|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 12:30:09 GMT
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 18, 2016 12:30:09 GMT
Simon, why is your blood boiling? Shares in WCFC Ltd. have never been able to be redeemed, they cannot be traded, they do not rise in value, they are for all intent and purpose worthless fiscally to the shareholder from the moment we buy them. They do however buy you votes, one share one vote. Investment made in a Community Benefit Society or in some cases a CIC can be redeemed, in fact this redemption mechanism provides a level of assurity for investors, and a level of obligation to the company to perform in the interest of investors. The vehicle for transition from Limited Company to a Community Company can be a complex process , and has taken up a fair amount of legal legwork already. As there is a fully trading company in existence at the moment, any decisions on changing company constitution will be very much in the hands of shareholders like yourself. Personally, I would have thought that it is a better position to be able to take these decisions as a shareholder in a trading company, than as a creditor in a dissolved company. One of the reasons I put myself forward to join the Board, was to build a much more transparent model for the company. Football, and other sporting companies, are a bit more complex than other types of companies. Typically, in a business, you have your shareholders, represented by a board of directors, whose job it is to maximise the return they can get from their customers by selling product. Customers have very little, if any, vested interested in the company. I'm sat writing this in McDonalds in Frankfurt Airport. McDonalds Board of Directors have no interest in me other than to extract my Euros via the right product, and the right product isnt the best product, its the one I'll see as fair value at the time. I cannot influence, change, or impact McDonalds in any way, unless there was a critical failure. I am not a Supporter of McDonalds, just a paying punter. Football has Supporters, a group of very influential people, who, although they have no financial interest in a business, they can, and should, have an important impact on how the business is run. Although a football club has no obligation to provide any information to Supporters, I believe that, outside of confidential and personally sensitive information, it is sensible to be as transparent as possible. One of the big advantages of a community (supporter) owned club, is that now, the supporter does have a financial interest, even if it is only nominal, and therefore there is an obligation to provide further information. I want as much openness as possible, within the parameters of confidentiality. I am not a fan of platitudes such as"these are challenging times for the club" unless everyone is made aware just what those challenges are, how they've come about, and what is being done to remedy them. I don't play the blame game, unless those talking of challenges cant or wont provide the facts. Anyone who knows me will know, I'm a front foot person, I screw up, I get it right, but I hide from no one. If you (or any supporter)want to talk to me, this is my email address jempitt@gmail.com
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 13:27:43 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 18, 2016 13:27:43 GMT
Hi Jem, Thank you for being kind enough to take the time to put your head above the parapet on behalf of the Club and answer a few questions all of which are valid to some degree. Yes I am aware the Club shares are not tradeable, have a no real value apart from securing voting rights, pay no dividend and cannot be redeemed unless another party is willing the buy the holding is found and the Board approve that transfer of ownership. The fact that I and others bought these shares in good faith though seems to be completely ignored and on the face of it the Club and or Trust do not seem to be recognising that fact. In effect the Trust are receiving that investor money free of any strings and are not obliged even to provide each holder with a vote at any Trust meeting which doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I have to graciously accept the transfer of my funds but I feel it is only fair for me and other shareholders to at the very least be offered a vote at all Trust meetings by way of a thank you for our donations and we be given an honorary certificate to prove we are eligible to vote. I don't think that is too much to ask for our loyalty and money. I am in favour of the Trust takeover but don't see why the money I and others have already spent on the Club is not being protected by giving us a vote. As it is I am supposedly a life time member of the Trust for the money I have spent supporting the Trust's efforts with the beer festivals at the Lane but whenever I have attended a Trust meeting my name does not appear on their membership list. I currently find myself in an 'All pay and no say.' situation and if my Club vote is lost too and not being offered on the other side with the Trust, how would you feel? So yes my blood is boiling at the moment. Rob Crean is going to contact me later today to hopefully clarify things from both the Trust and Board sides of the equation so hopefully he may be able explain things more fully from the Trust side and maybe find some sort of solution to the Club Shareholders voting rights when the Trust take over.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 14:13:51 GMT
Post by richwidd on Jan 18, 2016 14:13:51 GMT
Hi Jimbo, Thank you for your perceived understanding of what is to happen to Club shareholders investments. I have not been made aware that this was being considered and am both shocked and horrified that this is possibly the plan. In any other walk of life this would be considered theft! As you can imagine my blood is boiling at the very thought of this. I will now be seeking clarification from both the Club and the Trust prior to the AGM and dependant upon what I am told will consider my options maybe even down the legal avenues. Hi Simon, As I said above, There is NOT going to be a vote on changing the constitution of the club a week on Thursday. The motion that was submitted by me and backed by 60 odd shareholders back in November was rejected. It is NOT on the agenda and there is NO EGM. ( IF the motion had been accepted by the Board, there would have been a shareholders meeting before any EGM where the Trust would have explained the whole process and the benefits it would bring to WCFC, most of which has already been explained in the several Trust meetings in the past few years). At the time I went around the ground to ask people to sign , it was to support the call for a change in constitution via an EGM, it was clearly explained that anyone who signed it did not necessarily have to vote for it at the EGM & could change their mind if they wanted to - this was the first stage in a process to change our club for the better. So to be clear, There will NOT be a discussion OR vote on changing the constitution to become a Supporter/Community owned club at the AGM. Even if there was, which there isn't, you would not have to hand over anything if you didn't want to. There might be a vote in the future but it will NOT be at this meeting. & to be really clear, When or even if any re-submitted motion is accepted by the Club Board everything that is proposed will be presented to WCFC shareholders in a shareholders meeting. IF the Board accept the proposal it will have to heard at an EGM (or whatever they are called nowadays), Shareholders will still have the final say and WCFC Shareholders do not have to accept any proposal if they don't want to. If the motion is carried and you want to keep your shares as they are, that is entirely up to you. If it is rejected and shareholders want to stay as we are then I presume the club will revert to plan B.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 14:18:43 GMT
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 18, 2016 14:18:43 GMT
Simon Why are you of the opinion that you will not receive a vote? Lets deal with the Trust side. You say you are a member of the Supporters Trust, which means you would have completed a membership form, and this would be lodged with the Membership Secretary - I believe that that is Niels. Check with Niels on this one. As a Supporters Trust Director, in fact the one who created the membership process back in 2004 along with Andy Bullock, there is no mechanism for providing membership in exchange for "services provided" But take that up with the right person. As far as voting as a Supporters Trust member, all members have one vote at any Trust meeting where a vote is taken, or on any matter relating to Trust constitution etc. Volunteers arent necessarily Trust members, and Trust members arent necessarily volunteers. All time and money I've given towards the Supporters Trust has been done as goodwill, I get no voting rights or honorary rights and I wouldnt expect that. On the Club side, if you are a shareholder, holding 3,000 shares, then effectively you hold approximately 2% of the voting rights at the moment, which means that you can vote on any items that the Board put forward which require shareholder decisions. In the last 20 years I think that this has only happened once, at the big AGM at County Hall. Shareholders votes werent asked for for big decisions like the sale of 99% of the company assets, or the agreements with SMD etc. However, if a call for change to the constitution was called for, there is a requirement for shareholder intervention, and then , as a Ltd. company shareholder you would have 2% power in your vote as to whether you agreed to those changes or not. No shareholder is being forced, or is being expected to, hand over their shareholding to the new company. If a constitutional change was made which transferred ltd. company shares to the new company, then shareholders would have a vote as a shareholder in the new company, the difference being one member, one vote as opposed to one share one vote. Regardless of which way any constitutional change went, you would still have a vote. The Supporters Trust were due to outline the process, even though there is still work to be done, at a meeting in December. Due to more pressing issues which will become apparent , the constitutional discussion and company formation changes have had to take a back seat.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 14:29:51 GMT
Post by creaner on Jan 18, 2016 14:29:51 GMT
To be clear, there has never been any suggestion that shares are handed to the Supporters' Trust, or anyone else for that matter. They are your shares! The only place I can see this being put forward is in this thread. From a trust point of view the best way for this club to survive is to be Community/fan owned. It isn't a trust takeover. I have been through this many times before so am unsure as to where this supposed disenfranchisement of shareholders has come from. To become community owned the club's constitution would need to change to enable that to happen; this would be a shareholder decision. Even then no sold shares get moved anywhere. After that if there is a point reached where shareholders wish to gift some/all/none of their shares to enable fans to get to 51% to make it community owned then you are a fan owned club (fans being majority shareholder). If fan ownership isn't wanted then vote against the constitution change or decline to let go of your shares. Nobody could, or would want to, make you do otherwise. it's up to each individual but it is not theft...
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 14:57:06 GMT
Post by greenman on Jan 18, 2016 14:57:06 GMT
Did you quote 'revert to plan B' Rich. I was not aware that we had a fallback plan, no doubt this will be revealed at the shareholder/everybody welcome meeting.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 15:17:29 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 18, 2016 15:17:29 GMT
Hi Rob and Jem, This is beginning to make a little more sense now and perhaps Rob or indeed you Jem, as I have never met you to date that I know of, when I am next up in Worcester and see one or other of you I can clarify anything that still troubles me more fully but I feel a little less worried with things after your last two posts on here. I think I and some of the others who are either confused or worried judging by peoples conceptions or understanding of what is going on still need to have our questions or ideas of what is going on addressed so we are all on board with what is being prepared. I don't know how practical it would be but could a sort of question and answer sheet be drawn up and distributed to shareholders at the AGM or soon after so we can read them at our leisure after the AGM and hopefully are all understanding the procedure and rights or lack of and voter eligibility and changes should they take place. I appreciate you guys must be sick to death of this as you have spent a great deal of time trying to find a solution for the Clubs future but clearly I have heard conflicting views and ideas from others for one and suspect I am not alone. I am still on board with the Trust proposals and do care what happens to the club otherwise I would not have put money into it in the troubled times, even though I don't have the time and live too far away to get practically involved or join the Board, not though as I have said on a previous post that I have aspirations to do so or can add any useful skills if I did. Re my Trust membership could you help with that Rob. I do recall you saying that with all my help with providing festival glasses and some of the beers and ciders, advert in the Worcester News and taking time of work for the duration of the festivals you suggested I should be given a life time membership and you were a little surprised my name was not on the members list at the meeting called at I think it was Tudor Grange a year or two ago. If I have to formally join that is not a problem but if I don't need to do that can I have a membership card to avoid any future issues.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 15:31:09 GMT
Post by creaner on Jan 18, 2016 15:31:09 GMT
Hi Rob and Jem, This is beginning to make a little more sense now and perhaps Rob or indeed you Jem, as I have never met you to date that I know of, when I am next up in Worcester and see one or other of you I can clarify anything that still troubles me more fully but I feel a little less worried with things after your last two posts on here. I think I and some of the others who are either confused or worried judging by peoples conceptions or understanding of what is going on still need to have our questions or ideas of what is going on addressed so we are all on board with what is being prepared. I don't know how practical it would be but could a sort of question and answer sheet be drawn up and distributed to shareholders at the AGM or soon after so we can read them at our leisure after the AGM and hopefully are all understanding the procedure and rights or lack of and voter eligibility and changes should they take place. I appreciate you guys must be sick to death of this as you have spent a great deal of time trying to find a solution for the Clubs future but clearly I have heard conflicting views and ideas from others for one and suspect I am not alone. I am still on board with the Trust proposals and do care what happens to the club otherwise I would not have put money into it in the troubled times, even though I don't have the time and live too far away to get practically involved or join the Board, not though as I have said on a previous post that I have aspirations to do so or can add any useful skills if I did. Re my Trust membership could you help with that Rob. I do recall you saying that with all my help with providing festival glasses and some of the beers and ciders, advert in the Worcester News and taking time of work for the duration of the festivals you suggested I should be given a life time membership and you were a little surprised my name was not on the members list at the meeting called at I think it was Tudor Grange a year or two ago. If I have to formally join that is not a problem but if I don't need to do that can I have a membership card to avoid any future issues. I'll check your trust details tonight. Maybe a chat in The Plough would be in order!
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 15:42:40 GMT
Post by richwidd on Jan 18, 2016 15:42:40 GMT
Did you quote 'revert to plan B' Rich. I was not aware that we had a fallback plan, no doubt this will be revealed at the shareholder/everybody welcome meeting. Yes sorry, it should read revert to "Plan B".
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 18, 2016 15:43:42 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 18, 2016 15:43:42 GMT
Yes that would be nice Rob as haven't been up or in there since the Sheffield Utd weekend and am missing the old watering hole a lot as there is nothing as good locally down here unless I drive a long way and if I do that I can't drink, such as the 'Lifeboat' in Market Street, Margate. Hmmmmm!
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 20, 2016 11:09:27 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 20, 2016 11:09:27 GMT
Knowing that these posts are regularly read by the powers that be and trying to kill two birds with one stone, could I impose upon someone to provide me with copies ideally by e.mail or copies/photocopies of the Club constitution, the Trust constitution and the Perdiswell Plan especially the parts of the Plan that pertain as how it will work with/for the Club and Trust and it's implications for Club shareholders and/or indeed Trust shareholders, if there are any implications at all. If they can be sent to me by e.mail that would be great but if for any reason they are are not available in a format that can be transferred by e.mail I would be grateful if I could collect the copies or photocopies at the forth coming AGM, so I can take them home and read them at my leisure to get all the facts clear in my mind and hopefully dispel the nagging doubts I still have. Though many of you are trying to clarify things for me and as a result have had conflicting answers hence recent angst, I still find myself not totally convinced I have all the facts clear in my mind to my satisfaction and I think reading these papers will more fully answer the nagging questions for me. I appreciate Jem, that you almost eat and sleep these things by the sound of it but not being privy to the written information myself, never having thought it necessary till now, it keeps me at a disadvantage that I no longer wish to be in. So I would appreciate it if the kind soul or souls who can provide me with this information would make themselves known so I know who to collect them from at the meeting if the e.mail option is not available. Many thanks
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 20, 2016 17:45:56 GMT
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 20, 2016 17:45:56 GMT
The Ltd. Company constitution and MoA can be found at Companies House, here is the link beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00232010/filing-history - the 12 page pdf is the one you want. I think you are right to bring up these questions regarding shareholder implications, as a company shareholder, a Director, a Trust Director and a supporter, I have been grappling with these questions myself. We have had rigorous debate about this at ST board meetings. I've also seen various iterations of process around existing shares from other Trust set ups, both football and other community schemes. Here's my six mile high view of this as a shareholder. In the company accounts there is an item called Shareholders Funds - that is the value of the shareholding in the business. Its quite simple in the case of WCFC Ltd. as each share equals £1 - so, for arguments sake lets say there are 160,000 allocated shares, so a shareholder value of £160,000. The question is - "if I own 1000 shares, with a shareholder value of £1000, if I gift that to the Supporters Trust, do I still have a shareholder value of £1000?" This was taken from a FAQ for the Bath City Big Bid (CBS conversion) If someone was opposed to the new scheme could they be forced to sell their current shares and if so at what price? A - If we raise sufficient funds and are able to achieve a 75% vote in favour of conversion to a CBS, then all shares will be transferred into the new CBS at par value (£1 for £1) as part of that conversion. So the shareholder would continue to hold an equivalent value of community shares (i.e. non-transferable withdrawable share capital) but in the new company. There was another question relating to having £200 of shares, what would they get if they could not top up to the minimum £250 investment? The answer was that they'd get £200 shareholder value of community shares but would be encouraged to top up. To my view, if there is £160,000 in the old company, that £160,000 can't just disappear, it would transfer over to the new company (the CBS) So the par value would be a straight £1 for £1 conversion. If you have 1000 shares in WCFC Ltd. now, with a value of £1000, you must have community shares in the CBS of the same value. Or the books just simply could not possibly add up! The difference is though, whereas before your 1000 shares gives you 1000 votes, in the CBS, your 1000 shares gives you one vote. Your "ownership" of the business is equal with everyone elses, whether they've invested £50 or £20,000 in share value. although the flipside of that is that there would be a full democratic Another difference is that CBS shares are withdrawable, which means that you can take your money out of the CBS if you so desire (there are certain bits of small print around this, but there is a mechanism for withdrawal) therefore from a company perspective, there is an element of "risk/reward" Satisfy shareholder requirements and look to increase investment and involvement, screw up, and lose investment!! Now then, to speculate a bit. Most of the time, a CBS is a phoenix company, which means that the former company has gone into administration where the creditors have been paid off and assets sold. If there is any money left (after administrator fees) then this may be distributed to shareholders, typically there's nothing left, and shareholders are at the back of the queue. If the club were to trade itself dry (and let me make it perfectly clear, this is nothing more than hypothetical speculation) then that £160,000 would indeed be diminished to zero. Some clubs have offered share splits to shareholders such as 10 to 1 leaving you with a share value of £100 in the new company. Some have offered lifetime membership in the new company. I'm not saying that any of the above will happen, which has probably confused the matter further! Maybe you can see why so much time and advice has gone into this so far, there's no one simple answer. What happens if the structure ends up as something along the lines of Perdiswell Stadium Group as a CBS, and WCFC trading as a subsidiary CIC? One of the benefits of having Trust and Club getting closer, with representation and more importantly understanding and knowledge around one Boardroom table, is that we can now look at the overall picture, with no confidentiality issues, a clear understanding of the lie of the land, the parameters the club are working to, and get to a workable solution for everyone. Complex? yep! and thats the short version!!
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 20, 2016 19:19:07 GMT
Post by jimbo on Jan 20, 2016 19:19:07 GMT
Well Jem, that's as clear as mud..... However, it is very refreshing to have someone actually trying to put the facts & possibilities on record. Your open & transparent views were & are always welcome & will I've no doubt be a factor in others (like myself) in ensuring your place on the board.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 20, 2016 19:20:00 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 20, 2016 19:20:00 GMT
Hi Jem, That is the clearest answer to what I was delving for and makes perfect sense now and what I was hoping to hear. Obviously I would prefer the equivalent 1 for 1 transfer option if such a proposal is/was approved and have always understood that would only entitle me and all former Club shareholders to just one vote within the new umbrella set up, no matter how many shares we each individually hold with the Club and would bring us into parity with Trust shareholders voting rights. I am sorry I have given you such a headache over this my friend but something along the lines you have written above was how the possible share transfer was explained to me as likely to take place some four or five years ago when Rob launched this Community shares/Perdiswell proposal. As time has gone on though I have largely been quite relaxed about the situation but more recently I have been getting contrary information from a variety of people/sources and I was seeking some sort of confirmation as to whether my original understanding was still valid or if something had changed over the last three or four years which I had not kept up to date with. Obviously nothing is set in stone as no votes have been taken, but I hope what I understand to be the possible plan, as outlined all those years ago, is the one chosen and I would support that as long as I retain my right to a vote of equal parity with anyone else be they Club or Trust shareholders. Re the Club & Trust Constitution papers and the Perdiswell plan, Andy Bullock has been kind enough to forward those to me so I will have a bit of reading to do at the weekend! So my blood has cooled and returned to it's normal pickled with cider and/or real ale state.
Just one last question which I hope and trust will not apply but given my location would it be sensible to fill in the 'Proxy' vote form and send that off, just in case the weather takes a dramatic polar turn for the worse and I cannot get to Worcester on the day as I would like to at least vote to re-appoint all the current and recently appointed Board members?
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 20, 2016 22:15:32 GMT
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 20, 2016 22:15:32 GMT
Believe me, I have no problem ever with people asking a lot of questions, its far more worrying when people aren't asking questions! I'm a big advocate for openness and transparency for a number of reasons. Firstly, if I say something , and its wrong, how am I going to know unless I say it or write it? It sparks debate and further considerations, and that's never a bad thing. Secondly, if you're transparent with people, let them know the reality of situations, they can deal with it the way they want to deal with it. They might kick off, they might actually be able to offer advice and help - either way, they know the score Thirdly, if you're transparent, but there are things you can't make public, people understand better that certain things are sensitive or confidential. Its a trust thing, if you could be open, you would be, if you're not able to , there's a good reason.
In terms of your last question Simon, it would be good idea to send the proxy form back, just in case. It does not preclude you from turning up at the AGM, and even voting in a different way, your presence takes precedence!
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 20, 2016 23:10:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by The Verner on Jan 20, 2016 23:10:37 GMT
Believe me, I have no problem ever with people asking a lot of questions, its far more worrying when people aren't asking questions! I'm a big advocate for openness and transparency for a number of reasons. Firstly, if I say something , and its wrong, how am I going to know unless I say it or write it? It sparks debate and further considerations, and that's never a bad thing. Secondly, if you're transparent with people, let them know the reality of situations, they can deal with it the way they want to deal with it. They might kick off, they might actually be able to offer advice and help - either way, they know the score Thirdly, if you're transparent, but there are things you can't make public, people understand better that certain things are sensitive or confidential. Its a trust thing, if you could be open, you would be, if you're not able to , there's a good reason. In terms of your last question Simon, it would be good idea to send the proxy form back, just in case. It does not preclude you from turning up at the AGM, and even voting in a different way, your presence takes precedence! Is the vote not a foregone conclusion Jem ? Sorry if ive asked this a million times already
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 8:31:54 GMT
Post by jimbo on Jan 21, 2016 8:31:54 GMT
It IS a vote, (which is normally a foregone conclusion). A case which will always stand out to me, was the several attempts of 'a trouble maker' trying to join the board. He had my vote, which gave some sort of satisfaction to me in that the board at that time knew how I & many others felt. But it was a foregone conclusion that the number of proxy's available were sufficient for the board to block him. Ironic really when he was invited to join the board a few years later !
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 10:06:01 GMT
Post by richwidd on Jan 21, 2016 10:06:01 GMT
It IS a vote, (which is normally a foregone conclusion). A case which will always stand out to me, was the several attempts of 'a trouble maker' trying to join the board. He had my vote, which gave some sort of satisfaction to me in that the board at that time knew how I & many others felt. But it was a foregone conclusion that the number of proxy's available were sufficient for the board to block him. Ironic really when he was invited to join the board a few years later ! I only stood to go on the Board in the 2003 AGM so I could have my say. There was no other way of having a say at an AGM and having an input as a shareholder. I only ever criticised the running of the social club and the "we'll wait until we get to Nunnery Way before we address that" business plan which had been going on since the late 1990's and everything I said, I backed up with action 100% of which supported the Board. That was the same AGM I challenged where NW was heading, only to be fobbed off by the club solicitor. As you said above Jimbo you and most people in the room agreed but were outvoted. Even more ironically, a non"trouble maker" who was 'headhunted' to join the Board for many years & was on the list of local well known people to take the club forward at NW suddenly became not wanted (driven mainly by a well known local ex-solicitor who was the one that put him on the list in the first place) as he saw straight through the debacle that was Nunnery Way. Like a small amount of people he took the time to find out the consequences would be if anything went wrong & we signed the contract to go there & he didn't like it. That is not a dig at the old Board of the early 2000's, most of whom had left long before the contract was signed & SGL was sold, that is a dig at the local ex-solicitor who was 100% responsible for the sale of SGL & signing up to NW. There were a few other people on that list who wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. We are now seeing what we were saying 8 years ago, NW was about a land deal for the development of the J6-J7 corridor with us being the key of the door. We are the only ones left with nothing. If we hadn't got out of the NW contract we would now be bust, StM haven't started building up there yet and they won't until they get exactly what they want which I don't think is going to be a pub or motor cycle show room etc ! It certainly wasn't going to include a football ground. If anyone wants to dispute any of this make sure you know what you are talking about and if anyone thinks this is history and not relevant to now you are very much mistaken. I do however look forward to our profit share for the sale of houses on St Georges Lane after the sale price of the land went from £7.36 million to less than £3.5 million - Is anyone else excited about our windfall ! Unlike previous AGM's it is not a foregone conclusion with regards to voting on the night next week. The Board do not hold many shares at all, so no it is not a foregone conclusion. However, if people want a club more people need to be involved in how it is owned as the current method has not given it the protection that those who set it up 100 years ago intended.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 11:31:37 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 21, 2016 11:31:37 GMT
Very well put and clear Rich. It is good to remind people what happened and give anyone who had not taken an interest in the club back then up to date with a brief history of events. I like Rich do not think the vote is a foregone conclusion and it is the responsibility of all shareholders to try and attend this long overdue AGM as the very future of our Club and the direction it takes is in our hands. Jem and Anthony have both hinted the previous AGM's were not called because of sensitive issues going on behind the scenes, which I can well believe was the case, frustrating and wrong though I thought it was and which we may now find out about at the forthcoming AGM.
There is nothing to stop interested parties standing for election to the Board if they have the time to help, remember there are two vacant seats on the Board, also just because someone is standing for re-election does not mean they will be elected and does not mean their seat cannot be challenged. So foregone conclusion certainly not! Everything from elections, approving the financials, motions presented etc, are all there to be voted on and accepted or rejected depending on your view. Please, please, please, if you really care about the Club and are a Club shareholder try to make the effort or at least send a proxy vote or appoint a proxy person to vote on your behalf but you need to advise the Club about that prior to the meeting if you cannot attend in person. I am sure the Board would appreciate seeing as many of us as possible as by all accounts the turnout is usually very low and I am as guilty as anyone in that regard having never attended a meeting to date. I will be making the effort this time, as I think I owe it to the Club at this critical time and hope I can touch any waiverers consciences to make the effort to attend too, no matter what your view or voting intentions. In any case wouldn't you like to know what is going on and wouldn't it be better to hear it in person and have a chance to question than hear rumours or a second hand diluted version without all the facts and then tut. Come on people let's do our duty with a big turn out and help the people who are putting a lot of time and effort into keeping the club afloat and trying to save the long term future and history of the Club.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 12:11:15 GMT
Post by thatloudbloke on Jan 21, 2016 12:11:15 GMT
well said Rich, it is good to remind people of the history of mistakes that have happened with WCFC, you & Jem are the people who should be on the board as you do not hide behind the murky waters...
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 12:42:46 GMT
Post by greenman on Jan 21, 2016 12:42:46 GMT
I for one hope that the re-election of certain Directors is not a foregone conclusion. Remember these are people who have not held an AGM for 5 years and at the fans forum the need for an AGM was dismissed as not being necessary. This statement was not necessarily correct as according to the Mem of Arts it would require a legal opinion to qualify that statement.
I would also like to bring to task the fact that the call for an EGM was also dismissed by the Board. If there is a will to cooperate with the Trust and change the constitution why was this.
Furthermore there is no disclosure of income and expenditure, at least with previous Boards who have received much criticism, there was a financial report with full financial detail, so please think carefully before you re-elect people who seem to run the club like their personal fiefdom.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 13:42:58 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 21, 2016 13:42:58 GMT
Hi Greenman, Sorry I don't know your real name, not that that matters. I am in agreement with you over the financials, as I highlighted early on when I started this discussion subject, and I don't see why if enough people are of the same opinion that we could vote to have them made available rather than the minimal ones lodged with 'Companies House. I also think that just voting to approve/or not the minimal financial figures for 2015 which are due to be provided at the AGM is not really sufficient. We need to see the missing years too so we can see in which direction the Club finances are going, be they good, bad or indifferent. I don't know your position in terms of work, family, location, etc, but as you seem to have passionate views, would you not consider standing for election to the Board so you can have access to the records and minutes of past meetings and gain a clearer opinion of what has and is going on and why decisions have and are being made and act as a sort of scrutineer on behalf of all shareholders. I feel that having Jem and Rob on the Board we have that to some degree but there is always room for another. You must appreciate though that to safeguard the business there may be occasions when certain information cannot be disclosed strait away if say a deal is being negotiated or agreed but obviously I would hate for any such deal(s) such as the disastrous ones that have left us in our precarious position not to be exposed and discussed openly. Indeed if there is anyone else out there who can and wants to join the Board why don't you take the opportunity to stand for election. The Board has been struggling sometimes with insufficient numbers, so I am sure they would appreciate extra hands to spread the load and other ideas that perhaps the current board have not explored.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 14:15:00 GMT
Post by jimbo on Jan 21, 2016 14:15:00 GMT
Nicely put Rich. Now there's a question from kentenigmawcfc for you to ponder on Paul ?
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 14:27:14 GMT
Post by greenman on Jan 21, 2016 14:27:14 GMT
Hello Kentenigmawcfc,
I thought that most on here know me, but for clarification I am Paul Curtis, a former Director who resigned prior and because of the debacle that was happening pre the sale of St Georges Lane. I feel that there are now some excellent candidates hoping to be confirmed as Directors, and it is my hope they will have the weight to push the proposal for change onwards.
Should change occur and we become a Trust owned club they will no doubt require all the support and help that may be out there, and that would include myself if what little I can provide was welcome.
As an aside, why greenman, I come from Stroud originally and still have affection for Forest Green Rovers as does Jimbo who is a closet supporter of the same.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 15:04:27 GMT
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jan 21, 2016 15:04:27 GMT
Hi Paul, I probably would know your face and maybe know you as Paul but not by your name on here. I don't know if you know me or not but up until autumn 2014 I was guy who was having made and then selling the badges and mugs etc, for the Club and as you have probably gathered am called Simon and live in West Wickham in Kent. Thanks for the name explanation and you and Jimbo's guilty secret about FGR, it did make me chuckle. Stroud is a nice little town in a nice part of the world.
Well you obviously have some previous experience on the Board and therefore know what is involved and needed and therefore would be an asset but I fully understand if work, domestic circumstances or the timing doesn't suit right now. If not now though, please keep it in mind for the future, as we don't know what the future has in store for the Club in the years ahead and Gents like you would be very useful to call upon to step up to the plate once more.
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 16:35:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by jimbo on Jan 21, 2016 16:35:12 GMT
Now, now greenman me a closet Forest Green Supporter hahaha
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jan 21, 2016 18:16:51 GMT
let's hope that £33M lottery winner from Worcester is a City Fan!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 18:54:12 GMT
Who from Worcester would be so stupid they hadn't realised they'd won £33m?
Has anyone seen Boddy recently?
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 18:57:14 GMT
Post by thesecondjack on Jan 21, 2016 18:57:14 GMT
let's hope that £33M lottery winner from Worcester is a City Fan! I was just saying that with my dad! (cue the typical 'if only' story) I said if I won, I'd happily pay for the stadium, and pay off all share holders to give their shares to the trust (and lines the pockets of those who have put money in the club a bit)... all on the condition that I get to play a few games up front!
|
|
|
AGM
Jan 21, 2016 20:45:57 GMT
Post by auldreekie on Jan 21, 2016 20:45:57 GMT
let's hope that £33M lottery winner from Worcester is a City Fan! I was just saying that with my dad! (cue the typical 'if only' story) I said if I won, I'd happily pay for the stadium, and pay off all share holders to give their shares to the trust (and lines the pockets of those who have put money in the club a bit)... all on the condition that I get to play a few games up front! Well there is a precedent! The Weirs, who won the Euro Millions jackpot a few years ago,are football fans. They have made significant contributions to establish the Partick Thistle Academy (that carries their name) and paid for a state-of-the-art synthetic pitch for their local non-league club. Before Christmas they have made another significant contribution to help pay off Partick Thistle's debts so that they are now debt free.To my knowledge Colin Weir has not made it a condition that he can "get to play a few games up front" for either Thistle - Partick or Largs! I hope everyone is checking their tickets after today's news!
|
|