|
Post by gasandelectricity on Feb 6, 2020 11:58:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Feb 6, 2020 12:02:41 GMT
Thank God there's a new thread telling us about a statement telling us nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 12:06:17 GMT
This is Good News.
Well, according to the old saying....
|
|
|
Post by rememberhalifax on Feb 6, 2020 12:20:18 GMT
Thank God there's a new thread telling us about a statement telling us nothing. wonder if it will reach 320 odd pages like fruit market!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 6, 2020 12:27:21 GMT
so what of the below do The SC argue is wrong
What has happened wuith Ken Masters? He's been banned from the boardroom and the boxes on the West Stand. Why is that?
He's been suspended from boardroom activity. I can't go into details because it's subject to legals but, suffice to say, no decision like that is taken lightly and we'll have to see how things transpire once our respective solicitors start talking to each other.
I respect there are legalities but we're talking about someone who's the Supporters' Club representative on the board of directors. They hold an eight per cent shareholding and you can't enlighten me or Rovers fans listening into why you've banned that man?
No, I can't. I would if I could. But the position is, the club and owners are more than happy to have a Supporters Club representative on the board but at the moment it's not Ken Masters.
There is a legal conversation going on with him and the Supporters Club and there are reasons for it that I can't go into detail about it.
It's slightly embarrassing this, though. It's Bristol Rovers Football Club and you're banning the person who's representing your supporters on the board of directors? Well it might appear to be embarrassing from the outside but we wouldn't be taken the action we're taking lightly. And I hope at some stage the whole issue can be discussed with the fans and the supporters club but at this moment we can't do that.
Legal action seems to be the worst possible course of any direction in any conflict. Is there no way you can sit down with Ken Masters and resolve this?
That attempt has been made, really. As I understand it, it's the Supporters Club that have taken the legal advice and we have responded to that advice and that's where it stands at the moment.
Do we want to be involved with lawyers over this issue? No, certainly not, but that's where we are.
So why don't you get around a table and talk it through?
I would be more than happy to but, to a certain extent, the die has been cast by the Supporters Club appointing solicitors.
So if I had a similar conversation with them and encouraged them to come and chat with you and forget the legal action, would you be receptive to that approach?
I'd more than happy to sit down with the Supporters Club.
|
|
|
Post by gasaholic on Feb 6, 2020 12:48:37 GMT
Doesnt everyone already know why he was banned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 12:50:01 GMT
Doesnt everyone already know why he was banned? I dont - any idea or are you being one of those ITK fuckers?
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Feb 6, 2020 13:01:10 GMT
Doesnt everyone already know why he was banned? Does anyone care ?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 6, 2020 13:02:16 GMT
Doesnt everyone already know why he was banned? No
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 6, 2020 13:14:51 GMT
It seems the SC are suggesting it was the club who were the first to instruct solicitors and not KM/the SC, and KM's been banned for no legimate reason.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Feb 6, 2020 13:42:21 GMT
It seems the SC are suggesting it was the club who were the first to instruct solicitors and not KM/the SC, and KM's been banned for no legimate reason. Wasn't it the supporter's club who mentioned solicitors in thier first statement though?? Before the Coventry game. So the club responded to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 13:45:40 GMT
Doesnt everyone already know why he was banned? No
Me neither.
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Feb 6, 2020 13:53:18 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 13:55:46 GMT
So the club took the action to suspend Ken Masters. The supporters club then appointed legal advisors to fight their case. The club then appoint lawyers to defend their actions. This at least is the club's version of events and seems far more plausible than supporters club version which suggests they've only appointed lawyers because the club have.
Either way this is a lose/lose situation where both the club and the supporters club lose money to their respective lawyers.
I would like a few answers from the supporters club, of which I'm a paid up member.
Does the appointing of lawyers to take action against the club contravene the supporters club constitution? It certainly goes against the SC's stated aims to support the club.
Who is paying for Ken Masters' legal advice? If it's the supporters club then what mandate do they have to use membership funds for such purpose?
|
|
|
Post by oliverhelmet on Feb 6, 2020 14:26:58 GMT
So the club took the action to suspend Ken Masters. The supporters club then appointed legal advisors to fight their case. The club then appoint lawyers to defend their actions. This at least is the club's version of events and seems far more plausible than supporters club version which suggests they've only appointed lawyers because the club have. Either way this is a lose/lose situation where both the club and the supporters club lose money to their respective lawyers. I would like a few answers from the supporters club, of which I'm a paid up member. Does the appointing of lawyers to take action against the club contravene the supporters club constitution? It certainly goes against the SC's stated aims to support the club. Who is paying for Ken Masters' legal advice? If it's the supporters club then what mandate do they have to use membership funds for such purpose? This statement says KM has had to instruct solicitors in response to the Football clubs actions.I don’t believe there has been anything saying this is BRSC led,just backing their man it looks like to me,but not financially ( yet ).And they don’t have a mandate to use BRSC funds as you quite rightly state.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Feb 6, 2020 14:31:53 GMT
This is really interesting and I'm so glad I know it.
|
|
|
Post by purdownpoacher1 on Feb 6, 2020 14:34:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 14:41:04 GMT
So the club took the action to suspend Ken Masters. The supporters club then appointed legal advisors to fight their case. The club then appoint lawyers to defend their actions. This at least is the club's version of events and seems far more plausible than supporters club version which suggests they've only appointed lawyers because the club have. Either way this is a lose/lose situation where both the club and the supporters club lose money to their respective lawyers. I would like a few answers from the supporters club, of which I'm a paid up member. Does the appointing of lawyers to take action against the club contravene the supporters club constitution? It certainly goes against the SC's stated aims to support the club. Who is paying for Ken Masters' legal advice? If it's the supporters club then what mandate do they have to use membership funds for such purpose? This statement says KM has had to instruct solicitors in response to the Football clubs actions.I don’t believe there has been anything saying this is BRSC led,just backing their man it looks like to me,but not financially ( yet ).And they don’t have a mandate to use BRSC funds as you quite rightly state. The supporters club statement says: "Bristol Rovers Football Club have engaged solicitors, as stated by Martyn Starnes, and Ken Masters has had to instruct solicitors in response." They are clearly stating that they've only appointed solicitors in response to the club appointing solicitors. Misleading at best.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 6, 2020 14:50:00 GMT
This statement says KM has had to instruct solicitors in response to the Football clubs actions.I don’t believe there has been anything saying this is BRSC led,just backing their man it looks like to me,but not financially ( yet ).And they don’t have a mandate to use BRSC funds as you quite rightly state. The supporters club statement says: "Bristol Rovers Football Club have engaged solicitors, as stated by Martyn Starnes, and Ken Masters has had to instruct solicitors in response." They are clearly stating that they've only appointed solicitors in response to the club appointing solicitors. Misleading at best. Surely its only misleading if it's incorrect? I assume the letter banning him could well come from the club's solicitors, rather than it just being a "Dear Ken" letter from MS? The latest statement also infers it's Ken not the SC who has instructed solicitors.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 6, 2020 14:54:46 GMT
|
|