Jump to content

A Message to All Stirling Albion Trust Members


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Red Watch said:

Readers will have seen my post of 20.40 on Saturday which attempted to promote a conciliatory approach to the current problems which also drew upon views garnered at the Peterhead game.  I appealed to Mr Boggs to become involved constructively with a view to engineering a solution likely to avoid disruption at the club.  You will have seen his reaction and drawn your own conclusions as to his motives for reacting in the way that he has.

Since my post we have seen the publication via Twitter (but not via the Club’s official website) of a missive from the Club Board and the publication of a communication purporting to be from solicitors acting on behalf of the Club Board.

 

 

 

Ah yes the great RedWatch  peace initiative, that I was supposed to believe was genuine.    

The master plan, where I was supposed to appeal to Stuart to sit down at a peace table with people who have made it clear they will not work with  him or the club board.

The best bit of this master peace plan is that I never knew the massive power I hold over Stuart  and this whole situation???   All it takes to put an end  to war is for me to wag a finger and say  Stuart, there must be peace and lo my will shall be done. He was never really in charge as chairman, it was ME 

The power??? The omnipotence???  I think I'll change my name from Hugh to Q.  Yes everybody can see my reaction to my discovery of my power over mere mortals thanks to Redwatch. 

Oh Redwatch baby, newsflash for your brain.  Trying to make me out as the great obstruction to peace  was not smart.  Following it up with the full Trust board version of  why  sitting  down at a peace table with Stuart was never going to happen, was way  beyond not smart.  It was just  stupid.  Thanks for confirming to all that your fake peace offer was never on. I was supposed to say no to that ridiculous fake offer and I knew it.  Now you've confirmed to all just how ridiculous and fake a con it was.  

 

 

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

2 hours ago, rhliston said:

No vote for the Trust membership of the 3rd of August. Only Shareholders are allowed to attend.  The Trust Board have proposed removing the 3 Club Directors and installing new Club Directors on the night. 

The Trust Board have already made it known 3 new Directors in a new interim Board will be installed, they are Neil Emslie Interim Chair, Directors Ian Allardice and Allisdair Dunn, both major shareholders in the Club after the Supporters Trust. 

Hope this makes things clear. 

Serious question. Why have these 3 individuals been chosen (i.e. what skills do they have)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More serious questions.

Hey Trust board, why aren't you telling people what this "settlement" entailed?

Why was there never any mention of it in Trust board minutes?

Why are minutes   being edited?

You say the Club board reneged on the "settlement" you've kept from the membership within 48 hours.  True I believe, but don't you think Liston and Dick ramming in a resolution to remove the chairman within 48 hours might be relevant to that? 

Actually 3 resolutions submitted on a single form. Which meant they were linked and that if one fell, they all fell.  Yet you were going to have them voted on individually despite the single form they were submitted on. Thus giving the remove the chairman part a better chance of passing. WHY DID YOU DO THAT TRUST BOARD?  Why, when you had reached a secret settlement would you do that and then be surprised that the Club board backed out. WHY?

WHY have you repeatedly put out a false narrative that the Club board wouldn't talk or negotiate, when BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION they clearly did?  They were talking and negotiating until Liston and Dick threw a spanner in the works. A spanner you picked up and applied some torque to.  You believe in club board elections you claim. OK PROVE IT!   

Let the club board put themselves up for re-election, against the people you intend to install in their place. Not just the three enablers. ALL OF THEM, including who's going to be the REAL new chairman.  Let them all  debate. Let them all  be questioned. Lets find out if a group of volunteers are to be replaced by people on salaries that will come straight out of the playing budget?   

A club board that's elected. YEP!  Let's have that RIGHT NOW.

Let's have ALL the candidates up for election. RIGHT NOW

Get yer democratic ya ya s out NOW, not ummmm.....well....... later......some time.,.....

Oh by the way. You can't "draft in " volunteers. The  words draft and volunteers do not belong in the same sentence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LeodhasXD said:



What is interesting is that in this situation the loyalties of the physio and doctor are apparently tied to Stuart Brown. Not to Stirling Albion FC... 

The loyalties of the doctor are tied to his partner, who works for the club, not to Stuart Brown or Stirling Albion.  Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WC Boggs said:

The loyalties of the doctor are tied to his partner, who works for the club, not to Stuart Brown or Stirling Albion.  Try again.

Are the trust board voting to remove his partner too? If so maybe a fair reason to protest.

But again, come on, this goes back to the apocalyptic statements, I bet the trust board are jolly nice people too who only want the best for the club.
If tomorrow Mike Mulraney sold Alloa and someone new came in I would be at least be giving them a chance to gauge if they are completely impossible to work with before I make ultimatums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeodhasXD said:

Are the trust board voting to remove his partner too? 

Not that I know of.  It's probably more likely they are begging them both not to leave on the QT.  You'd have to ask the Trust board.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BinoBalls said:

Shame he couldn’t have seen the value in trying to be a bit better at keeping the only major stakeholder (the trust) sweet, then none of this utter shambles would have happened. I guess that’s the downside of being a “business hard head” as someone close to him recently described him.  

You still don't get it do you. What Stuart was being a hardhead about, was resisting the Trust board  trying to to elbow its way into operational decision making without consent or a mandate from the members.  Why do you think you've never heard about this "settlement" that was reached with the club board before? Why has it never been in any minutes released?

Weren't you told by the Trust board that the club board wouldn't sit down to reach a settlement?   Now they tell you that they did, but don't tell you, or ever told you what this settlement entailed?  What demands were made?  They tell you the Club board reneged on this mystery settlement within 48 hours. They conveniently forget to tell you that Liston and Dick's resolution to remove Stuart was rammed in on them within 48 hours of agreeing a settlement.  

They've just been dumb enough to give it  away that they've lied to you about the Club board not being willing to talk and you don't even notice.  Fine whatever, but don't misquote me.  I have never said Stuart and I were close. We aren't.  I said I considered him a friend. I do. 

You swallow an Alloa fan who knows nothing, telling people the club doctor owes his loyalty to Stuart Brown, not the club.  Bjarney's partner is Christine who works for the club on the commercial side. That's who our club doctor owes his loyalty to.  He's only here because she's here. So can we avoid the neutrals having Bjarney held up as some sort of Club board puppet please?  Thanks very much.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:

You still don't get it do you. What Stuart was being a hardhead about, was resisting the Trust board  trying to to elbow its way into operational decision making without consent or a mandate from the members.  Why do you think you've never heard about this "settlement" that was reached with the club board before? Why has it never been in any minutes released?

Weren't you told by the Trust board that the club board wouldn't sit down to reach a settlement?   Now they tell you that they did, but don't tell you, or ever told you what this settlement entailed?  What demands were made?  They tell you the Club board reneged on this mystery settlement within 48 hours. They conveniently forget to tell you that Liston and Dick's resolution to remove Stuart was rammed in on them within 48 hours of agreeing a settlement.  

They've just been dumb enough to give it  away that they've lied to you about the Club board not being willing to talk and you don't even notice.  Fine whatever, but don't misquote me.  I have never said Stuart and I were close. We aren't.  I said I considered him a friend. I do. 

You swallow an Alloa fan who knows nothing, telling people the club doctor owes his loyalty to Stuart Brown, not the club.  Bjarney's partner is Christine who works for the club on the commercial side. That's who our club doctor owes his loyalty to.  He's only here because she's here. So can we avoid the neutrals having Bjarney held up as some sort of Club board puppet please?  Thanks very much.

 

 

Firstly, calm down. 
 

Secondly, I stand by the fact Stuart Brown is stubborn to work with because that’s what a long line of people said, including Robert Clubb who I respect. Yes I’m sure there’s been times he’s been right to take a stand against some lunatics on the Trust Board, but the constant narrative for years and years is that he’s not engaged anywhere near enough with people that he should have.  If that upsets you then you really need to get a grip, people are allowed an opinion and it’s hardly controversial. 

 

And you’re getting your knickers in a twist because I said you were “close” to Stuart Brown. You’re literally his friend and you advised him on not getting too close to managers. If that’s not close I don’t know what is, but whatever, we’re arguing over synonyms. I’ll write “friend who you’ve advised in the past” next time. 
 

Reminder I am not your enemy here. I am on the fence with all this stuff. I am one of the majority in the middle of two groups putting out conflicting statements and worrying what is happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BinoBalls said:

Firstly, calm down. 
 

Secondly, I stand by the fact Stuart Brown is stubborn to work with because that’s what a long line of people said, including Robert Clubb who I respect. Yes I’m sure there’s been times he’s been right to take a stand against some lunatics on the Trust Board, but the constant narrative for years and years is that he’s not engaged anywhere near enough with people that he should have.  If that upsets you then you really need to get a grip, people are allowed an opinion and it’s hardly controversial. 

 

And you’re getting your knickers in a twist because I said you were “close” to Stuart Brown. You’re literally his friend and you advised him on not getting too close to managers. If that’s not close I don’t know what is, but whatever, we’re arguing over synonyms. I’ll write “friend who you’ve advised in the past” next time. 
 

Reminder I am not your enemy here. I am on the fence with all this stuff. I am one of the majority in the middle of two groups putting out conflicting statements and worrying what is happening. 

I'm perfectly calm.  I don't have a problem with you thinking of Stuart being stubborn, he can be.  

I do have a problem with you using the fact that I have advised Stuart on my opinion in the past, to suggest a closeness I have told you truthfully does not exist. 

I also once advised Stuart I would have his head on a spike in the Peak car park if he persuaded the board to make Corrigan manager.  Did giving that advice make us "close?" Have you never considered someone a friend without being close?  We are not close. To say we are, is not giving an opinion. It's  talking crap.  

I don't see you as an enemy and I have no problem with anybody on the fence.  When you misquote me, then won't accept that, you've crossed that fence though. I get an opinion too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

More serious questions.

Hey Trust board, why aren't you telling people what this "settlement" entailed?

Why was there never any mention of it in Trust board minutes?

Why are minutes   being edited?

You say the Club board reneged on the "settlement" you've kept from the membership within 48 hours.  True I believe, but don't you think Liston and Dick ramming in a resolution to remove the chairman within 48 hours might be relevant to that? 

Actually 3 resolutions submitted on a single form. Which meant they were linked and that if one fell, they all fell.  Yet you were going to have them voted on individually despite the single form they were submitted on. Thus giving the remove the chairman part a better chance of passing. WHY DID YOU DO THAT TRUST BOARD?  Why, when you had reached a secret settlement would you do that and then be surprised that the Club board backed out. WHY?

WHY have you repeatedly put out a false narrative that the Club board wouldn't talk or negotiate, when BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION they clearly did?  They were talking and negotiating until Liston and Dick threw a spanner in the works. A spanner you picked up and applied some torque to.  You believe in club board elections you claim. OK PROVE IT!   

Let the club board put themselves up for re-election, against the people you intend to install in their place. Not just the three enablers. ALL OF THEM, including who's going to be the REAL new chairman.  Let them all  debate. Let them all  be questioned. Lets find out if a group of volunteers are to be replaced by people on salaries that will come straight out of the playing budget?   

A club board that's elected. YEP!  Let's have that RIGHT NOW.

Let's have ALL the candidates up for election. RIGHT NOW

Get yer democratic ya ya s out NOW, not ummmm.....well....... later......some time.,.....

Oh by the way. You can't "draft in " volunteers. The  words draft and volunteers do not belong in the same sentence. 

 

 

 

 

 

As the person who submitted 3 resolutions to the Trust AGM for consideration by the members, I would like to respond the latest Rant by WC BOGGS. 

First of I would like to correct WC BOGGS comments in that their was collusion between myself and any member of the Trust Board in preparing my resolutions. That was NOT the case. 

As a supporter for over 40 years following Stirling Albion both home and away I was concerned at the way this Club was going. Stuart Brown having been in charge for nearly 8 years had in my opinion failed to get this Club out of League 2. 

Despite having a number of managers appointed and mostly sacked during his time as Chairman the Club was going backwards. Any supporter who attended Forthbank during the last few months of last season will know how the team after a promising start to the season had fallen away badly and were struggling near the foot of the Table. 

I felt that change was needed at the top and that is why I submitted my resolution to the Trust AGM. I would like to add that at the Trust`s previous AGM held on Zoom, I did submit questions to the Trust Board regarding Stuart Brown and whether the Trust Board set any targets for the Chairman to aim for. Suffice to say I was not happy with the response from the Trust Board on the matters and I DID say at the time that if things DID NOT improve then I would take further action. 

That is the reason I submitted my resolutions to the Trust AGM because of the way the Club was going. I made it clear in my resolutions why I was taking this action. I left it up to the members of the Trust to either vote YES OR NO for my resolutions. 

As many of you are aware , due to various things happening Dodgy Voting, a sudden influx of people joining the Trust etc, the Trust was forced to cancel the Trust AGM. thus denying the members the opportunity to have their say on these matters. 

Since then their has been a number of things said both on Social Media and indeed on the Club Website regarding these matters. We have had Club Directors publish articles on the Club Website saying that if Stuart Brown goes we all walk. Threats of scaremongering etc. 

Then we had the Gang of 74 (People mostly who had joined the Trust after my resolutions were submitted) putting forward a resolution to remove the Entire Trust Board without giving any reasons why they wanted them removed. This was deemed to have broken the Trust Rules and was refused by the Trust Board. Since then their has been various attempts made to cause problems for the Trust Board.

The outcome of this is that their will on the 3rd of August a meeting of Shareholders to discuss the proposal from the Trust to remove the 3 Club Directors and replace them with a new Interim Board. The Trust will be implementing new Rules of Governance to make any future Club Director accountable to the Trust and its members

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

I'm perfectly calm.  I don't have a problem with you thinking of Stuart being stubborn, he can be.  

I do have a problem with you using the fact that I have advised Stuart on my opinion in the past, to suggest a closeness I have told you truthfully does not exist. 

I also once advised Stuart I would have his head on a spike in the Peak car park if he persuaded the board to make Corrigan manager.  Did giving that advice make us "close?" Have you never considered someone a friend without being close?  We are not close. To say we are, is not giving an opinion. It's  talking crap.  

I don't see you as an enemy and I have no problem with anybody on the fence.  When you misquote me, then won't accept that, you've crossed that fence though. I get an opinion too.

Ok listen you’re the expert on this clearly. I wasn’t trying to imply you’re his bestie but you’re someone who knows him pretty well and consider him a friend. Certainly relative to the rest of us, you’re close to him. I apologise for any misunderstanding. This is a trivial example of how misunderstandings and a penchant to take offence have taken over lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rhliston said:

As the person who submitted 3 resolutions to the Trust AGM for consideration by the members, I would like to respond the latest Rant by WC BOGGS. 

First of I would like to correct WC BOGGS comments in that their was collusion between myself and any member of the Trust Board in preparing my resolutions. That was NOT the case. 

As a supporter for over 40 years following Stirling Albion both home and away I was concerned at the way this Club was going. Stuart Brown having been in charge for nearly 8 years had in my opinion failed to get this Club out of League 2. 

Despite having a number of managers appointed and mostly sacked during his time as Chairman the Club was going backwards. Any supporter who attended Forthbank during the last few months of last season will know how the team after a promising start to the season had fallen away badly and were struggling near the foot of the Table. 

I felt that change was needed at the top and that is why I submitted my resolution to the Trust AGM. I would like to add that at the Trust`s previous AGM held on Zoom, I did submit questions to the Trust Board regarding Stuart Brown and whether the Trust Board set any targets for the Chairman to aim for. Suffice to say I was not happy with the response from the Trust Board on the matters and I DID say at the time that if things DID NOT improve then I would take further action. 

That is the reason I submitted my resolutions to the Trust AGM because of the way the Club was going. I made it clear in my resolutions why I was taking this action. I left it up to the members of the Trust to either vote YES OR NO for my resolutions. 

As many of you are aware , due to various things happening Dodgy Voting, a sudden influx of people joining the Trust etc, the Trust was forced to cancel the Trust AGM. thus denying the members the opportunity to have their say on these matters. 

Since then their has been a number of things said both on Social Media and indeed on the Club Website regarding these matters. We have had Club Directors publish articles on the Club Website saying that if Stuart Brown goes we all walk. Threats of scaremongering etc. 

Then we had the Gang of 74 (People mostly who had joined the Trust after my resolutions were submitted) putting forward a resolution to remove the Entire Trust Board without giving any reasons why they wanted them removed. This was deemed to have broken the Trust Rules and was refused by the Trust Board. Since then their has been various attempts made to cause problems for the Trust Board.

The outcome of this is that their will on the 3rd of August a meeting of Shareholders to discuss the proposal from the Trust to remove the 3 Club Directors and replace them with a new Interim Board. The Trust will be implementing new Rules of Governance to make any future Club Director accountable to the Trust and its members

 

 

Amazing.  All that in response to something  not said in the post you are replying to.   I did not say that the Trust board decided to treat your resolutions separately in collusion with you.  I just said they decided to do it.  In fact I'm delighted to have you confirm it was all their own doing. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BinoBalls said:

Ok listen you’re the expert on this clearly. I wasn’t trying to imply you’re his bestie but you’re someone who knows him pretty well and consider him a friend. Certainly relative to the rest of us, you’re close to him. I apologise for any misunderstanding. This is a trivial example of how misunderstandings and a penchant to take offence have taken over lately.

It would be trivial, but for the fact that it leaves me in the position of it looking to a friend like I claimed a depth of friendship that we don't share. Do you understand my problem with it now?  Apology accepted.  

My main worry now is the players getting involved.  The fallout just keeps getting worse.

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

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

If you don't  have time to catch up, you might refer to this.

 

il_794xN.2195750049_j8y3.jpg

Glad you are finding it entertaining!  It must be pleasing to have Disneyworld at your fingertips (subscription-free, as well) with our closet Pinocchio making regular appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

My main worry now is the players getting involved.  The fallout just keeps getting worse.

Yes I am concerned about that. I am making an educated guess that not all the players will particularly GAF, but some clearly do. 
 

Worst case scenario here is CB being booted out causes various people connected with club to quit in disgust. Players resent new interim club board who they view as illegitimate. Dressing room morale / motivation takes a hit and we tank another season. End of season comes and various players decide to go elsewhere. It’s not that unthinkable. 
 

Actually an even worse-case scenario is that we can’t fulfil fixtures or some administrative blunder by a newbie board member causes us to field an ineligible player or something like that. Which is why a peaceful handover would have been so, so much better. 

Edited by BinoBalls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BinoBalls said:

Yes I am concerned about that. I am making an educated guess that not all the players will particularly GAF, but some clearly do. 
 

Worst case scenario here is CB being booted out causes various people connected with club to quit in disgust. Players resent new interim club board who they view as illegitimate. Dressing room morale / motivation takes a hit and we tank another season. End of season comes and various players decide to go elsewhere. It’s not that unthinkable. 
 

Actually an even worse-case scenario is that we can’t fulfil fixtures or some administrative blunder by a newbie board member causes us to field an ineligible player or something like that. Which is why a peaceful handover would have been so, so much better. 

Any worst case scenario is only liable to occur if the club board is removed without a vote.  You can't tell people the club is a democracy and send the membership to their rooms like children.  How does that create stability?  I've no idea how key people will react if these clowns do this. 

I trust the players to keep giving 100% whatever happens. They've nothing to gain from doing anything else and wouldn't give these b*****ds an excuse to fire Darren. They've said their piece. I wish they hadn't, but I trust them to give their all.

What worries me about it, is them possibly getting hit with a hate fest on social media over it. Something we do not need one bit.

 

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

1 hour ago, Red Watch said:

Glad you are finding it entertaining!  It must be pleasing to have Disneyworld at your fingertips (subscription-free, as well) with our closet Pinocchio making regular appearances.

Come now, it's your ego that never stops growing, not your nose.  Red Watch demonstrating his disapproval of snide remarks.  As genuine as his peace plans.

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...