Jump to content

Stirling Albion Thread


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, AlbionMan said:

You do need to get a better script writer, the one you use is still having you peddle his half truths, untruths and evasions for our consumption.

It has not been and is not the intention of the trust board to interfere in the operational management of the club, but they do expect the executive committee to be accountable to the majority shareholder through the trust board and to provide regular quarterly updates on the business performance of the club, accept an overview of team management and Club Board appointments and of annual budgets and business plan. As the elected representatives of  the majority owner the trust board would be failing in their duty if this is not insisted upon. As an intimate of the executive committee you will be fully aware that for the last four years the chairman has resisted all attempts to introduce such transparency into his committee's dealings with the shareholders.

 

" accept an overview of team management and club board appointments"

Explain what you mean by that, because the present club constitution puts neither within the purview of the Trust board.  When did the Trust board ask the consent of the membership to pursue those?  Come on let's have some transparency. What precisely have the Trust board been after?   Let's give hiding behind crap about transparency and accountability a rest shall we.  Just for once let's hear exactly what the Exec is supposedly not transparent about and accountable for?  Death by innuendo is wearing thin Mr Allardyce.

The chairman and the board have not resisted all attempts at transparency. They have resisted attempts by the trust board to increase it's remit without seeking the consent of the membership to do that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

" accept an overview of team management and club board appointments"

Explain what you mean by that, because the present club constitution puts neither within the purview of the Trust board.  When did the Trust board ask the consent of the membership to pursue those?  Come on let's have some transparency. What precisely have the Trust board been after?   Let's give hiding behind crap about transparency and accountability a rest shall we.  Just for once let's hear exactly what the Exec is supposedly not transparent about and accountable for?  Death by innuendo is wearing thin Mr Allardyce.

The chairman and the board have not resisted all attempts at transparency. They have resisted attempts by the trust board to increase it's remit without seeking the consent of the membership to do that. 

 

Another of Stuart's smokescreens, did he write that for you or did you put it together all by yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AlbionMan said:

Another of Stuart's smokescreens, did he write that for you or did you put it together all by yourself?

Anything but back up your persistent innuendo with a fact. The last person to wail about a lack of transparency should be you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

Yes the Trust are owners of the club. That is why they have a right to to be made fully aware, that voting for your remaining resolutions will give the Trust board control of the operational side of the club.  Of course you are aware of that yourself. It's the membership you want kept unaware.

Who says the Trust Board want control of the operational side of the Club. ?  Think your putting 2+2 and coming up wit 3 here. The fact remains that my resolutions had nothing to do with the Trust Board. As a member of the Trust I and like every other member of the Trust has the right to lodge resolutions for the AGM. At the end of the day it’s up to the members of the Trust to vote Yes or No to these resolutions.  Just like the 74 members of the Trust who have ganged up together to ask that the Trust Board are all removed. Again it’s up to members of the Trust to say Yes or No to these resolutions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Who says the Trust Board want control of the operational side of the Club. ?  Think your putting 2+2 and coming up wit 3 here. The fact remains that my resolutions had nothing to do with the Trust Board. As a member of the Trust I and like every other member of the Trust has the right to lodge resolutions for the AGM. At the end of the day it’s up to the members of the Trust to vote Yes or No to these resolutions.  Just like the 74 members of the Trust who have ganged up together to ask that the Trust Board are all removed. Again it’s up to members of the Trust to say Yes or No to these resolutions. 

I didn't say the Trust board wanted operational control of the club Mr Liston. I said voting for your remaining resolutions would result in that. Which it would, because they would have the dominant numbers on an amalgamated board with 3 or more of the present directors gone. 

I never said you didn't have the right to launch a resolution. I have pointed out what voting for it would result in. You of course don't like that and resort to your usual pish of putting words in my mouth as a distraction.  You really are the human personification of the word tedium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

I didn't say the Trust board wanted operational control of the club Mr Liston. I said voting for your remaining resolutions would result in that. Which it would, because they would have the dominant numbers on an amalgamated board with 3 or more of the present directors gone. 

I never said you didn't have the right to launch a resolution. I have pointed out what voting for it would result in. You of course don't like that and resort to your usual pish of putting words in my mouth as a distraction.  You really are the human personification of the word tedium.

Yes you did say that. At the end of the day it’s up to the members to vote for any resolution put forward. They may not agree with any of my resolutions at the AGM, so nothing happens. Just like I hope the members of the Trust reject the resolutions of 74 of your gang members at the Special General Meeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Yes you did say that. At the end of the day it’s up to the members to vote for any resolution put forward. They may not agree with any of my resolutions at the AGM, so nothing happens. Just like I hope the members of the Trust reject the resolutions of 74 of your gang members at the Special General Meeting. 

No I did not say that. If you check back you'll find me saying on  this site that you have every right to put forward  a resolution, which is why you can't quote me saying it.  I can quote what you said on Facebook about the EGM to remove the Trust board.  "They can't do that." No speech about members having a right to put resolutions there was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

No I did not say that. If you check back you'll find me saying on  this site that you have every right to put forward  a resolution, which is why you can't quote me saying it.  I can quote what you said on Facebook about the EGM to remove the Trust board.  "They can't do that." No speech about members having a right to put resolutions there was there.

"They cant do that" cant remember saying that on Facebook. They have every right your gang of 74 to put forward resolutions about removing the Trust Board if they wish. 

It would have been nice to hear the REASONS WHY they want to remove the Trust Board though. When I put forward my resolutions to remove Stuart Brown and John Daly I gave Trust Members the reasons why both men should be removed unlike your gang of 74, which gave NO reasons as to why they wanted the whole Trust Board removed. Seems to me they wanted to get their own back on the Trust Board for calling an EGM of the Club, very childish behaviour imo. 

Clearly orchestrated by someone pulling the strings, now I wonder who that could be. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its amazing that Stirling have spent the majority of the last 15 years kicking about the bottom league of the SPFL and yet there are still lickspittles kissing the current boards backside on here despite a decade of repeated failure.

Fans of other clubs would have been on top of this years ago and had the failures at the top removed long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rhliston said:

"They cant do that" cant remember saying that on Facebook. They have every right your gang of 74 to put forward resolutions about removing the Trust Board if they wish. 

It would have been nice to hear the REASONS WHY they want to remove the Trust Board though. When I put forward my resolutions to remove Stuart Brown and John Daly I gave Trust Members the reasons why both men should be removed unlike your gang of 74, which gave NO reasons as to why they wanted the whole Trust Board removed. Seems to me they wanted to get their own back on the Trust Board for calling an EGM of the Club, very childish behaviour imo. 

Clearly orchestrated by someone pulling the strings, now I wonder who that could be. ? 

As I didn't write the resolution I have no idea if reasons were given with it or not. I do think they should have been when, online voting is involved.  Not everybody voted to remove the entire Trust board. I did because I consider them to be collectively incompetent. I'll be quite happy to explain why at the EGM if you ask. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

As I didn't write the resolution I have no idea if reasons were given with it or not. I do think they should have been when, online voting is involved.  Not everybody voted to remove the entire Trust board. I did because I consider them to be collectively incompetent. I'll be quite happy to explain why at the EGM if you ask. 

So basically you voted to remove the Trust Board without knowing the reasons why. ?  So they are "collectively incompetent" in what way please tell me and other Trust members who may be reading this post. That includes Neil Emslie the Chairman who was only voted in a few weeks earlier, didn`t take your gang of 74 long to think he is incompetent did it. ? 

Also can you tell me and other Trust members who is pulling the strings in your gang of 74 ? Clearly its not you by your own admission 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rhliston said:

So basically you voted to remove the Trust Board without knowing the reasons why. ?  So they are "collectively incompetent" in what way please tell me and other Trust members who may be reading this post. That includes Neil Emslie the Chairman who was only voted in a few weeks earlier, didn`t take your gang of 74 long to think he is incompetent did it. ? 

Also can you tell me and other Trust members who is pulling the strings in your gang of 74 ? Clearly its not you by your own admission 

Only you could be dumb enough to say I voted to remove them without knowing why, then repeat the reason I gave you why.  I could run in to pages why I consider them collectively incompetent. I'll state my piece at my convenience though, not yours. In fact I voted in favour of Neil Emslie myself, as I had been told he was a decent bloke. I wouldn't vote for him again and I'll leave it at that, whether you like it or not. 

If I'm not pulling the strings, it's hardly my "gang" is it genius? I did speak to one person who was collecting signatures and offered mine without having to be asked. That person was not a member of the Exec, but is a long standing Trust member. 

Are you really stupid enough to think that all 74 of those who signed the required forms even know each other, let alone form a "gang"? 

You really are a piece of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Only you could be dumb enough to say I voted to remove them without knowing why, then repeat the reason I gave you why.  I could run in to pages why I consider them collectively incompetent. I'll state my piece at my convenience though, not yours. In fact I voted in favour of Neil Emslie myself, as I had been told he was a decent bloke. I wouldn't vote for him again and I'll leave it at that, whether you like it or not. 

If I'm not pulling the strings, it's hardly my "gang" is it genius? I did speak to one person who was collecting signatures and offered mine without having to be asked. That person was not a member of the Exec, but is a long standing Trust member. 

Are you really stupid enough to think that all 74 of those who signed the required forms even know each other, let alone form a "gang"? 

You really are a piece of work.

My My I seem to have touched a raw nerve here. "Only you could be dumb enough to say I voted to remove them without knowing why" Did I ? Don`t think so, what I said was WHAT ARE THE REASONS THE GANG OF 74 WANTED RID OF THE ENTIRE TRUST BOARD, to which you did not give an answer. I`m quite sure the rest of the Trust Members would be interested in knowing the reasons why you and your gang of 74 want rid of them, but despite saying "I could run in to pages why I consider them collectively incompetent" you say nothing. 

Don`t you think that the rest of the Trust Members deserve to hear  you and your gang of 74 reasons as to why they should support the resolutions your gang of 74 have proposed ? 

Or is it as I have suggested that your gang of 74 is being manipulated behind the scenes by someone else and I can guess who along with every other member of the Trust that is, am I not right. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rhliston said:

My My I seem to have touched a raw nerve here. "Only you could be dumb enough to say I voted to remove them without knowing why" Did I ? Don`t think so, what I said was WHAT ARE THE REASONS THE GANG OF 74 WANTED RID OF THE ENTIRE TRUST BOARD, to which you did not give an answer. I`m quite sure the rest of the Trust Members would be interested in knowing the reasons why you and your gang of 74 want rid of them, but despite saying "I could run in to pages why I consider them collectively incompetent" you say nothing. 

Don`t you think that the rest of the Trust Members deserve to hear  you and your gang of 74 reasons as to why they should support the resolutions your gang of 74 have proposed ? 

Or is it as I have suggested that your gang of 74 is being manipulated behind the scenes by someone else and I can guess who along with every other member of the Trust that is, am I not right. ? 

I don't know why 74 different people, many of whom I do not personally know voted.  Only an idiot would expect me to know. I am perfectly prepared to explain why I voted to remove the Trust board to the membership at the EGM. At length if required. You, I don't give a toss about and you can wait. 

So you speak for every other member of the trust do you. Well God help us all if the entire trust is as unhinged and obsessed as you.  You are of course alluding to Stuart as masterminding everything and anything that happens. He's not, other supporters are just as capable as you of launching a resolution independently. If a pigeon shat on your head, you'd blame Stuart Brown for sending it, you're that obsessed with the man. Get therapy, do you good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BazMac said:

The heck is the gang of 74?

The 74 trust members who signed forms to remove as many of the current 6 Trust board members as they chose to.  He likes to write in riddles and copious shouting in capitals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah okay.  That might have been explained somewhere already, but to be honest I've stopped reading the majority of posts by both yourself and Rhilston as I find them a bit embarrassing (sorry!).

Anyway, as I've said a few times (sorry to repeat myself), removing a chairman because 'we've not been successful on the pitch' is just silly when they have done their bit in making sure there is enough support to be successful.

However, this whole business of the chairman not providing the required reports to the Trust is more of a reason for removal.  

But perhaps there's a problem with the system that's in place.  I'm sure many of us have had it where bureaucracy gets in the way... sometimes to the point where it actually becomes very difficult to do your best work.

I have been in this situation before and the problem for me was...

1) I didn't have any time to report back.  Having to do it meant not doing something else.

2) The people receiving the report were then able to give their opinion on what I was doing.  Whilst it can be really helpful to get feedback, sometimes when people don't know every little detail their ideas can be a bit out of touch and it can be a bit draining having to take the time to keep explaining why their ideas wouldn't work.  This also ends up not being good for relations between the parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chairman doesn't report back because one or both of those reasons.  And if that is the case, well the next chairperson is probably going to just run into the same problem.

So what to do?  Trusts running football clubs are kind of new, but there are a few examples out there.  It would be interesting to know how this reporting back works for other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

 

It has not been and is not the intention of the trust board to interfere in the operational management of the club, but they do expect the executive committee to be accountable to the majority shareholder through the trust board and to provide regular quarterly updates on the business performance of the club, accept an overview of team management and Club Board appointments and of annual budgets and business plan. As the elected representatives of  the majority owner the trust board would be failing in their duty if this is not insisted upon. As an intimate of the executive committee you will be fully aware that for the last four years the chairman has resisted all attempts to introduce such transparency into his committee's dealings with the shareholders.

 

A well set out summary of the reasonable expectations of any Football Trust in relation to its club.  Why anyone would want to quarrel with that is beyond me.  The Trust has certain legal responsibilities which depend on the club meeting basic requirements such as those set out.  Should any club not so act, the Trust could reasonably refer the matter elsewhere, including the Financial Conduct Authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, BazMac said:

Ah okay.  That might have been explained somewhere already, but to be honest I've stopped reading the majority of posts by both yourself and Rhilston as I find them a bit embarrassing (sorry!).

Anyway, as I've said a few times (sorry to repeat myself), removing a chairman because 'we've not been successful on the pitch' is just silly when they have done their bit in making sure there is enough support to be successful.

However, this whole business of the chairman not providing the required reports to the Trust is more of a reason for removal.  

But perhaps there's a problem with the system that's in place.  I'm sure many of us have had it where bureaucracy gets in the way... sometimes to the point where it actually becomes very difficult to do your best work.

I have been in this situation before and the problem for me was...

1) I didn't have any time to report back.  Having to do it meant not doing something else.

2) The people receiving the report were then able to give their opinion on what I was doing.  Whilst it can be really helpful to get feedback, sometimes when people don't know every little detail their ideas can be a bit out of touch and it can be a bit draining having to take the time to keep explaining why their ideas wouldn't work.  This also ends up not being good for relations between the parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chairman doesn't report back because one or both of those reasons.  And if that is the case, well the next chairperson is probably going to just run into the same problem.

So what to do?  Trusts running football clubs are kind of new, but there are a few examples out there.  It would be interesting to know how this reporting back works for other clubs.

No need to be sorry BazMac, it is embarrassing. This club has been a public Punch of Judy show for years. Yes I'm part of that, but what do you do when the chairman is being  hunted with slurs and innuendo and bugger all facts to back them up? Just let it all go?

It is not true that the chairman is refusing to give financial information. The accounts are audited and the Trust board gets to review those accounts. Any questions the chairman is not answering are questions on accounts for years that have already been audited and seen by the Trust board.

They seem determined to find something over or outwith the audits and the chairman can't answer questions on some non existent fantasy of financial impropriety. Yet it gets repeated over and over again, until people think there's something to hide.

Wouldn't it be nice if just once the Trust board deigned to tell the membership what the hell it is they they think is wrong?  Even better, provide some bloody proof something is wrong with the accounts. But no, they just leave the innuendo hanging to stink the club up like a giant fart.  The Trust board's whole approach is based on the assumption there's something to hide with no evidence for the assumption.  All under the buzzwords of transparency and accountability,  There is nobody less transparent or accountable than that bunch. They are also about as impartial as a pack of hyenas hunting for dinner.

Believe what you want mate, but this whole campaign of online slur, character assassination  and innuendo against the chairman has gone on for over 5 years. A campaign conducted by a hardcore of  bitter malcontents I grudge sharing the same stadium with.  Does that mean I'm bitter too? When I see a good man put through this relentless baseless shit, you're damned right it does! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

I don't know why 74 different people, many of whom I do not personally know voted.  Only an idiot would expect me to know. I am perfectly prepared to explain why I voted to remove the Trust board to the membership at the EGM. At length if required. You, I don't give a toss about and you can wait. 

So you speak for every other member of the trust do you. Well God help us all if the entire trust is as unhinged and obsessed as you.  You are of course alluding to Stuart as masterminding everything and anything that happens. He's not, other supporters are just as capable as you of launching a resolution independently. If a pigeon shat on your head, you'd blame Stuart Brown for sending it, you're that obsessed with the man. Get therapy, do you good.

It’s a pity that whoever organised the resolutions hadn’t the courage to spell out to the rest of the Trust Members their reasons for for wanting the entire Trust Board removed unlike myself who gave an explanation as to why I wanted Stuart Brown removed. Oh by the way it’s not an EGM but a Special Meeting of the Trust. 

Do I speak for every other Trust Member of course NOT, wherever did I say that, come now your making this up to try and justify your gangs stance aren’t you. 
 

Regarding the pigeon shit thing, No I would blame the pigeon silly man, who need therapy more than me, I can assure you of that. 
 

 

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...