RC_Bairn

Name and shame…

Oh don’t you worry pal. I’ll be here win, loose or draw

Agreed. The point was more to do with shodwell’s selective use of facts or too blatantly make stuff up to suit his argument

Hold on…so who paid Griffiths wages then? and by my count Rennie brought in 7 players and still had a worse record than Sheerin

As opposed to the appointment of Martin Rennie which turned out to be such a success??? How much of the cash reserves do you think he pissed away on duds like Griffiths and others who conspired to have a worse record than Sheerin.

Because I already know the answer. If you think i’m full of it then ask the question, and come back on here and tell everyone what they said.

Where does it say my reliable source was a member of the previous board? Reading comprehension ain’t your thing clearly dude. As I said to your mates (the same three that red dot me) if you don’t believe me then ask the Board. I’m sure you have their number. AJ1981 is typing….this’ll be fun!

Go ask the Board then and we’ll see how much of a tale it is. You’re clearly close with them

Not sure how you can equate a guy who invested £2 million (of which he's only had just over half back if my maths are correct) and some Patrons who have donated shares which are, frankly, barely worth the paper the certificate is printed on.

That's correct I believe. I've heard from a pretty reliable source that the club started conversations a few years ago with SA about 'coming to an arrangement' to end the rental payments but these conversations were put on ice when the FSS/Patrons guys took over.

It's the same old story - disagree with anything and you must be aligned to the previous board - yawn. The same accusation could be laid at your door that your bind loyalty means you must have some affiliation to the current incumbents. Plenty on here hiding behind usernames, or leaving the site only to return with a new profile a few weeks later...

You're certainly entitled to your view but atleast do it based on some facts. The previous bowling club committee were the ones who re-established the 'academy'. This is also our third season in L1 under the current incumbents.

Will do bud. Name calling from behind a keyboard - stay classy edited to add: i’m not batting for anyone - i’m just not delusional enough to think that guys are gonna put money into our club when folk are calling them all sorts. If you wanna believe that then fair enough.

The Board have been saying for two years that we need to change the business model and as far as I can see things haven't changed in a business sense - the operating loss is still as large as ever (even when taking into account cup monies and other unbudgeted for income). What happened to all the big ideas that Kenny Jamieson had for changing the operating model? Hot air I suspect. The harsh realities are: There's no opportunity for small shareholders to purchase additional shares. The projections for growth of the FSS are unrealistic (and from recent comments on here it looks like some members have left) The PG are tapped out. They might be able to contribute the odd thousand here and there but they don't have the same financial clout as Ritchie, Alexander, Rawlins. As for those latter three - why on earth would they put more money into the club? Unless they've all developed collective amnesia over the abuse they've received the past few years (much of it on this forum and from members of the current board) then there's no way they'll step up.

Hopefully this Fortress Brockville event is better run than the Latapy night which you guys were promoting. Still waiting on my refund or further information!

Agreed. It's also very interesting to note that many of the 'founding fathers' of the FSS have now gone to ground. Would be keen to hear their take on things as recent statements seem to point the finger at those individuals for misreading the relationship between FSS and the club.

The fact that all bar one of the FSS directors have resigned since it's inception suggests it may not purely be an issue of time commitment.

Darren Barr actually started as a winger in the youth development set up. Leahy played as a striker his first few games for us, then moved to left back. Seems he's now playing in midfield for Wycombe - a jack of all trades clearly.

Think there were a few tbf. Disbanding the MSG, facilitating the creation of the FSS, restarting the youth development programme and bringing in the largest single investment in the club’s history. There’s a few to get you started…

An interesting deflection

That's rich coming from one of the biggest moaners on here. A few points to clarify: 1. FSS members cannot dictate what their money is spent on. Once it's in the club's coffers then it's entirely at the discretion of the BoD how to use it. 2. There has to be flexibility in the three legged stool model. If one leg has money to invest are we really saying they can't because the other two legs are not going to invest? That's madness and will cripple the club.

In my humble view there should be no limit on the shareholding that FSS can have. If others (such as the Patrons, MR and SA, Rawlins etc) are worried about dilution then they should be afforded a similar opportunity to buy more shares to maintain their percentage - thus keeping all three legs of the stool as close to even as they can be. I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea that the FSS continues to pump money into the club, but its influence in the boardroom does not grow. I'm equally uncomfortable that the Patrons can maintain their level of influence in the boardroom but not offer up further investment.

The reality is that the admin involved in dealing with a shareholder who has 1 share, and a shareholder who has 2,000 shares is exactly the same. That being said, I believe there was a minimum share purchase of £400 at the last share issue - but that obviously applies to new shares purchased and not people with an existing shareholding. What FSS would probably be looking at is not a transfer of shares, but an agreement that individual shareholders would pool together and vote alongside the FSS in a bloc. Similar to how the MSG and Patrons work/worked.

You're missing the point (not sure whether it's deliberate or not). Why should fans with individual shareholdings be asked to transfer them to the FSS because the BoD have set an arbitrary limit on the FSS shareholding? Also aren't you concerned that fans have been misled? We were told that FSS donations would be used to build up a shareholding in the club and to further fan ownership. It would now appear that's been dumped and FSS has now become a vehicle to deliver a donation to the club.

Seriously? I know you've drank the kool-aid but surely you see the flaws in this? There's no need for the club to retain unsold shares for new patrons or new external investers. The BoD have the ability to issue new shares whenever they want (subject to shareholder approval) so it makes no sense to put a limit on one group, but not others. This is a power play - pure and simple. It's now becoming increasingly clear what's behind the recent FSS resignations.