people make up your minds part 2

[pauld]

Ironside, most of what you argue for (fans having a minimal, and hence sadly ineffective, shareholding and fans arguing the case with the council for a community-based redevelopment of the CG) is already happening - the Trust have a shareholding of a few thousand shares (and much good it does us) and we have been consistently working on options for the CG redevelopment since we resurrected the idea of a CG redevelopment with the cross-party motion 18 months or so ago. Some of this is still necessarily "below the horizon" at the moment, but watch this space as they say (well, maybe perhaps not this exact one, but you get the point). None of the work we've done has necessitated spending hundreds of thousands on a useless shareholding and I'm puzzled as to what you think this would achieve other than to line Willie's pockets?

[Ironside]

Paul

I don't understand does the fact that the trust holds a few thousand shares benefit the trust when dealing with the club and the council (on stadium matters)?

If it does (why else would you have them?) surely a few more wouldn't do you any harm?  I don't want to line carsons pockets, but I definatley want rid of him and if hard cash is the only thing he understands, why don't we give him what he wants and get someone in who will work for the club?    

Having him as Chairman is an insult to us all.  If we need a "figurehead" it should bea fan or one of the old 69 boys or such like, i'm sure they would be prepared to at least spare a few hours a week for the benefit of the club?

I think it's important now, possibly more than ever that fans have a direct stake in the running of their club.

[red macca]

Paul

I don't understand does the fact that the trust holds a few thousand shares benefit the trust when dealing with the club and the council (on stadium matters)?

If it does (why else would you have them?) surely a few more wouldn't do you any harm?  I don't want to line carsons pockets, but I definatley want rid of him and if hard cash is the only thing he understands, why don't we give him what he wants and get someone in who will work for the club?    

Having him as Chairman is an insult to us all.  If we need a "figurehead" it should bea fan or one of the old 69 boys or such like, i'm sure they would be prepared to at least spare a few hours a week for the benefit of the club?

I think it's important now, possibly more than ever that fans have a direct stake in the running of their club.

never going to happen i would love it to but it never will

[pauld]

Paul

I don't understand does the fact that the trust holds a few thousand shares benefit the trust when dealing with the club and the council (on stadium matters)?

Not really.

If it does (why else would you have them?) surely a few more wouldn't do you any harm?  I don't want to line carsons pockets, but I definatley want rid of him and if hard cash is the only thing he understands, why don't we give him what he wants and get someone in who will work for the club?

I see what you're saying and obviously having a larger shareholding wouldn't harm our position, but to be honest it wouldn't do much good until it got to one of the key "tipping points" (e.g. at 25+1, certain legal rights kick in and you get a right of veto on certain matters etc). With the greatest of respect to you and wee willie, he's a bit of an irrelevance in terms of having a say in the running of the club - the fact he didn't know about the Atkinson TV thing until two weeks after it had been in all the local and national press speaks volumes about the nature of his position in the running of the club. He is just a figurehead nothing more and to be fair he's only ever claimed to be that. So the point I was making is that I don't see it's worth fans raising hundreds of thousands to spend it on replacing the current figurehead with one of our own choosing, if you see what I mean.

I think it's important now, possibly more than ever that fans have a direct stake in the running of their club.

Right, I'd wholly agree - that's entirely what the Trust is all about. But for that we need a fans' rep on the board and that won't happen by just paying off Willie, that will only happen (at the moment) by either persuading the Wills family that it's in their and the club's best interests to do so or by forcing them into it by raising sufficient capital to buy so many of the Wills' family's shares that they'd be obliged to give us a seat on the board.

However, assuming they're not willing to have a fans' rep on the board anyway (and to date they've gone down the "over my dead body" line on that - see the statement put out in SSW's name prior to the last AGM) that route is more or less a hostile takeover bid as to get that amount of a shareholding would so dilute their controlling interest that they would risk losing overall control. And as in order to get that amount of shares you'd need them to sell you at least some of their holding to achieve it, you're in a bit of a cleft stick.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is let's not waste a huge amount of time, money and effort to be left with valueless shares in a company that isn't even where the real power lies anyway (as that is the holding company) and no clout within either company.

Like it or not, as things stand at the moment, fans will only be able to have a say in the running of the club at the say-so of the Wills family. And until they are persuaded to change their minds on that, buying up smaller quantities of shares is just going to be money down the drain.

[Ironside]

so that's a dead duck then ?









 

[pauld]

"Dead duck"'s perhaps a bit harsh - but as things stand at the moment, anyone wanting a greater say in the running of the club can only realistically hope to do so with the consent and cooperation of the Wills family. Which, given they own most of the shares, is just the way things work.

Basically a full-frontal cash-based approach, short of buying the club outright, won't achieve what you're after. On which note, for all those demanding that the board "put the club up for sale", AFAIK it has been for several years now - I'm pretty sure they'd welcome with open arms anyone with enough cash to buy them out and demonstrate they could give the club a viable future.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

its thursday morning and i cant be bothered to debate  

[Ironside]

fuck.

I still think we should get rid of that horse shagging midget doing the chairman's job though and give it to someone who will actually do some work on the clubs behalf.

I have posted a poll to get a rough idea of any appettite for change on that front http://www.thisisstfc.co.uk/forum_new/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27932

I suppose the only thing that will determine whether things will get any better in the medium term is succesful completion of the CVA.

Lumpy,
I think that it will eventually come down to the fans in the long term anyway, once they've got their cash out, they'll be looking for a way out in exactly the same way that Kassam has.  When it does I hope we can do something, better start saving now.......

Ash,
your arguements are shit anyway

[Piemonte]

Sort a poll out on here too Ironside, It would be interesting to compare the results.

[Ironside]

done

[ahounsell]

I don't want to line carsons pockets, but I definatley want rid of him and if hard cash is the only thing he understands, why don't we give him what he wants and get someone in who will work for the club?  

I think you misunderstand UK company law. It is not necessary for Carson to own any shares to be chairman. He's there because the shareholders voted him in. I.e. because the Wills family want him there. His own shareholding is irrelevant except that it entitles him to vote for himself.  In other words, even if he sold all his shares, he could still remain as chairman if the Wills family wanted him to.

As far as I know Mark Devlin, Sandy Gray, and Bob Holt dont own any shares in STFC (or at least not enough to warrant a mention in the accounts) but they are on the board because they are Wills family appointees.

The Trusts shareholding allows us to attend club AGMs/EGMs but without a very substantial increase it wouldnt give us any more legal rights. We have to balance the benefits against the costs. So far all our shares have been donated to us by fans and have cost nothing. If we can acquire more for nothing then why not, but if its going to cost a lot of money, there are probably better uses for the cash.

Having more (a lot more) shares could give us more sway, but in the short term at least I think there are better ways to achieve this.

Firstly, in terms of credibility by getting the CG development off the ground in the first place and by continuing to act as a broker between the various interested parties. This has given us significant credibility within the local political scene, and to an extent with the club too.

Secondly, a larger membership. We're open to suggestions on how we might achieve this. There seem to be only so many fans that are willing to actually get involved.

I think it's important now, possibly more than ever that fans have a direct stake in the running of their club.

Agree 100%

[Ironside]

Paul & friend

I understand all the gubbins at the beginning.  What I was getting at originally was just getting rid of Carson completeley as I think he would, privatley, be grateful just to get something back.  Hence all the stuff about shares but I accept your points that the end may not justify the means.

The thing about Carson though, being Chairman.  
The fact the management don't ask Carson to do anything, and it doesn't cost us anything because of that fact, still doesn't make it right.  As Daz and others have pointed out, he was at the very least (when he was given the role) supposed to give us a bit more of a media profile.  It was obviously bollocks then, he's a horses man and that's his life as well as his job, when the fuck was he ever going to do anything for us? Especially after he realised he'd only gone and brought a one way ticket on the Titanic.  It was never going to happen was it.

The point is that so far, and its marginal, the polls show that there would be support for a change in the man in the chair (I also think some of those votes against are more directed at me rather than the question).  So buying Carson out completeley is the least likely option.

If the chairman doesn't have to be shareholder, there is nothing stopping a fan having the job other than greed and secrecy.

I still want shot of Carson.  I'd rather see them scrap the title than see it attributed to him next season.  In fact why don't they just take a leaf out of the prime ministers book and sell the title on the open market.