant changes with the current board. If I have let the Trust down with lack of info to the members then I apologise but the things you have written are indeed "rumours" and nothing more. The next board meeting that happened (Sept 24?) you were at. The next board meeting was the one last Wednesday, which you were invited to, which we discussed the anti-racism event. We did not meet up in secret to discuss Board appointments, in fact we did not meet up at all! Nothing to do with SHAG, whoever is telling you this wrong. There is no conspiracy. The only names on the EGM I presume would be shareholders, nothing to do at all with the Trust We can, and will, improve our communication but in the middle of trying to make one of the best community events this club has seen (Courtesy of Sue Bentleys efforts) a success all we are doing is arguing amongst ourselves! And I'll still buy you the pint...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 18:16:44 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 18:16:44 GMT
Dave, I would be appalled if Trust members were asked to vote on a suggestion from the board that an ST member join at this point. I'd need a lot more information than just a casual chat in the car park. For a start I'd need to see the board's proposals IN WRITING. How many other "suggestions" and promises have they made and then backed away from? I'd want to see the details of their proposals and also the Trust committee's considered response to them. Just because the board have come up with some proposal that on the surface looks attractive doesn't mean we all have to race to the ballot box.
If the Gang of Four suggested we have a working web site I'd suggest there would be a 100% yes vote. But would that mean we'd get a working website? Would we fuckk. I think the board must be pissing themselves laughing at these "rumours" threads. It's set supporters against each other and distracted attention from the real problem - THEM.
A divided house will not stand. If there is an EGM on the horizon we need to stand together and get this lot out. In caps: OUT!
From my point of view I'd always vote that the ST has no member on this board. They have to go before we even think about taking a seat. By joining we'd give them a seal of approval - and it would split the Trust. I'd burn my membership card immediately. We need to replace these idiots who have taken a club in debt with assets, to a club in debt with no assets.
Stand together and vote these clowns out.
|
|
BDS
Squad Member
Posts: 201
|
EGM
Oct 24, 2008 22:33:23 GMT
Post by BDS on Oct 24, 2008 22:33:23 GMT
Ladies and Gentlemen
Football is an emotional game. This is not a time for bickering or recrimination. It is not a time for personal vendettas or a witch hunt. It is a time for unity of purpose and of action.
What we are looking at is the future of Worcester City Football Club.
The question for resolution by the shareholders is who they trust to run the Club in their best interests? This decision cannot be based on emotion but on logic.
What everyone needs is the facts on which to base a rational decision to decide on who is capable, as far is possible, of securing the long-term future of the Club.
The future may involve hard choices and very difficult decisions but if those who are charged with the honour and responsibility of delivering it for the Club we love are people of integrity who'se sole purpose is to run the club for the benefit of the members and supporters - and to keep those same people fully informed about what is happening and to genuinely listen to their views - then whatever the outcome everyone will know that no stone was left unturned to make this club what it can and should be.
There is no guarantee that a change of management will provide a magic bullet where all problems are resolved at a stroke.
We should all be pleased that, despite recent events, there is a large reserve of goodwill available should a change of Board be approved.
Let us hope that in the Club's darkest hour this fantastic energy and wonderful commitment will translate into positive action that manifests itself in a club reborn. A Club that becomes a beacon to attract the community which it represents to take it once again into their hearts.
If a new Board can achieve this, and I believe it both can and will, then the future will indeed be a bright and joyful one.
Those in favour of change must hope that, having heard the truth and recognised it as such, the members will vote in overwhelming numbers in favour of a new, open, transparent, management where the Board act, and can be seen to act, in the interests of members and supporters.
Arguments must be settled by debate and persuasion and the many talents of those who are not elecetd but wish to serve must be warmly welcomed and deployed to best advantage.
With power comes responsbility. Should new directors be elected from amongst the shareholder body they will have the fortune to serve the club and through it the community. It is vital that they remember who elected them and why. If they do this and acknowledge that they are the trustees of the hopes and dreams of all who love the Club and act accordingly then they will deserve the total support that will be required from everyone with Worcester City in their heart to achieve what we all desire. The days of disunity must end if there is to be a real future for our City.
City forward forever.
Malcolm Robson
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 8:05:24 GMT
Post by creaner on Oct 25, 2008 8:05:24 GMT
Well said Malcolm. A more accurate and even handed view of the present situation that I've read in a long while! My personal view is that the outcome of any AGM/EGM should draw a line under any arguements of who should be taking the club forward. Both sides can make their arguements and the shareholders will decide. After that I would hope the Supporters Trust would work with the Club Board in helping to move the Club forward with the help of the fans and the local community. In the meantime, the Trust would like to hear ALL arguements from everyone who has an interest in securing the Clubs long term future. We honestly have no axe to grind. It's only by talking and improving communication that everyone has a clear picture of where the Club is and where it's going so we can make reasoned decisions based on the evidence given rather than hearsay or rumour. Silence isn't always golden. If Camper or Malcolm or DB or anyone wants to meet the Trust and talk we have always been willing to listen. As we used to say where I work, "It's good to talk!"
|
|
BDS
Squad Member
Posts: 201
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 9:50:08 GMT
Post by BDS on Oct 25, 2008 9:50:08 GMT
Creaner - I think that Andy Bullock originally set the Trust up ready for the day that is now upon us. For me the Trust is the only body capable of commanding the broad support needed to give the Club a real and exciting future.
A new Board is needed but I believe that they should only act as interim directors pending a review of the Clubs affairs. A report needs to be made to everyone as fast as possible after a General Meeting and then plans can be made as to how and who manages the club in the future.
I believe that appointed Directors should be mandated by the shareholders and that the Trust should act in a supervisory capacity - probably with a veto - over the board between general meetings. The Trust will set the policy framework and the Directors will create a plan for approval and then carry it out (with all help from the wonderful skills at the disposal of the Club).
This is the way forward as the Trust is open and public. The Trust publsihes its minutes and anyone can attend.
Although it may seem that the Trust usurps the power of the members of the company it will be the members of the company that permit this fresh arrangement to start.
I believe that the days of local "big-wigs" using their local clubs are done. Non-league football fans in particular demand something that the sick professional game has lost. I believe it is time for the Trust to seize the initiative if it is able to and use it's positive influence to bring a peoples club back under the control of the people it serves.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 12:56:48 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 25, 2008 12:56:48 GMT
Dave, I would be appalled if Trust members were asked to vote on a suggestion from the board that an ST member join at this point. I'd need a lot more information than just a casual chat in the car park. . Ealing, this is the problem I have. TheTrust Board themselves were split on the issue, me and you have a different opinion on what should have happened with the offer to the Trust, and most of the Trust Members still don't know any offer has been made! The Trust Board needs to keep its members informed and be open and accountable. It is the secrecy and what that implies about the Supporters Trust that I am unhappy with. I will be even more disappointed if it turns out that the EGM resolution puts forward a Trust representative as a proposed Directors, without Trust members being notified and having taken a vote as to whether we wish to accept such a position at this time. The risks and liabilities will be there whoever is in charge after an AGM/EGM after all.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 15:08:17 GMT
Post by creaner on Oct 25, 2008 15:08:17 GMT
Dave, I would be appalled if Trust members were asked to vote on a suggestion from the board that an ST member join at this point. I'd need a lot more information than just a casual chat in the car park. . Ealing, this is the problem I have. TheTrust Board themselves were split on the issue, me and you have a different opinion on what should have happened with the offer to the Trust, and most of the Trust Members still don't know any offer has been made! The Trust Board needs to keep its members informed and be open and accountable. It is the secrecy and what that implies about the Supporters Trust that I am unhappy with. I will be even more disappointed if it turns out that the EGM resolution puts forward a Trust representative as a proposed Directors, without Trust members being notified and having taken a vote as to whether we wish to accept such a position at this time. The risks and liabilities will be there whoever is in charge after an AGM/EGM after all. Dave, I've answered this already but you do not seem to believe me otherwise you would not persist in repeating the alegation. The Trust made a decision, rightly or wrongly, but you will have to live with it I'm afraid. I'd rather look forward than back so will not be drawn again in writing but will talk next time I see you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 17:48:41 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 17:48:41 GMT
dave's "rumours" can only have come from two sources, a few people aligned with the shareholder group, of which he has no knowledge of their actions, or members of the present Board. I believe that only one of those two "sides" would find any value in pulling dave's strings. Its not "terrace talk" No-one on the terraces outside those two groups would have been aware even that the EGM noticed had been placed.
dave, you should remember that some time ago the Supporters Trust boasted the Chairman of the Club as a member, and I didn't hear you harping on too much about that undemocratic representation.
Consider the bigger issues, the stadium will now cost £5.8 million phase 1, so where's the additional £800,000 coming from? Ask your buddy that one.
|
|
BDS
Squad Member
Posts: 201
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 18:03:48 GMT
Post by BDS on Oct 25, 2008 18:03:48 GMT
Where is the £5M coming from? Let alone the £0.8M!
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 18:16:55 GMT
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 25, 2008 18:16:55 GMT
Come, come, Malcolm. Enough is enough!!
|
|
camper
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 87
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 20:24:32 GMT
Post by camper on Oct 25, 2008 20:24:32 GMT
Gentlemen neither I nor more colleagues chose to announce that yet another application for an EGM had been posted. As it is now in the public domain I can confirm that Colin Layland has been proposed as a Director of Worcester City Football Club. I believe that the request for the EGM was handed in by Richard Widdowson. I am sorry but I have been led to believe that the Trust was trying to distance themselves from the Shareholders Action Group, rightly or wrongly at this present time we are the elected members of the Board and sincerely wish to engage with the trust for the betterment of the club. This situation makes it difficult for us just as I am sure it makes it difficult for your members.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 20:53:50 GMT
Post by suv on Oct 25, 2008 20:53:50 GMT
camper
Either "s*** stirring" of the highest quality OR "Disappointing news" and as you got "stung" with previous comments recently I'm guessing it's the latter (though hoping it's the first) 2 of the 4 people elected to the Supporters Trust board now directly linked to the SHAG group. Looking less and less an independent Supporters Trust. A sorry state of affairs.
|
|