| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 10:28 - Jun 17 with 3482 views | MoonyDale |
So the Trust are down just over a grand because of one board members legal challenge? Nice move whoever you are...... |  |
|  |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 10:39 - Jun 17 with 3457 views | lurker |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 10:28 - Jun 17 by MoonyDale |
So the Trust are down just over a grand because of one board members legal challenge? Nice move whoever you are...... |
Agree. Very disappointing.
I always think it is astounding that if you win you still end up paying costs. Surely the plaintiff should shoulder all costs if their case is lost! |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 11:47 - Jun 17 with 3339 views | TalkingSutty |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 10:28 - Jun 17 by MoonyDale |
So the Trust are down just over a grand because of one board members legal challenge? Nice move whoever you are...... |
Agree 100% with your post, some people go through life never seeing the full picture (Bowlee was dead in the water a long time ago).
The statement and decision as been a long time coming but now we know why. Its just a pity the individual concerned couldnt see further than the end of his/ her nose because those actions have cost us a lot of money.
Anyway, its a worthy cause and now time to renew membership and carry on raising money. Well done to the Trust board for sorting out the mess.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 12:10 - Jun 17 with 3280 views | D_Alien |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 10:39 - Jun 17 by lurker |
Agree. Very disappointing.
I always think it is astounding that if you win you still end up paying costs. Surely the plaintiff should shoulder all costs if their case is lost! |
It's an interesting one this.
The ability of someone without substantial resources to make a legal challenge to, for instance, a huge corporation without potentially bankrupting themselves or losing the roof over their head, should be maintained.
I could be wrong, but isn't it partly down to the discretion of the judge over the distribution of costs? This prevents spurious challenges - it's a matter for conjecture whether the challenge in this particular case borders on the spurious! |  |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 12:47 - Jun 17 with 3191 views | Suggers |
The statement and comments raise a number of issues. The motivation of the dissenting Trust Board member has to be brought into question given the overwhelming vote in favour by members. One assumes the Trust Board Member themselves voted against which leaves just 6 others (some of which one would assume where that individuals friends) who agree with the stance taken.
As any Board Member it is your responsibility to act in the best interests of the Organisation you are entrusted to, given this individual is so way off the sentiment of its members I feel sure they should now stand aside and let someone more in touch with its members take their place.
I agree firmly with democratic process and it is proper that all views are taken into account, however I would question the lengths this individual has gone to putting all our hard earned money into the hands of an arbitrator.
From my point of view the individual was quite within their rights to disagree, but should have resigned in principle and not required a costly process to be followed. There have been plenty of opportunities to have had their views placed on record, and the proper time would have been to resign before the vote and to cavass members to vote with their views. [Post edited 17 Jun 2014 14:06]
|  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 13:44 - Jun 17 with 3100 views | Porlicks |
Seems to me that 222 people think the Trust is a money-raising organ of the football club. |  |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 14:22 - Jun 17 with 3021 views | 100notout |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 13:44 - Jun 17 by Porlicks |
Seems to me that 222 people think the Trust is a money-raising organ of the football club. |
Not so (organ!!!!!!!!!!!) the Trust were given 5000 shares in recognition of the donation.
And as for the board member that created such an expense they should be ashamed of themselves |  |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 14:50 - Jun 17 with 2971 views | TTNYear |
It's stunning that the chap in question can waste trust monies on rediculous and frivolous legal proceedings. I hope he is thoroughly pleased with himself. His moral compass and thought process is that off kilter I wonder what he was going to achieve. There is no positive outcome to his legal wranglings.
He really should be ashamed. I would be.
Basically the profit for one end of season do has paid for his hissy fit. Pleb! [Post edited 17 Jun 2014 14:52]
|  |
| Anti-cliquism is the last refuge of the messageboard scoundrel - Copyright Dorset Dale productions |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 15:24 - Jun 17 with 2915 views | SuddenLad |
Trust money = OUR money.
Donated and raised by members for the Committee and members to decide on how it can be best used for and on behalf of the club.
How on earth this can lead to a legal challenge beggars belief. Moreover, the loss of over £1,000 in legal expenses is an insult to every Trust member who has donated for the 'greater good'.
The subsequent ballot speaks loud and clear and the wishes of the membership are abundantly clear.
It is to be hoped that having cost the Trust a vast sum of money, said individual will step aside 'for the greater good' in order that the Trust can continue to democratically represent the members.
Failing that (assuming there is some valid reason) perhaps the dissenting member could explain the basis of their challenge and why therefore, we have lost the money successfully defending the action.
Bloody ridiculous. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 15:52 - Jun 17 with 2846 views | TalkingSutty |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 15:24 - Jun 17 by SuddenLad |
Trust money = OUR money.
Donated and raised by members for the Committee and members to decide on how it can be best used for and on behalf of the club.
How on earth this can lead to a legal challenge beggars belief. Moreover, the loss of over £1,000 in legal expenses is an insult to every Trust member who has donated for the 'greater good'.
The subsequent ballot speaks loud and clear and the wishes of the membership are abundantly clear.
It is to be hoped that having cost the Trust a vast sum of money, said individual will step aside 'for the greater good' in order that the Trust can continue to democratically represent the members.
Failing that (assuming there is some valid reason) perhaps the dissenting member could explain the basis of their challenge and why therefore, we have lost the money successfully defending the action.
Bloody ridiculous. |
The trust couldn't forsee the Bowlee project falling flat and neither i believe could the club. Personally, i rejoiced when it fell through because i always thought it would end up being a financial noose around the clubs neck, but thats just me.
Anybody donating money or walking to Accrington etc must have done so because they have the club in their heart so now the circumstances have changed i am sure they will be happy to see the money finally spent on a good cause. The exchange of donated money for club shares doesnt sit 100% with me but at the end of the day goalposts move sometimes and if its what the majority of members want then that's how it should be. I would like to ask this individual what he thinks the Trust should have done with the 30K because not handing it over to the club defeats the object of future fundraising and was becoming a bit demoralising. | | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:11 - Jun 17 with 2713 views | judd |
It seems to me that the Trust statement has been dramatically amended since it first appeared this morning.
"Because the Trust Board had failed to validly answer these points prior to progressing with the ballot it required arbitration to address the concerns and establish lawfulness, and the costs of the process of £1020 were awarded against the Trust."
The Trust "failed". Not the dissenting voice. However unpalatable his or her actions may appear to some, the challenge has highlighted the perils of raising funds via donation on one pretext before switching them to fund another project without the full agreement of those who donated originally. |  |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:22 - Jun 17 with 2686 views | TalkingSutty |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:11 - Jun 17 by judd |
It seems to me that the Trust statement has been dramatically amended since it first appeared this morning.
"Because the Trust Board had failed to validly answer these points prior to progressing with the ballot it required arbitration to address the concerns and establish lawfulness, and the costs of the process of £1020 were awarded against the Trust."
The Trust "failed". Not the dissenting voice. However unpalatable his or her actions may appear to some, the challenge has highlighted the perils of raising funds via donation on one pretext before switching them to fund another project without the full agreement of those who donated originally. |
How would you get in touch with the persons who donated though? Not all the money came from the sponsored walk and buying raffle tickets at fund raising events etc doesnt involve leaving contact details. The Bowlee project didnt materialise but i cant believe contributors would want there money back rather than helping the club in another direction. It was a difficult set of circumstances for the trust but balloting the members on how the money should be spent was the only way forward. The trust didnt switch the project. | | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:28 - Jun 17 with 2672 views | judd |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:22 - Jun 17 by TalkingSutty |
How would you get in touch with the persons who donated though? Not all the money came from the sponsored walk and buying raffle tickets at fund raising events etc doesnt involve leaving contact details. The Bowlee project didnt materialise but i cant believe contributors would want there money back rather than helping the club in another direction. It was a difficult set of circumstances for the trust but balloting the members on how the money should be spent was the only way forward. The trust didnt switch the project. |
I don't know how, but it would appear that establishing the legality of doing what was done was the hub of the matter.
Whereas I totally agree with the Trust and the route taken, there has always been concern about making sure what they did was, in fact, legal.
I am grateful that the challenge came from within rather than some befuddled nobhead who wanted his fiver back.
The other issue with Bowlee was the well publicised issue of the club board or certain of them knowing that Bowlee would never go ahead before the walk took place. | |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:39 - Jun 17 with 2637 views | TalkingSutty |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:28 - Jun 17 by judd |
I don't know how, but it would appear that establishing the legality of doing what was done was the hub of the matter.
Whereas I totally agree with the Trust and the route taken, there has always been concern about making sure what they did was, in fact, legal.
I am grateful that the challenge came from within rather than some befuddled nobhead who wanted his fiver back.
The other issue with Bowlee was the well publicised issue of the club board or certain of them knowing that Bowlee would never go ahead before the walk took place. |
Maybe its a lesson learned. Rather than stipulating a project to raise money for, it might be better to term it as raising money for the Trust to donate for the well being of the Football Club...or something like that. As long as the club benefits thats the sole purpose. | | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:44 - Jun 17 with 2610 views | judd |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:39 - Jun 17 by TalkingSutty |
Maybe its a lesson learned. Rather than stipulating a project to raise money for, it might be better to term it as raising money for the Trust to donate for the well being of the Football Club...or something like that. As long as the club benefits thats the sole purpose. |
Absolutely. | |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:55 - Jun 17 with 2548 views | The_DJ |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:39 - Jun 17 by TalkingSutty |
Maybe its a lesson learned. Rather than stipulating a project to raise money for, it might be better to term it as raising money for the Trust to donate for the well being of the Football Club...or something like that. As long as the club benefits thats the sole purpose. |
Can the Trust confirm that 'Richard' has been presented will the bill to be paid before re-election to the Trust Board is sought ?
Thankyou in anticipation.  |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:56 - Jun 17 with 2536 views | JumeirahDale |
Is the Trust a registered charity? |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:57 - Jun 17 with 2533 views | dancdale |
I'll happily admit it was me that questioned the Board in this matter and I have updated the statement to more fully explain the reasoning and outcome. I do not believe it fairly represented the position as it was.
Firstly, it was not 'legal action' it was a dispute about the correct nature of Trust undertakings, that when refused to be answered by the Trust Board was asked be considered by an arbitrator, as is proper process under the Trust constitution.
To try and briefly relay my concerns:
The fund was raised not for the Trust, but for a particular cause- helping to provide training facilities including community usage, and it has to be remembered that it would not have been just Trust members who gave money to this cause. If it was still reasonably possible for it to be used in a way suitably close to what it was raised for in the future I believed this should occur. It was established that training facilities do still remain a strong aim of the club and possibly achievable in the next 5 years, the club however preferred the money go towards helping it pay another more immediate bill. What I believed was a suitable solution was simply that the club agreed to repay the money to the purpose it was given for when this became available.
It was also not just a question of what may be considered as 'right' but also whether it was lawful to use money on something which it was not given for. The concern can be summarised by the Code of Fundraising Practice primary rule- 'A legal principle underpinning fundraising is that all funds raised for a particular cause MUST be used for that particular cause.'. I felt it necessary that if we were to not act in accordance with this it should be established as to how we were avoiding this apparent requirement. The Trust Board failed to do so, and refused to address the matter any further other than through arbitration.
The dispute and arbitation also did not just concern the Bowlee fund, but the nature of the Trust itself. I believed the Trust was a Community Benefit Society- (where in this case the related community is largely the fans of the club). The Trust Board denied that we were, and stated both generally and with the fund's use proposals, we were not acting for the benefit of the community. This was undoubtedly incorrect, against the Society Rules, and unlawful. Again I simply asked that we as the Trust Board establish and recognise the correct position, and if I was wrong- fine. It refused to do so other than through arbitration.
I was also concerned that the ballot did not properly inform and offer sufficient choice. Some of the information on the ballot encouraging use of the fund on floodlights was false, and it failed to offer a choice for allowing the fund to remain to be used for another purpose- other than permanently restricting it to the potentially never achievable training facilities. For anyone who actually wanted to use the fund for another future purpose, based on properly addressing the Trust's objectives, there was no option.
My motivation was purely that the Trust acts correctly , confirms that it is acting lawfully when reasonable concerns are raised, recognises the nature of the Society which we are legally registered as, and acts effectively in accordance with its rules and objectives. I tried as hard as I could to have the concerns settled at Board level but it refused to do so other than through arbitration- it was on this basis it was necessary and the costs incurred. I personally paid a large deposit, and would have had full costs against me if my concerns had been unfounded. I stood to gain absolutely nothing personally out of it.
Further explanation as to why bother is that I put quite a lot of time and effort into Trust business, believing it a worthwhile cause based upon what it could and should be achieving based on its objectives.
The floodlights will be upgraded regardless of the Trust donation, the outcome is really only to save the club money at a period where it is relatively financially prosperous, this does little if anything to meet Trust objectives.
The £30000 could have been used in away that better ensured it met the purposes it was raised for- delivering training facilities in some nature, hopefully along with a degree of community use.
It could have been used for a straight share purchase- the club still gets the money for their desired purpose, the community get better representation within the club, in accordance with objectives. At the 50p share value, the 5000 recieved have a value of £2500 for the £30000 given.
It could have been used to bulk purchase tickets- the club still get the money for their desired purpose, the Trust can initiate ticketing initiatives to benefit the community and fans.
It may have been possible to purchase Stadium shares, saving the Club the same money if their proposed purchase goes ahead, while providing fans and the community with a degree of ownership and representation in the stadium.
It could have remained available for other purposes to benefit fans and the community, or protect and develop the long term club.
If the Trust Board had better recognised its requirement to act as a Community Benefit Society, rather than just giving financial support to the Club- and a ballot had taken place which reflected this, I believe far more could and should have been achieved. If any of the people criticising had joined the Trust Board themselves, had turned up to the consultation evening on the matter, or come to the Trust AGM- perhaps they could have helped settle matters. |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:08 - Jun 17 with 2495 views | SuddenLad |
Thank you for the very full and detailed account. It makes things much more clear and understandable. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:23 - Jun 17 with 2423 views | SalwaDale |
Fair play to you for posting that. To be honest I am mostly in full agreement.
Disgusted though that it couldn't be sorted out without arbitration. |  |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:33 - Jun 17 with 2374 views | fermin |
The new statement puts a rather different slant on things as does the post above. I must admit I did think the ballot was a bit of a North Korean election. I was one of those who didn't vote at all - there didn't seem to be much point because the result was a bit of a foregone conclusion. |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:41 - Jun 17 with 2337 views | chuckleberry |
I didn't vote as I didn't receive a voting form. I mentioned this at time but still didn't receive one. |  | | |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:54 - Jun 17 with 2309 views | D_Alien |
Thank f**k I didn't renew my "Trust" membership | |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:58 - Jun 17 with 2293 views | MoonyDale |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 17:57 - Jun 17 by dancdale |
I'll happily admit it was me that questioned the Board in this matter and I have updated the statement to more fully explain the reasoning and outcome. I do not believe it fairly represented the position as it was.
Firstly, it was not 'legal action' it was a dispute about the correct nature of Trust undertakings, that when refused to be answered by the Trust Board was asked be considered by an arbitrator, as is proper process under the Trust constitution.
To try and briefly relay my concerns:
The fund was raised not for the Trust, but for a particular cause- helping to provide training facilities including community usage, and it has to be remembered that it would not have been just Trust members who gave money to this cause. If it was still reasonably possible for it to be used in a way suitably close to what it was raised for in the future I believed this should occur. It was established that training facilities do still remain a strong aim of the club and possibly achievable in the next 5 years, the club however preferred the money go towards helping it pay another more immediate bill. What I believed was a suitable solution was simply that the club agreed to repay the money to the purpose it was given for when this became available.
It was also not just a question of what may be considered as 'right' but also whether it was lawful to use money on something which it was not given for. The concern can be summarised by the Code of Fundraising Practice primary rule- 'A legal principle underpinning fundraising is that all funds raised for a particular cause MUST be used for that particular cause.'. I felt it necessary that if we were to not act in accordance with this it should be established as to how we were avoiding this apparent requirement. The Trust Board failed to do so, and refused to address the matter any further other than through arbitration.
The dispute and arbitation also did not just concern the Bowlee fund, but the nature of the Trust itself. I believed the Trust was a Community Benefit Society- (where in this case the related community is largely the fans of the club). The Trust Board denied that we were, and stated both generally and with the fund's use proposals, we were not acting for the benefit of the community. This was undoubtedly incorrect, against the Society Rules, and unlawful. Again I simply asked that we as the Trust Board establish and recognise the correct position, and if I was wrong- fine. It refused to do so other than through arbitration.
I was also concerned that the ballot did not properly inform and offer sufficient choice. Some of the information on the ballot encouraging use of the fund on floodlights was false, and it failed to offer a choice for allowing the fund to remain to be used for another purpose- other than permanently restricting it to the potentially never achievable training facilities. For anyone who actually wanted to use the fund for another future purpose, based on properly addressing the Trust's objectives, there was no option.
My motivation was purely that the Trust acts correctly , confirms that it is acting lawfully when reasonable concerns are raised, recognises the nature of the Society which we are legally registered as, and acts effectively in accordance with its rules and objectives. I tried as hard as I could to have the concerns settled at Board level but it refused to do so other than through arbitration- it was on this basis it was necessary and the costs incurred. I personally paid a large deposit, and would have had full costs against me if my concerns had been unfounded. I stood to gain absolutely nothing personally out of it.
Further explanation as to why bother is that I put quite a lot of time and effort into Trust business, believing it a worthwhile cause based upon what it could and should be achieving based on its objectives.
The floodlights will be upgraded regardless of the Trust donation, the outcome is really only to save the club money at a period where it is relatively financially prosperous, this does little if anything to meet Trust objectives.
The £30000 could have been used in away that better ensured it met the purposes it was raised for- delivering training facilities in some nature, hopefully along with a degree of community use.
It could have been used for a straight share purchase- the club still gets the money for their desired purpose, the community get better representation within the club, in accordance with objectives. At the 50p share value, the 5000 recieved have a value of £2500 for the £30000 given.
It could have been used to bulk purchase tickets- the club still get the money for their desired purpose, the Trust can initiate ticketing initiatives to benefit the community and fans.
It may have been possible to purchase Stadium shares, saving the Club the same money if their proposed purchase goes ahead, while providing fans and the community with a degree of ownership and representation in the stadium.
It could have remained available for other purposes to benefit fans and the community, or protect and develop the long term club.
If the Trust Board had better recognised its requirement to act as a Community Benefit Society, rather than just giving financial support to the Club- and a ballot had taken place which reflected this, I believe far more could and should have been achieved. If any of the people criticising had joined the Trust Board themselves, had turned up to the consultation evening on the matter, or come to the Trust AGM- perhaps they could have helped settle matters. |
So when this went to arbitration it was found that the trust were indeed acting within the law? Making the whole exercise pointless....Wasting time and money raised by the fans.. | |
| |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 19:04 - Jun 17 with 2275 views | D_Alien |
| STATEMENT REGARDING 'BOWLEE FUND' VOTE on 18:58 - Jun 17 by MoonyDale |
So when this went to arbitration it was found that the trust were indeed acting within the law? Making the whole exercise pointless....Wasting time and money raised by the fans.. |
But MoonyDale, it appears it was the Trust itself that required the process to go to arbitration? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
