Sons' sorrow

[Turnberry Fields Forever]

I don't think things will get nasty as there will likely be a small turnout and folk tend to back off in person.  I doubt though that Stevie Farrell will convince anyone that the team is on the right track.

And I don't agree that the Chairman being there helps anything.  The meeting should be open and honest with everyone free to speak their mind.  Club Chairmen in attendance hinders that.

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Not strange at all for Farrell to turn up.

It's the type of person he is. He'll still genuinely believe that he can keep us up and that he can eventually take us forward. He's not one to go into hiding. Farrell has 100% confidence in himself.

Whether or not its the right decision is another matter. I personally don't think that it is. It has the potential to get nasty and I don’t think he'll do himself any favours if he reacts to some heated questions. 

I think that it would be better having the club chairman in attendance. Maybe even a player too. A q&a session with a player would potentially be a better atmosphere and I think that the club chairman is long overdue meeting the wider support.

I appreciate that's Faz's character, but this is a Trust AGM and the matters discussed should be in regards to the Trust and the future of DFC. The current playing squad isn't really relevant to that and I would rather this didn't turn into a meet the manager session - we need to get the stuff with our owners clarified and preferably an action plan for the Trust going forward. 

I agree the chairman and our owners have questions to answer and should do so in a similar forum, but I agree with TFF that I don't think his presence helps or is required at a Trust AGM. It's likely he will be the topic of much of the discussion. 

[BallochSonsFan]

We'll have a club board member in attendance anyway. Does Stephanie being there hinder discussion about the club board? As much as she's the trust appointed rep on the club board,  she's also a member of the club board with all of the legal baggage and obligations that the role carries.

If we're happy that we can discuss the club board with a club director present them why not the chairman too?

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

2 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

We'll have a club board member in attendance anyway. Does Stephanie being there hinder discussion about the club board? As much as she's the trust appointed rep on the club board,  she's also a member of the club board with all of the legal baggage and obligations that the role carries.

If we're happy that we can discuss the club board with a club director present them why not the chairman too?

That director is the elected fans rep on the board though, the entire meeting should revolve her being questioned/providing information. Her loyalties should lie with the Trust and the supporters, it shouldn’t be some sort of awkward position for her where fans are discussing the board and she’s stuck in the middle and if that is the case she should probably chuck it asap and let someone else do it.

I do find Farrell appearing a bit odd, if he wants to address supporters or answer questions he should arrange a seperate meeting, there is a risk the meeting descends into people asking questions about what‘s happening on the park rather than off it.

[Robertsons]

I think the chairman has been poor on his communication but I don’t believe his attendance at tomorrow nights trust meeting is required. Credit to the manager for putting himself in the frame but again I think, as TFF and Moonster said, tomorrow night is not about the current playing side of things. 
Its been a long time since the last trust meeting and there is a lot of business to discuss. I’d like time to be spent discussing the recent trust letter to the board, in which valid concerns were raised, and agree where we  go from here after receiving a tepid response (IMO) from the club chairman to the trusts letter.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Robertsons

[The Moonster]

11 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

We'll have a club board member in attendance anyway. Does Stephanie being there hinder discussion about the club board? As much as she's the trust appointed rep on the club board,  she's also a member of the club board with all of the legal baggage and obligations that the role carries.

If we're happy that we can discuss the club board with a club director present them why not the chairman too?

If Stephanie feels there is anything conflicting her interests or legal obligations I don't think many would be unhappy if she made that known and excused herself from that part of the discussion but as BBPF says, she has a direct responsibility to the membership so her attendance is relevant. The chairman has no direct responsibility to the membership. If the board want to set things straight with the fans they don't need the Trust AGM, they can quite literally just tell us whatever they want to on the website and if they want discussion they have ample opportunity to arrange something in their own time. 

[Robertsons]

44 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

We'll have a club board member in attendance anyway. Does Stephanie being there hinder discussion about the club board? As much as she's the trust appointed rep on the club board,  she's also a member of the club board with all of the legal baggage and obligations that the role carries.

If we're happy that we can discuss the club board with a club director present them why not the chairman too?

I struggling to understand this. The trust board member is on the board to represent the views of trust members and wider supporters. 
The trust rep on the board should absolutely attend trust member meetings (and communicate regularly with members in other ways). If not how does the trust person on the club board fully represent the membership and take forward priorities. There really shouldn’t be a conflict of interest.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Robertsons

[BallochSonsFan]

1 hour ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

That director is the elected fans rep on the board though, the entire meeting should revolve her being questioned/providing information. Her loyalties should lie with the Trust and the supporters, it shouldn’t be some sort of awkward position for her where fans are discussing the board and she’s stuck in the middle and if that is the case she should probably chuck it asap and let someone else do it.

I do find Farrell appearing a bit odd, if he wants to address supporters or answer questions he should arrange a seperate meeting, there is a risk the meeting descends into people asking questions about what‘s happening on the park rather than off it.

Doesn't work like that.

The instant that a trust rep becomes a club board member then they have legal duties placed on them. There will be times where they have to declare a conflict of interests and times where they either can't disclose club board issues or where they can't take part in trust board activities. 

The trust club rep is there because we have the right to a seat on the club board. That right doesn't remove all of the responsibilities that the club board position comes with just because we placed them there.

I'd be more interested in hearing from the chairman than the manager. Then there's the owners themselves. There is a significant lack of engagement from the club board and from the ownership and that's of significant concern.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

55 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Doesn't work like that.

The instant that a trust rep becomes a club board member then they have legal duties placed on them. There will be times where they have to declare a conflict of interests and times where they either can't disclose club board issues or where they can't take part in trust board activities. 

The trust club rep is there because we have the right to a seat on the club board. That right doesn't remove all of the responsibilities that the club board position comes with just because we placed them there.

I'd be more interested in hearing from the chairman than the manager. Then there's the owners themselves. There is a significant lack of engagement from the club board and from the ownership and that's of significant concern.

With respect, the Trust Director has no 'right' to be on the DFC Board; after a long period spent convincing the club Board of the early 2000's of the potentially mutual benefit of having the supporters/community formally represented in the Boardroom agreement was finally reached and the not inconsiderable sum of £25K was invested for the privilege.

You are correct that the club's Board of Directors have legal obligations and that obviously also applies to any Trust Director.  That should still leave plenty of scope however for that individual to articulate the Trust's view on, for example, the inclusion of 'B' teams in the league structure and many other matters.

More recently, and in my opinion regretfully, the Trust's ability to bring influence to bear on currently the most critical aspect of DFC's affairs, the club's ownership and future direction, has diminished due in large part to the DFC Board's laissez faire attitude in this matter.

[Deputy Keeper]

3 hours ago, The Moonster said:

I appreciate that's Faz's character, but this is a Trust AGM and the matters discussed should be in regards to the Trust and the future of DFC. The current playing squad isn't really relevant to that and I would rather this didn't turn into a meet the manager session - we need to get the stuff with our owners clarified and preferably an action plan for the Trust going forward. 

I agree the chairman and our owners have questions to answer and should do so in a similar forum, but I agree with TFF that I don't think his presence helps or is required at a Trust AGM. It's likely he will be the topic of much of the discussion. 

Just to be clear on this.......we have set aside two hours for the meeting tomorrow evening.  The first hour or so will be solely for Trust AGM business and there will be no discussion of the current situation on the park.  At the close of AGM business there will be a short interval during which I hope members present will avail themselves of the bar facilities.  The Trust Board are grateful that this facility has been made available to us.

The second part of the evening will be a discussion with the Team Manager on football matters.  When the Trust Board decided some weeks ago that we should press ahead with holding an AGM towards the end of March, we approached Stevie Farrell to ask if he would like to take the opportunity to speak to and answer questions from Trust members.  Our thinking was that this would be a factor in encouraging members to attend.  It goes without saying that in the intervening period results on the park have been most disappointing. Out of courtesy, we approached Stevie Farrell last Sunday to ascertain if he still wished to come along to the meeting.  He confirmed that he is happy to do so.

[George Parr]

19 minutes ago, Deputy Keeper said:

. Out of courtesy, we approached Stevie Farrell last Sunday to ascertain if he still wished to come along to the meeting.  He confirmed that he is happy to do so.

Decent of Farrell where a lot of other managers might have baulked at the prospect of a difficult Q&A. I guess it just adds to the general perception of an individual who is fairly decent in all aspects of management except, sadly, the bit that matters most. 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

2 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Doesn't work like that.

The instant that a trust rep becomes a club board member then they have legal duties placed on them. There will be times where they have to declare a conflict of interests and times where they either can't disclose club board issues or where they can't take part in trust board activities. 

The trust club rep is there because we have the right to a seat on the club board. That right doesn't remove all of the responsibilities that the club board position comes with just because we placed them there.

I'd be more interested in hearing from the chairman than the manager. Then there's the owners themselves. There is a significant lack of engagement from the club board and from the ownership and that's of significant concern.

I fully appreciated and understand that a Trust rep may not be able to provide certain information. However, I do not understand how this would in any way hinder discussions about the club’s board. If she can’t divulge certain information she wont be hounded into providing it. 

I’ll be honest, I haven’t been an active member of the Trust since our last rep stood down (who IMO done a fantastic job). When the current rep was appointed I had a few concerns regarding how well she’d actually represent me as a member of the Trust. Some things I’ve heard and the lack of communication from her has done nothing to convince to me that I was wrong. Given all of the recent concerns with the new owners I do plan on rejoining the Trust ASAP despite what I feel is a lack of representation from the elected board member. Unfortunately I can’t make tomorrow’s meeting due to work (I would’ve been down there with my tenner in hand) but I would be keen to find out what the current rep has been doing to represent supporters in general. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Bring Back Paddy Flannery

[BallochSonsFan]

57 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

With respect, the Trust Director has no 'right' to be on the DFC Board; after a long period spent convincing the club Board of the early 2000's of the potentially mutual benefit of having the supporters/community formally represented in the Boardroom agreement was finally reached and the not inconsiderable sum of £25K was invested for the privilege.

You are correct that the club's Board of Directors have legal obligations and that obviously also applies to any Trust Director.  That should still leave plenty of scope however for that individual to articulate the Trust's view on, for example, the inclusion of 'B' teams in the league structure and many other matters.

More recently, and in my opinion regretfully, the Trust's ability to bring influence to bear on currently the most critical aspect of DFC's affairs, the club's ownership and future direction, has diminished due in large part to the DFC Board's laissez faire attitude in this matter.

The requirements made of the club directors are nothing like those made of the trust board. 

But we're both in agreement that the club board has performed poorly for some time now and that the disconnect between owners, local board and supporters is worrying. 

We need far better from our club board and that means them being more critical of our owners.

[FifeSons]

I hope the correct, difficult questions get asked tomorrow. I’m in Glasgow and would’ve been tempted to go if I was free.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I see club photographer Donald Fullerton has passed away. Very sad news. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

17 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I see club photographer Donald Fullerton has passed away. Very sad news. 

Indeed.  Donald served the club with distinction for decades, literally in all weathers, and he was a Sons man to his bootstraps.  Whilst the news was not unexpected it is still sad, and especially for Donald's family.

[The Moonster]

Never knew Donald personally but I've never heard a bad word spoken about him. Sad news.

[BallochSonsFan]

Donald was a gentleman. Not only involved with the club as photographer but I believe he was also part of the community interest company that controlled the C shares. He'll be sorely missed.

[Silverton End]

RIP Donald

 

[Thommo90]

Just received a link to watch the AGM tonight.  Will tune in to that.

Latest betting odds - Farrell to have over 9.5 excuses for the on field performances = 1/6