Jump to content

LatapyBairn.

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Excellent

About LatapyBairn.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They wouldn’t even have to do an open zoom meeting, a format similar to the AGM with an independent journalist chairing the thing collecting and delivering the questions as they come in via email would have been more acceptable. The guy that done the AGM was quite good at pressing the various BOD members if they gave a soft answer, he also fielded questions in real time that he was receiving from watching shareholders as the meeting progressed. In no way was that a rabble , they have no excuse for not at least doing something similar considering it’s already a tried and tested model they have used in the past. The fact they have chosen to set up the Q&A in this way is extremely worrying in itself! If this is the Rawlins idea of transparency I dred to think of what might be happening under the radar going forward! If the answers aren’t forthcoming the minor shareholders will have to call another EGM to get the scrutiny needed similar to how was done after the failed BtB bid pre Rawlins. I hope the BOD take note!
  2. The AGM last year was done via a zoom type format with an independent journalist ( can’t remember the guys name) collecting and fielding the questions to the BOD, he was also quite good at pressing them when he wasn’t happy with the answers. They also had a live chat option where you could type questions in real time for him to collect and put to the BOD. I don’t see why a similar format can’t be used for the Q&A, the only reason they can be doing this pre recorded thing is to actively avoid any scrutiny. It’s the complete opposite of the transparency with fans they claim to want.
  3. SA and MR were both on board and had agreed to dilute/donate they’re shareholding to allow the investment to go directly and fully into the clubs coffers. The two of them were never an obstacle.
  4. On the season ticket issue (although it seems to have went under the radar a bit) the season we were relegated we had just over 2800 season tickets sold, that number last season was just under 2000 (likely to loose another 500 or so this comming season) despite a 20% reduction in price during the same period numbers have continued to drop. One of the few things we have been able to take some form of pride in recently has been our continued healthy fan base which in turn has let us remain as a full time club despite playing in the third tier, however I fear next season we may be no better supported than an Airdrie type club which is worrying, when supporters drift away it’s hard to get them back. The club should actively be pursuing former season ticket holders for feed back as to why they haven’t renewed in the aim of bringing them back as paying customers. If we end up playing to a fan base of circa 1000 with the revenue streams that entails getting back to the premier league becomes near impossible, funding full time football even comes into doubt.
  5. Osmon Sow and McManus are two others doing the rounds, most of the names in the public domain so far have been correct. Plenty information seems to be leaking out from that board room again, place is as bad as it’s ever been.
  6. To provide substantial external investment/working capital and add additional human expertise/local business knowledge of benefit to the business he is the major shareholder in and should want to see succeed and out grow its competitors maybe?! As a director he actually has a duty by law to take decisions only in the best interests of the business.
  7. Would not say it’s 100% certain SA or MR will blindly follow the Rawlins if it came to an EGM. They both very much have they’re own minds.
  8. Let’s hope the Q and A can be done publicly and not over zoom. If it does need to happen virtually an independent journalist type person needs to be brought in to chair it and collect/deliver the questions similar to how the last AGM was handled. One of the Rawlins should be present as well, time we saw some action or meaningful investment from this guy!
  9. Considering the level of investment which would have made the group on par the single largest shareholder surely having an equitable number of seats on the board and some form of input into the new manager should be an absolute given! The removal of failed board members replaced with people prepared to invest they’re own hard cash -and time should have at least been entertained surely?! The club should have been looking not only for the investment but to utilise the talent and expertise within the group. It does seem they expected the investment to happen without said investors then having any input on how the money was spent and the club ran. Members on our current BOD unfortunately are not making decisions in the best interest of the club but instead acting to endear themselves to the Rawlins and keep themselves in a position of power. It’s really quite pathetic but in the long run could have serous consequences for the club we love. The fact that not SA and MR were happy to dilute and donate there shareholding to allow the group in speaks to the groups credibility.
  10. Only time will tell I suppose, although I am slightly less convinced now that he is a “goodie” than I was before. One thing is sure he isn’t as keen on genuine productive fan involvement and investment as he initially led us to believe.
  11. Regarding the recent collapse of the proposed investment from a consortium of fans SA and MR were both happy to dilute and donate they’re shareholding to allow the group to take a 26% holding therefore matching the share of the club the Rawlins own.They were happy to step aside for the right investor(s) and are not the problem, they weren’t involved in any negations other than allowing they’re large joint shareholding to be used for the sale, things broke down because the BOD headed up by the Rawlins wouldn’t bend with regards to a few of the red lines the group had regarding the running of the club, structure of the board and the process of appointing a new manager.
  12. They were prepared to allow two members of the group to sit on the BOD however the removal of certain other board members and involvement in selecting of a new manager received a very polite “NO but can we still have your money”
  13. I think it’s a case of people not wanting to burn bridges in case of potential future investment, a lot of what was discussed was confidential. There may also be legal issues however I do agree a brief carefully worded statement wouldn’t be a bad idea.
  14. Have to forgive my ignorance of business here.... Whats stopping them from donating/selling their holdings to the fnas group and the fans group then forcing their way to a position of influence accordingly? A transfer of shares needs BOD approval
×
×
  • Create New...