A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members

[rhliston]

Just now, WC Boggs said:

Give your pish a rest. I'm talking about those to follow after those 3 get installed.

That’s up to the members. 

[TheWestStand]

Oh it's been a while, here we go again 

[WC Boggs]

34 minutes ago, rhliston said:

That’s up to the members. 

Is that so. Then precisely when will the members get to vote on the mystery people the interim board are going to APPOINT to join or replace them?

[WC Boggs]

15 minutes ago, TheWestStand said:

Oh it's been a while, here we go again 

Isn't "democracy" a hoot!

[gmca]

17 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

Again the membership bypassed. Well no surprise there.

I'm probably being naive here, but isn't the Supporters Trust the main shareholder? On that basis, why aren't the members of the Trust allowed to attend and vote?

 

[rhliston]

28 minutes ago, gmca said:

I'm probably being naive here, but isn't the Supporters Trust the main shareholder? On that basis, why aren't the members of the Trust allowed to attend and vote?

 

The Supporters Trust as a body are the Shareholders not the members. The shares are owned by the Trust and as such only the Trust Board are allowed to vote on behalf of the Trust on this matter. 

[WC Boggs]

3 hours ago, gmca said:

I'm probably being naive here, but isn't the Supporters Trust the main shareholder? On that basis, why aren't the members of the Trust allowed to attend and vote?

 

Never really knew myself mate. All I know now  is that the "share" we supposedly hold, we don't technically own. It's held in trust. As such we don't get emailed about shareholder meetings, or qualify to attend. We can therefore be bypassed.

What the Trust board does not seem to get, is that just because they can, doesn't mean they should. 

[RateofKnots]

Talking as an outsider, and someone who only read the thread as a whole yesterday, there seems to be a great deal of cloak and dagger here, on both sides, considering this should be a fairly open and easily scrutinised scenario.

What seems clear is both sides want what is best for SAFC on and off the park, but it's strikes me that as it stands, neither actually knows what that actually is, or at least they are unable (or unwilling) to convey that to the supporters in a satisfactory manner.

[Binos]

1 hour ago, RateofKnots said:

Talking as an outsider, and someone who only read the thread as a whole yesterday, there seems to be a great deal of cloak and dagger here, on both sides, considering this should be a fairly open and easily scrutinised scenario.

What seems clear is both sides want what is best for SAFC on and off the park, but it's strikes me that as it stands, neither actually knows what that actually is, or at least they are unable (or unwilling) to convey that to the supporters in a satisfactory manner.

The club chairman fell out with a previous trust board who were hounded out

The chairman at that time said to the previous trust board he would go too

Once they were hounded he evidently changed his mind 

This is now circa 4 years later with him now having fallen out with the current trust board who are also trying to get him out 

With a backdrop being Albion are sliding inexorably toward the league trap door 

[RateofKnots]

26 minutes ago, Binos said:

The club chairman fell out with a previous trust board who were hounded out

The chairman at that time said to the previous trust board he would go too

Once they were hounded he evidently changed his mind 

This is now circa 4 years later with him now having fallen out with the current trust board who are also trying to get him out 

With a backdrop being Albion are sliding inexorably toward the league trap door 

It needs sorted, and for that to happen, I'd say both sides will have to cede ground.

It seems that both sides are extremely combustible, where cooler heads should prevail.

[Binos]

3 minutes ago, RateofKnots said:

It needs sorted, and for that to happen, I'd say both sides will have to cede ground.

It seems that both sides are extremely combustible, where cooler heads should prevail.

Cooler heads means 8 more years of Stuart,  who falls out with everyone, he likes being a big fish in a small pond too much and ain't going nowhere 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Binos

[gmca]

6 hours ago, rhliston said:

The Supporters Trust as a body are the Shareholders not the members. The shares are owned by the Trust and as such only the Trust Board are allowed to vote on behalf of the Trust on this matter. 

Cheers, appreciate the reply. It does make sense that the Trust Board, as voted for by the members (I assume) are empowered to make decisions on behalf of the members.

If I'm reading this correctly, the members of the Trust will eventually be given the right to vote on who becomes Club Board appointees. Given that the make up of the Club Board will determine the future direction of Stirling Albion, that's good to know that all interested parties have a say.

What I can't get my head round is why there needs to be anything done before the members and shareholders have that vote. Perhaps someone would be good enough to explain that.

I would have liked to have seen an open forum where the issues that have been causing problems could be aired, and anyone interested in being on the Club Board could put forward their reasons for doing so. That may have helped push the reset button, though, reading between the lines, things have probably gone beyond that point.

I'm really not sure removing the 3 directors is going to solve the problems, but time will tell

.

[RateofKnots]

36 minutes ago, Binos said:

Cooler heads means 8 more years of Stuart,  who falls out with everyone, he likes being a big fish in a small pond too much and ain't going nowhere 

I can see why that would seem to be the case. An unholy mess, and pretty undignified, also.

 

[Gnash]

5 hours ago, RateofKnots said:

Talking as an outsider, and someone who only read the thread as a whole yesterday, there seems to be a great deal of cloak and dagger here, on both sides, considering this should be a fairly open and easily scrutinised scenario.

What seems clear is both sides want what is best for SAFC on and off the park, but it's strikes me that as it stands, neither actually knows what that actually is, or at least they are unable (or unwilling) to convey that to the supporters in a satisfactory manner.

Good summary.  

Are you looking for a new job by any chance?  Looks like there may be a vacancy coming up soon.

[RateofKnots]

6 minutes ago, Gnash said:

Good summary.  

Are you looking for a new job by any chance?  Looks like there may be a vacancy coming up soon.

Not sure I'd be the best candidate, I'm sure there will be someone of a similar mindset that can unite the fan base though. 

[rhliston]

3 hours ago, gmca said:

Cheers, appreciate the reply. It does make sense that the Trust Board, as voted for by the members (I assume) are empowered to make decisions on behalf of the members.

If I'm reading this correctly, the members of the Trust will eventually be given the right to vote on who becomes Club Board appointees. Given that the make up of the Club Board will determine the future direction of Stirling Albion, that's good to know that all interested parties have a say.

What I can't get my head round is why there needs to be anything done before the members and shareholders have that vote. Perhaps someone would be good enough to explain that.

I would have liked to have seen an open forum where the issues that have been causing problems could be aired, and anyone interested in being on the Club Board could put forward their reasons for doing so. That may have helped push the reset button, though, reading between the lines, things have probably gone beyond that point.

I'm really not sure removing the 3 directors is going to solve the problems, but time will tell

.

Correct once the dust settles and the Trust Board are allowed to make changes, in the way the Club Directors are elected to the Club Board then hopefully this will prevent a situation like this developing again. 

Regarding the open forum ideally that would have been the case but too much has happened to allow this too take place. Again once the changes are made to elect Club Board Directors ie they will have to stand down once their term is up and reapply to be elected. 

Removing the present 3 Club Directors is the only way forward. Hopefully once the dust settles, we can get back to talking about what the Club does on the park rather than what goes on off the park. 

[MrBeeno]

9 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

Never really knew myself mate. All I know now  is that the "share" we supposedly hold, we don't technically own. It's held in trust. As such we don't get emailed about shareholder meetings, or qualify to attend. We can therefore be bypassed.

What the Trust board does not seem to get, is that just because they can, doesn't mean they should. 

Its bit like politics.You get to vote for a member of parliament but you dont get to vote in parliament.Thats what they call democracy.

Edited July 7, 2022 by MrBeeno

[WC Boggs]

1 hour ago, MrBeeno said:

Its bit like politics.You get to vote for a member of parliament but you dont get to vote in parliament.Thats what they call democracy.

Much though I've got nothing but contempt for politicians, comparing them to our vote ducking victim playing, man babies of a Trust board is too harsh on the politicians.

[gmca]

10 hours ago, MrBeeno said:

Its bit like politics.You get to vote for a member of parliament but you dont get to vote in parliament.Thats what they call democracy.

And parliament will sanction a referendum when there's an issue of particular importance to be decided.

[MrBeeno]

12 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

Much though I've got nothing but contempt for politicians, comparing them to our vote ducking victim playing, man babies of a Trust board is too harsh on the politicians.

 

3 hours ago, gmca said:

And parliament will sanction a referendum when there's an issue of particular importance to be decided.