FOH EGM and Vote ( edited )

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

After asking for an email to vote in this EGM, a week later I get an email from a Barry telling me that when I cancelled my pledge in February that I am no longer eligible to vote. 
My commitment to the FOH was to be in it until we had the funds to pay back budge. 
can someone remind me when we voted to say if your not a continued pledger your membership is cancelled ?

 

 

Am I reading this correctly?  You no longer contribute, but expect to have a vote?

[Psychedelicropcircle]

9 minutes ago, Candy said:

Am I reading this correctly?  You no longer contribute, but expect to have a vote?

Indeed !the mission of the FOH was to raise enough funds to repay Mrs Budge. I have contributed from the start till we had the funds to repay I reached somewhere between 1956 & 98 status. 

Do you think I did this to be told your membership has been cancelled? 
 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

14 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The rules around lapses were defined, and approved, in the Governance proposals. 

****ing ridiculous and you know it!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

Indeed !the mission of the FOH was to raise enough funds to repay Mrs Budge. I have contributed from the start till we had the funds to repay I reached somewhere between 1956 & 98 status. 

Do you think I did this to be told your membership has been cancelled? 
 

Credit to you for contributing, but your expectation that you should be allowed a vote when no longer  contributing  is misguided.

[davemclaren]

15 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

****ing ridiculous and you know it!

Did you vote on the governance proposals?

[Nookie Bear]

14 minutes ago, Candy said:

Credit to you for contributing, but your expectation that you should be allowed a vote when no longer  contributing  is misguided.

 

I know. That would mean anyone could sign up, contribute for one month, cancel it and still vote.

 

Harsh when the contributions are clearly a lot greater than that but not sure there is a way around it.

 

[Footballfirst]

38 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The rules around lapses were defined, and approved, in the Governance proposals. 

The new governance arrangements only come into force following the transfer of the majority shareholding.

 

Until then the original Articles of Association (as amended) remain in situ.

 

I'm unsure of whether the termination of membership, or dependency on continued pledging was clearly defined either in the AoA or the membership agreement.

 

It might be worth asking Barry to point @Psychedelicropcircle in the direction of the specific article or membership rule that determines eligibility to vote.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Footballfirst]

Confirmation of the adoption of the articles post share transfer.

 

FOH AGM Resolution - Dec 2019

Edited December 14, 2020 by Footballfirst

[davemclaren]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The new governance arrangements only come into force following the transfer of the majority shareholding.

 

Until then the original Articles of Association (as amended) remain in situ.

 

I'm unsure of whether the termination of membership, or dependency on continued pledging was clearly defined either in the AoA or the membership agreement.

 

It might be worth asking Barry to point @Psychedelicropcircle in the direction of the specific article or membership rule that determines eligibility to vote.

Thanks for the clarification on timing. Wasn’t there some residual rights for certain lapsed members anyway?

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

Thanks for the clarification on timing. Wasn’t there some residual rights for certain lapsed members anyway?

Yes, the new governance proposals made provision for lapsed members to retain their voting rights for certain key votes

[Psychedelicropcircle]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Confirmation of the adoption of the articles post share transfer.

 

FOH AGM Resolution - Dec 2019

Thanks FF. I have emailed them to confirm this. 
 
I’ll be voting forever if it’s tied to transfer of shares neither them or budge want this. 
 

 

[David Black]

4 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

I know. That would mean anyone could sign up, contribute for one month, cancel it and still vote.

 

Harsh when the contributions are clearly a lot greater than that but not sure there is a way around it.

 

The only way to retain a vote is contribute the minimum of £10 per month.

[Footballfirst]

24 minutes ago, David Black said:

The only way to retain a vote is contribute the minimum of £10 per month.

The new AoA will allow lapsed members to be designated as "affiliate members" which entitles them to vote on certain FOH reserved matters, including the sale of shares. 

[Byyy The Light]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The new AoA will allow lapsed members to be designated as "affiliate members" which entitles them to vote on certain FOH reserved matters, including the sale of shares. 

 

Is there a minimum level of contribution the lapsed member must have made?

[Footballfirst]

18 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

Is there a minimum level of contribution the lapsed member must have made?

£120 pledged over a continuous period of 12 months (or less) e.g. £10 a month for a year, (£20 a month for six months).

 

It only applies to those contributions made between September 2013 and the date that the new article come into effect.  It is, for the most part, a recognition of those who contributed to saving the club.

 

It will not be available to new pledgers.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Footballfirst]

I've had a look at the original AoA about membership.

 

There is some mention of payments in the application process about criteria for membership, although these are not defined.

 

            The directors may prescribe criteria for membership of the Company but shall not be obliged to accept persons fulfilling those criteria as Members. In particular, the prescribed criteria may make provision about the payment of amounts to the Company, whether by way of contributions, subscriptions, entrance fees or otherwise.

 

Similarly in the termination of membership, but again there is no clarity on how or when such a termination would take place, or how it would be communicated.

 

           The directors may establish Rules about when a person’s membership terminates, including Rules about termination of membership if a particular payment is not made to the Company within a prescribed period.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Psychedelicropcircle]

I don’t consider myself a lapsed member. This EGM is about the terms should a transfer of shares arise. I payed into FOH until we had the funding to purchase the shares. I have little faith in the FOH leadership & think we will be targeted by investors. I intend to vote 90% as a measure against this.

If this EGM was about say the money taken after February & wot to do with it I would play no part in this.

[David Black]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

The new AoA will allow lapsed members to be designated as "affiliate members" which entitles them to vote on certain FOH reserved matters, including the sale of shares. 

Am I right in thinking this was discussed at an AGM about 2 years ago.

[baxterd1974]

3 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

I don’t consider myself a lapsed member. This EGM is about the terms should a transfer of shares arise. I payed into FOH until we had the funding to purchase the shares. I have little faith in the FOH leadership & think we will be targeted by investors. I intend to vote 90% as a measure against this.

If this EGM was about say the money taken after February & wot to do with it I would play no part in this.

You are a lapsed member, that's a simple fact. How long do you think you should have voting rights for? Forever? Your view makes absolutely no sense. If I'm a member of a political party and cease being so I don't get to vote on party matters, same with shareholders. As others have pointed out, you could have people paying a few donations and influencing club direction. Sorry if it sounds harsh, you stopped paying, you gave up your say,

[Footballfirst]

12 minutes ago, David Black said:

Am I right in thinking this was discussed at an AGM about 2 years ago.

It first came up in May 2017 when FOH launched their consultation about post ownership governance. Three and a half years later and it still hasn't been implemented.

[Footballfirst]

13 minutes ago, baxterd1974 said:

You are a lapsed member, that's a simple fact. How long do you think you should have voting rights for? Forever? Your view makes absolutely no sense. If I'm a member of a political party and cease being so I don't get to vote on party matters, same with shareholders. As others have pointed out, you could have people paying a few donations and influencing club direction. Sorry if it sounds harsh, you stopped paying, you gave up your say,

That point has also been debated over and over for the last three and a half years. The affiliate membership scheme was deemed as being the best solution to the issues raised.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I've had a look at the original AoA about membership.

 

There is some mention of payments in the application process about criteria for membership, although these are not defined.

 

            The directors may prescribe criteria for membership of the Company but shall not be obliged to accept persons fulfilling those criteria as Members. In particular, the prescribed criteria may make provision about the payment of amounts to the Company, whether by way of contributions, subscriptions, entrance fees or otherwise.

 

Similarly in the termination of membership, but again there is no clarity on how or when such a termination would take place, or how it would be communicated.

 

           The directors may establish Rules about when a person’s membership terminates, including Rules about termination of membership if a particular payment is not made to the Company within a prescribed period.

As I read that the original AoA seems to say the directors have pretty much carte blanche to decide who are deemed members.

There was a longish debate about the criteria for membership under the new AoA in which I and others argued that those who had pledged for the original objective of pledges should retain membership if they contributed significantly to achievement of those objectives. 

That debate resulted in new governance arrangements which gave very limited rights to "lapsed" contributers. Even if they had contributed much more than recent current contributers.

If those new arrangements don't apply until the share transfer the FOH directors presumably retain their discretion to decide who can be voting members.

It doesn't seem an entirely satisfactory position after we (old, lapsed and new members) have paid in over £11m quid. But then governance is boring and only of interest to nerds like me.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

27 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

That point has also been debated over and over for the last three and a half years. The affiliate membership scheme was deemed as being the best solution to the issues raised.

Debated by maybe 1% of the membership.

[davemclaren]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As I read that the original AoA seems to say the directors have pretty much carte blanche to decide who are deemed members.

There was a longish debate about the criteria for membership under the new AoA in which I and others argued that those who had pledged for the original objective of pledges should retain membership if they contributed significantly to achievement of those objectives. 

That debate resulted in new governance arrangements which gave very limited rights to "lapsed" contributers. Even if they had contributed much more than recent current contributers.

If those new arrangements don't apply until the share transfer the FOH directors presumably retain their discretion to decide who can be voting members.

It doesn't seem an entirely satisfactory position after we (old, lapsed and new members) have paid in over £11m quid. But then governance is boring and only of interest to nerds like me.

It’s satisfactory in the sense that it was approved by a vote of members. As you say, the debate around it did generate change. 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Debated by maybe 1% of the membership.

How would you get more to debate it?

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

How would you get more to debate it?

If we didn't have a consolidated set of multiple and discrete governance proposals subjected to a single vote,  we might have seen a better debate, and possibly different results, if each element was voted on separately

[davemclaren]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

If we didn't have a consolidated set of multiple and discrete governance proposals subjected to a single vote,  we might have seen a better debate, and possibly different results, if each element was voted on separately

Possibly. Though I’m not convinced many more would have shown an interest. 

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Possibly. Though I’m not convinced many more would have shown an interest. 

You are probably right, but I think that more important issue just now is not the 75%/90% decision, but the further delay to the transfer of the majority shareholding.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

How would you get more to debate it?

FF's point plus better communication. In a world where communication has never been easier or cheaper the failure of FOH to really engage with its members is a huge failing. Why for just one example is there no FOH presence on by far the largest fan message board? Why do our very few elected board members only appear on the FOH site and then only with feeble PR puffs? 

[davemclaren]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

You are probably right, but I think that more important issue just now is not the 75%/90% decision, but the further delay to transfer of the majority shareholding.

I certainly think the members should have it explained better to them. ‘It isn’t the right time’ doesn’t really cut it. 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

FF's point plus better communication. In a world where communication has never been easier or cheaper the failure of FOH to really engage with its members is a huge failing. Why for just one example is there no FOH presence on by far the largest fan message board? Why do our very few elected board members only appear on the FOH site and then only with feeble PR puffs? 

Given the nature of football being an FoH director spending a lot if time on here could be a somewhat stressful role. You don’t get many company directors on their company twitter/facebook feeds for similar reasons I suspect. 

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I certainly think the members should have it explained better to them. ‘It isn’t the right time’ doesn’t really cut it. 

It should be a topic for discussion at the Club's AGM on Thursday, but is unlikely to result in anything more than a prepared written answer because of the meeting being "closed".

 

I've just become pretty disillusioned by it all.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Footballfirst

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It should be a topic for discussion at the Club's AGM on Thursday, but is unlikely to result in anything more than a prepared written answer because of the meeting being "closed".

 

I've just become pretty disillusioned by it all.

I would hope the statement will give us a clear insight into why the FoH board believe ‘it isn’t the right time’. 

[Francis Albert]

Just now, davemclaren said:

Given the nature of football being an FoH director spending a lot if time on here could be a somewhat stressful role. You don’t get many company directors on their company twitter/facebook feeds for similar reasons I suspect. 

I didn't say it had to be a company/ foh director though why not and I didn't say a lot of time. Sorry if an FOH director would find it stressful to communicate with fans and FOH members by modern communication means. A news item on the foh website every 3 to 6 months or so doesn t cut it for me.

[davemclaren]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I didn't say it had to be a company/ foh director though why not and I didn't say a lot of time. Sorry if an FOH director would find it stressful to communicate with fans and FOH members by modern communication means. A news item on the foh website every 3 to 6 months or so doesn t cut it for me.

I’ve tended to communicate with them, when required, by eMail. Always had a response, so far.

 

I’m not convinced of the value of them interacting directly with a fans forum after a bad defeat or similar. It would certainly keep the moderators busy I imagine. 

 

However, I do agree the comms and interaction needs to be improved. 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

1 hour ago, baxterd1974 said:

You are a lapsed member, that's a simple fact. How long do you think you should have voting rights for? Forever? Your view makes absolutely no sense. If I'm a member of a political party and cease being so I don't get to vote on party matters, same with shareholders. As others have pointed out, you could have people paying a few donations and influencing club direction. Sorry if it sounds harsh, you stopped paying, you gave up your say,

How apt  to compare this to politicians. What they say to get power & how they act once they have it.

 

If the FOH had said back in 2013 once you’ve payed us enough to purchase the shares, if you don’t keep funding our carte Blanche projects we’ll take away your membership....likely would have resulted in no FOH right?

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

How apt  to compare this to politicians. What they say to get power & how they act once they have it.

 

If the FOH had said back in 2013 once you’ve payed us enough to purchase the shares, if you don’t keep funding our carte Blanche projects we’ll take away your membership....likely would have resulted in no FOH right?

Certainly a much smaller FOH. When we first pledged and for some years before  the "pledge for life" idea emerged there was no suggestion fan ownership meant only for fans who paid a membership fee for life.

[davemclaren]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Certainly a much smaller FOH. When we first pledged and for some years before  the "pledge for life" idea emerged there was no suggestion fan ownership meant only for fans who paid a membership fee for life.

That’s how organisations develop. There was no concept of paying for part of the new stand either. 

[Byyy The Light]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

£120 pledged over a continuous period of 12 months (or less) e.g. £10 a month for a year, (£20 a month for six months).

 

It only applies to those contributions made between September 2013 and the date that the new article come into effect.  It is, for the most part, a recognition of those who contributed to saving the club.

 

It will not be available to new pledgers.

Thanks for info 👍🏼

[Francis Albert]

30 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That’s how organisations develop. There was no concept of paying for part of the new stand either. 

True. But the fact remains people  pledged for a specific objective and were subsequently denied any real entitlement to being part of fan ownership once they had contributed to achieving that objecltive.

[davemclaren]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

True. But the fact remains people  pledged for a specific objective and were subsequently denied any real entitlement to being part of fan ownership once they had contributed to achieving that objecltive.

Yip, as voted by the members. 

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Yip, as voted by the members. 

Yes. But I think FOH could and should  have done much more to engage the membership in the process.

 

[davemclaren]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Yes. But I think FOH could and should  have done much more to engage the membership in the process.

 

I know thsr. My view is that it wouldn't have changed the level of interest in governance by much. 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

I’ve tended to communicate with them, when required, by eMail. Always had a response, so far.

 

I’m not convinced of the value of them interacting directly with a fans forum after a bad defeat or similar. It would certainly keep the moderators busy I imagine. 

 

However, I do agree the comms and interaction needs to be improved. 

I go back to the early days when FOH was just getting off the ground. The chief exec of Wimbledon Eric Samuelson came on here and spent an hour and a bit answering questions about their experience of fan ownership. A few days later he spent another half an.hour responding to.follow up questions. That is more than any FOH director has ever done to communicate with fans. 

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I know thsr. My view is that it wouldn't have changed the level of interest in governance by much. 

We will never know.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I go back to the early days when FOH was just getting off the ground. The chief exec of Wimbledon Eric Samuelson came on here and spent an hour and a bit answering questions about their experience of fan ownership. A few days later he spent another half an.hour responding to.follow up questions. That is more than any FOH director has ever done to communicate with fans. 

True but I expect it’s easier to discuss the principles and experiences of fan ownership with another team’s fans than the actualities and experiences with your own. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I go back to the early days when FOH was just getting off the ground. The chief exec of Wimbledon Eric Samuelson came on here and spent an hour and a bit answering questions about their experience of fan ownership. A few days later he spent another half an.hour responding to.follow up questions. That is more than any FOH director has ever done to communicate with fans. 

FOH communicate 1) when they want more money and 2) on issue that don’t upset Budge or touch on the running of the club.

 

Beyond that, forget it.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

We will never know.

Correct. 

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Correct. 

But we know FOH did not try very hard.

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

True but I expect it’s easier to discuss the principles and experiences of fan ownership with another team’s fans than the actualities and experiences with your own. 

I don't know how Samuelson communicated with Wimbledon fans but I suspect on such evidence I have it was far better than FOH's communication with us.