A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members

[BinoBalls]

8 hours ago, WronglyCommunicatingBog said:

I only came on here to get the gen of how folk thought we played v Aberdeen as didn’t make the match , but it looks like this whole thread is like the supporters thingy on Facebook . 2-3 club board plants getting part stories fed to them and trying to dictate to the masses who genuinely are concerned 

 

There’s another SAFC thread on this forum for on-field matters. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, BinoBalls said:

Why do so many people on each side accuse others of being plants / stooges / puppets / useful idiots etc? It’s been a theme for months. On here and on Facebook. 
 

It’s just people expressing different opinions. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they’re guided by some shadowy figure trying to control the narrative on social media. This isn’t counter espionage, it’s just a fucking football club. 

^^^

 

[WC Boggs]

3 hours ago, BinoBalls said:

Why do so many people on each side accuse others of being plants / stooges / puppets / useful idiots etc? It’s been a theme for months. On here and on Facebook. 
 

It’s just people expressing different opinions. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they’re guided by some shadowy figure trying to control the narrative on social media. This isn’t counter espionage, it’s just a fucking football club. 

Perhaps because people were actually appointed to control the social media narrative for the old Trust board 5 years ago.  It is indeed, just a fucking football club. One that should be on a united front, but prefers to eat itself alive, at the whim of a minority.  Less than a week to go and after some 62 years or so, I won't miss it.

[WC Boggs]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

^^^

 

It's more like Keith Harris and Orville the duck, but nice one.

[BinoBalls]

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

Perhaps because people were actually appointed to control the social media narrative for the old Trust board 5 years ago.  It is indeed, just a fucking football club. One that should be on a united front, but prefers to eat itself alive, at the whim of a minority.  Less than a week to go and after some 62 years or so, I won't miss it.

ok. I stand by my point that both sides need to stop assuming there’s scheming masterminds controlling people to do their bidding. It’s frankly a little ridiculous, there’s barely a day goes by someone doesn’t say it. 

The saddest thing about this whole debacle is it’s got a decent amount of the support at each other’s throats, and most of it over silly little things. So many people assume the worst motivations are behind everything. The benefit of the doubt is never given. People talk to others on their own “side” offline, which helps reinforce hardened viewpoints, then shout at the other side on social media. Both sides utterly adamant they’re in the right. Both sides convinced the other side is undemocratic.
 

All sense of perspective has gone. 

[WC Boggs]

1 hour ago, BinoBalls said:

 

All sense of perspective has gone. 

 

Yes it has and whoever comes out of the vote ahead, it won't come back.  I'm hanging around to vote for what I personally feel limits the potential damage short term, but I'm not hanging around for the inevitable board war 3.  I've had enough of it and the people who voted for more war can get on with it.

[rhliston]

2 hours ago, BinoBalls said:

ok. I stand by my point that both sides need to stop assuming there’s scheming masterminds controlling people to do their bidding. It’s frankly a little ridiculous, there’s barely a day goes by someone doesn’t say it. 

The saddest thing about this whole debacle is it’s got a decent amount of the support at each other’s throats, and most of it over silly little things. So many people assume the worst motivations are behind everything. The benefit of the doubt is never given. People talk to others on their own “side” offline, which helps reinforce hardened viewpoints, then shout at the other side on social media. Both sides utterly adamant they’re in the right. Both sides convinced the other side is undemocratic.
 

All sense of perspective has gone. 

 

It takes 2 to Tango. What the Trust Board have proposed doing is long overdue. This situation has gone on for a number of years now and its time it was fixed once and for all. You cannot have a situation in which the owners of the Club,, the Supporters Trust have NO control of what they OWN. 

When yo look at other fan owned Clubs, they have Rules of Governance in place, Stirling Albion does NOT. That is why this situation has been allowed to develop. If the Trust Board had done this years ago, then this situation would NOT have happened. 

Hopefully once the present Club Board is removed and replaced with the interim Board then hopefully we can move forward to a more Democratic Club, with Directors elected by the members instead of present when we have a self perpetualating  clique running the Club with no regard to the owners. 

[WC Boggs]

21 minutes ago, rhliston said:

It takes 2 to Tango. What the Trust Board have proposed doing is long overdue. This situation has gone on for a number of years now and its time it was fixed once and for all. You cannot have a situation in which the owners of the Club,, the Supporters Trust have NO control of what they OWN. 

When yo look at other fan owned Clubs, they have Rules of Governance in place, Stirling Albion does NOT. That is why this situation has been allowed to develop. If the Trust Board had done this years ago, then this situation would NOT have happened. 

Hopefully once the present Club Board is removed and replaced with the interim Board then hopefully we can move forward to a more Democratic Club, with Directors elected by the members instead of present when we have a self perpetualating  clique running the Club with no regard to the owners. 

By owners, you mean you and about 3 others, not the Trust.

Let's look at that interim board shall we. 

Dunn who lives in London. He's going to be a fat lot of use in actual work.  Allardyce , who found even being on a Trust board that did nothing, too much for him.

Finally Emslie, proposed chairman.  Not one of them with any experience of operational running of a football club. Not one of them with experience in dealing  with other league clubs.  Not one of them with any experience of the paperwork, administration and logistics of running a football club

In fact 3 people not capable of running a football club.  NOT ELECTED, IMPOSED.  So since it clearly isn't those 3 who will be actually running the club. Who the hell will be?  It's........confidential.....as is so much the Trust board don't want the membership to know about.....until they're in.

[rhliston]

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

By owners, you mean you and about 3 others, not the Trust.

Let's look at that interim board shall we. 

Dunn who lives in London. He's going to be a fat lot of use in actual work.  Allardyce , who found even being on a Trust board that did nothing, too much for him.

Finally Emslie, proposed chairman.  Not one of them with any experience of operational running of a football club. Not one of them with experience in dealing  with other league clubs.  Not one of them with any experience of the paperwork, administration and logistics of running a football club

In fact 3 people not capable of running a football club.  NOT ELECTED, IMPOSED.  So since it clearly isn't those 3 who will be actually running the club. Who the hell will be?  It's........confidential.....as is so much the Trust board don't want the membership to know about.....until they're in.

Well I was talking about the Supporters Trust as the BIGGEST SHAREHOLDER as the owners. Whilst I do have a small holding of Shares nothing like the Trust tbf, so I am not the owners of the Club. 

As the Trust Board have stated it will take time to implement plans to make this Club MORE accountable to its Members, not like at present with Stuart Browns clique. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

[WC Boggs]

4 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Well I was talking about the Supporters Trust as the BIGGEST SHAREHOLDER as the owners. Whilst I do have a small holding of Shares nothing like the Trust tbf, so I am not the owners of the Club. 

As the Trust Board have stated it will take time to implement plans to make this Club MORE accountable to its Members, not like at present with Stuart Browns clique. 

Ah cliques. Let's talk about cliques. 

Back when the whole membership applications and votes via a single email address screw up occurred, the Trust board said they had requested a shareholder's EGM to discuss their pursuit of police investigation. 

When that collapsed in fiasco, with the Trust board announcing they were no longer pursuing police investigation, for some strange reason they still intended going ahead with that EGM even though the reason for it had been dropped.  I  questioned this and a new EGM was announced.  This time we were told because several shareholders had requested it.  What a convenient coincidence! There's the Trust board looking for a reason to keep that EGM on and up pops a couple of shareholders giving them one.  We have that one, then another one and hey presto a cooperative CLIQUE of shareholders and Trust board members stitch up the entire membership and award themselves the club board spoils.

That's how a real CLIQUE works Rhliston.  Secret deals.  No democracy allowed and divvy up the prizes between the boys.  Even if they aren't qualified for the job. So who's the rest of the real CLIQUE?  The one's waiting in the shadows to do the jobs the 3 caballeros can't do? 

[rhliston]

23 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

Ah cliques. Let's talk about cliques. 

Back when the whole membership applications and votes via a single email address screw up occurred, the Trust board said they had requested a shareholder's EGM to discuss their pursuit of police investigation. 

When that collapsed in fiasco, with the Trust board announcing they were no longer pursuing police investigation, for some strange reason they still intended going ahead with that EGM even though the reason for it had been dropped.  I  questioned this and a new EGM was announced.  This time we were told because several shareholders had requested it.  What a convenient coincidence! There's the Trust board looking for a reason to keep that EGM on and up pops a couple of shareholders giving them one.  We have that one, then another one and hey presto a cooperative CLIQUE of shareholders and Trust board members stitch up the entire membership and award themselves the club board spoils.

That's how a real CLIQUE works Rhliston.  Secret deals.  No democracy allowed and divvy up the prizes between the boys.  Even if they aren't qualified for the job. So who's the rest of the real CLIQUE?  The one's waiting in the shadows to do the jobs the 3 caballeros can't do? 

First of all, the Trust Board was elected by the members so its not a clique. Can you tell me WHO ELECTED Stuart Brown,, Lorri Graham and Colin Rowley onto the Club Board. ? 

If members are not happy with the Trust Board at least they can be voted out. Also any Trust members can stand for election to the Trust Board. Can you tell me how this works on the present Club Board. ? Clearly unless your in Stuart Brown`s clique their is NO chance of getting on the Club Board, NOT very democratic is it. ? 

[WC Boggs]

26 minutes ago, rhliston said:

First of all, the Trust Board was elected by the members so its not a clique. Can you tell me WHO ELECTED Stuart Brown,, Lorri Graham and Colin Rowley onto the Club Board. ? 

If members are not happy with the Trust Board at least they can be voted out. Also any Trust members can stand for election to the Trust Board. Can you tell me how this works on the present Club Board. ? Clearly unless your in Stuart Brown`s clique their is NO chance of getting on the Club Board, NOT very democratic is it. ? 

The idea that cliques cannot exist within an elected body is utterly laughable.  I kind of dread the idea of electing a club board. That's because of the example set by the Trust board.  Two sets of elected numpties isn't  that appealing an idea.

That said, for the avoidance of even more civil war, it would be better if the club board had to be re-elected every 5 years and anyone invited to join the club board, by the club board, confirmed by a members vote.  

No the present club board has not been elected, but it was to be replaced by people who were to be appointed, not elected.  Not democratic either.   There will now be a vote to determine what happens next, as there should be.  A vote that should have taken place during closed season, not delayed until the season is under way.  But that's elected numpties for you.

 

 

[rhliston]

13 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

The idea that cliques cannot exist within an elected body is utterly laughable.  I kind of dread the idea of electing a club board. That's because of the example set by the Trust board.  Two sets of elected numpties isn't  that appealing an idea.

That said, for the avoidance of even more civil war, it would be better if the club board had to be re-elected every 5 years and anyone invited to join the club board, by the club board, confirmed by a members vote.  

No the present club board has not been elected, but it was to be replaced by people who were to be appointed, not elected.  Not democratic either.   There will now be a vote to determine what happens next, as there should be.  A vote that should have taken place during closed season, not delayed until the season is under way.  But that's elected numpties for you.

 

Really 2 sets of elected numpties isn`t appealing , what would you suggest the present setup. ? 

5 Years is too long, maximum of 2/3 years for Directors imo, with the Chairman every 3 years.

Well if the Club Board and its gang of 74 had not put in resolutions to remove the entire Trust Board with any reasons being given followed by Dodgy voting from a certain individual we would have had an AGM at near the end of the season. 

[WC Boggs]

4 hours ago, rhliston said:

Really 2 sets of elected numpties isn`t appealing , what would you suggest the present setup. ? 

5 Years is too long, maximum of 2/3 years for Directors imo, with the Chairman every 3 years.

Well if the Club Board and its gang of 74 had not put in resolutions to remove the entire Trust Board with any reasons being given followed by Dodgy voting from a certain individual we would have had an AGM at near the end of the season. 

I suggest 5 years, because there isn't much point demanding a 5 year plan out of a board and not giving them 5 years to carry it out.  5 years between elections does not prevent a board being removed for neglect of duty, or other valid cases for early removal.  

5 years between elections makes sense of demanding a 5 year plan.  2-3 years makes no sense at all of that demand.  Then again, senseless demands are something you excel at.

Edited July 22, 2022 by WC Boggs
add

[rhliston]

Latest Update from the Trust Board, re the meeting on the 26th July, their will be NO vote on whether to cancel the proposed removal of 3 Club Directors as it is deemed legally invalid. Only vote to take place will be on the 2nd Resolution to hold an AGM. 

So it means that on the 3rd of August the Interim Board will take over the running of the Club. 

[headthebaw]

We all want a change in fortunes on the pitch for our club. The lack of this recently has brought this situation to a head.

The current board runs the club very well. Plenty of evidence following Tuesday nights game. No one can surely deny this. I have grave reservations that an interim board can deliver this. I have zero confidence in what is being proposed by the Trust. 

The relationship between the Club Board and the Trust has evaporated but please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[WattersIsGod]

Agreed. Calmer heads are required.

Whatever has gone before doesn't justify the scorched earth approach.

There has to be some sort of a compromise found or the consequences could be dire.

[gmca]

5 hours ago, rhliston said:

Latest Update from the Trust Board, re the meeting on the 26th July, their will be NO vote on whether to cancel the proposed removal of 3 Club Directors as it is deemed legally invalid. Only vote to take place will be on the 2nd Resolution to hold an AGM. 

So it means that on the 3rd of August the Interim Board will take over the running of the Club. 

Can you advise why the vote was deemed legally invalid?

[WC Boggs]

1 hour ago, gmca said:

Can you advise why the vote was deemed legally invalid?

I'm pretty sure he's read it wrong and confused the vote to remove the Trust board being ruled out, with the vote not to remove the club board.  If so it's not surprising, considering how clumsily that communication was constructed.