Stirling Albion Thread

[Mattie1880]

1 hour ago, Red Watch said:

Why should you be raging?  The withdrawal is a cause for celebration.

In this thread, King Crownest has capably set out the pitfalls he sees in the consortium paper and need no further embellishment from me.  I can add, however, that I had a lawyer friend of mine who specialises in business acquisitions look at the details of the consortium bid and she said that she would recommend any client not to touch it with a barge pole.  She felt that its terms were weighted too heavily in favour of the bidder with little or no guarantees of SAFC emerging unscathed in the event that the bidders walked away.  In other words, the club would be left impotent to handle any adverse financial situation should the bidders decide to decamp.

She also pointed out, rightly, that the new regime the Club could, in effect,  be run as the personal plaything of the two bidders with no influence being allowed from any supporters’ representatives (the Trust).  So if the supporters considered that the two incumbents were not acting in the best interests of the Club there was absolutely nothing they could do about it – they would have to suffer in silence and watch the Club deteriorate – and worse.  Neither would it be possible for any SAFC shareholder to be able to intervene

What is astonishing is the sight of a hard core of so-called supporters who have been beguiled by the utterances of two people – jumping up and down in frustration and swearing vengeance upon a group of scapegoats who arguably had no bearing upon the consortium’s withdrawal from the stage.  The consortium for its part has chosen to suggest that there has been false reporting and commenting in the media without actually attempting to substantiate such allegations.  It has also referred to “constant stalling and creating barriers to allow a vote to take place” again without any evidence being offered in support.

If there has been stalling and barriers created this surely can only have come from one or two (or both) parties – the Club Executive or the Trust Board.  Since there are only six members on the Club Executive and three of those are Stuart Brown and his two regular supporters (with the former having a casting vote).  Are the two consortium bidders pointing an accusing finger at Mr Brown – who knows?

More likely that the Trust Board is in the sights of the consortium.  As I understand it, the Trust Board has seven members most of whom are unknown to me. 

It is now well over 24 hours since the consortium withdrew.  So far, not a peep out of the Trust Board about the consortium’s withdrawal statement or how it intends to respond to it.  No emails, no website announcement, nothing, absolutely NADA.  An utter shambles of the first order.

Likewise, no statement from the Club Executive.  Its silence is inexcusable.

Could someone tell me why the Trust Board failed to organise a postal ballot on the consortium’s offer immediately after the meeting with Messrs Rowley and Neil which I attended on 27^th June?

And in the 24 hours, there has not been a statement from the incredible saviours that are John hunter and his ‘associates.’ What’s your thoughts on that? Is their silence ‘inexcusable?’ 

[Red Watch]

25 minutes ago, Mattie1880 said:

And in the 24 hours, there has not been a statement from the incredible saviours that are John hunter and his ‘associates.’ What’s your thoughts on that? Is their silence ‘inexcusable?’ 

Why is it necessary for us to have a statement from John Hunter "and his associates"?  There is absolutely no evidence that he or the faceless people you refer to had any direct influence on the consortium's decision.  If there is, put it up on here, or shut up! 

[rhliston]

1 hour ago, DavidMcG said:

I disagree with majority of your post but the part that is quoted I am also keen to understand. 

The trust hadn't set a date for the vote, is this because legal checks were ongoing? Is it because people were on holiday? Is it something else?

I'm not blaming the trust but I am keen to know whether a vote was intended,  whether a date had been set or whether they had delayed it for X reasons?

The Trust had set a date of 19th July provisionally  for the vote to take place due to the fact that they had to set up an online voting system.

[Red Watch]

22 minutes ago, rhliston said:

The Trust had set a date of 19th July provisionally  for the vote to take place due to the fact that they had to set up an online voting system.

The Trust Board has known for weeks that there was a need for an online vote so should have acted immediately they were elected at the Special General Meeting on 3rd May.    Under the previous Trust Board we had a number of on line votes so the system was already in place.   Had assistance been sought from the outgoing Board members, it may well have been given as it has been in other instances since early May, despite the rampant insults hurled in their direction by a bunch of numpties.

It would be interesting to find out if there was contact by the Trust Board with the Consortium to tell them that a vote was imminent.  I suspect there was not hence the consortium throwing its toys out of the pram.  It seems that the Trust Board has a lot to answer for.  All we get at the moment is a deathly silence.

[Ray Vaughn]

There is hardly a word in your replies that resembles the truth.

Some of the Trust Board have been in different time zones with limited Wi-fi capability but a interim statement is on its way to be followed by a full statement in a few days.

Trying to pin this on the Trust Board is a total travesty of the facts. When it all comes out in the wash, who did what and when, it will be clear who is responsible for the delays and I can assure you that the Trust Board are doing things by the book so that any votes, when they happen, cannot be challenged. Who can forget the absolute disgrace of the multiple-minute suspension of Stuart Brown. Anyone with their fingerprints on that fiasco should still be in hiding.

Members of the Trust should expect our usual accurate and honest communication shortly.

The Associates have no need to comment of course at the moment as there has been, as I type, no offer submitted to the Trust for consideration.
Until they submit such a bid then that will be open to the accusation that they were just trying to de-rail the Consortium bid. I’m sure that is not the case though.

[rhliston]

43 minutes ago, Red Watch said:

The Trust Board has known for weeks that there was a need for an online vote so should have acted immediately they were elected at the Special General Meeting on 3rd May.    Under the previous Trust Board we had a number of on line votes so the system was already in place.   Had assistance been sought from the outgoing Board members, it may well have been given as it has been in other instances since early May, despite the rampant insults hurled in their direction by a bunch of numpties.

It would be interesting to find out if there was contact by the Trust Board with the Consortium to tell them that a vote was imminent.  I suspect there was not hence the consortium throwing its toys out of the pram.  It seems that the Trust Board has a lot to answer for.  All we get at the moment is a deathly silence.

I think its a bit rich coming from a member of the previous Trust Board (if that is the case ? ) At least the present Trust Board has a website up and running and indeed if you care to go onto this website you will find documents relating to the 20th of  June stating the facts that I had quoted. Unlike the previous Trust Board who rarely if anything managed to communicate with Trust Members. 

Re "the Trust Board has a lot to answer for. All we get at the moment is deadly silence" The previous poster has given you an answer. 

[King Crownest]

3 hours ago, Red Watch said:

It is now well over 24 hours since the consortium withdrew.  So far, not a peep out of the Trust Board about the consortium’s withdrawal statement or how it intends to respond to it.  No emails, no website announcement, nothing, absolutely NADA.  An utter shambles of the first order.

Likewise, no statement from the Club Executive.  Its silence is inexcusable.

Could someone tell me why the Trust Board failed to organise a postal ballot on the consortium’s offer immediately after the meeting with Messrs Rowley and Neil which I attended on 27^th June?

What's being suggested on FB is that the Trust board delay is because they can't decide whether, under the rules, the bid would need to attract 50.1 per cent support of members or 75 per cent.

The consortium claimed the Trust has few powers and really only acts to pass on the views of fans and I saw a member of the Trust board on FB suggesting that, if the consortium take over, there would be no change in the Trust’s powers.

Why is this important? Because if the Trust is not giving up any powers under the bid, only 50.1 is needed to win the vote.

But if the bid does involve a transfer of power from Trust to consortium, the winning line is 75 per cent.

So is it true that the Trust would lose no powers?

Currently, the Trust board has the power to hire Club directors, fix their length of service and fire them via the Companies Act. Under the bid, Club directors would be appointed by the consortium. Even if the Trust exercises its rights under the Companies Act to fire a director, the director can then be reappointed by the Club board ie consortium.

Currently, the Trust board gets to approve all policies and strategies of the Club and can insist upon a veto on decisions to borrow money or buy and sell assets. Under the bid, the Trust must agree to support the consortium’s business plan before it’s even been written and is explicitly banned from having any say on whether to borrow money or buy and sell assets.

Currently, the Trust holds shares which comprise an 83 per cent stake in Stirling Albion – an overwhelming controlling interest and these shares belong to us all. Under the bid, the consortium are awarded 20 golden shares, which are currently only a vehicle to take money out of the club. But the consortium reserves the right to “vary the rights attaching to any class of shares” without the Trust’s consent. So it could one day decide that its golden shares now count more than the Trust’s 83 per cent.

Does that sound like ‘no change’??

We surely all agree that the bid is never going to get 75 per cent of the vote. So it's down to John Neill to come back with a bid that doesn't involve a massive transfer of powers so that he can win 50.1 per cent. But, as he's been honest about from the start, if the consortium doesn't have complete power, it's a non-starter.

We all need to accept then that the consortium is history. But, equally, I wouldn't favour the bid from John Hunter either, based on the little we know so far.

This club needs a totally fresh start with a blank sheet of paper. The lack of ideas has turned the focus onto personalities. John Neill at least recognised the buzzwords but that's not enough.

Trust members with something to offer, from whatever background, need to get round a table and establish a new direction for the club. They need to take advice from experts (rather than Lanarkshire house builders) and decide broadly how SAFC identifies and fast-tracks young talent, how it connects with people in Stirling, how it wins friends and keeps them. And then when the strategy is nailed down, the Trust need to employ the people with the right experience to implement it. That's the way you eventually get a winning team on the pitch.

I'm tired of SAFC being a playground for people wanting to learn the ropes and 'make their mistakes'. We're better than this, better than name-calling, factions and squabbling. It's time for all those on all sides who've had their turn to step aside. And it's time that the Trust board stepped up, found some nuts and led Stirling Albion out of this mess.

[Red Watch]

12 minutes ago, rhliston said:

I think its a bit rich coming from a member of the previous Trust Board (if that is the case ? ) At least the present Trust Board has a website up and running and indeed if you care to go onto this website you will find documents relating to the 20th of  June stating the facts that I had quoted. Unlike the previous Trust Board who rarely if anything managed to communicate with Trust Members. 

Re "the Trust Board has a lot to answer for. All we get at the moment is deadly silence" The previous poster has given you an answer. 

For the record, I have never been a member of the previous Trust Board.  Had I been so, I would have been thoroughly ashamed of myself had I been associated with their behaviour and antics.

As you say, it seems belatedly that the current Trust Board is starting to get its ducks in a row.  I still find it perplexing given the importance of the consortium's actions yesterday that there was not even an interim statement placed on its website soon after.  There are I think seven members on the Trust Board so plenty of resource to martial thoughts to the point of issuing a holding statement.  We were promised smarter communications than under the previous regime and I, for one, ain't happy that they failed to meet their commitment.

[Red Watch]

18 minutes ago, King Crownest said:

What's being suggested on FB is that the Trust board delay is because they can't decide whether, under the rules, the bid would need to attract 50.1 per cent support of members or 75 per cent.

The consortium claimed the Trust has few powers and really only acts to pass on the views of fans and I saw a member of the Trust board on FB suggesting that, if the consortium take over, there would be no change in the Trust’s powers.

Why is this important? Because if the Trust is not giving up any powers under the bid, only 50.1 is needed to win the vote.

But if the bid does involve a transfer of power from Trust to consortium, the winning line is 75 per cent.

So is it true that the Trust would lose no powers?

Currently, the Trust board has the power to hire Club directors, fix their length of service and fire them via the Companies Act. Under the bid, Club directors would be appointed by the consortium. Even if the Trust exercises its rights under the Companies Act to fire a director, the director can then be reappointed by the Club board ie consortium.

Currently, the Trust board gets to approve all policies and strategies of the Club and can insist upon a veto on decisions to borrow money or buy and sell assets. Under the bid, the Trust must agree to support the consortium’s business plan before it’s even been written and is explicitly banned from having any say on whether to borrow money or buy and sell assets.

Currently, the Trust holds shares which comprise an 83 per cent stake in Stirling Albion – an overwhelming controlling interest and these shares belong to us all. Under the bid, the consortium are awarded 20 golden shares, which are currently only a vehicle to take money out of the club. But the consortium reserves the right to “vary the rights attaching to any class of shares” without the Trust’s consent. So it could one day decide that its golden shares now count more than the Trust’s 83 per cent.

Does that sound like ‘no change’??

We surely all agree that the bid is never going to get 75 per cent of the vote. So it's down to John Neill to come back with a bid that doesn't involve a massive transfer of powers so that he can win 50.1 per cent. But, as he's been honest about from the start, if the consortium doesn't have complete power, it's a non-starter.

We all need to accept then that the consortium is history. But, equally, I wouldn't favour the bid from John Hunter either, based on the little we know so far.

This club needs a totally fresh start with a blank sheet of paper. The lack of ideas has turned the focus onto personalities. John Neill at least recognised the buzzwords but that's not enough.

Trust members with something to offer, from whatever background, need to get round a table and establish a new direction for the club. They need to take advice from experts (rather than Lanarkshire house builders) and decide broadly how SAFC identifies and fast-tracks young talent, how it connects with people in Stirling, how it wins friends and keeps them. And then when the strategy is nailed down, the Trust need to employ the people with the right experience to implement it. That's the way you eventually get a winning team on the pitch.

I'm tired of SAFC being a playground for people wanting to learn the ropes and 'make their mistakes'. We're better than this, better than name-calling, factions and squabbling. It's time for all those on all sides who've had their turn to step aside. And it's time that the Trust board stepped up, found some nuts and led Stirling Albion out of this mess.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the position outlined.  It seems that putting it in crude terms the consortium's offer can be summarised as desire to castrate the Trust Board which would become nothing more than a sad bunch of eunuchs.  Your views confirm much of what my lawyer informant told me.

[King Crownest]

24 minutes ago, Red Watch said:

Thank you for taking the time to explain the position outlined.  It seems that putting it in crude terms the consortium's offer can be summarised as desire to castrate the Trust Board which would become nothing more than a sad bunch of eunuchs.  Your views confirm much of what my lawyer informant told me.

Exactly! And if they castrate the Trust board, they castrate us all as Trust members.

Balls to em!

[Ray Vaughn]

The average Trust member has never been empowered by being a member of the Trust and has had no input into the direction of the club that the Exec take. That is why they see little difference between the Status Quo and the Consortium in terms of influencing the direction of the club.
No-one expected weekly referenda to decide club policy but there has been little actual decision making other than what strip
do you want.

It is difficult to assess where the whole Trust Membership lies on the Consortium Bid versus the Associates bid.
My, entirely subjective, view was that easily more than 50% of those attending meetings of the Consortium were pro-consortium but they never got even 50% of the total support.

The Trust Board has shown it has big balls to stand up to all the external pressure that has been exerted in recent months. Some of the nonsense going on by certain parties will be revealed in the fullness of time but now is the time for calm heads to prevail and steer the correct course.

[BB_Bino]

Another new username who just wants to rubbish the consortium bid I see.

Not interested in actually talking about football.

[King Crownest]

2 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:

The average Trust member has never been empowered by being a member of the Trust and has had no input into the direction of the club that the Exec take. That is why they see little difference between the Status Quo and the Consortium in terms of influencing the direction of the club.
No-one expected weekly referenda to decide club policy but there has been little actual decision making other than what strip
do you want.
 

Here’s the quote from FB: “What powers do the Trust have over the current system with the Exec? No any less than they would have under the Consortium would be many people’s analysis.”

That is not an accurate description of what signing up for the consortium's bid would mean.

The Trust board currently have extensive powers to set and regulate the direction of the Club – It is a watchdog with real teeth to safeguard the future of the Club.

Under the consortium, all that would be taken away.

It’s up to Trust board members to use the powers they have, which is what we Trust members select and elect them to do.

If this system works as it should, members enjoy an indirect influence over the Club while the Trust board plays a vital role.

Nobody’s asking for a referendum on every issue.

But we do expect Trust board members to take seriously their responsibilities - which include giving members accurate information on important issues.

Edited July 15, 2018 by King Crownest

[cement]

The last trust board couldn't even keep the mailing list up to date. Just saying.

[drs]

19 hours ago, BB_Bino said:

Another new username who just wants to rubbish the consortium bid I see.

Both of whom have been members here for almost 2 years, which you can see by clicking on their profile.

I don't have a horse in this race but the question that strikes me - is why pull out at this point? The trust have indicated the vote was about to take place so what changed their minds in the run up to that vote?

Negative media reporting? Stalling? A tactical retreat when they realised they weren't going to win? As I say I don't have a horse but I'd be interested to know why everything had to be completed right now rather than say November or March.

[Ray Vaughn]

Both of whom have been members here for almost 2 years, which you can see by clicking on their profile.

Yup, 9 posts in 2 years.
Not quite keeping up with Statement Man there.

[BB_Bino]

Came across this on Twitter:

http://www.selectsportsconsultancy.com/2018/07/17/youth-player-profile-neil-mclaughlin/

[The West Stand]

More signings needed asap. Midfield and up front

[JakeSAFC]

Agreed.

[The West Stand]

SAFC TV is now a thing

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk