Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:22:04 GMT
Even when people were trying to organise an alternative all you did is lead the witch hunt against them with your 'dissenters' vs 'saviours' attitude and abuse. You're an idiot. A complete numbskull. Once again you are talking crap. No one organised a serious alternative and you know it. Random figures were given that any 2 year old with a brain * could have produced. And none added up. * You aren't intelligent enough to fit into that category. The Hale consortium didn't provide any figures. As soon as you admit that you were completely wrong and that your attitude was extremely unhelpful I will start taking your bid for a HUST board place seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Aug 26, 2015 10:31:52 GMT
Even when people were trying to organise an alternative all you did is lead the witch hunt against them with your 'dissenters' vs 'saviours' attitude and abuse. You're an idiot. A complete numbskull. Once again you are talking crap. No one organised a serious alternative and you know it. Random figures were given that any 2 year old with a brain * could have produced. And none added up. * You aren't intelligent enough to fit into that category.Weren't you telling us the other day that you didn't go in for denigrating those with a different opinion from your own? |
|
|
|
Post by onlooker on Aug 26, 2015 10:34:51 GMT
I would support and second anyone who aims to redress the balance of power if and when HUST takes up its' full quota of shares but realises such negotiations must take place before HUST buys (most of) the remaining shares. I would also like to ask the current HUST board members why they accepted the draft articles of association which were so blatantly unfair to HUST should they became the majority shareholder. Did they take any legal advice before accepting the Articles or were they just careless in signing something they did not understand?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:37:42 GMT
As soon as you admit that you were completely wrong and that your attitude was extremely unhelpful I will start taking your bid for a HUST board place seriously. He was wrong, and the vast majority of forum regulars can see it. However, Grayham will refuse to see it for himself, never mind admit to it. That said, somebody who is that stubborn and refuses to back down could be exactly the kind of character we need to have on that board. It would appear that the chairman and vice chair tend to do be dismissive of other board members who oppose or have differing views, to the point where 6 have recently given up as they felt they were banging their heads against a brick wall. I can't imagine Grayham giving up so easily. |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 10:38:31 GMT
Yeah, I've heard those rumours too. It beggars belief that they might be seeking out prospective board members simply for their perceived acquiescence. Maybe 'Wayforward' or 'Muno' could comment on this? Have they registered yet? Can I suggest that before we give up on HUST we at least all make a concerted effort to turn up in numbers at the AGM and hold the remaining HUST board members to account? People present at the AGM vote to approve board members. Are proxy votes allowed ? If so, we would need a list of proposed candidates in advance of the meeting for those from away that can't attend the meeting. we need the election delayed so that people other than HUST insiders have a chance to get organised imo. then we need an election process that follows SD best practice guidelines, ie an election where all candidates get a chance to put forward a brief manifesto statement to all members and an election which is co-ordinated and overseen by a truly independent party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:39:56 GMT
There's no way they'll agree to delay it though. Especially not if it means it could railroad the plan that's so clearly in place. We need to act fast, not waste time seeking to delay.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 10:40:38 GMT
There's no way they'll agree to delay it though. Especially not if it means it could railroad the plan that's so clearly in place. We need to act fast, not waste time seeking to delay. they must agree to follow their own election policy if members ask surely? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:41:24 GMT
There's no way they'll agree to delay it though. Especially not if it means it could railroad the plan that's so clearly in place. We need to act fast, not waste time seeking to delay. they must agree to follow their own election policy if members ask surely? You'd think, but I'm too suspicious to think it'd work. |
|
|
|
Post by porphyriticmegacryst on Aug 26, 2015 10:43:27 GMT
Surely it is simple. If you wish to be considered, fill in the form, submit it with the backing of the required number of members, and put yourself or your nominee up for the vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:44:23 GMT
I really do hope you will stand MFMATM, we don't always agree, but you've got a level head and seem to have a decent understanding of the situation. You'd get my vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:46:02 GMT
As soon as you admit that you were completely wrong and that your attitude was extremely unhelpful I will start taking your bid for a HUST board place seriously. He was wrong, and the vast majority of forum regulars can see it. However, Grayham will refuse to see it for himself, never mind admit to it. That said, somebody who is that stubborn and refuses to back down could be exactly the kind of character we need to have on that board. It would appear that the chairman and vice chair tend to do be dismissive of other board members who oppose or have differing views, to the point where 6 have recently given up as they felt they were banging their heads against a brick wall. I can't imagine Grayham giving up so easily. Yes, except that he will just accept whatever they have to say. Then 7 months later he'll realise what's going on. No point voting him in. Next option please. |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 10:46:26 GMT
they must agree to follow their own election policy if members ask surely? You'd think, but I'm too suspicious to think it'd work. at the very least it should be requested. and if they refuse to follow the policy that would surely encourage more people to vote for "new" candidaates. we certainly need to demand that there candidates are required to provide a short statement so that we know what the hell they stand for. any election that doesn't require that is a farce. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmeadowender on Aug 26, 2015 10:46:26 GMT
Sorry, someone who acted as an attack dog for the new Hale regime suddenly puts himself up as the new figure of resistance to all the wrongs of the regime he previously defended so aggressively? Forgive me for being suspicious. It's a no from me.
|
|
jc
Junior Member
Having a small psychotic episode - will be back yesterday, maybe!
Posts: 482
|
Post by jc on Aug 26, 2015 10:57:51 GMT
Victor
It simply isn't going to happen. I sympathise with you, I really do but it won't occur.
Any change to the AoA needs to come from within HFC. Tell me whom with the board of HFC is going to want to change what they already have?
The only way to change is first change the HFC board and then implement the changes but as long as it's 4:3 voting relationship then it's a problem.
HFC is never going to be what you want, and I am sorry about that, I really am.
There was a slim change earlier in the year but the dark forces prevented the likes of me examining and advising on the AoA at the time. My belief is to get them agreed the way they are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmeadowender on Aug 26, 2015 10:58:03 GMT
The A of As won't be changed now and when there was a chance to get it right a certain bully-boy pretty much succeeded in shutting everyone up. Even some HUST board members I can think of abstained claiming they didn't understand the A of As, FFS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:58:31 GMT
To repeat, all I want is for a change to the HFC articles of association, ie, board parity and veto. Sounds suspiciously like the views of a dissenter. I thought dissenters were supposed to shut up? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 11:11:49 GMT
No, if it stays as it is then we still have a football club, and we have a say in running it ( 3 board members ). So i'd be happy enough with that. And so would every other fan of any other football club in the football league. All I want is what I've said for ages, that in the future, ultimate power goes to the biggest shareholder. HUST may eventually end up as the biggest single shareholder, but their shares would be Class B shares (aka powerless crap shares) which were designed to prevent HUST from gaining parity. As this two tiered system of shares was only put into writing 4/5 months ago, what makes you think that you will be able to get them to restructure the whole club? It would have been helpful to do this before the A of As were set in stone. You missed that boat as you were too busy burning down the harbour. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Aug 26, 2015 11:11:52 GMT
I'm hearing murmurings that positions on the board are planned to be filled by the usual yes men/women that pandered to the previous owners of HUFC for years on end. If that happens then the supporters will well and truly lose our voice. We can't let that happen. Hell, I'd even propose Ex for a position on the board ahead of that happening as, believe it or not, I think it'd be less harmful to the club than HUST ending up in the position of being meaningless 'kinell. Talk about pork chops and Jewish weddings  |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 11:47:21 GMT
HUST may eventually end up as the biggest single shareholder, but their shares would be Class B shares (aka powerless crap shares) which were designed to prevent HUST from gaining parity. As this two tiered system of shares was only put into writing 4/5 months ago, what makes you think that you will be able to get them to restructure the whole club? It would have been helpful to do this before the A of As were set in stone. You missed that boat as you were too busy burning down the harbour. That is completely incorrect. A and B shares are equivalent. Just that B shares are exclusive to HUST. There was no other way to guarantee that HUST would always be able to own 50% of the clubs shares. When it comes to resolutions requiring 75% in favour, HUST would need 25% of the A shares to support a HUST resolution. Likewise, should the A shareholders wish to relocate Edgar Street for example, they won't be able to do so without HUST support. So, HUST, whichever way you look at it, can control the clubs destiny. Which is why Kevin Rye's stance that HUST should aim for 50.1% of the total shares was irrelevant in a way. It should have been 100% or nothing. And the way people are going on, thank god it's not that. Articles can be changed now if the 4 benefactors are in favour as they have over 75% of the current available shares. They could vote it through. We already have had one change to the articles as you know, so they aren't set in stone. what was that? |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Aug 26, 2015 11:52:28 GMT
Even when people were trying to organise an alternative all you did is lead the witch hunt against them with your 'dissenters' vs 'saviours' attitude and abuse. You're an idiot. A complete numbskull. Once again you are talking crap. No one organised a serious alternative and you know it. Random figures were given that any 2 year old with a brain * could have produced. And none added up. * You aren't intelligent enough to fit into that category. Bit harsh there Grayham.
Most people including, presumably, those involved with HUFCtoo were misled into believing that "everything was in hand" for the new fan-owned club. By the time people began to realise there were doubts regarding the "fan ownership" (questions regarding voting rights and AofA's) there was little or no time to get an alternative organised.
I provided figures for the catering and other people contributed other components but the projections were, I believe, produced by a qualified practicing accountant.
I'm not two years old and I believe Andy Munsley was not part of the group.
However, apart form Munsley, water under the bridge.
|
|
