|
New CEO
Mar 19, 2018 19:51:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 19, 2018 19:51:41 GMT
I see your point Peter but it's going to be very hard to increase turnover enough to offset this new salary whilst we are based in our current stadium. If we get a new stadium of course that all changes. So hopefully we get some good news on that front soon because that's kind of the elephant in the room at the moment. And perhaps that's exactly why you appoint a CEO? To deliver the objectives? Leaving the chairman to do as he should, represent all stakeholder / shareholders. It's a classic organisational structure. I really don't understand the negative comments.... Oldie is quite right that this is a classical organisation structure. Every company in the FTSE 100 will have something recognisable to this and undoubtedly every FTSE 250 company as well but there isn't a Company in the FTSE 250 with a £4.5m turnover. So I shall challenge Oldie to provide any evidence of a £4.5M turnover company emoploying a full time chairman and ceo at a rumoured cost of £200k plus. Which would at least backup our approach
|
|
|
New CEO
Mar 19, 2018 19:52:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 19, 2018 19:52:17 GMT
I honestly, honestly wouldn't be surprised if Gasincider is a "Flat Earther". He's so utterly obsessed with needing to "know" things that others don't it's making this forum almost unbearable. Cringeworthy isn't the word. For starters, having a username that in itself suggests that you are party to information that others are not is sad enough. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that perhaps he once did. However, it's clear now that a lot of information stays "in-house"; there are far fewer leaks. It comes across that this really winds Gas "incider" up and he can't help but throw regular tantrums and troll others. I would put my mortgage on him being a "Flat Earther" and someone who loves conspiracy theories as it would give him the ability to feel he "knows something" that others don't. Hey!! I'm into a bit of conspiracy theory myself!!! The Earth isn't flat though. You can tell because the sun drops behind the horizon rather than staying in the sky and getting smaller.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 19, 2018 19:54:33 GMT
You couldn't make it up. So let's think, £100k+ CEO, £100k legal bills,£250k for a London office, chairman £100k. Bet Steve Hamer won't be pleased about this. He was appointed by Mike Turner without SH even knowing about it apparently. So just why does Turner carry so much power without even owning a share? HOWS THE BUDGET DARRELL? It was made very clear at the AGM how the playing budget was determined and how the owners chose to finance the rest of the operation. They said that they had a London office from which the family could operate when they come to the UK, no doubt when they've done business in the past they've usally done it in London as it is the financial capital of the UK and they are merchant bankers. Your challenge to Mr Turner was not supported by anyone else in the room when it came to voting for him to continue on the Board, there was one vote against him and a few abstentions everyone else voted for him. What evidence do you have for suggesting that Mr Hamer didn't know about the appointment of the CEO? I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century so have seen enough to perhaps form an opinion by observing, talking to and challenging successive Boards and their members. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place. You probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues. I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain. I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form on the night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it. So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club? My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015. Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president at the AGM into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay." There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things. Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Mar 19, 2018 19:57:48 GMT
I honestly, honestly wouldn't be surprised if Gasincider is a "Flat Earther". He's so utterly obsessed with needing to "know" things that others don't it's making this forum almost unbearable. Cringeworthy isn't the word. For starters, having a username that in itself suggests that you are party to information that others are not is sad enough. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that perhaps he once did. However, it's clear now that a lot of information stays "in-house"; there are far fewer leaks. It comes across that this really winds Gas "incider" up and he can't help but throw regular tantrums and troll others. I would put my mortgage on him being a "Flat Earther" and someone who loves conspiracy theories as it would give him the ability to feel he "knows something" that others don't. If all the mods get wound up by this individual and do a Hugo, and give themselves a banning order this will turn into Anarchy! Or as dangerous as a night out with Ant McPartlin 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 19, 2018 20:01:54 GMT
You couldn't make it up. So let's think, £100k+ CEO, £100k legal bills,£250k for a London office, chairman £100k. Bet Steve Hamer won't be pleased about this. He was appointed by Mike Turner without SH even knowing about it apparently. So just why does Turner carry so much power without even owning a share? HOWS THE BUDGET DARRELL? It was made very clear at the AGM how the playing budget was determined and how the owners chose to finance the rest of the operation. They said that they had a London office from which the family could operate when they come to the UK, no doubt when they've done business in the past they've usally done it in London as it is the financial capital of the UK and they are merchant bankers. Your challenge to Mr Turner was not supported by anyone else in the room when it came to voting for him to continue on the Board, there was one vote against him and a few abstentions everyone else voted for him. What evidence do you have for suggesting that Mr Hamer didn't know about the appointment of the CEO? I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century so have seen enough to perhaps form an opinion by observing, talking to and challenging successive Boards and their members. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place. You probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues. I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain. I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form on the night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it. So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club? My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015. Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president at the AGM into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay." There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things. Regards John Malyckyj Sounds John you view Dwane Sports and the club as one and the same? So in your view the shareholders of the 8% have absolutely no rights in the running of the club a few it's finances? A very sad and pathetic view of someone who essentially used to be responsible for a large part of that 8%
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Mar 19, 2018 20:05:42 GMT
This is the closest to statement of intent we will get in the short term.
I am positively surprised. Seems like the actions of a club intent on moving forward and the building blocks to a better future.
Criticising the appointment on the grounds of finance is like criticising the construction of a 20,000 seater stadium on the grounds ‘we will never fill it’
Sometimes you need to speculate to accumulate, and sometimes you need to be run by professional people with proven credentials instead of a hobbyist who ‘is alright because he’s one of us’
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 19, 2018 20:07:24 GMT
I honestly, honestly wouldn't be surprised if Gasincider is a "Flat Earther". He's so utterly obsessed with needing to "know" things that others don't it's making this forum almost unbearable. Cringeworthy isn't the word. For starters, having a username that in itself suggests that you are party to information that others are not is sad enough. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that perhaps he once did. However, it's clear now that a lot of information stays "in-house"; there are far fewer leaks. It comes across that this really winds Gas "incider" up and he can't help but throw regular tantrums and troll others. I would put my mortgage on him being a "Flat Earther" and someone who loves conspiracy theories as it would give him the ability to feel he "knows something" that others don't. If all the mods get wound up by this individual and do a Hugo, and give themselves a banning order this will turn into Anarchy! Or as dangerous as a night out with Ant McPartlin 😂😂😂 Secretly I think all the Mods would like to "Do a Hugo". Which was the real reason I took a break. They are like a bunch of screaming boy band fans whenever I walk into the Gaschat office. Living nightmare, I can tell you.
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Mar 19, 2018 20:12:57 GMT
If all the mods get wound up by this individual and do a Hugo, and give themselves a banning order this will turn into Anarchy! Or as dangerous as a night out with Ant McPartlin 😂😂😂 Secretly I think all the Mods would like to "Do a Hugo". Which was the real reason I took a break. They are like a bunch of screaming boy band fans whenever I walk into the Gaschat office. Living nightmare, I can tell you. You re doing a great job though together with the other mods, and we do appreciate it. “ so dust yourself down and onto the next project”
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Mar 19, 2018 20:18:32 GMT
Secretly I think all the Mods would like to "Do a Hugo". Which was the real reason I took a break. They are like a bunch of screaming boy band fans whenever I walk into the Gaschat office. Living nightmare, I can tell you. You re doing a great job though together with the other mods, and we do appreciate it. “ so dust yourself down and onto the next project” wipe your nose
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 19, 2018 20:19:51 GMT
It was made very clear at the AGM how the playing budget was determined and how the owners chose to finance the rest of the operation. They said that they had a London office from which the family could operate when they come to the UK, no doubt when they've done business in the past they've usally done it in London as it is the financial capital of the UK and they are merchant bankers. Your challenge to Mr Turner was not supported by anyone else in the room when it came to voting for him to continue on the Board, there was one vote against him and a few abstentions everyone else voted for him. What evidence do you have for suggesting that Mr Hamer didn't know about the appointment of the CEO? I have been attending AGMs for the best part of 22 years. I was allowed to go in a journalistic capacity whilst writing for The Pirate even before I became a shareholder in the early part of this century so have seen enough to perhaps form an opinion by observing, talking to and challenging successive Boards and their members. There are some that seem fixated upon the role of Dwane Sports and it's relationship with Bristol Rovers 1883("1883"). The Al Qadi family own 92% of 1883 and have created Dwane Sports as the holding company. I view them as one and the same. Two years ago they purchased Bristol Rovers Football Club and that was the arrangement they put in place. You probed on the question of a "conflict of interests" with director Mike Turner's company taking legal fees of £97k and then the "London office" expenses. I thought that they were fair questions and I found the answers given entirely acceptable and may I add, convincing. Remember the family own the Football Club and if they think that they need an office in London then that is good enough for me. The point was made by the finance director that these expenses did not impact upon playing budgets. As the evening developed clear explanations were given about turnover and the impact upon the playing budgets (and what could be spent on over 21 players), there seemed to be clear unity between the manager and the Board in terms of understanding the issues. I also have confidence that if the current owners felt that the UWE deal wasn't right for them as an investment, then so be it. There are some who seem to think that somehow that project should never have been given up and don't seem to understand that the reasons should remain confidential for the possible benefit of both parties in the future. UWE may wish to attract an alternative partner and IF (and I stress IF) Bristol Rovers found an alternative site for another project they wouldn't want their hand to be shown in the public domain. I do believe that some people have been so used to having information leaked to them they cannot get over the fact that it is no longer available, it is hard to believe that the "fence gate" brigade were not represented in some form on the night, there was a brief discussion about the pitch.....but that was it. So the acid test for me as a shareholder is this, do I have confidence in the current Board to run Bristol Rovers Football Club? My answer is "yes", certainly far more confidence than I did in attending AGMs between 2007 and 2015. Before anyone accuses me of being a soft touch, I frequently asked the "difficult" questions of the previous regimes (which they didn't like) and got the new president at the AGM into the meeting by asking him to tell us what he had learned over the last two years - "no day is the same and always a new challenge", and would he do it again to which he responded "we are here to stay." There are still question marks but I do not subscribe to the doom and gloom view of things. Regards John Malyckyj Sounds John you view Dwane Sports and the club as one and the same? So in your view the shareholders of the 8% have absolutely no rights in the running of the club a few it's finances? A very sad and pathetic view of someone who essentially used to be responsible for a large part of that 8% Yes, I think Dwane Sports and Bristol Rovers 1883 are one and the same in all but name. No, I don't think that the 8% don't have any rights and I value the chance of being able to scrutinise the activities of the Board, however the take over of 2016 significantly changed matters. The previous Chairman changed the way Bristol Rovers was run because he became the majority shareholder but there were others with significant shareholdings who were around the Board room table. It did become apparent though that the previous Chairman eventually took all the significant decisions as he became fixated on delivering the UWE Stadium. I had very serious reservations about how the club was being run during that period and expressed that very clearly at the annual meetings. It was apparent to me that as time went on decision making became more and more centralised. When the Al Qadi family took over they wanted a clean sweep and took control of 92% of the Football Club therefore the 75% threshold for significant decisions was effectively disposed of. I am not sure why you think it to be a "pathetic view" I just see it as a pragmatic and realistic position and a statement of fact. It is sad that the supporters are now unable to truly influence the direction of the Football Club, but that was lost 10 years ago now. Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 19, 2018 20:35:33 GMT
You couldn't make it up. So let's think, £100k+ CEO, £100k legal bills,£250k for a London office, chairman £100k. Bet Steve Hamer won't be pleased about this. He was appointed by Mike Turner without SH even knowing about it apparently. So just why does Turner carry so much power without even owning a share? HOWS THE BUDGET DARRELL? And the loyal office staff have not had a pay rise for.................................... I thought this was going to announced at the AGM as some of us were aware this was happening. Well it's rather surprising that you "were aware this was happening", when gasincider alleges that Mr Hamer didn't know. So which of you is right? Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Mar 19, 2018 20:44:05 GMT
If only It was possible to add gaschat posts to soup....
The plot thickens with every spoonful....
|
|
|
New CEO
Mar 19, 2018 20:45:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 19, 2018 20:45:07 GMT
Sounds John you view Dwane Sports and the club as one and the same? So in your view the shareholders of the 8% have absolutely no rights in the running of the club a few it's finances? A very sad and pathetic view of someone who essentially used to be responsible for a large part of that 8% Yes, I think Dwane Sports and Bristol Rovers 1883 are one and the same in all but name. No, I don't think that the 8% don't have any rights and I value the chance of being able to scrutinise the activities of the Board, however the take over of 2016 significantly changed matters. The previous Chairman changed the way Bristol Rovers was run because he became the majority shareholder but there were others with significant shareholdings who were around the Board room table. It did become apparent though that the previous Chairman eventually took all the significant decisions as he became fixated on delivering the UWE Stadium. I had very serious reservations about how the club was being run during that period and expressed that very clearly at the annual meetings. It was apparent to me that as time went on decision making became more and more centralised. When the Al Qadi family took over they wanted a clean sweep and took control of 92% of the Football Club therefore the 75% threshold for significant decisions was effectively disposed of. I am not sure why you think it to be a "pathetic view" I just see it as a pragmatic and realistic position and a statement of fact. It is sad that the supporters are now unable to truly influence the direction of the Football Club, but that was lost 10 years ago now. Regards John Malyckyj Pathetic as I view the board should be keeping the 8‰ informed. On this occasion what is contentious about detailing the new CEO duties, the Al Qs are apparently very good business people so they must have brought him in with a job description? To give them carte blanche as they are majority shareholders is to me pathetic, sorry if that is an offensive view. I agree though that stance under NH would also have been pathetic
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Mar 19, 2018 21:01:51 GMT
Yes, I think Dwane Sports and Bristol Rovers 1883 are one and the same in all but name. No, I don't think that the 8% don't have any rights and I value the chance of being able to scrutinise the activities of the Board, however the take over of 2016 significantly changed matters. The previous Chairman changed the way Bristol Rovers was run because he became the majority shareholder but there were others with significant shareholdings who were around the Board room table. It did become apparent though that the previous Chairman eventually took all the significant decisions as he became fixated on delivering the UWE Stadium. I had very serious reservations about how the club was being run during that period and expressed that very clearly at the annual meetings. It was apparent to me that as time went on decision making became more and more centralised. When the Al Qadi family took over they wanted a clean sweep and took control of 92% of the Football Club therefore the 75% threshold for significant decisions was effectively disposed of. I am not sure why you think it to be a "pathetic view" I just see it as a pragmatic and realistic position and a statement of fact. It is sad that the supporters are now unable to truly influence the direction of the Football Club, but that was lost 10 years ago now. Regards John Malyckyj Pathetic as I view the board should be keeping the 8‰ informed. On this occasion what is contentious about detailing the new CEO duties, the Al Qs are apparently very good business people so they must have brought him in with a job description? To give them carte blanche as they are majority shareholders is to me pathetic, sorry if that is an offensive view. I agree though that stance under NH would also have been pathetic Well you've lost me there. I am not sure that four months before he starts I need a job description of the CEO, I've been a shareholder since 2002 and no-one has ever sent a job description of any employee to us in that period and why would they? We have a Board to run the operational side of the Football Club and part of their job is to recruit people to enable the playing side of the operation to get on with it. It is only a few years ago that people were complaining (me included) that innocent people were made redundant following the relegation out of the Football League. Now the off-field operation is expanded to help the evolution process and people want to complain about that. Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 19, 2018 21:05:44 GMT
Didn't say it impacted on the playing budget. But if the family want to spend £500k, I'd rather they spent it on the team. And as severncider said earlier, the staff who are fully fledged gasheads, haven't had a pay rise for two years. We've even called off the trip to Sabadell this close season because we can't afford the cost. It was called off 3 weeks ago but nothing official from the club yet. Genuine question, was a Sabdell trip ever announced? About a month or so ago Rovers inadvertently retweeted a photo of Steve Hamer in Sabadell, looking to reawaken the link between the two clubs. Unfortunately, having tried to offset some of the cost, and not being able to do so, he advised Sabadell we would not be going. They are looking to arrange an alternative venue.
|
|
|
New CEO
Mar 19, 2018 21:08:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 19, 2018 21:08:05 GMT
Pathetic as I view the board should be keeping the 8‰ informed. On this occasion what is contentious about detailing the new CEO duties, the Al Qs are apparently very good business people so they must have brought him in with a job description? To give them carte blanche as they are majority shareholders is to me pathetic, sorry if that is an offensive view. I agree though that stance under NH would also have been pathetic Well you've lost me there. I am not sure that four months before he starts I need a job description of the CEO, I've been a shareholder since 2002 and no-one has ever sent a job description of any employee to us in that period and why would they? We have a Board to run the operational side of the Football Club and part of their job is to recruit people to enable the playing side of the operation to get on with it. It is only a few years ago that people were complaining (me included) that innocent people were made redundant following the relegation out of the Football League. Now the off-field operation is expanded to help the evolution process and people want to complain about that. Regards John Malyckyj Fair enough if you're excepting the board are recruiting top level management with no idea what they are going to do then that's your decision as a shareholder. Strange but you're decision I think people should be recruited to fill an identified need, probably something you'd view as strange. PS it wasn't good that people got made redundant following relegation to the Conference but that, probably by chance, was a pragmatic decision following a significant change in a businesses trading position.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 19, 2018 21:10:02 GMT
Didn't say it impacted on the playing budget. But if the family want to spend £500k, I'd rather they spent it on the team. And as severncider said earlier, the staff who are fully fledged gasheads, haven't had a pay rise for two years. We've even called off the trip to Sabadell this close season because we can't afford the cost. It was called off 3 weeks ago but nothing official from the club yet. If as you claim, you did not say it impacted on the playing budget then what exactly did you mean when you wrote "HOWS THE BUDGET DARRELL"? Because I'm sure the weaker minded among us like myself would have assumed you were suggesting that the cost of the CEO will effect DCs budget. Simple really. Darrell not happy with his budget, the club then spend about half a million on various 'nice to haves' which in my opinion would be better spent on the guy that is better value for money than any of the others. It seems we are doing things backwards. Why not get what we really need first, namely, a stadium, that can generate income, then get all these others.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 19, 2018 21:14:03 GMT
Surprised if this was a planned appointment that the news article on the main didn't detail his responsibilities and SHs responsibilities. Easy thing if there is a plan behind the appointment It was finalised a couple of weeks ago, before SH knew anything about it. Mr Turner was behind the appointment.(according to the corridors etc etc)
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 19, 2018 21:20:13 GMT
Its OK Hugo, he's covered himself, he put ? at the end of the sentence. And we all know the power of a gasinciders question mark. So I understand? Was his response to another poster stating we didn’t have a pot to p£££ in and a third party had to bail us out and pay the players! Didn't say any such thing. I said the club itself hasn't got two half pennies to rub together, never said the family don't have money, and the third party was another input of funds from the family as there were insufficient funds to pay the players. Several outlays that had not been budgeted for had depleted the available funds ( according to the corridors etc etc )
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 19, 2018 21:22:10 GMT
I honestly, honestly wouldn't be surprised if Gasincider is a "Flat Earther". He's so utterly obsessed with needing to "know" things that others don't it's making this forum almost unbearable. Cringeworthy isn't the word. For starters, having a username that in itself suggests that you are party to information that others are not is sad enough. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that perhaps he once did. However, it's clear now that a lot of information stays "in-house"; there are far fewer leaks. It comes across that this really winds Gas "incider" up and he can't help but throw regular tantrums and troll others. I would put my mortgage on him being a "Flat Earther" and someone who loves conspiracy theories as it would give him the ability to feel he "knows something" that others don't. And I thought you were a grown up.
|
|