|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 21:39:58 GMT
Post by creaner on Oct 25, 2008 21:39:58 GMT
Er, no. I hate to burst the conspiracy bubble here but you may surprised to discover that some members of the Trust are also shareholders. Why weren't we told! Can shareholders request an egm? yes. Are there shareholders on the trust board, yes. QED it's a Trust set up! No, it's called shareholder democracy. Suv, you've not known me long but I thought you might know me better. We stood firm to establish an independent Trust when feelings were running high. We did it. I'll not give up that argument easily. If anyone thinks the Trust is taking sides PLEASE come and find me on Saturday to talk. There are plenty of people who would like the Trust to fail and be discredited. We will listen and decide on the arguement not on supposition and rumour. Camper, i'll ask again now as you did not reply before. Would you like to talk to the Trust or not?
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 25, 2008 21:58:36 GMT
Post by suv on Oct 25, 2008 21:58:36 GMT
Creaner, not getting into petty squabbles with you either publically or privately but I have a major concern. The elected chairman of the Supporters Trust uses his "casting vote" to decline an offer of a seat on the board at a meeting which is one of the major priorities for the Trust and the same month (or week) is seeking to get on the same board via the SHAG I find confusing to say the least. I understand the difference between the Trust and being a Shareholder but really do think there is a conflict of interests here.
Rob, I'll see you for that pint you were gonna buy Dave !!!!!
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 26, 2008 0:06:55 GMT
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 26, 2008 0:06:55 GMT
Creaner, not getting into petty squabbles with you either publically or privately but I have a major concern. The elected chairman of the Supporters Trust uses his "casting vote" to decline an offer of a seat on the board at a meeting which is one of the major priorities for the Trust and the same month (or week) is seeking to get on the same board via the SHAG I find confusing to say the least. I understand the difference between the Trust and being a Shareholder but really do think there is a conflict of interests here. Rob, I'll see you for that pint you were gonna buy Dave !!!!! Sev. Let's get one thing straight. The Chairman of the Trust did NOT use his casting vote to decide the issue about going on the board. You as well as one or two others on this web site are very good at listening to rumours then making your mind up without taking the cotton wool out of your ears and hearing the truth. You seem more happy to damage the Trust with all the c**p that is being written instead of coming to a meeting and talking it over. As most people know who I am, can I ask if you or Dave Etheridge or our old friend Mr Green would be willing to fill the vacancies on the trust board when some of the members resign? I'm sure they would be more happy to sit at home and watch the TV then have to put up with the garbage being written on here.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 26, 2008 8:42:34 GMT
Post by suv on Oct 26, 2008 8:42:34 GMT
Creaner, not getting into petty squabbles with you either publically or privately but I have a major concern. The elected chairman of the Supporters Trust uses his "casting vote" to decline an offer of a seat on the board at a meeting which is one of the major priorities for the Trust and the same month (or week) is seeking to get on the same board via the SHAG I find confusing to say the least. I understand the difference between the Trust and being a Shareholder but really do think there is a conflict of interests here. Rob, I'll see you for that pint you were gonna buy Dave !!!!! Sev. Let's get one thing straight. The Chairman of the Trust did NOT use his casting vote to decide the issue about going on the board. You as well as one or two others on this web site are very good at listening to rumours then making your mind up without taking the cotton wool out of your ears and hearing the truth. You seem more happy to damage the Trust with all the c**p that is being written instead of coming to a meeting and talking it over. As most people know who I am, can I ask if you or Dave Etheridge or our old friend Mr Green would be willing to fill the vacancies on the trust board when some of the members resign? I'm sure they would be more happy to sit at home and watch the TV then have to put up with the garbage being written on here. Berdfiider. I had (and still have) no intention of attending Trust meetings once a Trust board was elected (like most other members of the Supporters Trust). If you remember back to June 2008 I chose to help with the organisation of the Trust election which made me ineligible to stand for the Trust board. Since the Trust election results were published and a board elected nothing has happend to changed my opinion. As for the "Rumours" eliment of the above thread, I will speak to the "Rumour Monger" again (not until next Saturday) and respond accordingly.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 26, 2008 10:01:24 GMT
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 26, 2008 10:01:24 GMT
Sev. Let's get one thing straight. The Chairman of the Trust did NOT use his casting vote to decide the issue about going on the board. You as well as one or two others on this web site are very good at listening to rumours then making your mind up without taking the cotton wool out of your ears and hearing the truth. You seem more happy to damage the Trust with all the c**p that is being written instead of coming to a meeting and talking it over. As most people know who I am, can I ask if you or Dave Etheridge or our old friend Mr Green would be willing to fill the vacancies on the trust board when some of the members resign? I'm sure they would be more happy to sit at home and watch the TV then have to put up with the garbage being written on here. Berdfiider. I had (and still have) no intention of attending Trust meetings once a Trust board was elected (like most other members of the Supporters Trust). If you remember back to June 2008 I chose to help with the organisation of the Trust election which made me ineligible to stand for the Trust board. Since the Trust election results were published and a board elected nothing has happend to changed my opinion. As for the "Rumours" eliment of the above thread, I will speak to the "Rumour Monger" again (not until next Saturday) and respond accordingly. But remember to ask your Romour Monger where they got there info re the Chairmans casting vote because HE DID NOT USE IT,then I hope you and your Romour Mongering friend will come on here and apology to WCFT for all the unnecessary damage you have done,so either put up or shut up.
|
|
|
EGM
Oct 26, 2008 18:45:49 GMT
Post by dave on Oct 26, 2008 18:45:49 GMT
If Colin Layland is going forward as a proposed Director in his own right as a shareholder (and not on behalf of the Supporters Trust) then this is not a problem, but should be made clear as Suv is right, the appearance if of a conflict of interest. However I think in all fairness Colin Layland did not use his casting vote either way when the Trust Board voted on the proposal to go on the existing Board.
There are 7 Board members (4 elected and 3 co-opted) and the vote was tied 3-3, so presumably Colin abstained, and I can now understand why, he was trying to avoid the conflict of interest arising.
I have no problem with Colin and Rich being on the Trust Board and part of the SHAG, providing that the Trust aims are being pursued and that everybody remains open and transparent about their position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
EGM
Oct 27, 2008 9:47:09 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 9:47:09 GMT
If Colin Layland is going forward as a proposed Director in his own right as a shareholder (and not on behalf of the Supporters Trust) then this is not a problem, but should be made clear as Suv is right, the appearance if of a conflict of interest. However I think in all fairness Colin Layland did not use his casting vote either way when the Trust Board voted on the proposal to go on the existing Board. There are 7 Board members (4 elected and 3 co-opted) and the vote was tied 3-3, so presumably Colin abstained, and I can now understand why, he was trying to avoid the conflict of interest arising. I have no problem with Colin and Rich being on the Trust Board and part of the SHAG, providing that the Trust aims are being pursued and that everybody remains open and transparent about their position. So what's the problem? All seems pretty straightforward to me. That is of course assuming that Colin Layland has put himself forward to be elected to the Board, which of course is nothing more than idle speculation and tittle-tattle!!! So, all told, a non-story, with one aim, to discredit the Supporters Trust, and saying "if this hurts the ST short term, I apologise" is rather futile, damage already done. Quite why you want to question the integrity of guys like Rob Crean and Dave Wood, I don't know, but the irony is, that I think you might have pushed some ST members further towards a position of partiality!! (36 seconds during a cup of coffee)
|
|