A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members

[WC Boggs]

6 hours ago, rhliston said:

My "True agenda" as I have made clear to fellow Trust Members is to inform members of the facts as I see it. 

Would you care to make clear the facts as to the membership secretary's behaviour at the recent shareholder's meeting. I assume you were present at it?   I have been told that after being asked to calm down by Stuart Brown, he challenged the chairman to physically remove him from his chair.  Considering that the chairman is a 5ft 6  68 year old, how do you see the facts on the membership secretary challenging a pensioner to get physical at a shareholder's meeting?  Do you consider this acceptable behaviour from a Trust board member?

[rhliston]

41 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Would you care to make clear the facts as to the membership secretary's behaviour at the recent shareholder's meeting. I assume you were present at it?   I have been told that after being asked to calm down by Stuart Brown, he challenged the chairman to physically remove him from his chair.  Considering that the chairman is a 5ft 6  68 year old, how do you see the facts on the membership secretary challenging a pensioner to get physical at a shareholder's meeting?  Do you consider this acceptable behaviour from a Trust board member?

Well I thought you were taking a break from this forum but a few weeks later your back at it. Enjoyed the holiday when you were gone but its back to normal again. 

[WC Boggs]

28 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Well I thought you were taking a break from this forum but a few weeks later your back at it. Enjoyed the holiday when you were gone but its back to normal again. 

Not at all. This is nothing to do with a war between the boards. This is solely in relation  to your defence of the membership secretary while attacking other candidates.

The deflection ploy won't work.  Did you or did you not witness the membership secretary challenging the chairman to a physical altercation and how do you view the occurrence?

Otherwise fully enjoying not being involved in the inter board bitch fight and feeling better for it.

Edited August 15, 2022 by WC Boggs
typo

[Flybhoy]

Members should be reminded of people who Rhilston has had a falling out with so he can urge them not to support them in constitutional matters of the club and supporters trust. 

Plenty people on here and on the social media channels related to the club have formed the opinion you have a clear agenda with a few individuals and that comes out in posts like the cringeworthy one you made about Kelly Marie Wilson..... where you were merely informing people of the facts, facts being you clearly have a problem with her.

Absolutely pathetic behaviour. 

[rhliston]

56 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Not at all. This is nothing to do with a war between the boards. This is solely in relation  to your defence of the membership secretary while attacking other candidates.

The deflection ploy won't work.  Did you or did you not witness the membership secretary challenging the chairman to a physical altercation and how do you view the occurrence?

Otherwise fully enjoying not being involved in the inter board bitch fight and feeling better for it.

Sorry Cant recall such an incident. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

20 hours ago, rhliston said:

My own post. 

Where has it gone?

[Flybhoy]

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

Did you or did you not witness the membership secretary challenging the chairman to a physical altercation and how do you view the occurrence?

 

This is the first ive heard of this, I know and have spoken to both Stuart Brown and the membership secretary of the ST recently and neither have mentioned this and I haven't heard anything about this anywhere else, I'd like to think this is nothing more than a rumour/exaggeration as, to be honest I have a lot of time for both Stuart and JB and would be disappointed and saddened were there anything in this. 

[BinoBalls]

“rhliston seems like a sensible guy, I think I’ll vote for what he says,” said nobody ever. 

[Flybhoy]

Right so because Kelly and BE were included in the resolution against the ST executive that makes them unfit to be voted onto the board according to you, glad you've cleared this up..... the 'Gang of 74' are all bad guys.

You have literally just confirmed what almost everyone else has been saying about you, that you have an agenda with individuals and anyone who has opposed you and this skews your viewpoint and is as obvious as the hole in your arse.

[BFTD]

At least it's not Comic Sans, I suppose.

[WC Boggs]

17 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Sorry Cant recall such an incident. 

Were you asleep?  Others  witnessed it. The chairman was the target of it.  No matter, it's enough that you don't condemn thuggish behaviour, but support those who indulge in it.   At the same time objecting to a reputed medical specialist and a long term club supporter and volunteer, for exercising their rights as a Trust board members to vote as they see fit.

You refer to other incidents of inappropriate aggressive behaviour by the membership secretary as, "alleged."  They are not alleged, they happened.  He challenged another member to go out of the stadium to fight,  right beside me and at least half a dozen other witnesses.   That is actually an offence and certainly not merely alleged misconduct.

My daughter was a victim of his verbal aggression in the stadium and again there were multiple witnesses to it.

He is also the person responsible for Jim Thompson citing intimidation on resigning 4 years ago. 

It is both telling and appalling  that you would support someone who behaves like that, but disrespect candidates who do not, on the basis of how they vote.  I hope your memory returns soon.

 

 

 

[WC Boggs]

39 minutes ago, Flybhoy said:

This is the first ive heard of this, I know and have spoken to both Stuart Brown and the membership secretary of the ST recently and neither have mentioned this and I haven't heard anything about this anywhere else, I'd like to think this is nothing more than a rumour/exaggeration as, to be honest I have a lot of time for both Stuart and JB and would be disappointed and saddened were there anything in this. 

Ask Stuart.  If I was given a misreport on that one I'll be happy to acknowledge that.

[rhliston]

5 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Were you asleep?  Others  witnessed it. The chairman was the target of it.  No matter, it's enough that you don't condemn thuggish behaviour, but support those who indulge in it.   At the same time objecting to a reputed medical specialist and a long term club supporter and volunteer, for exercising their rights as a Trust board members to vote as they see fit.

You refer to other incidents of inappropriate aggressive behaviour by the membership secretary as, "alleged."  They are not alleged, they happened.  He challenged another member to go out of the stadium to fight,  right beside me and at least half a dozen other witnesses.   That is actually an offence and certainly not merely alleged misconduct.

My daughter was a victim of his verbal aggression in the stadium and again there were multiple witnesses to it.

He is also the person responsible for Jim Thompson citing intimidation on resigning 4 years ago. 

It is both telling and appalling  that you would support someone who behaves like that, but disrespect candidates who do not, on the basis of how they vote.  I hope your memory returns soon.

 

 

 

Like I said can`t recall it, as for the rest of the alleged incidents you mention its news to me. 

[WC Boggs]

4 minutes ago, rhliston said:

 

The facts are quite clear as I have explained to members that both these people signed a resolution to remove the ENTIRE TRUST BOARD without giving members a reason why they wanted them removed. That`s the facts is it not.

Actually no it isn't.  To be fair to the Trust board, they did not say no reason was given.  What they did say was that "insufficient" reason was given in the view of council.

[rhliston]

1 minute ago, WC Boggs said:

Actually no it isn't.  To be fair to the Trust board, they did not say no reason was given.  What they did say was that "insufficient" reason was given in the view of council.

Yes it is the facts NO reasons were give as to why they wanted to remove the Entire Trust Board. When I submitted my resolution to remove Stuart Brown as Chairman and Club Director, I gave members the reasons why I wanted to remove him is that not the case. ? Indeed if I had not then the Trust Board would have refused to accept my resolution is that not the fact. ? 

[BinoBalls]

3 hours ago, rhliston said:

It clearly annoys them and I like to get a reaction from them. 

A few weeks ago the key people on both sides came together and agreed to try and work together to move this whole situation forward. Nearly everyone felt relieved and hopeful progress could be made despite the obvious personal friction. 
 

Posting stuff about who people who volunteer behind the scenes and saying why they mustn’t be allowed on the Trust, and saying how enjoyable it is to irritate people on Facebook, is the antithesis of the spirit of cooperation. We are all trying to get away from petty warfare. Well, everyone except you it seems. 

[WC Boggs]

3 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Yes it is the facts NO reasons were give as to why they wanted to remove the Entire Trust Board. When I submitted my resolution to remove Stuart Brown as Chairman and Club Director, I gave members the reasons why I wanted to remove him is that not the case. ? Indeed if I had not then the Trust Board would have refused to accept my resolution is that not the fact. ? 

The fact is that the Trust board cited insufficient reason given in the view of council, not no reason at all.  I suggest you check with them if you can't accept that.

[rhliston]

4 minutes ago, BinoBalls said:

A few weeks ago the key people on both sides came together and agreed to try and work together to move this whole situation forward. Nearly everyone felt relieved and hopeful progress could be made despite the obvious personal friction. 
 

Posting stuff about who people who volunteer behind the scenes and saying why they mustn’t be allowed on the Trust, and saying how enjoyable it is to irritate people on Facebook, is the antithesis of the spirit of cooperation. We are all trying to get away from petty warfare. Well, everyone except you it seems. 

Yes we are trying to get away from Petty warfare but the facts remain that members of the Trust deserve the right to know the facts and once given those facts can make a choice of whether to vote for or against a candidate. Thats all I am doing is letting members make up their own minds according to the facts. That`s Democracy 

[rhliston]

2 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The fact is that the Trust board cited insufficient reason given in the view of council, not no reason at all.  I suggest you check with them if you can't accept that.

You clearly do not understand do you, that insufficient reason the Counsel was referring too was NO reason was given for wanting to remove the ENTIRE TRUST BOARD in the resolution. That`s why it was rejected by the Trust Board. If a reason had been given then the Trust Board would have had to put it in front of the membership for consideration. 

[BinoBalls]

2 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Yes we are trying to get away from Petty warfare but the facts remain that members of the Trust deserve the right to know the facts and once given those facts can make a choice of whether to vote for or against a candidate. Thats all I am doing is letting members make up their own minds according to the facts. That`s Democracy 

You’re presenting a very selective bunch of “facts” that happen to fit your preferred narrative. We all have an opinion here but you’re the only one canvassing on Pie and Bovril to try and get people to see things your way. Ironically all you’ve done is persuaded me to vote for the complete opposite of what you’re saying, because your whole attitude stinks.