Jump to content

Sons' sorrow


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

He was pretty brave in saying the target is a minimum of 8 points in our remaining games and he thinks that keeps us safe from any play offs, 9 a definite. So for me we need to win on Saturday, against Peterhead and against Clyde on the last day. If he pulls that off and keeps us safe I think most Sons fans will eat humble pie, it's just hard to see it at this point. 

That would be the case if Peterhead only manage to win one game out of five, which I think we all expect they are likely to do (East Fife at home). Apart from playing us, they have three other teams who will all very possibly have nothing to play for: Clyde on Saturday, QP with three games remaining, who may have 4th wrapped up by then and Airdrie on the last day, who will likely rest players for the playoff.

Personally, I don’t see how we avoid 9th. I could quite easily see it being all but confirmed this weekend.

Edited by FifeSons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DobbiesAgent said:

So just to check the first part of your reply there…

 

what your saying is if your unfortunate enough to have missed tonight meeting through one circumstance or another then you won’t be privy to anything that was said during it. 
 

another prime example of the lack of clarity and communication between all trust members. honestly why bother at all 

I think you've picked that first bit up wrong, Faz just asked that we be aware that any comments we take online could be taken out of context and didn't want players or press jumping on it and causing further issues. He spoke a wee bit about some individuals and troubles they were having/have had and I don't think it's fair to put all that on the internet, he was very clear that in sharing some of these things he didn't want it to seem like he was throwing players under the bus (which he refutes he did in his post match interview too, and states he has the backing of the players there) so asked for some diplomacy. Nobody is trying to hide what was said from other members.

Should add that as this was an AGM it was fully minuted so if you're a member you will see the main points raised. 

Edited by The Moonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Credit to Farrell for putting himself in the firing line, though. I don’t doubt that he has the best interests of the club at heart. Unlike the borderline (or actual) criminals running the club in the past and present. It’s just a shame he’s not a very good manager.

What I would say is, he’s just a symptom of the problems at the club. Not the problem itself.

Edited by FifeSons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Essentially Cognitive Capital have taken out loans against sections of our land in order to pay Brabco for the club. If that is true then we're looking at over a million quid in debt secured against the stadium. I don't think it needs explaining what happens if that debt is called in and CC can't/won't pay.

I have a financial background (not in buying lower league football clubs) but I don’t understand how they were able to take a loan out against collateral that they didn’t own at the time. That seems really dodgy, but I guess it must be allowed.

A quick google search confirms it is allowed.  Nevertheless, it sounds really troubling to me. Feels a bit like Craig Whyte borrowing against the Rangers season tickets. Does this Henning guy actually have any funds to speak of? I suppose he must if the bank was satisfied that he could meet the repayments, but we’ve seen nothing to suggest he wants to put them into the club.

Edited by FifeSons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DobbiesAgent said:

So just to check the first part of your reply there…

 

what your saying is if your unfortunate enough to have missed tonight meeting through one circumstance or another then you won’t be privy to anything that was said during it. 
 

another prime example of the lack of clarity and communication between all trust members. honestly why bother at all 

Thats one way of looking at it. Not one that I can agree with, but its certainly one take.

Farrell was very open with what he said tonight.. Supposing somebody in attendance reports it incorrectly and without context - what are the consequences? Clearly there's a consequence for Farrell. Maybe the incorrect reporting or lack of context lands him in trouble. Maybe somebody takes something the wrong way. It's always a risk when you leave things to 2nd and 3rd hand reporting. Farrell can't control what anybody in attendance chooses to post on here and thats the point. If people report back and get it wrong then there are consequences for Farrell that he can't control but needs to deal with. Its something that has happened at a recent event at another club. So we've got a choice - we either respect the manager's wishes for people to hear him first hand or we find that in the future managers and players don't turn up at these kinds of events or do turn up and give nothing answers. 

If fans want managers and players to come along to events and open themselves up to questioning then there needs to be an acceptance that the answers given in the room remain in the room. If fans can't respect that then ultimately it'll be the end of meet the manager sessions across football because people won't put themselves at risk. You either accept the need for a bit of common sense when the people involved ask for it or you don't.

Its a different argument for the trust itself. The trust is accountable to the membership and is in the position of being able to deal with anything thats reported after a meeting. If the trust board says something during a meeting then it's up to the board to deal with any fallout. The trust board takes that responsibility on. Thats not really the case for Farrell where something quoted without context or reported incorrectly could sour a relationship with a player or land him in trouble with a league official.

You talk about a lack of clarity and communication - the trust tried something different this year by streaming the meeting for members. It didnt really work. There were technical problems. Eventually the stream gave up. That happens. You can criticise the trust for the fact that the stream didnt really work properly or recognise that there was a real attempt to give as many fans as possible the chance to watch the AGM even if they couldn't attend. Could things have been done differently? Probably. A proper dedicated webcam  would have helped and it's something that could be arranged for future meetings. It's something that can be done better, but is it reasonable to react by asking "why bother?"

Can communication improve? Absolutely. Things can always improve.

Will there be occasions where the trust can't disclose something? I've been in that very position. Brabco asked those of us who were involved in discussions with them to sign full NDAs. Formally drafted by their lawyers and fully legally binding, with significant consequences if we breached the NDA. The 4 of us (me and messrs Lynch, Findlay and Barrow) refused. That doesnt mean that we were able to report back verbatim on absolutely everything discussed because some of it was of a sensitive nature. There needs to be a degree of understanding that trust members will get as much information as it's possible to get and as soon as it's practical to get that information out. Sometimes that means that there will be delays. Sometimes it means that members will get an overview rather than specifics. Sometimes ultimately it means that you need to trust your Sons Trust board reps on the occasions where there needs to be a degree of confidentiality. The same goes for Farrell and similar meet the manager sessions.

Given the scale of the challenges facing the club and the importance of closing that disconnect between the owners, club board and support then ultimately its going to be a case of looking at the big picture and understanding that people will work hard to make sure that the trust membership is as well informed as possible and that we're kept up to date on things as quickly as possible. All of that relies on whats possible and practical and it requires a degree of understanding from all sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Moonster said, we need a public meeting with the chairman and the owners. We learned tonight about the owners effectively mortgaging our ground to fund the takeover and that they're waiting for money coming from Greece to pay for either Dalmoak or developing the Rock. Still no money received for the shirt/stadium sponsorship but that has apparently been promised for the end of the season. I won't be holding my breath on that. Future sponsors will have to pay upfront so we don't have a repeat of that fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a financial background (not in buying lower league football clubs) but I don’t understand how they were able to take a loan out against collateral that they didn’t own at the time. That seems really dodgy, but I guess it must be allowed.
A quick google search confirms it is allowed.  Nevertheless, it sounds really troubling to me. Feels a bit like Craig Whyte borrowing against the Rangers season tickets. Does this Henning guy actually have any funds to speak of? If he does, we’ve seen nothing to suggest he wants to put them into the club.
I'm fairly sure that's how the Glazers bought Man United.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FifeSons said:

I have a financial background (not in buying lower league football clubs) but I don’t understand how they were able to take a loan out against collateral that they didn’t own at the time. That seems really dodgy, but I guess it must be allowed.

A quick google search confirms it is allowed.  Nevertheless, it sounds really troubling to me. Feels a bit like Craig Whyte borrowing against the Rangers season tickets.

I had those same immediate questions but I think the main take away is that those are the questions that need asked pronto, and if answers aren't good the support really needs to organise itself. We've had a small band of fans carrying the can so far in trying to find things out but as these things become more widely known we need more widespread involvement. No disrespect to anyone who couldn't make it tonight but I was hoping for more than the 30 or so that turned up. Hopefully if the board and owners do decide to speak to us we see a full room in there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, microdave said:
21 minutes ago, FifeSons said:
I have a financial background (not in buying lower league football clubs) but I don’t understand how they were able to take a loan out against collateral that they didn’t own at the time. That seems really dodgy, but I guess it must be allowed.
A quick google search confirms it is allowed.  Nevertheless, it sounds really troubling to me. Feels a bit like Craig Whyte borrowing against the Rangers season tickets. Does this Henning guy actually have any funds to speak of? If he does, we’ve seen nothing to suggest he wants to put them into the club.

I'm fairly sure that's how the Glazers bought Man United.

Ah that does ring a bell actually, and would explain why Utd were loaded with debt when the Glazers took over. I guess there’s nothing unusual about borrowing to finance a large purchase, but the bit about leveraging something you don’t even own (yet) sounds very Donald Trump.

It was almost comical hearing the Henning and pals statement from last year being read out. Full-time football and a stable Championship club. International contacts.

I sometimes consider moving back just so I can watch what might be the last years of this football club. It really does feel totally doom and gloom.

Edited by FifeSons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key things for me :

alarming that club was purchased from loans against club assets (land including the pitch). Not one penny of additional investment from Cognitive. 

Disqualified person appears to have considerable active involvement in decision making.

Ad hoc approach towards day to day running of the club. Lack of proper business infrastructure to support/inform decisions and ensure the club is secure 

No clearer on why the Cognitive crew are involved with a 3rd tier Scottish Football club (other than having been persuaded by the disqualified person to front his ambitions)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

I had those same immediate questions but I think the main take away is that those are the questions that need asked pronto, and if answers aren't good the support really needs to organise itself. We've had a small band of fans carrying the can so far in trying to find things out but as these things become more widely known we need more widespread involvement. No disrespect to anyone who couldn't make it tonight but I was hoping for more than the 30 or so that turned up. Hopefully if the board and owners do decide to speak to us we see a full room in there. 

I couldn't be in attendance tonight due to Covid, and the small turnout out probably reflects the dispirited air amongst the Sons support at present.  On the plus side, the posts of the last hour or so give me heart that the message myself and others have been trying to discreetly convey on here for quite a while now is finally being more widely absorbed.  Also, as a Trust Board member I have to be guarded in any comments.

Having said that, the revelation that Youngs Farm is probably now a dead end may now increase speculation as to what the owners will now look to do.  I will personally be surprised if Henning Kristoffersen remains in the picture for very much longer; the two hours of Zoom calls myself and two other Trust reps had with him did nothing to convince us that he was anything other than someone an associate had convinced or requested to take part in a business proposition, presumably with the chance to turn a coin.

As was said earlier tonight, that associate is very much the man in the box seat, and I suspect he is the principal in the land securities aspects seen on Companies House, amongst other things.  I won't add any more for now other than to say based on evidence thus far that I don't expect either the majority shareholder in Dumbarton FC or the club's Board of Directors to be in any great haste to engage willingly in open and transparent dialogue with anyone any time soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I don't expect either the majority shareholder in Dumbarton FC or the club's Board of Directors to be in any great haste to engage willingly in open and transparent dialogue with anyone any time soon.

 

I get why the owners wouldn’t, but why not the board? Aren’t Hosie and MacKay meant to be Sons fans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get why the owners wouldn’t, but why not the board? Aren’t Hosie and MacKay meant to be Sons fans?
I got the impression that the owners are guarded in what they tell the board so a meeting without CC would probably just end up with more questions than answers.
A bit embarrassing I didn’t know this (at least that you can use assets you don’t yet own as leverage) as it is literally in the course I’m studying! 
27D24C56-D5B3-41EC-948F-5E56B40A1699.thumb.png.159bc2d9171de096ac2ccfa4aa767bf2.png
It's likely very similar to getting a mortgage to pay for a house you don't yet own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

For a guy that's working on nightshift you're doing a power of posting - where do I get an Application Form ?

4 extra breaks a shift when your a vaper/smoker 😜

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, microdave said:

I got the impression that the owners are guarded in what they tell the board so a meeting without CC would probably just end up with more questions than answers.It's likely very similar to getting a mortgage to pay for a house you don't yet own.

That does sound the case what from Stephanie said, but I think it would still be useful for the fans to get a chance to speak with them.


That was my initial thinking too, though it just feels odd in the context of a football club’s assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FifeSons said:

I get why the owners wouldn’t, but why not the board? Aren’t Hosie and MacKay meant to be Sons fans?

To be fair, the DFC Board has already met with Trust representatives in response to a letter from the Trust which raised a number of questions regarding club ownership.

This meeting took place on Saturday 29th January and due to a wholly inadvertent and mistaken public release of the letter prior to the event by the Trust which was picked up and published by the national press, it commenced in a rather tense atmosphere.

The DFC Board is indeed Sons fans to a man and woman but that hasn't stopped the owners treating them with discourtesy and disrespect, to the extent that as is well known four individuals stepped down some months ago.  Fulfilling commitments had become a major issue apparently.

My own experience with HK is that he is more than willing to engage in general discussion, some of it frankly fantastic bullshit, but as I posted above I don't consider him to be the key ownership player.  And I'll be surprised if we see him again in Dumbarton any time soon.

The role of key player falls to his 'advisor', and given Cognitive Capital's furtive business modus operandi I don't expect that he will be hugely keen to meet the public - but that should not stop any invitation.

That invitation will however almost certainly have to come from the Trust, as two things were firmly communicated to us at the meeting on 29/1.  Firstly, on the issue of the land securities, as David B intimated last night these were presented to the DFC Board as a fait accompli and questions arising therefore fall to the owners.

Secondly, the DFC Board considers that it's remit extends to all matters relating to the (considerable) day-to-day running of the football club, and thanks are due for that, but it does not encompass ownership matters.

It may therefore fall to others who wish to hold the DFC majority shareholder to account.  A tripartite meeting looks unlikely in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

To be fair, the DFC Board has already met with Trust representatives in response to a letter from the Trust which raised a number of questions regarding club ownership.

This meeting took place on Saturday 29th January and due to a wholly inadvertent and mistaken public release of the letter prior to the event by the Trust which was picked up and published by the national press, it commenced in a rather tense atmosphere.

The DFC Board is indeed Sons fans to a man and woman but that hasn't stopped the owners treating them with discourtesy and disrespect, to the extent that as is well known four individuals stepped down some months ago.  Fulfilling commitments had become a major issue apparently.

My own experience with HK is that he is more than willing to engage in general discussion, some of it frankly fantastic bullshit, but as I posted above I don't consider him to be the key ownership player.  And I'll be surprised if we see him again in Dumbarton any time soon.

The role of key player falls to his 'advisor', and given Cognitive Capital's furtive business modus operandi I don't expect that he will be hugely keen to meet the public - but that should not stop any invitation.

That invitation will however almost certainly have to come from the Trust, as two things were firmly communicated to us at the meeting on 29/1.  Firstly, on the issue of the land securities, as David B intimated last night these were presented to the DFC Board as a fait accompli and questions arising therefore fall to the owners.

Secondly, the DFC Board considers that it's remit extends to all matters relating to the (considerable) day-to-day running of the football club, and thanks are due for that, but it does not encompass ownership matters.

It may therefore fall to others who wish to hold the DFC majority shareholder to account.  A tripartite meeting looks unlikely in my opinion.

Honest question. Does a board not have responsibility for protecting a clubs assets and to ensure these are not put at risk? I genuinely accept our local board are fans, work hard for the club and may be in a thankless position. Their remit may not directly cover ownership issues. I would though have thought there would be an acknowledgment of the perilous position the club has been placed in as a result of the leveraged buy out and a willingness to work with the trust to at least ensure there is some form of protection over club assets. Otherwise it’s  fiddling while Rome burns.  

Edited by Robertsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...