Jump to content

A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members


Recommended Posts

In response to WC Boggs post on the Stirling Albion Thread quoting me, I would like to say to him go back and read my post again its £7,500 for 2021 and in brackets as per written down in the Accounts £5, 000 for 2020. Perhaps if you had read the post properly that you would have understood this. 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rhliston said:

In response to WC Boggs post on the Stirling Albion Thread quoting me, I would like to say to him go back and read my post again its £7,500 for 2021 and in brackets as per written down in the Accounts £5, 000 for 2020. Perhaps if you had read the post properly that you would have understood this. 😀

The only year you mentioned in that post was 2020. You made no mention at all of the year 2021. It seems you choose not to read your own posts properly.  At least here, you have now make it clear that the two amounts referred to two different years.  🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The only year you mentioned in that post was 2020. You made no mention at all of the year 2021. It seems you choose not to read your own posts properly.  At least here, you have now make it clear that the two amounts referred to two different years.  🤣

You clearly are NOT getting the point I am making, clearly the Accountant that wrote this note was referring to the current account 2020/2021 for the £7500 and in brackets the figure of £5000 for the year 2019/2020. Simples 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rhliston said:

You clearly are NOT getting the point I am making, clearly the Accountant that wrote this note was referring to the current account 2020/2021 for the £7500 and in brackets the figure of £5000 for the year 2019/2020. Simples 😄

The accountant and indeed the Trust board managed to make it clear that those payments referred to two different years. You managed not to. 

At least it is now clear to all.  It will be interesting to see what we end up paying for a replacement chairman. Someone with a salary plus expenses do you think? Whoever it is, I'll look forward to you repeatedly complaining about it like a broken record.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The accountant and indeed the Trust board managed to make it clear that those payments referred to two different years. You managed not to. 

At least it is now clear to all.  It will be interesting to see what we end up paying for a replacement chairman. Someone with a salary plus expenses do you think? Whoever it is, I'll look forward to you repeatedly complaining about it like a broken record.  

You don`t have much confidence do you in Stuart Brown remaining Chairman. Without a vote taking place you have decided Stuart Brown will get kicked out, it may or may not happen. If Stuart Brown is removed then why would the Club pay for a salary for another Chairman,  I`m quite sure that their are other people out their willing to volunteer their services. Time will tell on this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhliston said:

You don`t have much confidence do you in Stuart Brown remaining Chairman. Without a vote taking place you have decided Stuart Brown will get kicked out, it may or may not happen. If Stuart Brown is removed then why would the Club pay for a salary for another Chairman,  I`m quite sure that their are other people out their willing to volunteer their services. Time will tell on this matter. 

I have not decided Stuart will get kicked out.  Since it is the membership's decision, not mine, I have to accept the possibility that he might be. 

If Stuart does get the boot, your confidence that a  new chairman  with experience can be found who is willing to work for no salary will be put to the test.

Since you are so sure that such a person is out there ready to come forward, perhaps you would like to name one, just one that you actually know of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

I have not decided Stuart will get kicked out.  Since it is the membership's decision, not mine, I have to accept the possibility that he might be. 

If Stuart does get the boot, your confidence that a  new chairman  with experience can be found who is willing to work for no salary will be put to the test.

Since you are so sure that such a person is out there ready to come forward, perhaps you would like to name one, just one that you actually know of?

Not up to me to name names it’s up to the owners of the Club to decide if Stuart Brown is removed, in other words the Suppporters Trust.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhliston said:

Not up to me to name names it’s up to the owners of the Club to decide if Stuart Brown is removed, in other words the Suppporters Trust.. 

You mean you haven't a clue who might take over Stuart's job for no salary.  Actually two jobs, because he's operations  manager as well as chairman.  Cheap at the price of an expense sheet.  If he does go, it's going to be interesting to see how much more the club has to shell out for a replacement, or replacements for both roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not up to me to name names it’s up to the owners of the Club to decide if Stuart Brown is removed, in other words the Suppporters Trust.. 

A question…and I haven’t read all of this thread so apologies if it’s been mentioned amongst the playground bickering. I understand the proposal is to remove the board, but are Trust members seriously being asked to vote without knowing what, or more specifically, WHO, the alternative is? Surely there is a group waiting in the wings to replace the board, but why is it being kept secret?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nigel Blackwell said:


A question…and I haven’t read all of this thread so apologies if it’s been mentioned amongst the playground bickering. I understand the proposal is to remove the board, but are Trust members seriously being asked to vote without knowing what, or more specifically, WHO, the alternative is? Surely there is a group waiting in the wings to replace the board, but why is it being kept secret?

There is nobody. It really is as short sighted as it sounds. “Surely someone will step forward” is the plan. 
 

Ironically, with a bit more planning and sourcing a suitable alternative, this motion might have passed — the chairman is a good man and works hard but he has plenty of detractors after a decade of failure. But in its current guise the motion has no chance.

However this is what happens when just TWO people need to support a motion then everyone has to vote on it — anyone can put a motion forward and we’ve all got to vote on it. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BinoBalls said:

There is nobody. It really is as short sighted as it sounds. “Surely someone will step forward” is the plan. 
 

Ironically, with a bit more planning and sourcing a suitable alternative, this motion might have passed — the chairman is a good man and works hard but he has plenty of detractors after a decade of failure. But in its current guise the motion has no chance.

However this is what happens when just TWO people need to support a motion then everyone has to vote on it — anyone can put a motion forward and we’ve all got to vote on it. 
 

 

You need to vote the guy out so this soap opera keeps going.  It's amusing for us onlookers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like some answers to questions on how the amalgamation of the boards is supposed to work if voted for. You can't get answers on that from the guy who's proposing it.   Here's some pretty basic questions  that he's going to need answers to in front of the membership.

1.  What changes to the constitution do you propose to facilitate this.

2. What roles will the Trust board members have on this amalgamated board?  Full voting directors or non voting directors.

3.  Who is going to ensure transparency and accountability on this one board?

4. Who is going to represent the membership on anything?

5. Who is going to check the accounts submitted by this one board?

6. If the membership want rid of this board, what's the procedure going to be?  

7. Who runs the club if  some hotheads succeed in removing them in mid season?

Without those questions being answered people are being asked to vote for a phrase, not a plan.  Talk about a pig in a poke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nigel Blackwell said:


A question…and I haven’t read all of this thread so apologies if it’s been mentioned amongst the playground bickering. I understand the proposal is to remove the board, but are Trust members seriously being asked to vote without knowing what, or more specifically, WHO, the alternative is? Surely there is a group waiting in the wings to replace the board, but why is it being kept secret?

Correction my resolution was to remove Stuart Brown as Chairman NOT the whole Board. The problem is the whole Board is more or less saying that if Stuart Brown goes they will all walk, go to the Club Website, you can read the personal message from Commercial Director Colin Rowley about the removing Stuart Brown. 

Regarding the group waiting in the wings to replace the Board, their is no group. In the event of Stuart Brown being removed it would be up to the owners of the Club to find replacements. I`m quite sure they have contingency plans in place should this happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BinoBalls said:

There is nobody. It really is as short sighted as it sounds. “Surely someone will step forward” is the plan. 
 

Ironically, with a bit more planning and sourcing a suitable alternative, this motion might have passed — the chairman is a good man and works hard but he has plenty of detractors after a decade of failure. But in its current guise the motion has no chance.

However this is what happens when just TWO people need to support a motion then everyone has to vote on it — anyone can put a motion forward and we’ve all got to vote on it. 
 

 

The one thing you appear to agree with me on is that Stuart Brown has failed to deliver and why should he not be removed. At the end of the day its up to the members of the Trust to have their say on whether Stuart Brown is removed or not. The fact remains the under the terns of the Trust Constitution this allowed and if your not happy with this if your a member of the Trust is to put forward a resolution to change this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rhliston said:

The one thing you appear to agree with me on is that Stuart Brown has failed to deliver and why should he not be removed. At the end of the day its up to the members of the Trust to have their say on whether Stuart Brown is removed or not. The fact remains the under the terns of the Trust Constitution this allowed and if your not happy with this if your a member of the Trust is to put forward a resolution to change this. 

I've put 7 questions to you up above on how your amalgamation proposal is supposed to work.  It is you and your friend's proposal so it's you who needs to explain  all that.  Have a try.  The membership is not going to be impressed with, that's not up to you, you're sure somebody else will work all that out after they vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

I've put 7 questions to you up above on how your amalgamation proposal is supposed to work.  It is you and your friend's proposal so it's you who needs to explain  all that.  Have a try.  The membership is not going to be impressed with, that's not up to you, you're sure somebody else will work all that out after they vote.  

I believe you have answered  your own question "You can`t get answers on that from the guy who`s proposing it" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rhliston said:

I believe you have answered  your own question "You can`t get answers on that from the guy who`s proposing it" 

I can't wait to hear you tell the membership that,  as an excuse for not having a scooby how your own proposal is supposed to work.

As things stand with no questions answered, people are supposed to vote to have one board, which will have to be self scrutinizing, with the membership basically disenfranchised and no representation at all.  I'm sure they'll be underwhelmed with enthusiasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhliston said:

if your not happy with this if your a member of the Trust is to put forward a resolution to change this. 

It might help people take your proposals to change the club structure more seriously if you could learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”. (And “their” and “there”.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...