A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members

[WC Boggs]

12 minutes ago, BinoBalls said:

Fair point that many came from the junior academy… however if you look at the list there’s clusters of several people with the same surname, I’m not convinced they’re all coaches. Think there could be a good few spouses signed up. It doesn’t sit right with me that, say, the wife of a U13 coach gets to join and have a say. 

How about ex spouses?  My ex wife and Donna's mother was one of those who signed up. She doesn't drive and lives in Kirkintilloch, but she does get to some games when staying over on a visit. She wasn't asked or told how to vote by the board, but she's one of the names the Trust board apparently isn't happy about. Maybe it's the "funny" post code?  Nice welcome isn't it?  How dare she vote for Stuart Brown!

[rhliston]

10 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

They had a duty to investigate. Not to announce to the entire membership that they have made it a police matter,  before the police had conducted an investigation and reported back.  When someone has been charged that is when you go public. No one was charged, because nothing criminal had occurred. So they endangered our sponsorship over a non case.

One man did not vote 50 times. That is a  scurrilous and slanderous lie. Multiple votes by 50 registered members were submitted via one email address. I do know who that was. You don't.

One man did not vote 50 times  It was stated at the Trust Board meeting on Tuesday night that a Trust Board member phoned the person concerned Grant Morrice and asked him why he was voting so many times and he stated to the Trust Member that all 71 Coaches were in the room with him during this time.

This was stated to those who attended the Trust Meeting, I am sure that this can be verified by those present. 

Also I find it strange that Stuart Brown made light of the fact that he had received an e mail from a representative of M&G Prudential`s parent company asking what was going on at the Club. Stuart Brown also asked that any information mentioned at this meeting be kept confidential. This I have done until YOU WC BOGGS posted about the INFORMATION about the Club`s sponsors on this website. 

Clearly someone is pulling your strings in the background and making the bullets for you to fire, I wonder who that is.  Maybe you will be brave enough to tell fellow Albion supporters who that is. 

[WC Boggs]

10 minutes ago, rhliston said:

One man did not vote 50 times  It was stated at the Trust Board meeting on Tuesday night that a Trust Board member phoned the person concerned Grant Morrice and asked him why he was voting so many times and he stated to the Trust Member that all 71 Coaches were in the room with him during this time.

This was stated to those who attended the Trust Meeting, I am sure that this can be verified by those present. 

Also I find it strange that Stuart Brown made light of the fact that he had received an e mail from a representative of M&G Prudential`s parent company asking what was going on at the Club. Stuart Brown also asked that any information mentioned at this meeting be kept confidential. This I have done until YOU WC BOGGS posted about the INFORMATION about the Club`s sponsors on this website. 

Clearly someone is pulling your strings in the background and making the bullets for you to fire, I wonder who that is.  Maybe you will be brave enough to tell fellow Albion supporters who that is. 

If it had been one man voting 50 times, the man who made that phone call wouldn't have gone on about all the "funny" post codes on the names and addresses of the submission you stupid man. That caller accusing him of voting so many times, is NOT proof that he did.  If they could prove that, they would have and we'd have  heard the evidence. So you're still at it as usual.

I wasn't at the shareholder's meeting, so I couldn't possibly hear any appeal for confidentiality  at it.  I do know how Prudential reacted to the awful press reports 5 years ago. They get alarmed at scandal material in the press. I didn't need  to know of any email and didn't know till you brought it up, that more press speculation on scandal.  would have Prudential alarmed again. Good of you to confirm I was right about what the Trust board's actions led to though.

As for Stuart Brown making light of it, only a clown like you would think it's even possible he would react that way.  You are one sick bunny.

I don't need anybody pulling strings to take issue with your deliberate twisting  and misrepresentation of facts.  It's you pulling  my strings.  Who's pulling yours though? You were hinting away last night that Stuart was the 50 names man. Every time you say I wonder who?  Or you know who, the whole support knows that's who you mean.  If you knew who it actually was, why were you hinting it was your usual obsession suspect?  I'm clear about who I stand with. You aren't. Try some bravery yourself.

[rhliston]

44 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

If it had been one man voting 50 times, the man who made that phone call wouldn't have gone on about all the "funny" post codes on the names and addresses of the submission you stupid man. That caller accusing him of voting so many times, is NOT proof that he did.  If they could prove that, they would have and we'd have  heard the evidence. So you're still at it as usual.

I wasn't at the shareholder's meeting, so I couldn't possibly hear any appeal for confidentiality  at it.  I do know how Prudential reacted to the awful press reports 5 years ago. They get alarmed at scandal material in the press. I didn't need  to know of any email and didn't know till you brought it up, that more press speculation on scandal.  would have Prudential alarmed again. Good of you to confirm I was right about what the Trust board's actions led to though.

As for Stuart Brown making light of it, only a clown like you would think it's even possible he would react that way.  You are one sick bunny.

I don't need anybody pulling strings to take issue with your deliberate twisting  and misrepresentation of facts.  It's you pulling  my strings.  Who's pulling yours though? You were hinting away last night that Stuart was the 50 names man. Every time you say I wonder who?  Or you know who, the whole support knows that's who you mean.  If you knew who it actually was, why were you hinting it was your usual obsession suspect?  I'm clear about who I stand with. You aren't. Try some bravery yourself.

Dearie Dearie me  you really need to go back and read what I have written. You are talking pure pish. Fact is you were the person who brought up about the e mail from M&G not me. Stuart Brown making light of, did I say that NO, again you are making this up. 

I`m pulling your strings  . "Hinting away last night that Stuart was the 50 names man" Absolute nonsense  I have never read such a load of absolute drivel in the many years I have been posting on Pie & Bovril. 

As I have said in a previous post, WHO IS PULLING YOUR STRINGS WC BOGGS, I sincerely hope their is someone behind you feeding you this guff if not I suggest you seek medical help ASAP. 

[BinosGal]

13 hours ago, Binos said:

Should the chairman not have thought of that before he tried to rig the voting?

Given that no evidence or information about the supposed investigation has been issued that's quite an allegation is it not? 

[AlbionMan]

46 minutes ago, BinosGal said:

Given that no evidence or information about the supposed investigation has been issued that's quite an allegation is it not? 

It is not an unreasonable supposition given that although SB was careful not to be seen orchestrating the attack on the club's shareholders the three prime movers involved in the recruitment all enjoy close relationships with him.

Nor is it stretching credibility to suggest that the new members were enjoined to sign up in the week immediately following the shareholders requiring the club board to explain 2021 year end financial information and then initiate a resolution to remove the shareholders representatives having the temerity to call the club board to account.

Ask yourself cui bono?

[rhliston]

21 minutes ago, AlbionMan said:

It is not an unreasonable supposition given that although SB was careful not to be seen orchestrating the attack on the club's shareholders the three prime movers involved in the recruitment all enjoy close relationships with him.

Nor is it stretching credibility to suggest that the new members were enjoined to sign up in the week immediately following the shareholders requiring the club board to explain 2021 year end financial information and then initiate a resolution to remove the shareholders representatives having the temerity to call the club board to account.

Ask yourself cui bono?

Indeed it was stated by Stuart Brown that the attempt to remove the entire Trust Board was Tit for Tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM at the Shareholders meeting on Monday night. If that does not suggest Stuart Brown knew what was going on and indeed signed 3 of the resolutions backing them then I don`t know what else anyone could think. 

[Red Watch]

54 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Indeed it was stated by Stuart Brown that the attempt to remove the entire Trust Board was Tit for Tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM at the Shareholders meeting on Monday night.  

How bloody childish!  Little wonder that Stirling businesses are loathe to support SAFC with cash injections when the current regime acts in this way.

[BB_Bino]

How bloody childish!  Little wonder that Stirling businesses are loathe to support SAFC with cash injections when the current regime acts in this way.

What Stirling businesses?? As someone who is in the dark, what businesses are loathed to support the club?? Plenty of businesses are investing in our hospitality.

If all this goes ahead then I hope the businesses you refer to are ready to step up, i’d imagine there will be a big hole to fill when Dron & Dickson pull out and who knows what other sponsors are only investing because of Colin.

[Red Watch]

33 minutes ago, BB_Bino said:

 

What Stirling businesses?? As someone who is in the dark, what businesses are loathed to support the club?? Plenty of businesses are investing in our hospitality.

If all this goes ahead then I hope the businesses you refer to are ready to step up, i’d imagine there will be a big hole to fill when Dron & Dickson pull out and who knows what other sponsors are only investing because of Colin.

 

Pre-2018 there were businesses prepared to put money in provided there was regime change.  Largely they are still in situ and I know from personal experience that they still view SAFC in similar light.

I am unclear as to what you mean by "if all this goes ahead".  Please explain.

[BB_Bino]

I am unclear as to what you mean by "if all this goes ahead".  Please explain.

The Trusts removal of Stuart Brown. If it does go ahead, then Colin Rowley has already made it public he will walk with him. I’m not privy to figures, but would imagine that’s would be a big hole to fill financially (and in time dedicated to the club as well).

Thanks for replying [emoji1303]

[WC Boggs]

9 hours ago, rhliston said:

Dearie Dearie me  you really need to go back and read what I have written. You are talking pure pish. Fact is you were the person who brought up about the e mail from M&G not me. Stuart Brown making light of, did I say that NO, again you are making this up. 

I`m pulling your strings  . "Hinting away last night that Stuart was the 50 names man" Absolute nonsense  I have never read such a load of absolute drivel in the many years I have been posting on Pie & Bovril. 

As I have said in a previous post, WHO IS PULLING YOUR STRINGS WC BOGGS, I sincerely hope their is someone behind you feeding you this guff if not I suggest you seek medical help ASAP. 

Show me a quote where I ever even mentioned M&G, or an email from them? It's just one lie after another with you. You even lie about what you've written in your own posts. You are so obsessed with Stuart you can barely write a post without bringing him up.  

Well at least the impartiality mask is well off with the Trust board.  It's now them going after the entire board.  On the same excuse used to go after the chairman 5  years ago. "We  can't work with the club board."   "A hole to fill in financially."  Considering the Trust board now want the commercial team removed as well  you bet there will be.  A bunch of "dedicated" incompetents to take over.   

Not even a mention of the AGM.  Kicked into the long grass rather than face the membership and your resolutions with it.   Over 70 people ignored by our "democracy"  but all this kicked off by just two malcontents and "several shareholders."  This fans owned model is a madhouse and the lunatics are taking over the asylum.

Edited May 19, 2022 by WC Boggs
Typo

[Binos]

8 hours ago, BinosGal said:

Given that no evidence or information about the supposed investigation has been issued that's quite an allegation is it not? 

Eh, ok?

[WC Boggs]

8 hours ago, AlbionMan said:

It is not an unreasonable supposition given that although SB was careful not to be seen orchestrating the attack on the club's shareholders the three prime movers involved in the recruitment all enjoy close relationships with him.

Nor is it stretching credibility to suggest that the new members were enjoined to sign up in the week immediately following the shareholders requiring the club board to explain 2021 year end financial information and then initiate a resolution to remove the shareholders representatives having the temerity to call the club board to account.

Ask yourself cui bono?

It is stretching credibility to say all of that.

It's hardly a shock that people who are supportive of Stuart Brown reacted to another attempt  to remove him.  He doesn't need to personally orchestrate those people for them to act. As usual you are the fountain of innuendo without a fact to support it

 You say that the proposal to remove the Trust board was born out of several shareholders asking for an EGM, to examine the audited accounts for the year  ending 2021.  You present zero evidence for that and I know of no one who has ever given that as a motivation.  All that was known was that the Trust board's original  reason for calling a shareholders EGM, was to discuss the  online voting and new membership issues.  That was binned when the   attempt at a prosecution turned into a pure Trust board fiasco.  That was when the so called prime movers got going, before the Trust board announced a new EGM based on financial questions, which they described as advisory and not involving any vote.    

So we get to the EGM and the Trust board presents a paper calling for the entire board to go. We are then told they have the backing of the shareholders for that from a meeting we were told nobody would be voting at.   If they got the backing of the shareholders, there must have been a vote.  So was there a vote and what was the result?   

Edited May 19, 2022 by WC Boggs
typo

[TheVoiceofReason]

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

If they got the backing of the shareholders, there must have been a vote.

Maybe he means the other shareholders ie not the Trust but the ones who hold the other 20% (or however much it is).

[WC Boggs]

2 hours ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

Maybe he means the other shareholders ie not the Trust but the ones who hold the other 20% (or however much it is).

God knows what he means. 20% is not a majority holding.  Unless a majority holding communicated consent by mental telepathy, there had to be a vote for claims of consent to be valid.   Either there was a vote or there was not. It's a simple yes or no. 

What I have heard is that a group of shareholders requested a joint board meeting to resolve the dispute. Something Mr Allardyce failed to mention. Too busy putting out his usual innuendo about a lack of accountability, without ever a scrap of information of what they have found to hold anybody accountable for!   Did somebody pinch his sausage roll at hospitality?  WHAT THEN?

The Trust board kept the membership in the dark about the purpose they intended to use this EGM for.   That's unacceptable and just one more reason why they need to be held accountable.  They don't represent the people who voted them in, they represent themselves and their own agenda.  That becomes ever more clear with every action they take, every statement they put out and every secret they keep. 

[rhliston]

7 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

God knows what he means. 20% is not a majority holding.  Unless a majority holding communicated consent by mental telepathy, there had to be a vote for claims of consent to be valid.   Either there was a vote or there was not. It's a simple yes or no. 

What I have heard is that a group of shareholders requested a joint board meeting to resolve the dispute. Something Mr Allardyce failed to mention. Too busy putting out his usual innuendo about a lack of accountability, without ever a scrap of information of what they have found to hold anybody accountable for!   Did somebody pinch his sausage roll at hospitality?  WHAT THEN?

The Trust board kept the membership in the dark about the purpose they intended to use this EGM for.   That's unacceptable and just one more reason why they need to be held accountable.  They don't represent the people who voted them in, they represent themselves and their own agenda.  That becomes ever more clear with every action they take, every statement they put out and every secret they keep. 

The Trust Board is ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MEMBERS, unlike Stuart Brown and Co, they put themselves up for election. If the members are not happy with them they can be voted off. Again unlike Stuart Brown and Co who seem to think that they are untouchable and have used every trick in the book to stay in power, from the Personal Statement from Colin Rowley published on the Club Website, to a failed attempt too remove the Trust Board without any reasons given. The attempt to rig the voting for the AGM by one of the Clubs Directors, Not to mention the continued decline of this Club on the playing field under the stewardmanship of Stuart Brown. 

We had the situation in which Stuart Brown and John Daly refused to meet with the Trust Board unless one of its elected members was not present, how can this be allowed to happen. The Trust are the owners of the Club and the fact the both men refused to meet with the owners clearly is a very worrying sign. For far too long this situation has been allowed to develop and I for one am glad that the Trust Board have decided to take action to make sure that owners of the club The Supporters Trust regain control of what they OWN. 

[strichener]

7 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

God knows what he means. 20% is not a majority holding.  Unless a majority holding communicated consent by mental telepathy, there had to be a vote for claims of consent to be valid.   Either there was a vote or there was not. It's a simple yes or no. 

What I have heard is that a group of shareholders requested a joint board meeting to resolve the dispute. Something Mr Allardyce failed to mention. Too busy putting out his usual innuendo about a lack of accountability, without ever a scrap of information of what they have found to hold anybody accountable for!   Did somebody pinch his sausage roll at hospitality?  WHAT THEN?

The Trust board kept the membership in the dark about the purpose they intended to use this EGM for.   That's unacceptable and just one more reason why they need to be held accountable.  They don't represent the people who voted them in, they represent themselves and their own agenda.  That becomes ever more clear with every action they take, every statement they put out and every secret they keep. 

As much as I have enjoyed the soap opera that is Stirling Albion, how you can continue to claim that you are not canvassing on behalf of the current club board is ludicrous.

When the club board instigate moves to remove the entire trust board as a tit-for-tat when a resolution has been posted to remove the club chairman then it really does question why the club board are acting both childlike and protective of the chairman.  Like any other organisation, if you don't have the confidence of the owners then you really should not be in position.  In SAs case this is exhibited through a vote.  All the gerrymandering from the club board raises a question on fiduciary responsibility.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Substitute Stuart Brown for Alan Partridge...

[TheVoiceofReason]

32 minutes ago, strichener said:

When the club board instigate moves to remove the entire trust board as a tit-for-tat when a resolution has been posted to remove the club chairman then it really does question why the club board are acting both childlike and protective of the chairman

It's such a bizarre thing to have done and given the trust's majority shareholding somewhat misguided.  

The whole spectacle has been unedifying but I guess if it ultimately brings things to a head it might be worth it in the end.  There are decent folk on both boards and it's kind of sad that two groups of people who will tell you passionately that they 'have the best interests of the club at heart' have come to this.  Judean Popular People's Front etc. 

One thing is sure though.  Exactly the same thing will happen again if controls are not put in place to prevent any potential new board - if it comes to that - from going native after a year in the job.