Jump to content

A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members


Recommended Posts

The club board seems to have 'fallen out' with a succession of different trust boards.  As far as I can make out each of those trust boards has tried different approaches to get the club board to accept its reporting responsibility and has failed.

This board seems to be pushing a bit more and has seen entryism and an ill-judged resolution to remove each individual trust board member as a result.

Had the club board responded more positively in the past then this could all perhaps have been avoided.  

And given that the club board doesn't seem to get on with any trust board members - past or present - perhaps the time has come for them to look at themselves as the possible source of the problem? 

Or is there something else going on here?  Is this rift between the two deliberately designed to discredit the idea of fan ownership and hasten in private ownership?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, strichener said:

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.

No I did not have my name on the resolution. If I had been I'd have no problem saying so.  If I was going to nominate somebody better to replace them, I'd nominate Sooty and Sweep, Basil Brush, Kermit the Frog, Statler and Waldorf and last but not least Fozzy bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, strichener said:

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.

They don`t have anyone to replace the current Trust Board members, that`s where their little Plan falls down. As stated by Stuart Brown at the shareholders meeting its a tit for tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM of the Shareholders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, rhliston said:

They don`t have anyone to replace the current Trust Board members, that`s where their little Plan falls down. As stated by Stuart Brown at the shareholders meeting its a tit for tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM of the Shareholders. 

Tbf neither did you when you put your resolution forward.  Bit of pot and kettle here.

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

Tbf neither did you when you put your resolution forward.  Bit of pot and kettle here.

True but I only wanted to remove 2 Directors, Stuart Brown and John Daly not the entire Club Board as in the case of the gang of 74. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

No I did not have my name on the resolution. If I had been I'd have no problem saying so.  If I was going to nominate somebody better to replace them, I'd nominate Sooty and Sweep, Basil Brush, Kermit the Frog, Statler and Waldorf and last but not least Fozzy bear.

Wrong on checking the list of members of the Trust who supported the resolution to remove the entire Trust Board your name is listed as supporting the removal of all Trust Board members on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Red Watch said:

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.

Define "treat." That last group in that succession actually interfered with the manager's job and forbade him from talking to any potential signings.  One of those responsible for that is back on the Trust board now. It's no use saying they were spurned without saying what they were demanding. With that lot the word "oversight" was code for we want a vote in operational decisions. So go ahead tell me what they were demanding that they were spurned on?  Oh wait I forgot. We're not supposed to delve into the past unless it suits you lot.

I'll ask Colin about that next time I see him..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rhliston said:

Wrong on checking the list of members of the Trust who supported the resolution to remove the entire Trust Board your name is listed as supporting the removal of all Trust Board members on it. 

My name is not on the resolution that was submitted to the Trust's Lawyers. My name is of course on the list of people who voted in support of that resolution. I did  not say I didn't vote for the resolution. I said my name was not ON the resolution lodged. Can you not process the written word? Geez you must have the IQ of a dry roasted peanut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, rhliston said:

They don`t have anyone to replace the current Trust Board members, that`s where their little Plan falls down. As stated by Stuart Brown at the shareholders meeting its a tit for tat for the Trust Board calling for an EGM of the Shareholders. 

Who did Stuart say was going tit for tat? Why do I just know he was referring to trust members, not him or the board and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

My name is not on the resolution that was submitted to the Trust's Lawyers. My name is of course on the list of people who voted in support of that resolution. I did  not say I didn't vote for the resolution. I said my name was not ON the resolution lodged. Can you not process the written word? Geez you must have the IQ of a dry roasted peanut. 

🤣🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WC Boggs said:

Who did Stuart say was going tit for tat? Why do I just know he was referring to trust members, not him or the board and you know it.

🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rhliston said:

🤣🤣🤣

As you said not long ago it takes a big man to own up when he's got his facts wrong. That response just tells everybody what a small and stupid man you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Define "treat." That last group in that succession actually interfered with the manager's job and forbade him from talking to any potential signings.  One of those responsible for that is back on the Trust board now. It's no use saying they were spurned without saying what they were demanding. With that lot the word "oversight" was code for we want a vote in operational decisions. So go ahead tell me what they were demanding that they were spurned on?  Oh wait I forgot. We're not supposed to delve into the past unless it suits you lot.

I'll ask Colin about that next time I see him..

"Treat" - to consult with, or negotiate with, or engage with.  All of which have been in short supply over the past 12 years of fan ownership.  I said "spurned" because the Trust has been regularly rebuffed in not having meetings with representatives of the Club Board, not least because, on one occasion, someone had a hissy fit and refused to meet because of the likelihood of the presence of a proven, highly successful businessman.  So meetings have been few and far between, no doubt part of the deliberate policy of the Club Board to marginalise the Trust.  That is what I meant by "spurned".

I have not got the slightest idea what you are talking about in the words highlighted above.  Is this a product of your usually over-fertile imagination and your remarkable propensity to produce ordure at will?  You are going to have to be a lot more specific if you expect people commenting on here to respond to this latest assertion of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Red Watch said:

"Treat" - to consult with, or negotiate with, or engage with.  All of which have been in short supply over the past 12 years of fan ownership.  I said "spurned" because the Trust has been regularly rebuffed in not having meetings with representatives of the Club Board, not least because, on one occasion, someone had a hissy fit and refused to meet because of the likelihood of the presence of a proven, highly successful businessman.  So meetings have been few and far between, no doubt part of the deliberate policy of the Club Board to marginalise the Trust.  That is what I meant by "spurned".

I have not got the slightest idea what you are talking about in the words highlighted above.  Is this a product of your usually over-fertile imagination and your remarkable propensity to produce ordure at will?  You are going to have to be a lot more specific if you expect people commenting on here to respond to this latest assertion of yours.

You may not remember it but that happened. A player who had flown over from Europe for discussions was not met at the airport because of it.  I don't give a toss whether you respond or not. I do not know why they did not want to meet with that business man. You don't provide any reasons for that for any judgement to be made on it. Try being specific yourself.  Now I am off out, so have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

The club board seems to have 'fallen out' with a succession of different trust boards.  As far as I can make out each of those trust boards has tried different approaches to get the club board to accept its reporting responsibility and has failed.

This board seems to be pushing a bit more and has seen entryism and an ill-judged resolution to remove each individual trust board member as a result.

Had the club board responded more positively in the past then this could all perhaps have been avoided.  

And given that the club board doesn't seem to get on with any trust board members - past or present - perhaps the time has come for them to look at themselves as the possible source of the problem? 

Or is there something else going on here?  Is this rift between the two deliberately designed to discredit the idea of fan ownership and hasten in private ownership?

The club can't legally be sold, now it's conspiracy theories.  I'm off to do some dog walking.

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...