Stirling Albion Thread

[Binos]

2nd bottom of the pile would be a result 

That is how far stock has fallen 

[bravehearts dad]

15 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Bonnyrigg seem to be relying on last year's squad 

There's a big step up between LL and Scottish League and they may find that out by the end of September 

I look forward to reading a post from your good self giving The Rose some praise or credit.

C’mon The Rose

[AlbionMan]

20 hours ago, gmca said:

Seems to me that the Trust membership should be involved in the discussion of who ultimately runs the club on a day to day basis. It's too important for either the Club board or the Trust board to impose their will as far as they are able to do so.

I believe that is what the Trust Board are trying to do, for the last 18 months they have tried to put together governance protocols and revise the company's Articles of Association through a joint working group with the club board who have to date declined to engage with them. Any agreements would be put to shareholders and members for approval.

One of the Trust Board's requirements is democratic elections to the club board to end the present situation where the club board is a self-perpetuating clique which ignores the shareholders and trust members. Since the Trust's takeover there have been no elections to the club board, nor has there been an annual general meeting at which the board has been required to explain and account for the past year's actions. Although this is not a requirement of a private limited company, it does reflect the board's attitude to shareholders.

Under a democratic process members of the present club board would not be prohibited from standing for election to a newly convened club board working under those protocols, which will ensure that a new board would be fully accountable to Trust members through the Trust Board.

[tamthebam]

3 hours ago, bravehearts dad said:

I look forward to reading a post from your good self giving The Rose some praise or credit.

C’mon The Rose

Tbh I'm only thinking of the experience with Edinburgh City. We skooshed the LL two years in a row but couldn't buy a win in League 2 until we got some experienced Scottish League players in. Some players who did really well in the LL struggled in the Scottish League while others (the ones that were superfit mainly) adapted to the League. 

If the Rose do well this season then that's fine with me, I just feel they could do with one or two more League experienced players that's all.   

 

[gmca]

4 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

I believe that is what the Trust Board are trying to do, for the last 18 months they have tried to put together governance protocols and revise the company's Articles of Association through a joint working group with the club board who have to date declined to engage with them. Any agreements would be put to shareholders and members for approval.

One of the Trust Board's requirements is democratic elections to the club board to end the present situation where the club board is a self-perpetuating clique which ignores the shareholders and trust members. Since the Trust's takeover there have been no elections to the club board, nor has there been an annual general meeting at which the board has been required to explain and account for the past year's actions. Although this is not a requirement of a private limited company, it does reflect the board's attitude to shareholders.

Under a democratic process members of the present club board would not be prohibited from standing for election to a newly convened club board working under those protocols, which will ensure that a new board would be fully accountable to Trust members through the Trust Board.

Thanks for that, what you're saying seems like sensible measures, though the devil would be in the detail as far as the governance protocols and revised Articles are concerned. I was surprised when I had heard the Club board directors didn't need to stand for re-election. If that had been in place, some of the issues we're currently having may not have arisen or been as bad.

Excuse my ignorance, but I hope and assume that Trust board members also need to put themselves up for re-election.

I for one would like to see more accountability and transparency across the board (no pun intended). 

[bravehearts dad]

2 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Tbh I'm only thinking of the experience with Edinburgh City. We skooshed the LL two years in a row but couldn't buy a win in League 2 until we got some experienced Scottish League players in. Some players who did really well in the LL struggled in the Scottish League while others (the ones that were superfit mainly) adapted to the League. 

If the Rose do well this season then that's fine with me, I just feel they could do with one or two more League experienced players that's all.   

 

Well in the meantime wait till after the first few game of the season and results before expressing your opinions. Different clubs deal with different situations in different ways.

C’mon The Rose

[tamthebam]

[WC Boggs]

On 03/07/2022 at 13:53, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Who’s broken any rules? Having a benefactor isn’t against the rules.

I said bend, not break. It's a loophole in the rules that bends the intent of the rules, to confine clubs to spending a sustainable portion of their revenue. It results in some clubs being able to put money into player recruitment above the restrictions on revenue spending. So yes, having a benefactor isn't breaking the fair play rule. It just makes them a joke.

[WC Boggs]

6 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

nor has there been an annual general meeting at which the board has been required to explain and account for the past year's actions.

It is not the club board's responsibility to hold an annual general meeting. It is the responsibility of the Trust board to hold an AGM and they are not doing it.

[WC Boggs]

1 hour ago, bravehearts dad said:

Well in the meantime wait till after the first few game of the season and results before expressing your opinions. Different clubs deal with different situations in different ways.

C’mon The Rose

Rose earned their promotion and I agree that dismissing them before a ball is kicked  is neither fair or smart. 

[AlbionMan]

3 hours ago, gmca said:

Thanks for that, what you're saying seems like sensible measures, though the devil would be in the detail as far as the governance protocols and revised Articles are concerned. I was surprised when I had heard the Club board directors didn't need to stand for re-election. If that had been in place, some of the issues we're currently having may not have arisen or been as bad.

Excuse my ignorance, but I hope and assume that Trust board members also need to put themselves up for re-election.

I for one would like to see more accountability and transparency across the board (no pun intended). 

It goes without saying that the present situation perhaps should have been anticipated at the time of the take over and controls put in place then, but that ship has sailed.

Directors of the Trust are elected for three years after which they may offer themselves for re-election.

 

[gmca]

2 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

It goes without saying that the present situation perhaps should have been anticipated at the time of the take over and controls put in place then, but that ship has sailed.

Directors of the Trust are elected for three years after which they may offer themselves for re-election.

 

Thanks

[WC Boggs]

23 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

 

Under a democratic process members of the present club board would not be prohibited from standing for election to a newly convened club board working under those protocols, which will ensure that a new board would be fully accountable to Trust members through the Trust Board.

Yet that is not the plan put forward to us by the Trust board.  The plan is to remove the club board, then hold a vote to elect an interim board, who will then APPOINT who they please to it with no elections mentioned in the process.  Present club board members afforded no opportunity to stand in either event under information released up to this point.  

Why an interim board at all?  Since the primary goal of all this is to remove the present club board, why is the planned final composition of the board to be appointed, wrapped up in concealment?   Your interpretation of "democracy"  provides no membership vote on the removal of the club board, or any opportunity for them to defend themselves.  As such this is not a democratic process, but a coup of the unknown over the known and entirely dissembling.

[rhliston]

17 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

It is not the club board's responsibility to hold an annual general meeting. It is the responsibility of the Trust board to hold an AGM and they are not doing it.

Well the Trust would have had an AGM had it not been for the actions of the gang of 74 involving dodgy voting by a certain member of the Club Board voting 50 times. Not to mention the attempt by the Club Board backed by its gang of 74 to remove the Trust Board without giving any reason. Which was against the Trust rules. 

[rhliston]

15 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

It goes without saying that the present situation perhaps should have been anticipated at the time of the take over and controls put in place then, but that ship has sailed.

Directors of the Trust are elected for three years after which they may offer themselves for re-election.

 

Agree I don`t suppose they would have envisaged a situation like we have at present having a Club Board who appear unaccountable to anyone but themselves. 

[rhliston]

13 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Yet that is not the plan put forward to us by the Trust board.  The plan is to remove the club board, then hold a vote to elect an interim board, who will then APPOINT who they please to it with no elections mentioned in the process.  Present club board members afforded no opportunity to stand in either event under information released up to this point.  

Why an interim board at all?  Since the primary goal of all this is to remove the present club board, why is the planned final composition of the board to be appointed, wrapped up in concealment?   Your interpretation of "democracy"  provides no membership vote on the removal of the club board, or any opportunity for them to defend themselves.  As such this is not a democratic process, but a coup of the unknown over the known and entirely dissembling.

Really it just shows how desperate the Club Board are to cling onto power. They have ignored the Trust Board and refused to talk to them, is it any wonder the Trust Board are finally taking action to remove this self-perpetuating clique. 

Once again they are trying to disrupt the Trust with more actions to try and cling onto power. Democracy its a bit rich coming from them. 

[WC Boggs]

4 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Really it just shows how desperate the Club Board are to cling onto power. They have ignored the Trust Board and refused to talk to them, is it any wonder the Trust Board are finally taking action to remove this self-perpetuating clique. 

Once again they are trying to disrupt the Trust with more actions to try and cling onto power. Democracy its a bit rich coming from them. 

How telling. You regard a resolution from members for a democratic vote as disruption.   

[WC Boggs]

24 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Well the Trust would have had an AGM had it not been for the actions of the gang of 74 involving dodgy voting by a certain member of the Club Board voting 50 times. Not to mention the attempt by the Club Board backed by its gang of 74 to remove the Trust Board without giving any reason. Which was against the Trust rules. 

He did not vote 50 times. In fact every member of the youth academy whose membership and votes were conveyed by the single email address, have since renewed their membership and right to vote individually.  Try to keep up.

[WattersIsGod]

What an absolute sh!tshow.

I'd rather be commenting on the so far slightly underwhelming recruitment and getting overly worked up about bad pre season results.

I don't know where the blame lies and I really don't have the desire to get involved.

The relationship between the two boards seems to veer between hostile or non existent which doesn't bode well for any positive resolution.

Instead of hiding behind obvious holes in the articles of association, this needs both sides to show a wee bit of common sense, get round a table and resolve the differences.

Unfortunately, it's hard to see how we get to that point.

 

 

[BinoBalls]

2 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

He did not vote 50 times. In fact every member of the youth academy whose membership and votes were conveyed by the single email address, have since renewed their membership and right to vote individually.  Try to keep up.

At the Trust Board meeting they stated some people who had “voted” (in other words a director voted for them by proxy) had emailed to ask to be removed from trust mailing lists. So the truth lies somewhere in between. 

I don’t doubt the majority have signed back up again but I still think this was at best a very misguided and naive move. It looks so amateurish. Fair enough persuade others to join who care about it but if someone isn’t prepared take 5 minutes to join themselves and submit a vote themselves then I don’t think they should get a vote at all. And as speak as someone who also voted NO to the resolutions. 

Just desperately wish the people involved on each board would jettison the stubborn souls on their own “side” and get together and come up with a solution. We’re going to tank another season while the constant petty bickering goes on.