WC Boggs

You've named him yourself repeatedly. Feel free to do it again.

There's no if about it. He was facing action. He stood for election after it all blew over, some 50 members, including me voted against him. I think 70 odd voted in favour. It's repeated civil war at this club and you're right it is making a mockery of it. This is why I personally have turned against our model of fan ownership. Be nice if it worked but it doesn't. The fans are split in two factions who either support one board or the other and it never ends.

Not when the person in question had been harassing board members with hostile messages. On top of that he had already been facing action by the Trust board itself for harassment of trust members.. At which point he resigned from the trust. Only to rejoin later and get himself elected to the Trust board itself and continue to behave in an inappropriate way.

The only chickens I've counted are on the Trust board. Remember that.

The Trust board declared they can't work with the club board. If Stuart Brown wins and he and the club board continue, then having declared they can't work with the club board, the Trust board have no alternative but to resign. The only thing nonsensical, would be them attempting to carry on with what they have declared they can't do. The Trust board know this, but it's not surprising that the simplest of logic is beyond your capacity to process. Stuart asking for details of the meeting not to be leaked hasn't stopped you leaking them, (however distorted) when it suits you.

How could the Trust board possibly be removed before the AGM took place, when the Trust board have refused to allow a vote on the resolution to remove them? That is one pathetic and deceitful excuse for not holding the AGM. Let's try the obvious and less fanciful reason for a date not being set. If the AGM goes ahead, then a vote on your resolution on removing Stuart Brown goes ahead. If that resolution fails, then the entire trust board has to resign, because they have declared they can't work with the club board. I'm surprised you did not know that. The Trust board's plan that it has admitted to itself and you have discussed on here. I'm not surprised you deny what you have written about yourself, you do it habitually. This is the second time I have asked a shareholder present at that EGM if a vote was taken at it or not. For the second time that question has been dodged. So no I am not well informed on that, because it seems the shareholders don't seem to want members informed on that. The trust board haven't been informative on that either. Transparency eh. Great how those who call for it are about as transparent as sheet lead.

House cleaning. What do you call the Trust board not giving a date for the membership AGM? I call it cowardice! You were at the shareholders meeting. So, was there a vote taken on The Trust board's plan to remove the Club board or not?

Oh yeah. Information like saying the Trust board were on a power grab. Then oh look a total blatant power grab.

The club can't legally be sold, now it's conspiracy theories. I'm off to do some dog walking.

You may not remember it but that happened. A player who had flown over from Europe for discussions was not met at the airport because of it. I don't give a toss whether you respond or not. I do not know why they did not want to meet with that business man. You don't provide any reasons for that for any judgement to be made on it. Try being specific yourself. Now I am off out, so have fun.

As you said not long ago it takes a big man to own up when he's got his facts wrong. That response just tells everybody what a small and stupid man you are.

Who did Stuart say was going tit for tat? Why do I just know he was referring to trust members, not him or the board and you know it.

My name is not on the resolution that was submitted to the Trust's Lawyers. My name is of course on the list of people who voted in support of that resolution. I did not say I didn't vote for the resolution. I said my name was not ON the resolution lodged. Can you not process the written word? Geez you must have the IQ of a dry roasted peanut.

Define "treat." That last group in that succession actually interfered with the manager's job and forbade him from talking to any potential signings. One of those responsible for that is back on the Trust board now. It's no use saying they were spurned without saying what they were demanding. With that lot the word "oversight" was code for we want a vote in operational decisions. So go ahead tell me what they were demanding that they were spurned on? Oh wait I forgot. We're not supposed to delve into the past unless it suits you lot. I'll ask Colin about that next time I see him..

Fair enough, libel it is.

No I did not have my name on the resolution. If I had been I'd have no problem saying so. If I was going to nominate somebody better to replace them, I'd nominate Sooty and Sweep, Basil Brush, Kermit the Frog, Statler and Waldorf and last but not least Fozzy bear.

What I'm saying is that I don't trust you to report on anything accurately. How did 50 members become 71 over a phone call ?

Most likely not, but he's still being slandered.

The Club directors did not have their names on the resolution to remove the Trust board. Individuals do not have to be instigated to act of their own volition. I want the Trust board out because I believe them to be incompetent and unreasonably combative with the club board. I was not told to have that opinion by anybody. So who the hell are you to accuse the people who lodged the resolution of being instigated to? Do you know them? Have you spoken to them?

Certainly. The club board are accountable to both the membership and the shareholders of the Trust. If people are going to say the club board has in any way refused to be accountable, it needs specifics on instances supplied, not just repeating the words not accountable. You know as well as I do there is a procedure for removal for any board that can be proven to have been incompetent or negligent in it's duties. Here we have an instance where the board has been slagged off for years for not finding an experienced manager and when they finally land one, they get a no confidence motion in their face. Your turn. Would you like to tell us who those companies you say won't deal with the present board are?

My real name is indeed Hugh Hanlon. The crap you post is not accurate. One person did not vote 50 times. The Trust board couldn't make that stick and neither can you. So since you have already named him, you are once again slandering him. Whether to sue you or not is of course his decision, not the Trust board's. We don't have the opportunity to vote them out, because if they held the AGM your resolution would have to go ahead. If you lost they'd be screwed. So don't hold your breath waiting for an AGM date.

What a fascinating thing to say. So what you are saying is that the names on a resolution aren't really the people putting forward the resolution. OK I'll buy it. So who's really behind the names we are to ignore on your resolution then? Come on, it's your theory, fess up?

Well done, you managed to get Stuarts name in there 3 times. Do you count Stuart Browns jumping over crush barriers to get to sleep at night? The Trust board is not being ACCOUNTABLE, because it won't face it's MEMBERS. You love to bring up the Trust board as if being elected made them akin to the untouchable disciples of Jesus. Politicians get elected and they sure aren't akin to the disciples of Jesus. Neither are the Trust board. The difference between them is the government don't get to decide if a no confidence vote can be held on them or not. The Trust board can and did decide not to. That's not accountability. That's ignoring accountability. Clearly we don't OWN it if we are denied a vote and votes already cast online, including mine can be voided at will. The Trust board think they OWN it.

You are making the mistake of believing Liston's habitual twisting of other people's words. The chairman may well have said the people who lodged the resolution did it as a tit for tat. You can bet money on it he did not say the board lodged it as Liston implied. The chairman is not that stupid. Liston is that twisted. I could not be more open that I side with the club board 100%. Make it 200% if you like. What I have denied is that I am following a script provided by the chairman. The accusations of that are just the usual methods of those who want to bring him down. Dodge the issue, try to discredit the man who brings it up. In response to the attempt to remove the chairman and him alone, fellow board members stood by him as any decisions made are group decisions. The people who yell about accountability got pissed off at them declaring, hey we're accountable too. Only at Stirling Albion is standing with a colleague out of integrity seen to be a heinous crime. I consented to let my daughter submit my vote along with hers on her email account. There is no rule against that. That is what happened with the director. The difference being he had appealed to a lot of people to join the membership and with their consent submitted their votes via his email account. I agree doing it that way with 50 of them was not wise, but the Trust board had accepted those people and their membership fees and they are still entitled to vote just the same. Despite investigating the submissions to date the Trust board have not come up with a single person who did not consent to their vote being submitted that way So gerrymandering? Utter crap! Peter Reid fae Peterheid is deid. Volvo for sale.

God knows what he means. 20% is not a majority holding. Unless a majority holding communicated consent by mental telepathy, there had to be a vote for claims of consent to be valid. Either there was a vote or there was not. It's a simple yes or no. What I have heard is that a group of shareholders requested a joint board meeting to resolve the dispute. Something Mr Allardyce failed to mention. Too busy putting out his usual innuendo about a lack of accountability, without ever a scrap of information of what they have found to hold anybody accountable for! Did somebody pinch his sausage roll at hospitality? WHAT THEN? The Trust board kept the membership in the dark about the purpose they intended to use this EGM for. That's unacceptable and just one more reason why they need to be held accountable. They don't represent the people who voted them in, they represent themselves and their own agenda. That becomes ever more clear with every action they take, every statement they put out and every secret they keep.