|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 1, 2020 17:10:13 GMT
So we have an owner behaving like a despot dictator who dispenses with anyone who challenges him. Of course the SC are right not to trust anyone who behaves in that way and the fans should be onside with that rather than on the side of the despot dictator. Supporters should never blindly trust any owners, they should always try and hold them to account and stop them from behaving recklessly with the club. Supporters are for ever, owners most definitely are not! Shame then that despite all the protestations of some ITK on here, the SC and Ken barely did anything about it, or brought any of it up with the people they are supposed to represent if they had a problem with the owners Ken has basically hung on to the bitter end for what reason? KM's probably wondering that himself tonight? As far as bringing things up with SC members, it seems you're working under the assumption that he was allowed to that by the owners?
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 1, 2020 17:14:01 GMT
Thank you for that half baked conjecture but The CLUB needs to explain why they have booted the fans rep out despite the money the fans have invested. Utterly unacceptable to do so without any explanation. Correction. It’s what the SC invest and represent not the “fans”. KM and his weasels do not represent the majority of fans by any stretch. One does wonder why he tried to help destroy the owner of the club he so say supports, if there was nothing in it for him? Perhaps he would care to explain his cloak and dagger tactics in many areas. It should be obvious to him why he’s got the boot but his continuing to play dumb save face makes him even more of a disgrace IMO. Where do you think the SC got the money to invest then exactly? Secondly the OWNER of the club is NOT the club he, me or you support. There have been a lot of appalling owners of clubs and one who lends himself money to blow as he sees fit on bloated wages and staff structures by way of an Equity Release Loan secured on the company’s only asset is right up there in the list. It’s exactly why Portsmouth nearly went out of business.
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Apr 1, 2020 17:19:45 GMT
Has anyone been put forward as an interim, because surely there has to be a sc rep representing the 8% of shares during these difficult times.... If there isn't doesn't that feel a bit worrying?
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Apr 1, 2020 17:27:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Apr 1, 2020 17:39:58 GMT
Think that sums it up.... Ken may well of been a decent director, he did loads for the community side of the club.... A fans representative he was not.... Although, why would he be suspended from board meetings for a lack of communication by people not communicating themselves
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 1, 2020 17:58:55 GMT
An excellent article indeed with some very good points being made not least of which is that the fans through their investment through the SC share scheme should have the representation on the Board that was agreed when the money was invested. It’s damming of Masters though and he is certainly not coming out of this in a good light but that should not hide the dangers of the ‘in effect’ one man board and the way the club is being run.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Apr 1, 2020 18:07:33 GMT
An excellent article indeed with some very good points being made not least of which is that the fans through their investment through the SC share scheme should have the representation on the Board that was agreed when the money was invested. It’s damming of Masters though and he is certainly not coming out of this in a good light but that should not hide the dangers of the ‘in effect’ one man board and the way the club is being run. I thoroughly agree. We should have two back in with full visibility of the board. But we need strong candidates and not just those who are stuck in the past and whom will challenge the club.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 1, 2020 18:40:35 GMT
Would you trust Guy Fawkes? Exactly. Thank you for that half baked conjecture but The CLUB needs to explain why they have booted the fans rep out despite the money the fans have invested. Utterly unacceptable to do so without any explanation. The club have not booted out the fans rep. They asked the SC to provide an alternative to Ken and I cant say I blame them.
|
|
|
Post by rosssgb on Apr 1, 2020 18:48:31 GMT
Strikes me as though we continue to be run like North Korea.
Feel sorry for Ken another good man that has departed. Those saying he was leaking information etc, surely that was his job as a fan representative? To report back any concerns he had etc. You can’t on one hand moan about lack of communication, but then moan that Ken was voicing his opinions.
Personally my mood has drastically improved since detaching from the club, only occasionally checking bristol post and here, trying not to get bogged down in the politics of everything. I would suggest anyone who’s feeling a similar way (disillusioned/generally sad about the future and health of the club) does the same, it’s improved my mental health significantly.
Caring so much about something which you have no ability to change isn’t healthy.
Wishing you all well in these strange and uncertain times.
utg
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 1, 2020 19:00:15 GMT
Thank you for that half baked conjecture but The CLUB needs to explain why they have booted the fans rep out despite the money the fans have invested. Utterly unacceptable to do so without any explanation. The club have not booted out the fans rep. They asked the SC to provide an alternative to Ken and I cant say I blame them. But is an alternative really going to have a differing view about the accounts etc than KM? The fact KM's saying he's no confidence in the way the club is being run is quite damning.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Apr 1, 2020 19:05:53 GMT
The club have not booted out the fans rep. They asked the SC to provide an alternative to Ken and I cant say I blame them. But is an alternative really going to have a differing view about the accounts etc than KM? The fact KM's saying he's no confidence in the way the club is being run is quite damning. So damning that hes never publicly mentioned it before until he was removed from the feeding trough.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 1, 2020 19:08:47 GMT
Thank you for that half baked conjecture but The CLUB needs to explain why they have booted the fans rep out despite the money the fans have invested. Utterly unacceptable to do so without any explanation. The club have not booted out the fans rep. They asked the SC to provide an alternative to Ken and I cant say I blame them. Have they? Is that in the public domain or more conjecture?
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 1, 2020 19:14:36 GMT
Correction. It’s what the SC invest and represent not the “fans”. KM and his weasels do not represent the majority of fans by any stretch. One does wonder why he tried to help destroy the owner of the club he so say supports, if there was nothing in it for him? Perhaps he would care to explain his cloak and dagger tactics in many areas. It should be obvious to him why he’s got the boot but his continuing to play dumb save face makes him even more of a disgrace IMO. Where do you think the SC got the money to invest then exactly? Secondly the OWNER of the club is NOT the club he, me or you support. There have been a lot of appalling owners of clubs and one who lends himself money to blow as he sees fit on bloated wages and staff structures by way of an Equity Release Loan secured on the company’s only asset is right up there in the list. It’s exactly why Portsmouth nearly went out of business. Agree with your point, but it’s Wael’s (Al’Qadi) money we rely on to survive and he deserves to be shown a modicum of respect for that alone. Regardless whether you agree with the way he’s running the show or not. If KM and his weasels want to try and kick the legs from under the club you would like to think they had a bundle of cash and provided a planned alternative that they present to the SC and the wider fan base as an alternative. But they don’t and never had. It’s more fantasist than they accuse our owner of being. Instead they decided to be underhand, Snakey and snide in an attempt to turn fans against the club, to indict our owner in a smear campaign which even the press weren’t interested in and to create angles for their own benefit. I’m glad it failed on them. I admit KM has done lots for BRFC. But ego and ambition overshadowed his good works and his ability as a fit and proper director.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 1, 2020 19:15:34 GMT
The club have not booted out the fans rep. They asked the SC to provide an alternative to Ken and I cant say I blame them. Have they? Is that in the public domain or more conjecture? KM said he was asked to step aside by Mike Turner. What bigger hint do you need?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 1, 2020 19:20:59 GMT
The club have not booted out the fans rep. They asked the SC to provide an alternative to Ken and I cant say I blame them. Have they? Is that in the public domain or more conjecture? it was on 20man and in the post 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.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 1, 2020 19:45:02 GMT
Have they? Is that in the public domain or more conjecture? it was on 20man and in the post 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. Fair enough. I missed that but nevertheless it doesn’t make sense that the club have banned him and won’t divulge why even to the person they’ve banned. In fact it is not acceptable and totally autocratic. The fans who contributed to the share scheme are entitled to be represented by 2 fans on the board as set out in the terms of the investment. It’s not acceptable for the major shareholder to ban any rep without explanation or justification. The club has taken the fans money and it cannot ride roughshod over the strings attached!
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 1, 2020 20:09:09 GMT
it was on 20man and in the post 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. Fair enough. I missed that but nevertheless it doesn’t make sense that the club have banned him and won’t divulge why even to the person they’ve banned. In fact it is not acceptable and totally autocratic. The fans who contributed to the share scheme are entitled to be represented by 2 fans on the board as set out in the terms of the investment. It’s not acceptable for the major shareholder to ban any rep without explanation or justification. The club has taken the fans money and it cannot ride roughshod over the strings attached! Have you ever thought that he was trying to save the face of the director by not disclosing what he had done? In fact that might turn out to be a bigger kindness wouldn’t it? Let’s say you are the owner and in Wael’s position. Let’s also say that, hypothetically speaking, KM colluded to accuse our owner (you) of a hideous crime, let’s say it’s fraud. KM took it upon himself before collecting any hard evidence himself to inform the EFL, the police and the council about this criminal activity and they all investigate, but find nothing. Not satisfied they then go to the press in which to try and make this accusation known believing there is no smoke without fire and it will help muddy the waters and turn fans against him as well as make it easier to try and achieve their goal of wrestling control. Not even the press are interested in such a thing. How would you take to being accused of a crime you hadn’t committed and there was no evidence of by a grumpy old director with an axe to grind that isn’t even in your boardroom off the back of his own investment? Logically you would get rid of him. You may even chose to tell all in sundry why and besmirch his name and reputation. But what would be the point when you can usher him out the door quietly thanking him for his help and also protecting the name of your club with it. Now it’s possible that this hypothesis has a ring of truth about it, it may not, but KM should be grateful that full disclosure isn’t on the table because he may just lose more than his directorship.
|
|
|
Post by wsmjohn on Apr 1, 2020 20:10:42 GMT
What about Weston GAS, who can we support!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 20:12:10 GMT
it was on 20man and in the post 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. Fair enough. I missed that but nevertheless it doesn’t make sense that the club have banned him and won’t divulge why even to the person they’ve banned. In fact it is not acceptable and totally autocratic. The fans who contributed to the share scheme are entitled to be represented by 2 fans on the board as set out in the terms of the investment. It’s not acceptable for the major shareholder to ban any rep without explanation or justification. The club has taken the fans money and it cannot ride roughshod over the strings attached! Whilst I have a smidgen of sympathy for what you say with reference to the share scheme and SC representative, you miss one key point. Under the terms of (original) agreement any SC Rep is subject to approval and acceptance by the board of 1883 ltd. That is entirely normal
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 1, 2020 20:20:18 GMT
Fair enough. I missed that but nevertheless it doesn’t make sense that the club have banned him and won’t divulge why even to the person they’ve banned. In fact it is not acceptable and totally autocratic. The fans who contributed to the share scheme are entitled to be represented by 2 fans on the board as set out in the terms of the investment. It’s not acceptable for the major shareholder to ban any rep without explanation or justification. The club has taken the fans money and it cannot ride roughshod over the strings attached! Have you ever thought that he was trying to save the face of the director by not disclosing what he had done? In fact that might turn out to be a bigger kindness wouldn’t it? Let’s say you are the owner and in Wael’s position. Let’s also say that, hypothetically speaking, KM colluded to accuse our owner (you) of a hideous crime, let’s say it’s fraud. KM took it upon himself before collecting any hard evidence himself to inform the EFL, the police and the council about this criminal activity and they all investigate, but find nothing. Not satisfied they then go to the press in which to try and make this accusation known believing there is no smoke without fire and it will help muddy the waters and turn fans against him as well as make it easier to try and achieve their goal of wrestling control. Not even the press are interested in such a thing. How would you take to being accused of a crime you hadn’t committed and there was no evidence of by a grumpy old director with an axe to grind that isn’t even in your boardroom off the back of his own investment? Logically you would get rid of him. You may even chose to tell all in sundry why and besmirch his name and reputation. But what would be the point when you can usher him out the door quietly thanking him for his help and also protecting the name of your club with it. Now it’s possible that this hypothesis has a ring of truth about it, it may not, but KM should be grateful that full disclosure isn’t on the table because he may just lose more than his directorship. I don’t for one moment believe your first paragraph. KM and the SC have publicly asked for a reason so they must be pretty sure it’s not going to be something that is going to embarrass THEM. As for the rest, pure conjecture once again but it’s almost like you are doing WAQ’s bidding in the same way as you accuse other ITKs of doing the bidding of those against him. What a state our fan base is in. You wouldn’t think we all supported the same club!
|
|