Stirling Albion Thread

[1320Lichtie]

SAFC TV is now a thing



Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Good to see another highlights package. Sunday afternoons browsing YouTube for lower league highlights > MOTD.

[JakeSAFC]

About time we got a highlight package. We must have been one of the only clubs without one?

[AlbionMan]

On 15 July 2018 at 18:38, 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.

It isn't clear if the consortium initiated or jumped in to drive the "Time for Change" protest which removed the previous Trust Board and with it the consortium's biggest obstacle to the bid's acceptance. I suspect the former as the PR and social media output smacked of their publicity team.

[Ray Vaughn]

The Consortium bid for the club did not have anything to do with the formation of Time for Change.

The shameful antics towards The Chairman of the Exec was the sole catalyst for the events that led to the collection of signatures to force a Trust Members Meeting and resulted in the mass resignations of the previous Trust Board before they were voted out at the Motion of No Confidence.

 

It was the Supporters Club that invited Colin And John into the bar. The Supporters Club wanted to hear what they had to propose and they were welcomed warmly by the vast majority of the fans in the bar that day. Time for Change had nothing to do with this invite.

 

Time For Change was about righting the wrong that nearly happened regarding the smearing of and attempted sacking of Stuart Brown. The Consortium Bid happened at the same time as the move to oust the Stuart Brown but the two are not connected and could easily have happened a year apart. It may not be a coincidence that many involved with Time for Change were clearly in favour of a vote on the Consortium Bid but the main issue was the governance of the Trust for the Members was the reason Time for Change put up a fight to restore order at the Trust.

 

[King Crownest]

12 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:

 

Time For Change was about righting the wrong that nearly happened regarding the smearing of and attempted sacking of Stuart Brown.

When the chairman was suspended, the old Trust said there would be an independent inquiry into why the Trust wasn’t told about the police investigation and an independent review of child protection at SAFC.

Did they get done in the end?

[JakeSAFC]

When the chairman was suspended, the old Trust said there would be an independent inquiry into why the Trust wasn’t told about the police investigation and an independent review of child protection at SAFC.

Did they get done in the end?

Why did the Trust have to know when Stuart Brown and the police were dealing with it?

[BB_Bino]

When the chairman was suspended, the old Trust said there would be an independent inquiry into why the Trust wasn’t told about the police investigation and an independent review of child protection at SAFC.

Did they get done in the end?

It’s getting quite tiresome all this.

The old Trust board, those that quit the positions in shame before questions were put towards them, as you know, appointed someone who was quite open and clear that they hated Stuart Brown......which is fine, but as an independent investigator, no, that’s not fine.

So you would surely agree that, any conclusions from the investigate, involving this person, have to be suspect?

[AlbionMan]

20 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:

The Consortium bid for the club did not have anything to do with the formation of Time for Change.

The shameful antics towards The Chairman of the Exec was the sole catalyst for the events that led to the collection of signatures to force a Trust Members Meeting and resulted in the mass resignations of the previous Trust Board before they were voted out at the Motion of No Confidence.

 

It was the Supporters Club that invited Colin And John into the bar. The Supporters Club wanted to hear what they had to propose and they were welcomed warmly by the vast majority of the fans in the bar that day. Time for Change had nothing to do with this invite.

 

Time For Change was about righting the wrong that nearly happened regarding the smearing of and attempted sacking of Stuart Brown. The Consortium Bid happened at the same time as the move to oust the Stuart Brown but the two are not connected and could easily have happened a year apart. It may not be a coincidence that many involved with Time for Change were clearly in favour of a vote on the Consortium Bid but the main issue was the governance of the Trust for the Members was the reason Time for Change put up a fight to restore order at the Trust.

 

A fortunate coincidence that time for change's aims directly advantaged the consortium, happy to have that cleared up.

[Ray Vaughn]

The timing is coincidental unless you are suggesting the Consortium picked the moment where the old Trust Board were are war with the Exec Chairman as the ideal time to launch a bid to run the club.
Time for Change had its roots in the two Mayfield Centre meetings in Autumn 2017 where we had to collect signatures to get resolutions to the Trust Board.
None of us had any inkling of the Consortium until the end of January, the night before the Golden Lion AGM.
It is mischief-making to say that Time for Change (can’t remember when we formally adopted that moniker) was all about the Consortium bid.
I can 100% confirm that the Consortium bid was added to the agenda at a much later date. At the meeting between Time for Change and three reps of the old Trust Board, the Consortium bid to run the club was not specifically discussed during that 2 hour meeting. Surely, if we were stooges for The Consortium as you imply, then it would have been top of the agenda.

Bringing back democracy to our fan owned club was the ambition of Time for Change. It is a task which has been much harder to achieve in reality for reasons which will all come
out at some point in the future when the time is right.

[King Crownest]

20 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:

Time for Change had its roots in the two Mayfield Centre meetings in Autumn 2017 where we had to collect signatures to get resolutions to the Trust Board.

Bringing back democracy to our fan owned club was the ambition of Time for Change. It is a task which has been much harder to achieve in reality for reasons which will all come
out at some point in the future when the time is right.

At the Mayfield meeting, the membership voted in favour of the Trust removing the chairman.

It’s a funny old game Saint!

[Ray Vaughn]

As there was no prior indication that such a vote was going to take place then it was only a quick show of hands where it was clear that the result was not going to be binding. People might vote differently if it had been binding and there were many who abstained that night would probably voted to keep Brown on such limited reasons to sack him.

The meeting had minimal notice and many struggled

to attend at such notice.

 

Given that the then Trust Board would not give the reasons for sacking the chairman that night and, as far as I can see, have never given out a reason so important that it could not be revealed that night,

something doesn’t add up here.

The only thing that they could possibly not reveal that night (unless you know better) would be the impending court cases from the Youth Academy. But the then Trust Board has resolutely claimed that they did not know about the suspensions of coaches until days before it went to court. But when you recall that Tom Ogilvy knew about the suspensions and chaired Trust Meeting back then then you can see why the suspicion that something doesn’t smell right persists.

Only the reasons not given that night being revealed would put his rumour to bed.

 

I don’t think we should rake over this shameful episode in the Trust history. People put their own agendas over the best interests of the members. They are now history and any move on their part to return would cause much discord.

 

[King Crownest]

4 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:

As there was no prior indication that such a vote was going to take place then it was only a quick show of hands where it was clear that the result was not going to be binding. People might vote differently if it had been binding and there were many who abstained that night would probably voted to keep Brown on such limited reasons to sack him.

The meeting had minimal notice and many struggled

to attend at such notice.

 

Given that the then Trust Board would not give the reasons for sacking the chairman that night and, as far as I can see, have never given out a reason so important that it could not be revealed that night,

something doesn’t add up here.

The only thing that they could possibly not reveal that night (unless you know better) would be the impending court cases from the Youth Academy. But the then Trust Board has resolutely claimed that they did not know about the suspensions of coaches until days before it went to court. But when you recall that Tom Ogilvy knew about the suspensions and chaired Trust Meeting back then then you can see why the suspicion that something doesn’t smell right persists.

Only the reasons not given that night being revealed would put his rumour to bed.

 

I don’t think we should rake over this shameful episode in the Trust history. People put their own agendas over the best interests of the members. They are now history and any move on their part to return would cause much discord.

 

We must have different memories of the meeting.

There was a week’s notice given and the place was packed.

The board explained why they believed the chairman should go and there was a thorough debate for around an hour and a half with plenty of people both for and against.

In the end, there was a clear majority in favour of removing the chairman.

It was an advisory vote but the Trust board offered to resign if the members didn’t back their stance so there were real consequences either way.

Edited July 25, 2018 by King Crownest

[Ray Vaughn]

There was no specific reason given that night to why they wanted to get rid of Stuart Brown, other than hey could not get on with him. They chose to hide behind “reasons why we can’t go into it”. If you are going to bump someone then you really need to spell out why they cannot remain.

 

I remember the meeting very well. Willie Irvine swaggering about the place before we sat down, never seen at Forthbank of course, calling a regular fan a “p***k”, guys you’d never seen before like Brian Kerr slating Stuart Brown’s business acumen when a League 2 club called Stirling Albion made more profit than his own company that year and, of course, yourself suggesting £500,000 was missing from the football club accounts when what you really meant was that the Junior Academy accounts were audited separately from the football clubs. Almost like you intended to alarm people. I’m sure it just came out that way and was not what you intended.

 

 

[Red Watch]

1 hour ago, Ray Vaughn said:

There was no specific reason given that night to why they wanted to get rid of Stuart Brown, other than hey could not get on with him. They chose to hide behind “reasons why we can’t go into it”. If you are going to bump someone then you really need to spell out why they cannot remain.

 

I remember the meeting very well. Willie Irvine swaggering about the place before we sat down, never seen at Forthbank of course, calling a regular fan a “p***k”, guys you’d never seen before like Brian Kerr slating Stuart Brown’s business acumen when a League 2 club called Stirling Albion made more profit than his own company that year and, of course, yourself suggesting £500,000 was missing from the football club accounts when what you really meant was that the Junior Academy accounts were audited separately from the football clubs. Almost like you intended to alarm people. I’m sure it just came out that way and was not what you intended.

 

 

On the subject of the financial performance of businessmen and the companies they are associated with, can you advise us whether the Trust have undertaken any enquiries at Companies House into John Neill and his companies?  If so, why haven’t those results been imparted to Trust members?

Also, can you advise us if the Trust Board has sought detailed legal advice on the consortium’s offer and what it would actually mean for SAFC, especially the degree of risk to which the club would be exposed?

[King Crownest]

2 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:

and, of course, yourself suggesting £500,000 was missing from the football club accounts when what you really meant was that the Junior Academy accounts were audited separately from the football clubs. Almost like you intended to alarm people. I’m sure it just came out that way and was not what you intended.

I think you're fast losing your grip on reality my friend!

Edited July 26, 2018 by King Crownest

[JakeSAFC]

Can we sign a midfielder and a striker please?

[Best Team in Angus]

9 minutes ago, JakeSAFC said:

Can we sign a midfielder and a striker please?

We may have some you can have, take your choice 

[BB_Bino]

I think you're fast losing your grip on reality my friend!

I don’t think he is, but what I do think is that this isn’t the place for this chat.

Once again, I will ask the question why you have not gone through the official channels to gain the information that you are seeking? Is it to publicly sling more mud towards the club?

Pie and Bovril is a forum to talk football, it’s not a forum to go into all the intricate details of Trust and other off the field matters. You have asked questions and someone who has the answers has answered them for you.

If you are not happy with the answers given then raise them directly with the people involved, don’t hide behind usernames.

I agree with Ray Vaughn and if you’re not Mark then you appear to be of a very similar mind to him, so no doubt are working toward the same agenda. I have said in previous posts that you appear to be working towards an agenda and you said the only agenda you are working towards is to ensure that every day fans (like myself, not on the Trust Board, not on the SC board, not in the loop of the Exc) are informed of all aspects of the bid before voting on it:........there is now no bid, there is now no vote, yet you continue, which can only suggest to me that your not being clear with the facts that you give and are working to your (or someone else’s) agenda.

I had questions for the Consortium, I sent them directly to the Consortium and I got honest answers, I didn’t always get the answers I was hoping for but I got answers. I had questions for the Trust and to the Exc Board and I asked the questions to John Buchan & Dave King, David McFarlane and Stuart Brown. Again, I did not always receive the answer I was hoping for but I got the answer to my questions........I never felt the need to go on public forums to find the answers and stir things up, just that little bit more.

There seems to be a couple of “unknown” Stirling Albion posters who have popped up over the past couple of months, none of them want to chat football and they all want to talk about the now dead takeover bid. That suggests to me that these people are not actually supporters of the football team, and just want to make life difficult for the Trust, for Colin Rowley and Co and maybe even Stuart Brown.

If I’m way off the mark, then I’m sorry, but I’ll be stunned if I am.

[Ray Vaughn]

I think you're fast losing your grip on reality my friend!

Someone is trying to rewrite history here.
That specific allegation was definitely made that night, done in a way to try to alarm people with carefully chosen words when the reality was that there was not missing £500k from any accounts.

[BB_Bino]

Someone is trying to rewrite history here.
That specific allegation was definitely made that night, done in a way to try to alarm people with carefully chosen words when the reality was that there was not missing £500k from any accounts.

I’ll second that! (Although I can’t back up the claim about the accounts, but have no reason to doubt that Ray Vaughn).