Deposed ?? I thought the Director in question resigned ?? I suppose some people like to reinvent the truth, they will forget how they used to cling onto Sharkys shirt tails next.
A Director shall declare an interest in any contract or matter in which s/he has a personal, material or financial interest in accordance with the Trust’s Board Membership and Conduct Policy. “
This stand alone clause in our clubs model rules leaves no room for ambiguity.
If Mr Stroud chooses to stand for re-election, the minimum requirement to satisfy the integrity of his tenure as chair should be to table the minutes of the trust and football club meeting where the above rule was satisfied. That will clear the air one way or another.
Additionally- given the chair is up for re-election, the usual practice of him receiving and administering the proxy votes for the ballot must be delegated to an independent person. Also, in order to provide a fair and intact process, this meeting should be chaired by an alternate director who is not up for re-election so the following rules can be applied fairly -
The following further rules apply to proxies:
54.1 No person other than the Chair of the meeting can act as proxy for more than 3 members.
54.2 Any question as to the validity of a proxy is to be determined by the Chair of the meeting whose decision is to be final.
Finally , it should be said that the following rule in calling a special general meeting is available to we members should we have concerns about conflict ,direction, decisions or the integrity of the board
The Trust Board upon an application by not less than 20 members or 5% of the membership, whichever is the greater, delivered to the Trust’s registered office, shall convene a general meeting. The purpose of the special general meeting shall be stated in the application and notice of the meeting. No business other than that stated in the notice of the meeting shall be conducted at the meeting.
@Morris_Ital said:
I have met Trevor Stroud and he came across as a totally legitimate fan and not Bernie Maddof .
I expect even Sharky would have come across as legitimate on first sighting!
No, anyone who made his money by overcharging desperate people could never come across as legitimate.
As far as TS is concerned I’m just giving my impression on meeting the man, as far as any of the allegations others have made here’s something you rarely read on this forum I don’t know.
@NiceCarrots said:
Good to hear you are on here as an individual rather than an organ of the Trust board.
And thank you for giving such a straight answer.
Given you are happy to share your opinions, as an individual, on my brief tenure on the Trust board, I assume you are happy for me to do the same?
James - You and I signed up to the 'Board Membership and Conduct Policy' and I respect that. My personal view is that you should too, in relation to your period of office.
I have not opined on your "brief tenure" but only on your recent comments which appear to made as a result of that time. I withdrew my use of an incorrect term and like you made an apology.
NB: I am not able to continue this debate here today or this weekend due to attending to other commitments.
Alan Cecil- I assume you are referencing the Board Membership and Conduct Policy (23rd April 2015) version.
Please note Item 7 Conflicts of Interest and Removal of Directors from The Trust Board.
When did the Trust board decide to ignore their own Board Membership and Conduct Policy and why?
Mooneyman - they fabricated some bullshit about me handing out copies of the legal letter dated 6th August from Beeks and the gang. This letter is the one basically saying they'd collected on the training ground. These lies, which I categorically denied at the time and continue to do so, led to a kangaroo court and, as you know, you can't circle the wagons on your own...
They didn't want me on board the previous year and denied me the opportunity to speak at the A.G.M on the Sunday before the meeting.
I was posting under the moniker 'dubblue' on the old gasroom when I exposed the anonymous consortium of Gary Hooper and Harry (Henry) Kerr, the latter is believed to be on the run from the police and last spotted in Vienna.
Quite why none of the Trust could be arsed to conduct the flimsiest amount of due diligence when they are supposed to be ' Safeguarding our heritage' God only knows.
We've got previous in making crap decisions on who to go to bed with hence the importance, and popularity, of this thread.
I understand everything will be dismissed as sour grapes but the truth is important.
@NiceCarrots - Thanks for the response. Perhaps Alan Cecil can identify the power under which the Chairman can refuse to allow a fellow Board Member to speak at the AGM?
Sorry mooneyman to clarify, the first year I stood for election to the trust board I was prevented from addressing the electorate at the AGM so I wasn't a trust board director at the time I was only a candidate.
There’s currently a calm before a huge storm according to the Vere Suite beer table regulars and those who camp near it at home games. Regardless of whether a takeover happens or a share sold of our club,There is a strong momentum agitating they we should be under new leadership and control after the November AGM.
My personal view is that at least two sitting directors who are looking for re-election have done an admirable job and served a good innings ( our chairman is one) , but it is now time for new energy and a more experienced skill set. Whether the agitators can convince trust members with the quality and nouse required to actually stand is the big talking point.
Hopefully the coming election will result in a BALANCED Board of Directors to include those with differing views (such as James) rather than the current unhealthy closed shop under Stroud.
It will be interesting to see what Mr Stroud of TRS Connections has to say about being bought and paid for, Shroud cannot ignore it as he is standing for re-election.
It hasn't gone away, it will not go away and the AGM is next month.
Stroud needs to tell the electorate the date of the first payment, how much he has banked since the payments started and why he deliberately chose to omit any reference to this conflict of interest at the November 29th A.G.M while discussing the subject of... conflict of interest.
(See Trust website 18th February and link to the AGM Minutes November 2017)
Mr. Cecil has referred on the gasroom to the Board Membership and Conduct Policy.
See his posting dated October 5th in the thread on a previous page.
Here it is in full:
Conflicts of Interest
Declare any personal or financial interest in any matter being discussed, and withdraw from further discussion and decisions if required to do so.
Could somebody please tell the electorate/members/shareholders/ Chairboys Funders, volunteers etc. who is Head of the Governance Group?
I think you mean 'bankrolled' by the club. That is the modern way. We are all now bankrolled by someone.
I don't get the conflict bit either but for me it shows the accuser in a worse light than the accusee. Would have been a different tale had @NiceCarrots got the Beachdean deal when it was up for tender.
Comments
Deposed ?? I thought the Director in question resigned ?? I suppose some people like to reinvent the truth, they will forget how they used to cling onto Sharkys shirt tails next.
“Deposed” - to be removed from office suddenly and forcefully .
That’s a serious statement.
OK let's just say 'former'.
“DECLARATION OF INTEREST
This stand alone clause in our clubs model rules leaves no room for ambiguity.
If Mr Stroud chooses to stand for re-election, the minimum requirement to satisfy the integrity of his tenure as chair should be to table the minutes of the trust and football club meeting where the above rule was satisfied. That will clear the air one way or another.
Additionally- given the chair is up for re-election, the usual practice of him receiving and administering the proxy votes for the ballot must be delegated to an independent person. Also, in order to provide a fair and intact process, this meeting should be chaired by an alternate director who is not up for re-election so the following rules can be applied fairly -
54.1 No person other than the Chair of the meeting can act as proxy for more than 3 members.
54.2 Any question as to the validity of a proxy is to be determined by the Chair of the meeting whose decision is to be final.
Finally , it should be said that the following rule in calling a special general meeting is available to we members should we have concerns about conflict ,direction, decisions or the integrity of the board
I honestly don’t care which we go with as long as it’s the truth.
Was he deposed as was stated?
James resigned in 2016. There was no "forceful removal" so I withdraw my use of the word deposed.
Cannot fault this.quality and fairness from a director of unquestionable good faith & integrity. Thank you Alan.
No, anyone who made his money by overcharging desperate people could never come across as legitimate.
As far as TS is concerned I’m just giving my impression on meeting the man, as far as any of the allegations others have made here’s something you rarely read on this forum I don’t know.
Alan - you were right the first time, I was deposed!
Tell me, when you post on here are you posting as an individual or as a representative of the Trust board?
I respond here as an individual and only when I feel it right to do so.
Good to hear you are on here as an individual rather than an organ of the Trust board.
And thank you for giving such a straight answer.
Given you are happy to share your opinions, as an individual, on my brief tenure on the Trust board, I assume you are happy for me to do the same?
Alan,
Thanks for the email, can I post it on here?
James - You and I signed up to the 'Board Membership and Conduct Policy' and I respect that. My personal view is that you should too, in relation to your period of office.
I have not opined on your "brief tenure" but only on your recent comments which appear to made as a result of that time. I withdrew my use of an incorrect term and like you made an apology.
NB: I am not able to continue this debate here today or this weekend due to attending to other commitments.
@NiceCarrots - On what grounds and authority did Stroud & Co succeed in "deposing" you?
Alan Cecil- I assume you are referencing the Board Membership and Conduct Policy (23rd April 2015) version.
Please note Item 7 Conflicts of Interest and Removal of Directors from The Trust Board.
When did the Trust board decide to ignore their own Board Membership and Conduct Policy and why?
Mooneyman - they fabricated some bullshit about me handing out copies of the legal letter dated 6th August from Beeks and the gang. This letter is the one basically saying they'd collected on the training ground. These lies, which I categorically denied at the time and continue to do so, led to a kangaroo court and, as you know, you can't circle the wagons on your own...
They didn't want me on board the previous year and denied me the opportunity to speak at the A.G.M on the Sunday before the meeting.
I was posting under the moniker 'dubblue' on the old gasroom when I exposed the anonymous consortium of Gary Hooper and Harry (Henry) Kerr, the latter is believed to be on the run from the police and last spotted in Vienna.
Quite why none of the Trust could be arsed to conduct the flimsiest amount of due diligence when they are supposed to be ' Safeguarding our heritage' God only knows.
We've got previous in making crap decisions on who to go to bed with hence the importance, and popularity, of this thread.
I understand everything will be dismissed as sour grapes but the truth is important.
Hope this explains my position.
@NiceCarrots - Thanks for the response. Perhaps Alan Cecil can identify the power under which the Chairman can refuse to allow a fellow Board Member to speak at the AGM?
Sorry mooneyman to clarify, the first year I stood for election to the trust board I was prevented from addressing the electorate at the AGM so I wasn't a trust board director at the time I was only a candidate.
There’s currently a calm before a huge storm according to the Vere Suite beer table regulars and those who camp near it at home games. Regardless of whether a takeover happens or a share sold of our club,There is a strong momentum agitating they we should be under new leadership and control after the November AGM.
My personal view is that at least two sitting directors who are looking for re-election have done an admirable job and served a good innings ( our chairman is one) , but it is now time for new energy and a more experienced skill set. Whether the agitators can convince trust members with the quality and nouse required to actually stand is the big talking point.
If any potentially interested folks are reading this thread, we'll have a good job convincing them!
Hopefully the coming election will result in a BALANCED Board of Directors to include those with differing views (such as James) rather than the current unhealthy closed shop under Stroud.
Takeover talk has gone very, very quiet... should we assume all potential buyers are no longer interested?
and I cannot work out whether or not the eating your dinner during a football match experience at Adams Park has improved or not!
Did we ever resolve the issue of whether Gasroom 2.0 can support the Gasman's Christmas Lights?
It will be interesting to see what Mr Stroud of TRS Connections has to say about being bought and paid for, Shroud cannot ignore it as he is standing for re-election.
It hasn't gone away, it will not go away and the AGM is next month.
Stroud needs to tell the electorate the date of the first payment, how much he has banked since the payments started and why he deliberately chose to omit any reference to this conflict of interest at the November 29th A.G.M while discussing the subject of... conflict of interest.
(See Trust website 18th February and link to the AGM Minutes November 2017)
Mr. Cecil has referred on the gasroom to the Board Membership and Conduct Policy.
See his posting dated October 5th in the thread on a previous page.
Here it is in full:
Declare any personal or financial interest in any matter being discussed, and withdraw from further discussion and decisions if required to do so.
Could somebody please tell the electorate/members/shareholders/ Chairboys Funders, volunteers etc. who is Head of the Governance Group?
I must admit I’m still struggling to see what the actual conflict of interest is.
Assuming that TS is partially/totally paid by AH, which seems to be the case, what is the actual potential conflict?
Apologies it’s been a long day and it was probably explained ages ago
There must be one @bookertease or we would not have all of these long e-mails.
Shroud cannot ignore it as he is standing for re-election.
This Shroud fellow has resurfaced. He's a very shadowy fellow!
Stupid question I know...but I'm assuming Trevor is paid by the club? (Is that the issue??)
I assumed that we had developed a light and dark blue range of ice creams which was causing the problem
I think you mean 'bankrolled' by the club. That is the modern way. We are all now bankrolled by someone.
I don't get the conflict bit either but for me it shows the accuser in a worse light than the accusee. Would have been a different tale had @NiceCarrots got the Beachdean deal when it was up for tender.