Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 18:47:46 GMT
why don't the supporters club put forward someone else rather than Ken Masters. After finding out what he did I am surprised he isn't banned from games Do you know or is it; A) a guess? B) what you were told by someone ITK? C) completely made up? Many here don't think he does a good job or he looks after no 1 too much, but I don't think anyone thinks he has actually done anything to cause any hurt to the club. Another participant in the “I know something you don’t “ game. Tedious.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 11, 2020 19:02:23 GMT
No idea - let’s start a protest Nah, I reckon he did it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 19:17:51 GMT
It isn't and that's why I am not saying anything else about it Did it involve any animals? And any sort of tubing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 19:18:48 GMT
No idea - let’s start a protest To keep him out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 22:16:41 GMT
To those that think the 7% SC shareholding should be bought out by the FC, think again. AQ’s are probably sellers not buyers and haven’t shown any appetite to put money into the club beyond modest working capital; what would the “fair value” be for the shares (ie what’s the current share price? And it’s going down like our form); what would the SC do with the proceeds (apart from pay Ken’s legal fees)? And we’d be left with no representation on the board. It’s not a workable solution.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Feb 11, 2020 22:48:12 GMT
To those that think the 7% SC shareholding should be bought out by the FC, think again. AQ’s are probably sellers not buyers and haven’t shown any appetite to put money into the club beyond modest working capital; what would the “fair value” be for the shares (ie what’s the current share price? And it’s going down like our form); what would the SC do with the proceeds (apart from pay Ken’s legal fees)? And we’d be left with no representation on the board. It’s not a workable solution. The SC haven’t put any money in this year either and I would say at a £3m loss the ALQs have put in more than working capital. They provided a platform that has been wasted in some ways. The 7% shareholding is pointless, you can’t do anything with it, they can’t afford to purchase any more from the ALQs and increase their shareholding to hold any form of controlling interest. The SC has no representation currently because they have self destructed and bankrupted their own relationship with the owners and the whole SC is mute. If the SC was as serious about being a representation for the fans (which they aren’t, they only represent members of the SC) as they all think they are they wouldn’t be carrying out this ridiculous campaign to keep one person at the top table which is only doomed to fail. That says as much about the committee and their messiah as anything else. I thought it was telling that their last statement included the support from presidents club, which has the irony, according to their website, of having Wael’s father as their leader, albeit in emeritus . It comes as no surprise that the other old boys club which does very little have cosied up to this little clique as well.
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Feb 11, 2020 22:51:35 GMT
I am so going to make rovers cluedo....
I've thought about it before but never advanced the idea....
It was *** in box 1 with lukewarm gravy and a table leg....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 6:38:10 GMT
To those that think the 7% SC shareholding should be bought out by the FC, think again. AQ’s are probably sellers not buyers and haven’t shown any appetite to put money into the club beyond modest working capital; what would the “fair value” be for the shares (ie what’s the current share price? And it’s going down like our form); what would the SC do with the proceeds (apart from pay Ken’s legal fees)? And we’d be left with no representation on the board. It’s not a workable solution. The SC haven’t put any money in this year either and I would say at a £3m loss the ALQs have put in more than working capital. They provided a platform that has been wasted in some ways. The 7% shareholding is pointless, you can’t do anything with it, they can’t afford to purchase any more from the ALQs and increase their shareholding to hold any form of controlling interest. The SC has no representation currently because they have self destructed and bankrupted their own relationship with the owners and the whole SC is mute. If the SC was as serious about being a representation for the fans (which they aren’t, they only represent members of the SC) as they all think they are they wouldn’t be carrying out this ridiculous campaign to keep one person at the top table which is only doomed to fail. That says as much about the committee and their messiah as anything else. I thought it was telling that their last statement included the support from presidents club, which has the irony, according to their website, of having Wael’s father as their leader, albeit in emeritus . It comes as no surprise that the other old boys club which does very little have cosied up to this little clique as well. The SC don't need to buy shares from the AQ's. There are a block of shares ring fenced for the share scheme although there is little chance that they will all be purchased. Of course the SC isn't serious about proper representation and that is why they agreed to dilute their own shareholding by backing a rights issue over a decade ago.
|
|
|
Post by wider on Feb 12, 2020 12:54:40 GMT
I seem to remember the SC was pretty upset about the dilution caused by the shares issue a decade ago but they reluctantly accepted it in order to ensure the FC survived.
They don’t appear as active these days - but I suspect that is because they are not allowed to be by Dwane Sports regime?
Haven’t they put money into the club this season? Depends what you mean but I thought I’d heard they had (from the 50/50 they organise every home game) and that some was used to reestablish the Gas Girls?
|
|
|
Post by wider on Feb 12, 2020 12:57:56 GMT
Oh, forgot to say. It may be two edged sword but surely the SC holding gives Dwane Sports something to think about when attempting to sell the club and makes prospective buyers think twice?
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Feb 12, 2020 13:08:02 GMT
Oh, forgot to say. It may be two edged sword but surely the SC holding gives Dwane Sports something to think about when attempting to sell the club and makes prospective buyers think twice? Not at all, with 92% they have more than the controlling share, so the new owners can either decide to approach the SC with a view to buy or have to put up with the pain in the arse henceforth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 13:14:50 GMT
Old white mens club - outdated and needs ripping up and starting again!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 14:46:07 GMT
I seem to remember the SC was pretty upset about the dilution caused by the shares issue a decade ago but they reluctantly accepted it in order to ensure the FC survived. They don’t appear as active these days - but I suspect that is because they are not allowed to be by Dwane Sports regime? Haven’t they put money into the club this season? Depends what you mean but I thought I’d heard they had (from the 50/50 they organise every home game) and that some was used to reestablish the Gas Girls? The rights issue had nothing to do with survival of the football club but survival of those within the boardroom at that time. In fact, not all of those inside the boardroom at the time took up their rights issue despite promises to do so. Also, the rights issue was actually defeated on a show of hands at the EGM but won through on a share count. The share schemes objectives ended that evening and the SC held the balance of power between the board and the shareholders outside of the boardroom at that time.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Feb 12, 2020 16:57:26 GMT
To those that think the 7% SC shareholding should be bought out by the FC, think again. AQ’s are probably sellers not buyers and haven’t shown any appetite to put money into the club beyond modest working capital; what would the “fair value” be for the shares (ie what’s the current share price? And it’s going down like our form); what would the SC do with the proceeds (apart from pay Ken’s legal fees)? And we’d be left with no representation on the board. It’s not a workable solution. The SC haven’t put any money in this year either and I would say at a £3m loss the ALQs have put in more than working capital. They provided a platform that has been wasted in some ways. The 7% shareholding is pointless, you can’t do anything with it, they can’t afford to purchase any more from the ALQs and increase their shareholding to hold any form of controlling interest. The SC has no representation currently because they have self destructed and bankrupted their own relationship with the owners and the whole SC is mute. If the SC was as serious about being a representation for the fans (which they aren’t, they only represent members of the SC) as they all think they are they wouldn’t be carrying out this ridiculous campaign to keep one person at the top table which is only doomed to fail. That says as much about the committee and their messiah as anything else. I thought it was telling that their last statement included the support from presidents club, which has the irony, according to their website, of having Wael’s father as their leader, albeit in emeritus . It comes as no surprise that the other old boys club which does very little have cosied up to this little clique as well. Considering that you gashead1981, are neither a member of the SC or BRFC BOD, I find it confusing that you are able to quote such intimate information about donations as fact, however, whoever gives you such information appears to have forgotten the £2000 per month from the share scheme and another £16000 donated this year. As for the President's Club support for our friends in the Supporters Club (remembering some are members of both) it is surely not surprising given that apparently the Football Club legal team have given no reason for banning a fully paid up representative of the Supporters Club who is there on behalf of it's members who donated a generous amount for the privilege of having two seats on the Board. Also, your ignorance of 'Rovers history is disappointing by describing Abdulkader Abdullah Al-Qadi as the 'leader' of the President's Club. In fact he holds the honorary position of 'President' following in the wake of such illustrious people as The Duke of Beaufort and Denis Dunford which was bestowed in recognition of his families substantial investment in the Football Club. Finally, for no other reason than being obstreperous you should know that 'emeritus' according to the Cambridge dictionary means 'no longer having a position, especially in a college or university, but keeping the title of the position' contrary to what you portray.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 12, 2020 17:01:53 GMT
The SC haven’t put any money in this year either and I would say at a £3m loss the ALQs have put in more than working capital. They provided a platform that has been wasted in some ways. The 7% shareholding is pointless, you can’t do anything with it, they can’t afford to purchase any more from the ALQs and increase their shareholding to hold any form of controlling interest. The SC has no representation currently because they have self destructed and bankrupted their own relationship with the owners and the whole SC is mute. If the SC was as serious about being a representation for the fans (which they aren’t, they only represent members of the SC) as they all think they are they wouldn’t be carrying out this ridiculous campaign to keep one person at the top table which is only doomed to fail. That says as much about the committee and their messiah as anything else. I thought it was telling that their last statement included the support from presidents club, which has the irony, according to their website, of having Wael’s father as their leader, albeit in emeritus . It comes as no surprise that the other old boys club which does very little have cosied up to this little clique as well. Considering that you gashead1981, are neither a member of the SC or BRFC BOD, I find it confusing that you are able to quote such intimate information about donations as fact, however, whoever gives you such information appears to have forgotten the £2000 per month from the share scheme and another £16000 donated this year. As for the President's Club support for our friends in the Supporters Club (remembering some are members of both) it is surely not surprising given that apparently the Football Club legal team have given no reason for banning a fully paid up representative of the Supporters Club who is there on behalf of it's members who donated a generous amount for the privilege of having two seats on the Board. Also, your ignorance of 'Rovers history is disappointing by describing Abdulkader Abdullah Al-Qadi as the 'leader' of the President's Club. In fact he holds the honorary position of 'President' following in the wake of such illustrious people as The Duke of Beaufort and Denis Dunford which was bestowed in recognition of his families substantial investment in the Football Club. Finally, for no other reason than being obstreperous you should know that 'emeritus' according to the Cambridge dictionary means 'no longer having a position, especially in a college or university, but keeping the title of the position' contrary to what you portray. Are you honestly suggesting that KM was literally given NO reason for his banning?
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Feb 12, 2020 17:34:45 GMT
Considering that you gashead1981, are neither a member of the SC or BRFC BOD, I find it confusing that you are able to quote such intimate information about donations as fact, however, whoever gives you such information appears to have forgotten the £2000 per month from the share scheme and another £16000 donated this year. As for the President's Club support for our friends in the Supporters Club (remembering some are members of both) it is surely not surprising given that apparently the Football Club legal team have given no reason for banning a fully paid up representative of the Supporters Club who is there on behalf of it's members who donated a generous amount for the privilege of having two seats on the Board. Also, your ignorance of 'Rovers history is disappointing by describing Abdulkader Abdullah Al-Qadi as the 'leader' of the President's Club. In fact he holds the honorary position of 'President' following in the wake of such illustrious people as The Duke of Beaufort and Denis Dunford which was bestowed in recognition of his families substantial investment in the Football Club. Finally, for no other reason than being obstreperous you should know that 'emeritus' according to the Cambridge dictionary means 'no longer having a position, especially in a college or university, but keeping the title of the position' contrary to what you portray. Are you honestly suggesting that KM was literally given NO reason for his banning? As I understand it - yes
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Feb 12, 2020 17:37:43 GMT
Are you honestly suggesting that KM was literally given NO reason for his banning? As I understand it - yes Is that a yes he was given a reason or a yes he wasn't given a reason... Just to make things clear....
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Feb 12, 2020 17:49:52 GMT
Is that a yes he was given a reason or a yes he wasn't given a reason... Just to make things clear.... We would all like to know what the reason was, but my understanding is that he was not given the courtesy of a reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 18:28:28 GMT
Is that a yes he was given a reason or a yes he wasn't given a reason... Just to make things clear.... We would all like to know what the reason was, but my understanding is that he was not given the courtesy of a reason. I haven't read the share scheme agreement for over a decade Knowall but I don't believe that a reason to reject a SC member from sitting on the board has to be given but the clause was built in to prevent somebody from starting a tenure not after 14 years. Nevertheless it exists.
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Feb 12, 2020 18:52:42 GMT
We would all like to know what the reason was, but my understanding is that he was not given the courtesy of a reason. I haven't read the share scheme agreement for over a decade Knowall but I don't believe that a reason to reject a SC member from sitting on the board has to be given but the clause was built in to prevent somebody from starting a tenure not after 14 years. Nevertheless it exists. Has he been thrown off the board or 'just' banned from the boxes. If he is still on the board I assume he can go into the Directors' rooms at away matches............
|
|