|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Aug 21, 2018 8:46:53 GMT
Since January 2014 the boardroom door has been fair spinning with `Ins` and Outs`......some appointees not even lasting a month.
So we have...`Ins` John Devlin, Ronnie Boyd, Paul Reilly, Patrick Gillooly, Steve Kirk, Michael Savage, Terry Gillooly, Neil Logan, Pat Rolink, Ian Benton, Lorraine Simpson, Eddie Haggerty, Mark Hunter, Bill Shields, Craig Downs, Colin Woodward, Lindsay Hamilton, Gordon Lind, Lorraine Simpson
`Outs` Frank Meade, John Devlin, Robert Watt, Michael Savage, Patrick Gilloooly, Terry Gillooly, Neil Logan, Pat Rolink, Lorraine Simpson, Steve Kirk, Paul Reily, Lindsay Hamilton, Craig Downs.
Source: Records held on Companies House
For a small business this is an amazing turnover of Directors...hardly likely to bring any form of stability to the club, particualrly as this board spinning continues to the present time |
|
|
|
Post by jack11 on Aug 21, 2018 16:59:26 GMT
Here we go again
|
|
|
|
Post by marmiteman on Aug 22, 2018 7:28:10 GMT
I think you'll find Terry Gilhooly does a shed load of free work for the Rovers. More so since he came off the board.
And I'll keep going on about one very important fact. ARFC is operating in the black. No overdraft.
I don't care who's on the board as long as they manage the money properly.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by paulrovers on Aug 22, 2018 9:10:07 GMT
And I'll keep going on about one very important fact. ARFC is operating in the black. No overdraft. I don't care who's on the board as long as they manage the money properly. Peter You have said this several times now, how certain are you that ARFC does not have an overdraft and is operating in the black? Wasn’t it only a week or so ago that you were going to be questioning the board about your concerns as you are “a long standing shareholder”? Why all of a sudden have you done a complete 360 and everything is all good now? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 16:48:37 GMT
Peter, as a shareholder you would have received a copy of the accounts to 30 June 2017, which showed significant debts. Shareholders await the accounts to 30 June 2018 which will give a more recent picture.
Given that ARFC has not been fortunate enough to land a plum cup tie recently, I would doubt that the club has been able to clear the bank overdraft. Remember, in the black means no debt in the form of a bank current account overdraft.
My reasoning;
For season 2017/18, the playing staff budget, although cut a bit from the days of Darren Young, was (as I understand it) kept at a level to allow the team to compete and hopefully retain 1st Division status. As a result, the core playing staff were retained which is an indicator that there was not any swingeing cut in wages. If there had been drastic cuts, the players would have walked, as they did in the close season just past when they heard of impending wage reductions for the current season 2018/19.
As players wages make up the bulk of ARFC's outgoings, I see no possibility of any significant changes to the club's financial position over the past 15 months. I hope that I am wrong in that, but very much doubt it. I certainly hope that it has not deteriorated!
You seem sure of your facts so I have to assume that you are getting your info from a member of the BOD. Does that person(s) have the full facts.
Robert Watt
|
|
|
|
Post by marmiteman on Aug 22, 2018 19:11:01 GMT
No comment.
Peter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 19:36:29 GMT
embarrassing is what it is youll just line your pockets then just f... off like the rest did place is a dump lets face it manager only got the job because his pal is chairman your chairman has not got a clue no matter what big word pish you hit me back with go ahead am telling the truth up shit creek without a paddel shaft all the people that give there free time to try help out knowing fact btw so stop passing the buck on to outhers give the fans what they want and take yourself to f before we end up burst or has that been the plan all along FUD
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 22, 2018 21:22:55 GMT
embarrassing is what it is youll just line your pockets then just f... off like the rest did place is a dump lets face it manager only got the job because his pal is chairman your chairman has not got a clue no matter what big word pish you hit me back with go ahead am telling the truth up shit creek without a paddel shaft all the people that give there free time to try help out knowing fact btw so stop passing the buck on to outhers give the fans what they want and take yourself to f before we end up burst or has that been the plan all along FUD I love posts like this haha fanny |
|
|
|
Post by harriskid44 on Aug 23, 2018 0:46:21 GMT
Think its up to us Rovers fans to start doing something about it then.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewmelrover on Aug 23, 2018 9:11:57 GMT
It's all quite interesting to real all this stuff about 'shareholders' getting reports and accounts, etc. I would quite like to be a shareholder, and I contribute financially to the club also via the player fund, but-for some reason- I, and many others like me- are currently barred from being a shareholder due to the idea of the widening of the shareholdings being blocked at a past AGM. Now isn't that a pity?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Aug 23, 2018 17:32:37 GMT
It's all quite interesting to real all this stuff about 'shareholders' getting reports and accounts, etc. I would quite like to be a shareholder, and I contribute financially to the club also via the player fund, but-for some reason- I, and many others like me- are currently barred from being a shareholder due to the idea of the widening of the shareholdings being blocked at a past AGM. Now isn't that a pity? I would crawl over broken glass in the middle of the night to own a few shares in Rovers. I fail to see how the club can move forward without a share issue. My understanding is that a major shareholder opposes any share issue. My worry is that the club could be 'run into the ground' or 'run out of the ground' similar to the shenanigans that took place at Clydebank, East Stirling & Third Lanark. I am not criticising the current BOD, this has been a long standing issue at the club. |
|
|
|
Post by rab on Aug 23, 2018 18:46:28 GMT
Totally agree.
It might be the case in the future that bringing new money into the club, such as through a share issue, is the only way to save it. Then, if any shareholder voted it down, they would be doing so knowing that it would lead to the demise of the club. Surely the SPL would not allow that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Aug 23, 2018 19:02:56 GMT
I am 100% behind any moves towards a new share issue - and not just a re-distribution of a few so that die hard fans can say they own a few shares - but a way of re-financing the business. Yes, a major shareholder could vote this down but I cannot see where the SPFL could interfere in the workings of a club which is a Limited Company and subject to its own Articles of Association. Given that the owners of more than 50 % of both Ordinary and Preference shares are untraceable - deceased - who knows - these cannot be just writen off. It is possible that there is some legal process to circumvent this but this would take time - and money - neither of which we have if there is to be a positive impact on the club before it is too late.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewmelrover on Aug 23, 2018 19:10:22 GMT
It seems very obvious that the share issue could be enormously beneficial to the club if it brought in much needed finance: why, oh why, would anyone wish to oppose this? I simply cannot understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Aug 23, 2018 19:44:41 GMT
It seems very obvious that the share issue could be enormously beneficial to the club if it brought in much needed finance: why, oh why, would anyone wish to oppose this? I simply cannot understand it. The only reason I can think of is that any `major` shareholder would see their holding diluted by an additional issue making it unlikely that in the future that `major`shareholder could aspire to the top position at the club. As both bingo and I have said - the costs might outweigh the benefits - particularly if sale of shares falls flat. After all, who will buy them hoping for a return on their investment ?. The original purchasers in 1919 probably thought that at some stage they would at least recoup their outlay, but never did |
|
