A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members

[AlbionMan]

12 hours ago, Mattie1880 said:

Obviously on the face of it, they’re not, but these are the mundane day-to-day tasks that need done. Genuinely, who is going to do it? 

 I think everyone seems to be under some kind of illusion that qualified people are clamouring to join the club board in an unpaid Role. I just can’t see that being the case (happy to be proven wrong)

 

For the past eight years or so whether qualified people clamoured to join the club board or not, appointments are by the invitation of the chairman.

[TheVoiceofReason]

The club board treats the trust board with contempt and acts with zero accountability or transparency 

Any attempt by the trust board to reintroduce such accountability generates the public histrionics that we have witnessed recently.  They really do want to protect their own little fiefdom. 

There are good people on both boards and I'm sure that they all think they are doing the right thing. 

But they are not and I hope that this spat will finally see the change that is required.  

Replacing the current board without changing the working protocols and rules of engagement will make little difference. The new people will, in time, do exactly the same things.  

I don't think it needs wholesale restructuring

 

[Mattie1880]

3 hours ago, drs said:

Funnily enough every other single one of the 41 SPFL clubs manage it,

as do the 16 LL clubs

as do the 18 HL clubs

as do the 74 WOS clubs

as do the 59 EOS clubs

as do the 19 Midland League clubs

What exactly stops the people of Stirling from running the club in an appropriate way? People toadying for the current board seem intent on pushing the narrative that the club will somehow fold if the incumbents are removed. 

You probably are correct and FYI I think SB should be removed, once a replacement has been found.

I don’t think I’m ‘toadying’ the current board by asking how the club will run during the time between him being removed and finding a replacement.

[AlbionMan]

7 hours ago, Mattie1880 said:

You probably are correct and FYI I think SB should be removed, once a replacement has been found.

I don’t think I’m ‘toadying’ the current board by asking how the club will run during the time between him being removed and finding a replacement.

A phone call to Marlyn asking her to explain how she managed for 30 years might solve that.

 

[AlbionMan]

On 01/04/2022 at 09:02, craigkillie said:

 

 

 

I have no idea what is going on at Stirling Albion, but organising the cleaning of the kits and booking a team bus hardly sound like onerous tasks that only the current chairman is capable of doing correctly.

 

 

 These may be the tasks that he is capable of doing correctly

[cowdenbeath]

As an outsider I have to say the current board can't be that bad if the club managed to have £285,000 in the bank last May after coming through a season of games being played through a lockdown. 

Maybe their not perfect, no one is, but be careful for what you wish you may end up with a lot worse!

[Binos]

11 minutes ago, cowdenbeath said:

As an outsider I have to say the current board can't be that bad if the club managed to have £285,000 in the bank last May after coming through a season of games being played through a lockdown. 

Maybe their not perfect, no one is, but be careful for what you wish you may end up with a lot worse!

The fear is we'll end up in non league 

[cowdenbeath]

1 hour ago, Binos said:

The fear is we'll end up in non league 

I’d swap your position and bank account

You’ve had one bad season but survived.

I’m sure you will be better next season.

Everyone in League 2 now has the fear of non league, something all clubs and fans have to get on with.

Your in a better position than most.

[TheVoiceofReason]

12 hours ago, cowdenbeath said:

I’d swap your position and bank account

You’ve had one bad season but survived.

I’m sure you will be better next season.

Everyone in League 2 now has the fear of non league, something all clubs and fans have to get on with.

Your in a better position than most.

I wish it was just one bad season.  

Most clubs should be reasonably sound financially after covid as the government gave them a one off payment as did James Anderson.  On top of that furlough would have picked up the wages.

We dont own the ground but have a pay as you play arrangement with active Stirling.  

We now have the rangers cup money too.

We've lived within our means, have no debt (because we can't) and generally have had a pretty decent player budget for league 2.

But we've also recruited a series of managers who have failed to get us promotion.  Sadly the current board caves into social media pressure so whenever said manager gets a string of bad results he gets the push.  So there's no continuity or plan - just an annual surge of new manager confidence, then some disquiet as we lose a few games, then some hysteria when we lose some more.  At that point the board will ditch the manager or - if he inexplicably manages to go on a wee run of victories - extend his contract.  Which is pretty much delaying the inevitable.

We all hope that Darren young will be given a bit more cash and will use it wisely next season.  

But he's not impressed with his recruitment so far and has been totally unable to get any kind of improvement out of the team he inherited. This does not bode well for his ongoing employment if he hits a rocky patch around October. At least we should have enough money to pay him off.

 

[rhliston]

1 hour ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

I wish it was just one bad season.  

Most clubs should be reasonably sound financially after covid as the government gave them a one off payment as did James Anderson.  On top of that furlough would have picked up the wages.

We dont own the ground but have a pay as you play arrangement with active Stirling.  

We now have the rangers cup money too.

We've lived within our means, have no debt (because we can't) and generally have had a pretty decent player budget for league 2.

But we've also recruited a series of managers who have failed to get us promotion.  Sadly the current board caves into social media pressure so whenever said manager gets a string of bad results he gets the push.  So there's no continuity or plan - just an annual surge of new manager confidence, then some disquiet as we lose a few games, then some hysteria when we lose some more.  At that point the board will ditch the manager or - if he inexplicably manages to go on a wee run of victories - extend his contract.  Which is pretty much delaying the inevitable.

We all hope that Darren young will be given a bit more cash and will use it wisely next season.  

But he's not impressed with his recruitment so far and has been totally unable to get any kind of improvement out of the team he inherited. This does not bode well for his ongoing employment if he hits a rocky patch around October. At least we should have enough money to pay him off.

 

The proof in the pudding re Darren Young will come next season when he has a chance to build his own team. Expect him to be given a decent budget. Re this season think the problem is who exactly is out their to be picked up, most of the better players are under contract to the end of the season and whoever is left are those that teams don`t want. 

[Binos]

17 hours ago, cowdenbeath said:

I’d swap your position and bank account

You’ve had one bad season but survived.

I’m sure you will be better next season.

Everyone in League 2 now has the fear of non league, something all clubs and fans have to get on with.

Your in a better position than most.

It's been a downward spiral for many years 

But no wouldn't swap!!

Good luck with the play off n that  

[Red Watch]

On 02/04/2022 at 11:13, AlbionMan said:

It wasn't an opportunity to sell the club, it was an offer to lend money to the club in return for absolute control and the disenfranchising of all shareholders. The written loan offer itself was extremely detailed in what Stirling Albion commitments were to be, but silent on what the lenders' plans were, no prospectus, no business plan, no indication on how the money was to be spent. Their idea was perhaps to let the shareholders know what plans might be after they had their hands on the club.

An absolute dog's breakfast of a loan offer, the shareholders would have had more chance by buying a pig in a poke.

A good post.  The other point which occurs to me was that the loan was to be subject to a rate of interest equating to 1.5% per annum above the Bank of England base rate.   The loaners certainly wanted blood.

[rhliston]

Just received the latest update from the Trust. It makes interesting reading especially the ad hoc meeting minutes. 

Briefly 

160 new members have joined the Trust since the AGM was announced. 

Only 28 of these new members had previously been members of the Trust that means 132 new members have appeared on the scene. 

Total membership stands at 429 at present. 

It goes on to say 1 member enrolled 50 members 

Another member enrolled 11 new members. 

The update goes on to give details of an interview that took place with Police Scotland regarding the voting irregularities. " Where it was confirmed that if proven , the matter could involve fraudulent activity" 

"A discussion followed on whether the Trust would seek to go down this route but that given the outcome would impact on the reputation of the Club and Trust, it was agreed to find another way to resolve the potential block voting" 

What the Trust are saying their DOES appear to have been fraudulent activity around the voting. NOT a good sign is it. ? 

 

[gmca]

10 hours ago, rhliston said:

Just received the latest update from the Trust. It makes interesting reading especially the ad hoc meeting minutes. 

Briefly 

160 new members have joined the Trust since the AGM was announced. 

Only 28 of these new members had previously been members of the Trust that means 132 new members have appeared on the scene. 

Total membership stands at 429 at present. 

It goes on to say 1 member enrolled 50 members 

Another member enrolled 11 new members. 

The update goes on to give details of an interview that took place with Police Scotland regarding the voting irregularities. " Where it was confirmed that if proven , the matter could involve fraudulent activity" 

"A discussion followed on whether the Trust would seek to go down this route but that given the outcome would impact on the reputation of the Club and Trust, it was agreed to find another way to resolve the potential block voting" 

What the Trust are saying their DOES appear to have been fraudulent activity around the voting. NOT a good sign is it. ? 

 

Is there any way this can be done under the Trust's constitution?

Assuming the "additional" members are intended to vote in the club executive's favour, the Trust, it seems to me, would either have to reach agreement with whoever arranged these additional members to have their membership withdrawn, or cancel their membership themselves. Given what's been said, the former option seems a bit unlikely. I would have thought the latter option could open the Trust to difficulties if those members object, since the Trust hasn't taken the legal action the Police indicated was possible.

Don't envy the Trust.s position.

[rhliston]

10 hours ago, gmca said:

Is there any way this can be done under the Trust's constitution?

Assuming the "additional" members are intended to vote in the club executive's favour, the Trust, it seems to me, would either have to reach agreement with whoever arranged these additional members to have their membership withdrawn, or cancel their membership themselves. Given what's been said, the former option seems a bit unlikely. I would have thought the latter option could open the Trust to difficulties if those members object, since the Trust hasn't taken the legal action the Police indicated was possible.

Don't envy the Trust.s position.

From what I can gather from the Trust Consitution their does not appear to be anything to sig up 50 members or 11 members whatever is the case but in terms of Voting under Rule 45 it states 1 Person 1 vote. Clearly if 1 Person has voted 50 times OR 11 times then I would suspect that these votes were invalid. It does mention block voting in the update and that I suspect would have triggered Alarm Bells ringing in the Trust Board to these actions. 

[WC Boggs]

2 hours ago, rhliston said:

From what I can gather from the Trust Consitution their does not appear to be anything to sig up 50 members or 11 members whatever is the case but in terms of Voting under Rule 45 it states 1 Person 1 vote. Clearly if 1 Person has voted 50 times OR 11 times then I would suspect that these votes were invalid. It does mention block voting in the update and that I suspect would have triggered Alarm Bells ringing in the Trust Board to these actions. 

 

[WC Boggs]

As the events in this fascinating discussion were kicked off by you, I'll start with you. The chairman does NOT pick the manager. That is an outright falsehood from a man who clearly has no conception of the concept of group  board participation and responsibility on that other decisions made.  You place sole responsibility for poor on field performance solely on the chairman and launch a resolution to have him alone removed from the board on that excuse. You present no evidence of wrongdoing, or personal contribution by the chairman as a cause of those poor performances, but single him out. Well, you're not on.

You attempt to gather support for the chairman's removal based on another falsehood, that only the chairman will go from the board as a result. Director Colin Rowley has made it abundantly clear, that those involved in group decisions will not stand by while the chairman is singled out for removal and will resign if your ridiculous resolution succeeds. Were I on the board, I would also resign in those circumstances as a matter of personal integrity, having contributed to the selection of managers in board votes.  Mr Rowley is entirely correct to make the full consequences of your action clear!"

I read comments like surely Colin could take over as chairman in the interim?  Anyone who knows Colin knows that is not going to happen. Even if Stuart stepped down voluntarily that would happen. Colin's business commitments make it impossible to put the necessary hours in that Stuart has to put in.  I also read, surely the board wouldn't be so irresponsible as to mass resign when the season is still ongoing.  The board didn't  time your resolution Mr Liston, you did.  It's not them who's pushed a situation where the board feel integrity bound to stand with the chairman. That was you!  You could have waited until the season had ended, it's not like there's long to go. That at least would have shown some semblance of responsibility and understanding of the possible consequences, but no not you!  Instead we have a situation where the board, myself and many other fans have had enough of such unfairly targeted and irresponsible resolutions as yours.  The entire board could go, who knows, perhaps staff too?  I don't know and you certainly don't. It's just you want Brown gone and consequences be damned.. 

I move on to the Trust board's handling of multiple applications for membership and multiple AGM votes being submitted via two individuals. While I can accept that 50 is an excessive number and that it was not wise given the fever resolutions stir up, no violation of the present constitution has occurred. You quote rule 45, one member one vote.. Regardless of how many have consented to one individual submitting their votes, each member still only have one vote.  My daughter submitted mine on my behalf with my consent. I still only had one vote, so bringing up rule 45 as a possible violation and speculating on it, is no more than look squirrel Mr Liston.

As no violation of the constitution had been committed, the Trust board going to the police  over "voting irregularities" was quite frankly irresponsible kneejerk stupidity.  No one has been charged or even interviewed by the police. Oh yes the Trust has released a police statement that if their allegations could be proven the matter could involve fraudulent activity. Except it has NOT been proven, which is why the Trust is covering their ass by saying they are no longer pursuing the matter through the police, supposedly to avoid damage to the club and trust board's reputations. The allegations had already found their way to the national press though, so the club's reputation has already been damaged as a result of an unnecessary and futile complaint to the police, that has come to nothing  except legal advice costs.  If the Trust was so concerned about the club's reputation, why did it include that little gem about "if the matter could be proven......"  which keeps the social media speculation going over a police action the Trust have dropped?  A police action collapsed likely being a more accurate description than dropped.  The Trust now say they will seek to resolve the matter by other means.  Those other means were available to them from the start. It's a pity they didn't use them, rather than running to the police with a complaint about a non crime. The outcome of which was the club's name getting dragged through the mud over unproven allegations of voter fraud.

I come to the other parts of your resolution.  John Daly should not have made that generalized comment on fans, despite the abuse he was receiving from a despicable minority.  He should have made a full and proper apology for that gaffe.  He can defend himself on that one, as I feel the last thing the board need at this time was a loose canon going off in communication with the fans..

Amalgamate the two boards?  There is a decade old history of warfare between those boards. One member in particular has a track record for it from his time on the previous board. Coincidentally or not? the present board is going down the familiar route of seeking voting rights on operational matters under the equally familiar excuse of accountability.  The same recipe for civil war as the last one. The Trust board is supposed to work in cooperation with the Exec board within it's own remit. It is not part of it's remit to attempt to insert itself into operational decision making under the excuse of accountability.  Were your resolution on amalgamation to be passed, that is precisely what would happen. Two rival factions on an amalgamated board, battling for control over every operational decision made. People would be out of their minds to think of that as any kind of move providing peace and stability. Of course vital to winning that battle  for control would be the removal of the chairman.. What a coincidence Mr Liston.   Your resolution is nothing but an enabler for a factional civil war within operational decision making and yet another example of a resolution without thought to the consequences. Unless you welcome such consequences?   

I strongly oppose the resolution to remove Stuart Brown and amalgamate the boards. I urge other Trust members to consider the consequences that  Mr Liston does not and oppose both.  He does make one salient point in his resolution though. "The club doesn't need two boards."  I entirely agree. Especially when the Trust board has served as a vehicle to be exploited by  power grabbers and malcontents far too often.   My apologies for the length of this, but I haven't been on here for a long time and there was a lot of catching up to do on comments here. 

 

 

 

[gmca]

4 hours ago, rhliston said:

From what I can gather from the Trust Consitution their does not appear to be anything to sig up 50 members or 11 members whatever is the case but in terms of Voting under Rule 45 it states 1 Person 1 vote. Clearly if 1 Person has voted 50 times OR 11 times then I would suspect that these votes were invalid. It does mention block voting in the update and that I suspect would have triggered Alarm Bells ringing in the Trust Board to these actions. 

Thanks for that.

Would hope anyone trying to vote more than once would be identified and, as you say, have their votes treated as invalid.

[WC Boggs]

3 minutes ago, gmca said:

Thanks for that.

Would hope anyone trying to vote more than once would be identified and, as you say, have their votes treated as invalid.

No one has been identified as doing that. No one has been identified as casting a new member's vote without their consent either. The Trust board accepted the people they are complaining about as members. The Trust board took their money, therefore those people are entitled to vote, whether via someone else or not. If the Trust board don't like that, they can always put a constitutional change to prevent it and explanation for it to the membership. That is when we finally get the AGM They postponed over a police complaint that went nowhere.

[gmca]

15 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

No one has been identified as doing that. No one has been identified as casting a new member's vote without their consent either. The Trust board accepted the people they are complaining about as members. The Trust board took their money, therefore those people are entitled to vote, whether via someone else or not. If the Trust board don't like that, they can always put a constitutional change to prevent it and explanation for it to the membership. That is when we finally get the AGM They postponed over a police complaint that went nowhere.

Pretty much agree with you. My point was purely if an individual tried to vote more than once for themselves.