rhliston
-
Posts
2,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by rhliston
-
-
Just now, WC Boggs said:
You've named him yourself repeatedly. Feel free to do it again.
So your not going to name the person concerned WC Boggs. Are you a coward WC Boggs, I ask you please name the person concerned for a second time. You are quite happy to come on this forum and post your responses on it but when challenged to back your responses you refuse. How very cowardly of you WC Boggs.
0 -
58 minutes ago, Hard Graft said:
If he had been facing action by the Trust Board how has been elected to the Trust Board and allowed to continue to behave in an inappropriate way?
All this is making a mockery of your club unfortunately.
I have posted a response to WC Boggs asking him to name the person concerned, we shall see if he responds with the name of the person concerned.
0 -
2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:
I've no dog in this fight, but surely the club board refusing to meet with a Trust board member elected by the membership of the Trust is the very definition of refusing to be accountable to the Trust membership?
Not only did Stuart Brown and John Daly refuse to meet with the Trust Board but they refused to meet as well with the owners of the Club The Supporters Trust who own 83% of the Shares in Stirling Albion Football Club.
0 -
55 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
Not when the person in question had been harassing board members with hostile messages. On top of that he had already been facing action by the Trust board itself for harassment of trust members.. At which point he resigned from the trust. Only to rejoin later and get himself elected to the Trust board itself and continue to behave in an inappropriate way.
Who are you talking about WC Boggs please name names ?
0 -
1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:
The Trust board declared they can't work with the club board. If Stuart Brown wins and he and the club board continue, then having declared they can't work with the club board, the Trust board have no alternative but to resign. The only thing nonsensical, would be them attempting to carry on with what they have declared they can't do. The Trust board know this, but it's not surprising that the simplest of logic is beyond your capacity to process.
Stuart asking for details of the meeting not to be leaked hasn't stopped you leaking them, (however distorted) when it suits you.
We shall see what happens don`t count you chickens just yet. just responding to your post regarding the Sponsors, remember that.
0 -
32 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
How could the Trust board possibly be removed before the AGM took place, when the Trust board have refused to allow a vote on the resolution to remove them? That is one pathetic and deceitful excuse for not holding the AGM. Let's try the obvious and less fanciful reason for a date not being set. If the AGM goes ahead, then a vote on your resolution on removing Stuart Brown goes ahead. If that resolution fails, then the entire trust board has to resign, because they have declared they can't work with the club board. I'm surprised you did not know that.
The Trust board's plan that it has admitted to itself and you have discussed on here. I'm not surprised you deny what you have written about yourself, you do it habitually.
This is the second time I have asked a shareholder present at that EGM if a vote was taken at it or not. For the second time that question has been dodged. So no I am not well informed on that, because it seems the shareholders don't seem to want members informed on that. The trust board haven't been informative on that either. Transparency eh. Great how those who call for it are about as transparent as sheet lead.
The Trust Boards resigns if my resolution fails
Why would the Trust Board resign if my resolution fails its nothing to do with them is it. ? Talking nonsense man.
Regarding the Shareholders meeting, Stuart Brown asked that details of the meeting not be leaked, that`s why Shareholders refuse to give any information. I`m surprised you did not know that, clearly you are under orders from your master to cause trouble.
0 -
1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:
House cleaning.
What do you call the Trust board not giving a date for the membership AGM? I call it cowardice!
You were at the shareholders meeting. So, was there a vote taken on The Trust board's plan to remove the Club board or not?
It was explained at the informal meeting on Tuesday night that the reason no date for the AGM has been set yet was due to the fact that after the resolutions to remove all the Trust Board were received it was felt giving a date was pointless as the Trust Board might not be in place. Surprised that you did not know that.
What Trust Boards Plan to remove the Club Board at the Shareholders Meeting. ? Again surprised you did not know that.
You are not too well informed about what is happening are you, thought your master would have told you that.
0 -
52 minutes ago, TheWestStand said:
New week
it just keeps on going.
0 -
1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:
Oh yeah. Information like saying the Trust board were on a power grab. Then oh look a total blatant power grab.
Really, so what do you call the gang of 74 silly and failed attempt to remove the entire Trust Board then. ?
0 -
15 hours ago, Gnash said:
Only if you read it.
Or you are forced to respond to the misinformation put out by WC Boggs.
0 -
Adam Cummins resigns for next season for the Albion.
0 -
1 minute ago, WC Boggs said:
Who did Stuart say was going tit for tat? Why do I just know he was referring to trust members, not him or the board and you know it.
0 -
4 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
My name is not on the resolution that was submitted to the Trust's Lawyers. My name is of course on the list of people who voted in support of that resolution. I did not say I didn't vote for the resolution. I said my name was not ON the resolution lodged. Can you not process the written word? Geez you must have the IQ of a dry roasted peanut.
0 -
8 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
No I did not have my name on the resolution. If I had been I'd have no problem saying so. If I was going to nominate somebody better to replace them, I'd nominate Sooty and Sweep, Basil Brush, Kermit the Frog, Statler and Waldorf and last but not least Fozzy bear.
Wrong on checking the list of members of the Trust who supported the resolution to remove the entire Trust Board your name is listed as supporting the removal of all Trust Board members on it.
0 -
2 minutes ago, strichener said:
Tbf neither did you when you put your resolution forward. Bit of pot and kettle here.
True but I only wanted to remove 2 Directors, Stuart Brown and John Daly not the entire Club Board as in the case of the gang of 74.
0 -
7 minutes ago, strichener said:
I appear to have touched a nerve. Are you one of the people that lodged the resolution to get rid of the trust board? If so can you give me details of who you were nominating to replace them.
They don`t have anyone to replace the current Trust Board members, that`s where their little Plan falls down. As stated by Stuart Brown at the shareholders meeting its a tit for tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM of the Shareholders.
0 -
4 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
What I'm saying is that I don't trust you to report on anything accurately. How did 50 members become 71 over a phone call ?
its already been explained in previous posts, I suggest you go back and read them again.
0 -
12 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
Certainly. The club board are accountable to both the membership and the shareholders of the Trust. If people are going to say the club board has in any way refused to be accountable, it needs specifics on instances supplied, not just repeating the words not accountable. You know as well as I do there is a procedure for removal for any board that can be proven to have been incompetent or negligent in it's duties. Here we have an instance where the board has been slagged off for years for not finding an experienced manager and when they finally land one, they get a no confidence motion in their face.
Your turn. Would you like to tell us who those companies you say won't deal with the present board are?
Wrong the Club Board is accountable to its Shareholders. Stirling Albion FC are a Private Limited Company. The Supporters Trust are the major Shareholder in the Club owning 83% of the Shares. The Supporters Trust Board are accountable to its members.
"if people are going to say the club board has in any way refused to be accountable it needs specifics on instances supplied, not just repeating the words not accountable! Can you tell me then why Stuart Brown and John Daly refused to attend a meeting with the Trust Board unless a Trust Director Ian Doyle was not present. ? Does that not suggest that. ?
5 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:The Club directors did not have their names on the resolution to remove the Trust board. Individuals do not have to be instigated to act of their own volition. I want the Trust board out because I believe them to be incompetent and unreasonably combative with the club board. I was not told to have that opinion by anybody. So who the hell are you to accuse the people who lodged the resolution of being instigated to? Do you know them? Have you spoken to them?
If you check the resolution submitted to remove the entire Trust Board, you will find the names of every Club Director are on these resolutions, some to be fair have only asked for the removal of 3 of the Trust Board members.
0 -
3 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
My real name is indeed Hugh Hanlon. The crap you post is not accurate. One person did not vote 50 times. The Trust board couldn't make that stick and neither can you. So since you have already named him, you are once again slandering him. Whether to sue you or not is of course his decision, not the Trust board's.
We don't have the opportunity to vote them out, because if they held the AGM your resolution would have to go ahead. If you lost they'd be screwed. So don't hold your breath waiting for an AGM date.
Once more, more twisting of the facts. Let me ask you a question then WC BOGGS if the person did NOT vote 50 times, are you saying the Trust Board lied to its members by saying this. Indeed it was stated on Tuesday night at the meeting that a Trust Board member phoned the person concerned and asked him about the voting, his response was " all 71 coaches are in the room with me" This was stated at the meeting or are you saying that the Trust Board member is lying. ?
0 -
4 minutes ago, Red Watch said:
Perhaps Mr Boggs would like to tell us who he considers the Club Board are accountable to? Also, what action he considers people are able to resort to if they perceive Club Board "representatives" are incompetent or negligent?
Good question come on WC BOGGS lets see you answer.
0 -
12 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
What a fascinating thing to say. So what you are saying is that the names on a resolution aren't really the people putting forward the resolution.
OK I'll buy it. So who's really behind the names we are to ignore on your resolution then? Come on, it's your theory, fess up?
More facts being twisted. The fact is I know who was behind my resolutions to remove Stuart Brown and John Daly, ME no one else WC BOGGS. Can the same be said for the resolutions proposed by the Gang of 74 ? don`t think so. Their is an old saying You can fool all the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.
0 -
45 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
You are making the mistake of believing Liston's habitual twisting of other people's words. The chairman may well have said the people who lodged the resolution did it as a tit for tat. You can bet money on it he did not say the board lodged it as Liston implied. The chairman is not that stupid. Liston is that twisted.
I could not be more open that I side with the club board 100%. Make it 200% if you like. What I have denied is that I am following a script provided by the chairman. The accusations of that are just the usual methods of those who want to bring him down. Dodge the issue, try to discredit the man who brings it up. In response to the attempt to remove the chairman and him alone, fellow board members stood by him as any decisions made are group decisions. The people who yell about accountability got pissed off at them declaring, hey we're accountable too. Only at Stirling Albion is standing with a colleague out of integrity seen to be a heinous crime.
I consented to let my daughter submit my vote along with hers on her email account. There is no rule against that. That is what happened with the director. The difference being he had appealed to a lot of people to join the membership and with their consent submitted their votes via his email email account. I agree doing it that way with 50 of them was not wise, but the Trust board had accepted those people and their membership fees and they still entitled to vote just the same. Despite investigating the submissions to date the Trust board have not come up with a single person who did not consent to their vote being submitted that way So gerrymandering? Utter crap!
Peter Reid fae Peterheid is deid. Volvo for sale.
My My so I am that twisted you clearly cannot see the wood for the tree`s WC BOGS or your real name is Hugh Hanlon is it not. The facts I have posted are accurate and no amount of twisting them to suit the agenda from your master can disguise the facts.
Yes as members they are allowed to vote,, but as it states in the Trust Constitution "one person one vote " NOT one person 50 votes.
No amount of twisting the facts on your posts will alter the fact that the Trust Board were right to intervene in this matter, it is up to them to decide what to do. If the members are not happy with their decisions they have at least the option to vote them out. Unlike the Club Board who appear to be unaccountable to anybody including the owners of the Club the Supporters Trust.
0 -
7 hours ago, WC Boggs said:
God knows what he means. 20% is not a majority holding. Unless a majority holding communicated consent by mental telepathy, there had to be a vote for claims of consent to be valid. Either there was a vote or there was not. It's a simple yes or no.
What I have heard is that a group of shareholders requested a joint board meeting to resolve the dispute. Something Mr Allardyce failed to mention. Too busy putting out his usual innuendo about a lack of accountability, without ever a scrap of information of what they have found to hold anybody accountable for! Did somebody pinch his sausage roll at hospitality? WHAT THEN?
The Trust board kept the membership in the dark about the purpose they intended to use this EGM for. That's unacceptable and just one more reason why they need to be held accountable. They don't represent the people who voted them in, they represent themselves and their own agenda. That becomes ever more clear with every action they take, every statement they put out and every secret they keep.
The Trust Board is ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MEMBERS, unlike Stuart Brown and Co, they put themselves up for election. If the members are not happy with them they can be voted off. Again unlike Stuart Brown and Co who seem to think that they are untouchable and have used every trick in the book to stay in power, from the Personal Statement from Colin Rowley published on the Club Website, to a failed attempt too remove the Trust Board without any reasons given. The attempt to rig the voting for the AGM by one of the Clubs Directors, Not to mention the continued decline of this Club on the playing field under the stewardmanship of Stuart Brown.
We had the situation in which Stuart Brown and John Daly refused to meet with the Trust Board unless one of its elected members was not present, how can this be allowed to happen. The Trust are the owners of the Club and the fact the both men refused to meet with the owners clearly is a very worrying sign. For far too long this situation has been allowed to develop and I for one am glad that the Trust Board have decided to take action to make sure that owners of the club The Supporters Trust regain control of what they OWN.
0 -
21 minutes ago, AlbionMan said:
It is not an unreasonable supposition given that although SB was careful not to be seen orchestrating the attack on the club's shareholders the three prime movers involved in the recruitment all enjoy close relationships with him.
Nor is it stretching credibility to suggest that the new members were enjoined to sign up in the week immediately following the shareholders requiring the club board to explain 2021 year end financial information and then initiate a resolution to remove the shareholders representatives having the temerity to call the club board to account.
Ask yourself cui bono?
Indeed it was stated by Stuart Brown that the attempt to remove the entire Trust Board was Tit for Tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM at the Shareholders meeting on Monday night. If that does not suggest Stuart Brown knew what was going on and indeed signed 3 of the resolutions backing them then I don`t know what else anyone could think.
0
A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members
in Scottish League 2 General Chatter
Posted
Only after the Trust Board called for an EGM of the Shareholders WC Boggs. Before that he had refused to call for a meeting of the Shareholders for a number of years. Is that not correct WC Boggs. ?