Jump to content

A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, strichener said:

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.

You are making the mistake of believing Liston's habitual twisting of other people's words.  The chairman may well have said the people who lodged the resolution did it as a tit for tat.  You can bet money on it  he did not say the board lodged it as Liston implied. The chairman is not that stupid.  Liston is that twisted.

I could not be more open that I side with the club board 100%. Make it 200% if you like. What I have denied is that I am following a script provided by the chairman.  The accusations of that are just the usual methods of those who want to bring him down.  Dodge the issue, try to discredit the man who brings it up.  In response to the attempt to remove the chairman and him alone, fellow board members stood by him as any decisions made are group decisions.  The people who yell about accountability  got pissed off at them declaring, hey we're accountable too. Only at Stirling Albion is standing with a colleague out of integrity seen to be a heinous crime. 

I consented to let my daughter submit my vote along with hers on her email account.  There is no rule against that. That is what happened with the director. The difference being he had appealed to a lot of people to join the membership and with their consent submitted their votes via his  email account.  I agree doing it that way with 50 of them was not wise, but the Trust board had accepted those people and their membership fees and they are still entitled to vote just the same.  Despite investigating the submissions to date the Trust board have not come up with a single person who did not consent to their vote being submitted that way So gerrymandering?  Utter crap!

Peter Reid fae Peterheid is deid. Volvo for sale.

Edited by WC Boggs
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, rhliston said:

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. 

Well done, you managed to get Stuarts name in there 3 times. Do you count Stuart Browns jumping over crush barriers to get to sleep at night?

The Trust board is not being ACCOUNTABLE, because it won't face it's MEMBERS.   You love to bring up the Trust board as if being elected made them akin to the untouchable disciples of Jesus. Politicians get elected and they sure aren't akin to the disciples of Jesus. Neither are the Trust board. The difference between them is the government don't get to decide if a no confidence vote can be held on them or not.  The Trust board can and did decide not to. That's not accountability. That's ignoring accountability. 

Clearly we don't OWN it if we are denied a vote and votes already cast online, including mine can be voided at will. The Trust board think they OWN it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhliston said:

 Stuart Brown and Co ........  a failed attempt to remove the Trust Board 

 

What a fascinating thing to say.  So what you are saying is that the names on a resolution aren't really the people putting forward the resolution.

OK I'll buy it. So who's really behind the names we are to ignore on your resolution then?  Come on, it's your theory, fess up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

You are making the mistake of believing Liston's habitual twisting of other people's words.  The chairman may well have said the people who lodged the resolution did it as a tit for tat.  You can bet money on it  he did not say the board lodged it as Liston implied. The chairman is not that stupid.  Liston is that twisted.

I could not be more open that I side with the club board 100%. Make it 200% if you like. What I have denied is that I am following a script provided by the chairman.  The accusations of that are just the usual methods of those who want to bring him down.  Dodge the issue, try to discredit the man who brings it up.  In response to the attempt to remove the chairman and him alone, fellow board members stood by him as any decisions made are group decisions.  The people who yell about accountability  got pissed off at them declaring, hey we're accountable too. Only at Stirling Albion is standing with a colleague out of integrity seen to be a heinous crime. 

I consented to let my daughter submit my vote along with hers on her email account.  There is no rule against that. That is what happened with the director. The difference being he had appealed to a lot of people to join the membership and with their consent submitted their votes via his email email account.  I agree doing it that way with 50 of them was not wise, but the Trust board had accepted those people and their membership fees and they still entitled to vote just the same.  Despite investigating the submissions to date the Trust board have not come up with a single person who did not consent to their vote being submitted that way So gerrymandering?  Utter crap!

Peter Reid fae Peterheid is deid. Volvo for sale.

My My so I am that twisted you clearly cannot see the wood for the tree`s WC BOGS or your real name is Hugh Hanlon is it not. The facts I have posted are accurate and no amount of twisting them to suit the agenda from your master can disguise the facts. 

Yes as members they are allowed to vote,, but as it states in the Trust Constitution "one person one vote " NOT one person 50 votes. 

No amount of twisting the facts on your posts will alter the fact that the Trust Board were right to intervene in this matter, it is up to them to decide what to do. If the members are not happy with their decisions they have at least the option to vote them out. Unlike the Club Board who appear to be unaccountable to anybody including the owners of the Club the Supporters Trust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

What a fascinating thing to say.  So what you are saying is that the names on a resolution aren't really the people putting forward the resolution.

OK I'll buy it. So who's really behind the names we are to ignore on your resolution then?  Come on, it's your theory, fess up?

More facts being twisted. The fact is I know who was behind my resolutions to remove Stuart Brown and John Daly, ME no one else WC BOGGS. Can the same be said for the resolutions proposed by the Gang of 74 ? don`t think so. Their is an old saying You can fool all the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rhliston said:

No amount of twisting the facts on your posts will alter the fact that the Trust Board were right to intervene in this matter, it is up to them to decide what to do. If the members are not happy with their decisions they have at least the option to vote them out. Unlike the Club Board who appear to be unaccountable to anybody including the owners of the Club the Supporters Trust. 

Perhaps Mr Boggs would like to tell us who he considers the Club Board are accountable to?  Also, what action he considers people are able to resort to if they perceive Club Board "representatives" are incompetent or negligent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Red Watch said:

Perhaps Mr Boggs would like to tell us who he considers the Club Board are accountable to?  Also, what action he considers people are able to resort to if they perceive Club Board "representatives" are incompetent or negligent?

Good question come on WC BOGGS lets see you answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rhliston said:

My My so I am that twisted you clearly cannot see the wood for the tree`s WC BOGS or your real name is Hugh Hanlon is it not. The facts I have posted are accurate and no amount of twisting them to suit the agenda from your master can disguise the facts. 

Yes as members they are allowed to vote,, but as it states in the Trust Constitution "one person one vote " NOT one person 50 votes. 

No amount of twisting the facts on your posts will alter the fact that the Trust Board were right to intervene in this matter, it is up to them to decide what to do. If the members are not happy with their decisions they have at least the option to vote them out. Unlike the Club Board who appear to be unaccountable to anybody including the owners of the Club the Supporters Trust. 

My real name is indeed Hugh Hanlon. The crap you post is not accurate. One person did not vote 50 times. The Trust board couldn't make that stick and neither can you. So since you have already named him, you are once again slandering him.  Whether to sue you or not is of course his decision, not the Trust board's.

We don't have the opportunity to vote them out, because if they held the AGM your resolution would have to go ahead. If you lost they'd be screwed. So don't hold your breath waiting for an AGM date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

My real name is indeed Hugh Hanlon. The crap you post is not accurate. One person did not vote 50 times. The Trust board couldn't make that stick and neither can you. So since you have already named him, you are once again slandering him.  Whether to sue you or not is of course his decision, not the Trust board's.

We don't have the opportunity to vote them out, because if they held the AGM your resolution would have to go ahead. If you lost they'd be screwed. So don't hold your breath waiting for an AGM date.

Once more, more twisting of the facts. Let me ask you a question then WC BOGGS if the person did NOT vote 50 times, are you saying the Trust Board lied to its members by saying this. Indeed it was stated on Tuesday night at the meeting that a Trust Board member phoned the person concerned and asked him about the voting, his response was " all 71 coaches are in the room with me" This was stated at the meeting or are you saying that the Trust Board member is lying. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

You are making the mistake of believing Liston's habitual twisting of other people's words.  

No, I am reading what has been posted here by both sides in this.  I don't disbelieve anyone but I do form an opinion that those that are running the club do so at the behest of the owners.

I also never stated that the board lodged the resolution to remove the trust, the word that I used was "instigated".  It is plain as day that the current board encouraged people to sign up to the trust for one reason only.  That is not what the trust exists for, it is not a one vote lifetime like many of the new members will be.

As an outsider looking in, the current board may indeed have good individuals but collectively here actions here are appalling.

To add some counterbalance to the above, I don't see any issue with a director using the club website to post that he will resign if the chairman is votes off.  However, if said director feels so strongly that the ownership should not be voting on the removal of directors then he really should be resigning anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Red Watch said:

Perhaps Mr Boggs would like to tell us who he considers the Club Board are accountable to?  Also, what action he considers people are able to resort to if they perceive Club Board "representatives" are incompetent or negligent?

Certainly. The club board are accountable to both the membership and the shareholders of the Trust.  If people are going to say the club board has in any way refused to be accountable, it needs specifics on instances supplied, not just repeating the words not accountable.  You know as well as I do there is a procedure for removal for any board that can be proven to have been incompetent or negligent in it's duties.  Here we have an instance where the board has been slagged off for years for not finding an experienced manager and when they finally land one, they get a no confidence motion in their face.

Your turn.  Would you like to tell us who those companies you say won't deal with the present board are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

So since you have already named him, you are once again slandering him.  Whether to sue you or not is of course his decision, not the Trust board's.

Away with you man.  There is no way he will be suing for slander, 100% guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

No, I am reading what has been posted here by both sides in this.  I don't disbelieve anyone but I do form an opinion that those that are running the club do so at the behest of the owners.

I also never stated that the board lodged the resolution to remove the trust, the word that I used was "instigated".  It is plain as day that the current board encouraged people to sign up to the trust for one reason only.  That is not what the trust exists for, it is not a one vote lifetime like many of the new members will be.

As an outsider looking in, the current board may indeed have good individuals but collectively here actions here are appalling.

To add some counterbalance to the above, I don't see any issue with a director using the club website to post that he will resign if the chairman is votes off.  However, if said director feels so strongly that the ownership should not be voting on the removal of directors then he really should be resigning anyway.

The Club directors did not have their names on the resolution to remove the Trust board. Individuals do not have to be instigated to act of their own volition.  I want the Trust board out because I believe them to be incompetent and unreasonably combative with the club board. I was not told to have that opinion by anybody. So who the hell are you to accuse the people who lodged the resolution of being instigated to?  Do you know them? Have you spoken to them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, strichener said:

Away with you man.  There is no way he will be suing for slander, 100% guaranteed.

Most likely not, but he's still being slandered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The Club directors did not have their names on the resolution to remove the Trust board. Individuals do not have to be instigated to act of their own volition.  I want the Trust board out because I believe them to be incompetent and unreasonably combative with the club board. I was not told to have that opinion by anybody. So who the hell are you to accuse the people who lodged the resolution of being instigated to?  Do you know them? Have you spoken to them? 

I appear to have touched a nerve.  Are you one of the people that lodged the resolution to get rid of the trust board?  If so can you give me details of who you were nominating to replace them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Once more, more twisting of the facts. Let me ask you a question then WC BOGGS if the person did NOT vote 50 times, are you saying the Trust Board lied to its members by saying this. Indeed it was stated on Tuesday night at the meeting that a Trust Board member phoned the person concerned and asked him about the voting, his response was " all 71 coaches are in the room with me" This was stated at the meeting or are you saying that the Trust Board member is lying. ? 

What I'm saying is that I don't trust you to report on anything accurately. How did 50 members become 71 over a phone call ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The club board are accountable to both the membership and the shareholders of the Trust.  

Your turn.  Would you like to tell us who those companies you say won't deal with the present board are?

I presume you are referring to the Club Board who,  putting it kindly,  have been reluctant, since the advent of fan ownership, to treat with successive groups of Trust Board representatives.  More often than not they have been spurned outright.   Accountability, my arse!

I shall not be falling into the trap of identifying the companies concerned, for the simple reason that doing so might jeopardise the probability of future investments in the Club, if and when regime change has taken place.  If you are that desperate to learn of those companies, I suggest you contact Colin Rowley who would be able to tell you those which have knocked the Club back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Certainly. The club board are accountable to both the membership and the shareholders of the Trust.  If people are going to say the club board has in any way refused to be accountable, it needs specifics on instances supplied, not just repeating the words not accountable.  You know as well as I do there is a procedure for removal for any board that can be proven to have been incompetent or negligent in it's duties.  Here we have an instance where the board has been slagged off for years for not finding an experienced manager and when they finally land one, they get a no confidence motion in their face.

Your turn.  Would you like to tell us who those companies you say won't deal with the present board are?

Wrong the Club Board is accountable to its Shareholders. Stirling Albion FC are a Private Limited Company. The Supporters Trust are the major Shareholder in the Club owning 83% of the Shares. The Supporters Trust Board are accountable to its members. 

"if people are going to say the club board has in any way refused to be accountable it needs specifics on instances supplied, not just repeating the words not accountable! Can you tell me then why Stuart Brown and John Daly refused to attend a meeting with the Trust Board unless a Trust Director Ian Doyle was not present. ? Does that not suggest that.  ? 

5 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The Club directors did not have their names on the resolution to remove the Trust board. Individuals do not have to be instigated to act of their own volition.  I want the Trust board out because I believe them to be incompetent and unreasonably combative with the club board. I was not told to have that opinion by anybody. So who the hell are you to accuse the people who lodged the resolution of being instigated to?  Do you know them? Have you spoken to them? 

If you check the resolution submitted to remove the entire Trust Board, you will find the names of every Club Director are on these resolutions, some to be fair have only asked for the removal of 3 of the Trust Board members. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

What I'm saying is that I don't trust you to report on anything accurately. How did 50 members become 71 over a phone call ?

its already been explained in previous posts, I suggest you go back and read them again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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