AGM

[Batch]

No, journalists were banned. Except for Shaun Hodgetts - apparently they rang him to tell him he was banned from coming and then got all spluttery when he said he was coming anyway as he's a shareholder.

 

Are the trust to make any comment on proceedings of the AGM, or would that put them into an undesirable position.

Basically is there any way us non-shareholders can see minutes of the meeting?

[sonic youth]

No, journalists were banned. Except for Shaun Hodgetts - apparently they rang him to tell him he was banned from coming and then got all spluttery when he said he was coming anyway as he's a shareholder.

that's a fucking disgrace, journalist or not hodgetts is a town fan and had every right to be there. i despair at this club's treatment of fans.

[pauld]

No, journalists were banned. Except for Shaun Hodgetts - apparently they rang him to tell him he was banned from coming and then got all spluttery when he said he was coming anyway as he's a shareholder.

 

Are the trust to make any comment on proceedings of the AGM, or would that put them into an undesirable pesition.

Basically is there any way us non-shareholders can see minutes of the meeting?

I don't think we'd want to make any formal comment but personally I was extremely alarmed that the board refused to even discuss the alleged overspend which, let's face it, should have been the central point of the meeting - any business which has apparently run up an overspend of up to one-third of its turnover should have a damn good explanation as to why to its shareholders. Instead they hid behind what many shareholders openly characterised as a "smokescreen" in claiming that as Mark Devlin was subject to disciplinary proceedings they had legal advice not to discuss either him or the alleged overspend. Which didn't seem to bother them when they were hanging him out to dry in public.

And I think many people were disappointed that despite the fact the board's own statements (and his own come to that) have indicated that Mike Diamandis effectively runs the business or has a very large degree of control in terms of major financial decisions, ground redevelopment, hiring and firing key staff (like Dennis Wise for one), he remains unwilling to sit at the top table and answer questions as to how he has conducted the running of the business. Again, in any normal business the shareholders would expect the people running it to present themselves at the AGM and account for their actions, for good or for ill. Instead we had Martyn "Stonewall" Jackson, Sandy "Whisperin" Gray and Bob "Comeback King" Holt none of whom were either able or willing to answer the key questions.

[Batch]

Cheers Paul, I wasn't really looking for your (or the trusts) opinion, more a factual account of  what was said at the AGM.

Agree with everything you say BTW.

[Frigby Daser]

Makes me so angry.

The fact of the matter now is that we've gone from a situation where the club realised the relationship with the board was terrible and needed repairing to one where the the board simply do not care about the relationshop with the fans.

Its simply atrocious.

[Dazzza]

Was the matter of SSW's majority shares being transferred to a holding company addressed?

[pauld]

Sorry Batch, actually DV's summary was pretty reasonable - I just tried to put a bit more flesh on what I think most people thought (judging by the number of questions people asked about it) was the key issue - ie the overspend - and why they refused to answer those questions. 'Pologies if it turned into a bit of a soap-box moment  

[reeves4england]

Cheers for clearing that up. Although we are not all shareholders it is nice to find it where our club is going, if anywhere.

I think it is a disgrace that none of the people responsiblef or the current position are unwilling to attend meetings or openly speak at them and think it is ridiculous how everything is being held back. Shareholders whould be told what is going on in any business.

[yeo]

are they not legally obliged to answer shareholders questions about such things?

[Reg Smeeton]

are they not legally obliged to answer shareholders questions about such things?

 I think the obligation is satisfied by the answer that they wont answer the question....

[Batch]

No at all Paul. Your views are very welcome.

The "not looking for your opinion" bit was just me saying I wasn't trying to get opinion out of you which may lead you to be open to more attacks from the club. Though to be honest I guess your relationship with them isn't best anyway.

Sorry if it didn't read that way!

[Fred Elliot]

are they not legally obliged to answer shareholders questions about such things?

 I think the obligation is satisfied by the answer that they wont answer the question....

They played the legal card very cute IMHO.

Deflected what they did not want to answer with a stock response with regards to subjudecy (sp ?) etc

[pauld]

It's subjudice. Have you done your homework yet?  

[Fred Elliot]

I was committed, via Lisa to "family" stuff today

doing it now

will be with you in the wee hours

[pauld]

Stop wasting your time on message boards then young man!