Statement: Tonights Meeting

[millom red]

Brilliant fellas

Millom

[Nomoreheroes]

Clause IV? That's soooooo pre-Blair. Clearly what we need are a series of "empowerment focus groups"   (NB to anyone from the club reading this - that was a joke!)

  You could be onto something here....we could get nPower, who have offices in the town, to act as sponsor, so having the nPower empowerment focus groups....now if we can get Bill Power back.....

Need to get Phil Taylor involved too !

NMH

[RobertT]

Sorry to have offended so many by using a smilie.  It was meant as a response to the bit about it going well (as I was under the impression nothing more would be sain until after the various parties had gone back to their members etc).

FWIW I asked at the meeting for all further ones to not include me, for the very reasons people have spouted off on here - I don't represent anyone but me, and never have done on here.

PS, I never said I couldn't be arsed to go.  I had a period of 2 seasons or so where I still attended a handfull of games but had to make a decision on how to use my money.  For whatever reason the football didn't pull me as much as it had done in previouos years and my efforts went on reducing debt.  I'm not ashamed of that and never tried to big up myself (always noting that the people who went to games and made their voices heard were the ones to respect).  What the media then do with that is up to them, as the past 3 weeks had shown only too well with other people.

on the meeting, my summary would still be short:

Wills family expressed concern at language used
Trust defended their case
SC & myself expressed reasons why the club's message may fail to be believed at times
Everyone decided they had said everything they had to say (in public as well)
Wills seemed more than happy to listen to offers
Everyone decided now was the time to get on with making stuff happen

Personally, I'll help when needed behinf the scenes but I've become all to aware that being publicly involved is not helping anyone so asked to be removed from the process.  I got invite to the meeting by the club, thought it rude not to go, and don't expect to be needed for any follow ups.

[pauld]

And FWIW, representative or not, Rob made an excellent contribution IMHO. As well as a serious dent in the sandwiches.

[red macca]

sod all .. as most of the fans still want the current board out ...

if that was the case ALOT more people would of attended the trust meeting regarding this

 There was a 100 at the meeting Macca.....if you've ever been involved in anything of a "political" nature you'd know that was a high turnout.

 I've been at open meetings with the club about stuff like ground redevelopment etc when there's been maybe 20.   I think its fair to say most fans want the Board out, but not at the expense of destabilising the club.

ok thats a fair shout.im just saying i dont think the amount of fans want the board out that fatbury suggests

find me one fan, one fan that doesnt want the current board out...

There is a difference between people wanting the board out, and people getting off their arses to do something about it...

i dont.there you go this is my point we have all these supporters meetings and you will find that they are not speaking for the whole of the supporters

[Frigby Daser]

My main issue, as with many people, is Diamandis' role and unaccountability - was this talked of at all? and if so, what was the club response?

Also, Martyn Starnes, Ben Lambert....what are there roles and their backgrounds?

[RobertT]

macca, The SC have not publicly expressed a desire for the board to go, so them and the Trust together I think does cover a broad amount of the views on offer.

it's all academic anyway, they why and the where fors that is.  The Wills family have made it quite public that they want someone to buy them out as they are stretched on the money now.

[red macca]

macca, The SC have not publicly expressed a desire for the board to go, so them and the Trust together I think does cover a broad amount of the views on offer.

it's all academic anyway, they why and the where fors that is.  The Wills family have made it quite public that they want someone to buy them out as they are stretched on the money now.

i wouldnt know rob would i?i was not present at the meeting and the statement released regarding it didnt reveal anything.can you see my point yet

[mattboyslim]

IMHO people wanting the board to stay need to voice an opinion.  If the various fans groups state something they are voicing the majority opinion of their members (certainly true for the trust). Frankly if people don't make their opinion heard they are bound to be ignored in comparison to those who state opinions.  Personally having seen the accounts such as they are I am concerned, and I am very much inclined to agree with Moonrakers sentiments regarding accountability for those who seem to run the club.

[RobertT]

macca, The SC have not publicly expressed a desire for the board to go, so them and the Trust together I think does cover a broad amount of the views on offer.

it's all academic anyway, they why and the where fors that is.  The Wills family have made it quite public that they want someone to buy them out as they are stretched on the money now.

i wouldnt know rob would i?i was not present at the meeting and the statement released regarding it didnt reveal anything.can you see my point yet

What I've just stated is public record and you would not have needed to attend the meeting to know, it pre dates all the past few weeks stuff.

The meeting itself produced no new information.  It was more a chance for the Trust, SC and owners of STFC to sit in a room together.

[STFC Bart]

My big issue is this:

We are effectively run by someone who

1) Is not even on the board of directors
2) Has no accountability for any of his actions and consistantly hides behind other people (Gray, Holt etc)
3) Basically he is on a win- win situation- if we go down the pan he takes no blame because he is not on the board- he will use the others to take it for him
4) He is also running Dunwoody of which he is also not (on the board (Sandy Gray is).

Dunwoody being a customer and a supplier of STFC, if that is not a conflict of interest i do not know what is.

Also why are the auditors address the same as the Dunwoody group in Newbury- very convenient

[pauld]

why are the auditors address the same as the Dunwoody group in Newbury- very convenient

I think that's just because they use the same auditors. No need to create conspiracy theories where there are none - there's enough crap flying around as it is at the moment.

[pauld]

macca, The SC have not publicly expressed a desire for the board to go, so them and the Trust together I think does cover a broad amount of the views on offer.

it's all academic anyway, they why and the where fors that is.  The Wills family have made it quite public that they want someone to buy them out as they are stretched on the money now.

i wouldnt know rob would i?i was not present at the meeting and the statement released regarding it didnt reveal anything.can you see my point yet

What I've just stated is public record and you would not have needed to attend the meeting to know, it pre dates all the past few weeks stuff.

The Wills family have been saying they'd love new investors to come forward for some years now so that they're not always the first ones having to dip their hands in their pockets. Most recently in last week's Gazette & Herald, SSW was very welcoming to the idea of a fans' consortium if it meant he and his family didn't have to keep paying for everything (I'm paraphrasing, obviously). So, irrespective of whether you think we're a bunch of cunts, the point is surely the idea of fans working to find new investment in the club and/or fundraising to try to buy a stake in the club isn't a bad thing? Seems to have done Brentford and Lincoln no harm.

[Frigby Daser]

Diamandis being a supplier and being on the board wouldn't be a problem so long as shareholders of STFC voted to agree that he could be. This may well be the reason he's not on the board.

There is also the fact that Dunwoody print programmes and other publications for a large chunk of clubs in the football league - Reading, Derby, Brentford, Plymouth, Sheff Wed, QPR....its a long list. He is gaining profit from businesses in the same sector as us - but he is not acting acting on their behalf - whether this amounts to a conflict I'm not sure - its a tough one to pin down.

The shareholders would also need to vote him onto the board, which is unlikely given the fact he's an unknown quantity.

Its pretty obvious the blokes here to stay.

[mattboyslim]

The shareholders would also need to vote him onto the board, which is unlikely given the fact he's an unknown quantity.

Its pretty obvious the blokes here to stay.

Regrettably with his boss holding the major shareholding I suspect (not certain) he would be able to be added to the board if he so desired.  What worries me is his decision making role and lack of accountability for it.