Extraordinary General Meeting

For all things Wealdstone FC

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby s.k.khanna » Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:27 pm

warren wrote: ...what PM wants is some of his money back!

When people buy shares, whether they're blue chip stock or penny shares (like us) they do so at risk! If that risk fails to materialise a profit, the company they buy shares in are not obligated to offer a return or compensate them.

Does anybody want to buy some ITV Sport Channel shares off me ???
s.k.khanna
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:33 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby worruz » Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:33 pm

Bananas wrote:Evening all, have I missed anything?
Sorry, I've had a busy couple of days on SM being subversive and spreading misinformation. Thank goodness for the pandemic otherwise I wouldn't have enough hours in the day to be asinine. Hell, it's not going to do it itself is it?

Right where were we?

Firstly, let's put that misinformation to bed that the club was cash strapped before PM came into the fold. We weren't minted, but we were certainly 6 figures plus above the break even line. Yes we needed investment to push for the next level, but we definitely weren't on our arse. But don't take my jaundiced view as fact, Q has already made this point higher up.

We just need that to be crystal clear because some people apparently don't have very good memories. Or selective memories. I'll let you be the judge of that.

Secondly, nobody is doubting the funds that Peter invested into the club. Also nobody is saying that he had anything but good intentions during his tenure. However, what cannot go unsaid is the frankly ludicrous and downright damaging financial mismanagement that happened "on his watch". Great that he put such funds in, but let us not forget that by the time the board had enough he'd managed to spend all that money, plus £125K+ that the social club had put aside earmarked for other things (leaving it potless) and had agreed contracts with players in excess of £50K that the club had absolutely no way of covering for the rest of the season.

Baring in mind that several members of the board had repeatedly warned him that we were quickly becoming financially un-viable yet he continued to run the club very close to the wall just goes to show you why we as a club have rules to stop one person having too many shares. We work as a board, not an autocracy. Peter just would not allow that.

There are a couple of our board whom I trust implicitly to do the right thing for the club, and who have the business nous to know how to run the company (yes Q, DW and NS I'm talking about you...) and if you resolutely ignore their sage council and insist you know better, even as the barn is burning down around you, then that's never going to end well.

I will be 100% honest here, this was my only problem with Peter. FFS If I can see this coming from the outside, and you're getting told by good trustworthy club people that you're running the club into bankruptcy, and you still keep on regardless, then someone needed to step in and stop you before you reached the point of no return. Fortunately for the club the board did.

I have no doubt that if the board hadn't finally said enough is enough then the club would have gone to the wall. It wouldn't have been deliberate by Peter, but it would have happened. And it's a bloody shame it had to happen the way it did. Having someone like him on the board would be great, but he can't be allowed to run the club unchecked.

Peter is fixated by "money". It doesn't matter what skill-set or invaluable commodity anybody might bring to the club, it always boils down to "how much money have you put in the club?"
Knows the price of everything but the value of very little. It's always his "go-to" argument. You haven't put as much money in as I have, therefore your opinion doesn't count.

However, what Peter (and his followers with short memories) don't get is, once you've bought shares, that money isn't "yours" anymore, it belongs to the club.
And the club decides what they spend it on. And by the club we are talking about our directors who we expect to spend that money wisely.

There's no "I've paid for £100K of shares, so I decide what the club spends MY money on..."

It blows my mind that people still don't get this. That's pretty basic sh!t there, that even a fhacking idiot like me can understand.

And, without going down the route of badmouthing him, he had previous for this. Just ask Andy Holt (the current Accy Stanley chairman) of the financial shambles he walked into when he took over there. The information is in the public domain if you want to go and look for yourselves.

So now he's pretty much a dead duck in the water. Because it's not "his club" any more, he wants his money back. Funnily enough, the Social Club wants it's money back too. Chances are neither of those parties are going to get what they want.
And certainly the best way of getting that is not to stand up at a club shareholders meeting, basically slag off several members on the current board, "grandstand" a speech about you're greatest moments at the club and how much money you've spunked, and then say you've still go just enough shares to make the clubs life going forwards as difficult as possible, and that's exactly what you will do unless someone buys you out. (FFS, he didn't even mention the resolution in his schpeel...)
That loses you a lot of goodwill you might have built up, and certainly you end up looking a bit of a mug when you get told this by someone else and you walk out in a huff.

I cannot believe there have been many people who have bought shares in the club, and have expected getting penny one back at any time. Well, it looks like Peter obviously did, and now he thinks holding the club to ransom is a good plan.

Well the one good thing to come out of last night is that the club now at least have the ability to sell shares to get fresh money into the club.
This obviously dilutes every shareholders holding by a nett 60% should every share be sold.

As far as I know, every shareholder, who has the best interests of the club at heart (who either voted on the evening or by proxy) agreed to having their holding diluted.

From that you can guess who voted against it. That alone shows you where their priorities lie.

Those shares weren't bought out of the kindness of his heart. It was business.

How many fans have bought shares in the club as a good business venture? Or was it a way to put cash into the club they love?

Not rocket surgery is it?

It's an annoyance that the club can't move forwards on anything that falls as a "special resolution" for a while. Well until sufficient of the new issue get sold that swings Peter's holding below the 25% threshold anyway, then his holding becomes moot, and arguably any value they currently hold goes south with it.

What an absolute flipping shame it has come to this, especially on the back of the seasons successes. Peter should be involved, but I can't imagine he ever will be again (that huge debt he ran up is understandably still very much fresh in the mind of the board). There won't be any reconciliation, the bridges have been burnt. Pete should realise that his current course of action isn't gonna win him friends, and sure as mustard isn't going to get him any of "his money" back. If he was astute enough then he'd change his tactics. But, y'know....

Right, any questions, cos seriously, I've still got a lot of unwashed club laundry sitting here that could do with a public airing if anyone's interested?

Pretty comprehensive.

My main issue with PM, which I highlighted at the time, was the money that came out of the social club.

When he was putting sh it loads in some people said 'well its his money' but he expected others to match it even though no one forced him to put all that in, plus money came from the social club that had been built up over many years of hard work.

That's something I find hard to take really.
Last edited by worruz on Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'I only want to help you Ro-land'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUoZJvdipA
worruz
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 12:49 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby Bananas » Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:39 pm

worruz wrote:Pretty comprehensive.

My main issue with PM, which I highlighted at the time, was the money that came out of the social club.

When he was putting sh it loads in some people said 'well its his money' but he expected others to match it even though no one forced him to put all that in plus money came from the social club that had beeb built up over many years hard work.

That's something I find hard to take really.

Yup, that was pretty much my position too (despite what others might try to pin on me).

The financials were a disaster area, and good advice was ignored.

Pillaging the SC was wrong IMHO, especially when you're stuffing £70K+ into an ordinary players pocket without the backing of the rest of the board.
Just because you come from Wealdstone it doesn't mean you are a horrible b*stard - it's just considerably more likely that you are.
User avatar
Bananas
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:35 am
Location: Wealdstone Rock City

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby Not Happy » Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:49 pm

Bananas wrote:Yup, that was pretty much my position too (despite what others might try to pin on me).




Relax.... nobody has ever granted you special status due to an opinion. Am still interested to know if anyone has taken commission whilst in a supposedly voluntary position? If the answer is no then that's perfectly valid.
Not Happy
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby Bananas » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:10 pm

Not Happy wrote:
Bananas wrote:Yup, that was pretty much my position too (despite what others might try to pin on me).




Relax.... nobody has ever granted you special status due to an opinion. Am still interested to know if anyone has taken commission whilst in a supposedly voluntary position? If the answer is no then that's perfectly valid.


The only thing "special" about me was the school I went to.
As for opinions, they're just like cliterous. Hang on, are you calling me a ****? ;)

Anyway...
As far as I'm aware, nobody has taken any sort of commission for anything that wasn't doing an agreed job for the club.

Well, if I'm honest, I've had a few beers bought for me by the club when I've been doing "volunteer" work down at the ground, so guilty as charged I suppose.

My public shame is complete...
Just because you come from Wealdstone it doesn't mean you are a horrible b*stard - it's just considerably more likely that you are.
User avatar
Bananas
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:35 am
Location: Wealdstone Rock City

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby The Guvnor » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:17 am

Bananas wrote:plus £125K+ that the social club had put aside earmarked for other things


Yes, like when a Pandemic comes along and you lose the ability to generate any income.

I suspect Leo losing his position at the social club was at least partly due to the financial situation and may not have been an issue had those funds still been intact.

Still the money was well spent, a striker who couldn't score in the old proverbial knocking shop and a midfielder who spent half the game sliding around on his backside with a passing range of 10 yards and only then when sideways and backwards.

UTS
The Guvnor
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby worruz » Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:20 am

The Guvnor wrote:
Bananas wrote:plus £125K+ that the social club had put aside earmarked for other things


Yes, like when a Pandemic comes along and you lose the ability to generate any income.

I suspect Leo losing his position at the social club was at least partly due to the financial situation and may not have been an issue had those funds still been intact.

Still the money was well spent, a striker who couldn't score in the old proverbial knocking shop and a midfielder who spent half the game sliding around on his backside with a passing range of 10 yards and only then when sideways and backwards.

UTS

Exactly. Fugging scandalous waste of money
'I only want to help you Ro-land'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUoZJvdipA
worruz
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 12:49 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby worruz » Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:52 am

Renard wrote:In my view, PM is getting much too easy a ride on this forum.


I think one of the main reasons for this is that the vast majority of people, even those who are reasonably well informed on what goes on at the club (I don't include myself in that) don't have a full idea of the facts with a lot of what goes on.

This is understandable and obviously has to be the case for much of what occurs.

However, this is always going to cause sides to be taken and people to argue about a lot of what they don't really know. Even on Sunday we had board members saying there was a lot that PM did to the detriment of the club that we don't know about.

I'm sure he'd say the same in the other direction.

For me and I'm sure several others a lot of guesswork is needed.
'I only want to help you Ro-land'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUoZJvdipA
worruz
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 12:49 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby attic » Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:15 am

worruz wrote:
The Guvnor wrote:
Bananas wrote:plus £125K+ that the social club had put aside earmarked for other things


Yes, like when a Pandemic comes along and you lose the ability to generate any income.

I suspect Leo losing his position at the social club was at least partly due to the financial situation and may not have been an issue had those funds still been intact.

Still the money was well spent, a striker who couldn't score in the old proverbial knocking shop and a midfielder who spent half the game sliding around on his backside with a passing range of 10 yards and only then when sideways and backwards.

UTS

Exactly. Fugging scandalous waste of money


I've tried to be as even handed as possible with the PM scenario. However I don't think anyone, not even those few PM diehards can defend some of the ludicrous wages that were paid to players. For me its not so much the players in question but what we decided to pay them. Interestingly enough both players mentioned above were seen as very good signings. Cox was voted player of the year during his first season. Pratt......well there's a thread on his signing which suggests the bees knees were about to waltz into town. One posting even mentioning 'Michael Owen' :lol:

What we decided to pay them was in no way the players fault and in the case of Pratt, proved to be a huge millstone around his neck of which possibly affected his performances. Its all water under the bridge now and hopefully we're wiser for this. I agree with what Bananas stated though....thank god the rest of the board had the power to pull the plug when its clear that things were going to reach a sticky end.

Its all done now
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
User avatar
attic
 
Posts: 8459
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Extraordinary General Meeting

Postby Renard » Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:24 am

That's a fair point, worruz. There is a lot of bad stuff that went on, some of which was alluded to by Rory on Sunday, but it's not right to air it all on this public forum. I resigned from the Board because PM was cutting me out of key decisions and because I could see the financially disastrous direction in which he was leading us. I suggest you, or anyone else with a legitimate interest, have a chat with an existing Board member about it some time, and they will no doubt fill you in to the extent they consider appropriate.
User avatar
Renard
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to stonesnet forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Rayners Blue is Back and 23 guests