113 replies to this topic

[mark richardson]

Interesting, as my source is the latest official record I could find filed with Companies House, which was dated 9th January 2012 (Company Number 06045563, Swinton Rugby League Football Club Limited) and shows just the three shareholders, i.e.: 3334 Ordinary Shares held by David Paul Kidd, 3333 Ordinary Shares held by David John Kidd and finally 3333 Ordinary Shares held by David John Jones.

?????



Technically, Dave Roberts may well be a member of the Trust, but in my view does not have the mandate to be considered a bone fide representative of the Trust. He owes his place on the Board to a private deal and not a democratic process involving Trust members. As far as I can tell also has no formalised responsibilities to either; represent the Trust's views, nor; to report back to Trust members on the business at Board meetings.



It would be nice to think so, but a few things don't add up if you ask me. Perhaps just a need for further clarification, we will see.

Are you suggesting Martin is mistaken and it is in fact his swimming certificate from swinton baths ?

[duffymoon]

I've still got mine,dated 1972 ! Also got a certificate from a marbles tournament that was held in Victoria Park.

[marshy1]

I would not get into the realms of on what basis Dave obtained his directorship as that is his business. Secondly even if he had his mandate from the trust I also feel that he or anyone else would find their hands tied as to exactly what could be reported back as I am sure you will agree certain business should remain confidential.

[PhillH]

I would not get into the realms of on what basis Dave obtained his directorship as that is his business.

Precisely. As I said - it was a private deal. So we agree: Dave's appointment to the Board was nothing to do with the Trust. Whether Dave is a Trust member or not is purely coincidental to him being on the Board. Not that there is anything wrong with that par se, but to imply that Dave is somehow the voice of the Trust at Board level is wide of the mark.

Secondly even if he had his mandate from the trust I also feel that he or anyone else would find their hands tied as to exactly what could be reported back as I am sure you will agree certain business should remain confidential.

Yes, but its not in the club's best interests to be run as a secret society either. There needs to be some discretion applied and this is nothing new. Sue Buckley and Steve Wild both represented the Trust on the Board in the past for significant stretches of time with no confidences having been breached at any stage so far as I am aware. Strategic communications done well can be a fantastic asset though!

[Little Lion Man]

I too have a share certificate in my name in swinton rugby club from the early 70's. Not sure how I got it (some story about stopping station road being a greyhound stadium sticks in my mind but not clear on the facts) anyway ... I know that a share certificate is worth nothing and am concerned about the share certificate referred to by Martin. As PhilH says companies house shows only 3 shareholders. However, companies house is often wrong as there is no requirement to file share transfers at companies house (just share issues). It is therefore possible that shares were transferred following the original share issues on 5/4/07( gifted from P Kidd/ j Kidd/ jones). This should have been recorded on the latest annual return but as these are pre printed based on information held by companies house (shuttle return) they often miss share transfers and are signed by directors and returned without updating for share transfers. It is therefore possible for companies house to be out of date.

[Blue Monkey]

I've still got mine,dated 1972 ! Also got a certificate from a marbles tournament that was held in Victoria Park.

I've still got my certificate from 1962 for 6 subjects at the ULCI* (passes -Eng Lan, Eng Lit, Maths, Science - - - credit - History - - - distinction - Geography).

* ULCI = Union of Lancashire & Cheshire Institutes

[marshy1]

Where do you get secret society from.? You surely appreciate that in all businesses some items of business is confidential for various reasons.

[marshy1]

Where do you get secret society from.? You surely appreciate that in all businesses some items of business is confidential for various reasons.

[mark richardson]

I think it is rather rude and insulting to suggest that Martin doesn't know which certificate is in his possession.
.he has quite clearly stated that it is a post administration company certificate.
Yet again a conspiracy theory is blown out of the water.
An apology is due.

[PhillH]

Where do you get secret society from.? You surely appreciate that in all businesses some items of business is confidential for various reasons.

I refer you to my earlier answer...

There needs to be some discretion applied and this is nothing new.

The point being made is that there is a balance to be struck: On the one hand it is not appropriate for everything to be made open, but on the other hand it is also not appropriate for everything to be kept confidential.

So: Do we agree again?

[PhillH]

I think it is rather rude and insulting to suggest that Martin doesn't know which certificate is in his possession.
.he has quite clearly stated that it is a post administration company certificate.
Yet again a conspiracy theory is blown out of the water.
An apology is due.

It was Martin who stated that he did not know where it had come from that people believed the Trust was not a share holder in the new company. I am not the only person who has that impression.

In answer to Martin I pointed to the source of that belief, i.e. publicly available tangible evidence with a proper legal basis that shows there are three shareholders recognised in the company records and that does not include the Trust. Alongside pointing out this evidence I made the point that perhaps there was just a need for further clarification.

I put it to you that any reasonable person looking at those company records would conclude the same thing.

As Little Lion Man has pointed out, there may be good reasons why the Trust is not recognised on the Companies House records as being a shareholder, but until due process has been completed the share certificate in itself is worthless. It is therefore an important matter that this process is duly completed.

Questions that need to be asked: a) Why was the Trust not recognised in the initial share issue of the new company? and b.) Given that more than 5 years has passed since the new company was launched, why have the Companies House records not been updated?

These are important matters to some of us in terms of protecting the credibility of the Trust and indeed the Club itself. These observations are based on sound evidence which is available for you to look at if you so wish. If there is a conspiracy theorist - you are it. It would be nice to have a debate of substance where you stick to giving your own views and their basis, rather than trying to put words into the mouths of others.

Edited by PhillH, 22 June 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[mark richardson]

It was Martin who stated that he did not know where it had come from that people believed the Trust was not a share holder in the new company. I am not the only person who has that impression.

In answer to Martin I pointed to the source of that belief, i.e. publicly available tangible evidence with a proper legal basis that shows there are three shareholders recognised in the company records and that does not include the Trust. Alongside pointing out this evidence I made the point that perhaps there was just a need for further clarification.

I put it to you that any reasonable person looking at those company records would conclude the same thing.

As Little Lion Man has pointed out, there may be good reasons why the Trust is not recognised on the Companies House records as being a shareholder, but until due process has been completed the share certificate in itself is worthless. It is therefore an important matter that this process is duly completed.

Questions that need to be asked: a) Why was the Trust not recognised in the initial share issue of the new company? and b.) Given that more than 5 years has passed since the new company was launched, why have the Companies House records not been updated?

These are important matters to some of us in terms of protecting the credibility of the Trust and indeed the Club itself. These observations are based on sound evidence which is available for you to look at if you so wish. If there is a conspiracy theorist - you are it. It would be nice to have a debate of substance where you stick to giving your own views and their basis, rather than trying to put words into the mouths of others.

I think Ill go and evaluate my value set. You are a very cheeky man. I think you must write some of Mr Camerons replies.
Ive deleted my original reply.

Edited by mark richardson, 22 June 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[bigtony]

Thought this topic was about signings ???

[marshy1]

I refer you to my earlier answer...



The point being made is that there is a balance to be struck: On the one hand it is not appropriate for everything to be made open, but on the other hand it is also not appropriate for everything to be kept confidential.

So: Do we agree again?

Yes I agree. I also think using your logic that Dave Roberts is the perfect person to carry out this position as he has done for quite some time.

[PhillH]

Yes I agree. I also think using your logic that Dave Roberts is the perfect person to carry out this position as he has done for quite some time.

Alan - "There are no so blind as those who refuse to see".

Dave Roberts has done no such thing: We have already agreed the only person Dave has represented during his time on the Board to date has been Dave himself. Acting as a bone fide representative of the Trust is a totally different concept, for that you need to go back to Sue Buckley and Steve Wild.

If of course a board position for the Trust were to be reinstated, a democratic process would have to be undertaken to determine which person the Trust members wished to represent them. If Dave Roberts chose to stand, you would presumably vote for him and if enough people shared your view then he would win. But whichever person won would be duty bound to deliver the Trust constitution and abide by all associated protocols. Plus there is normally a time limit applied of 2 years in post.

While some of this might seem overly beurocratic, it comes from nationally recognised best practice and when done properly makes a tangible positive difference as was shown when the Trust was central to the club's very survival. Not to mention historic mistakes and scandals that may have been prevented if a greater degree of openness was a inherent feature of the club's management structure in years gone by. For a project such as developing Agecroft, a pro-active and respected mutual body operating to a sound constitution can engender influence and raise monies in some fairly unique ways, which without that constitution are not feasible to attempt. These are the reasons why I believe it ought to matter.

[Mr Magoo]

It is hoped Agecroft does come off and more is done to promote the club, because gates of 400 cannot keep us going!
Duffymoons idea in his thread "Missed opportunities" why not put up posters of the team with the championship one trophy in pubs, clubs and shops in and around Swinton to let people know what a great team they have. We have to find a way of getting supporters to the LSV one way or another. I know it's a pain to get to Leigh from Swinton but we need to look at getting more people there, we cannot leave it all to the die hard supporters!!
I really can't see how we are managing to pay all the wages and other expenditures with such small gates.

Come on you Lions.

[PaulT]

It is hoped Agecroft does come off and more is done to promote the club, because gates of 400 cannot keep us going!
Duffymoons idea in his thread "Missed opportunities" why not put up posters of the team with the championship one trophy in pubs, clubs and shops in and around Swinton to let people know what a great team they have. We have to find a way of getting supporters to the LSV one way or another. I know it's a pain to get to Leigh from Swinton but we need to look at getting more people there, we cannot leave it all to the die hard supporters!!
I really can't see how we are managing to pay all the wages and other expenditures with such small gates.

Come on you Lions.

Luckly we've got a chairman who's willing to foot the bill.

[PhillH]

It is hoped Agecroft does come off and more is done to promote the club, because gates of 400 cannot keep us going!
Duffymoons idea in his thread "Missed opportunities" why not put up posters of the team with the championship one trophy in pubs, clubs and shops in and around Swinton to let people know what a great team they have. We have to find a way of getting supporters to the LSV one way or another. I know it's a pain to get to Leigh from Swinton but we need to look at getting more people there, we cannot leave it all to the die hard supporters!!
I really can't see how we are managing to pay all the wages and other expenditures with such small gates.

Come on you Lions.

In the event that Agecroft becomes a reality, to make the most of the opportunity the club will need all the help it can get in terms of raising its profile after 20 years and counting of exile.

Properly re-establishing the Trust would be the ideal vehicle to harness the likely wave of goodwill and enthusiasm and turn it into something tangible.

In the meantime the club has the name of one town, plays in a second town and what community development it does happens in a third town. Hardly surprising that this is not a basis for growth.

Edited by PhillH, 04 July 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[duffymoon]

People are helping to raise the profile of the club,myself ,Alan Marshall and Pete Green post regularly about the Lions on the Swinton People Facebook page and it has attracted quite a bit of interest.Two people have actually started attending matches,I've dealt with requests for the Swinton sixties replicas and enquiries about Steve Wilds book so it just shows the interest is there.There is so much that could be done to raise the profile of the club and boost its image in the town.As stated in an earlier thread,we have a national company Asda coming to Swinton who are desperate to give something to the community.They have history in Rugby League,we should be beating a path to their door!

[PhillH]

People are helping to raise the profile of the club,myself ,Alan Marshall and Pete Green post regularly about the Lions on the Swinton People Facebook page and it has attracted quite a bit of interest.Two people have actually started attending matches,I've dealt with requests for the Swinton sixties replicas and enquiries about Steve Wilds book so it just shows the interest is there.There is so much that could be done to raise the profile of the club and boost its image in the town.As stated in an earlier thread,we have a national company Asda coming to Swinton who are desperate to give something to the community.They have history in Rugby League,we should be beating a path to their door!

Accepted that word of mouth counts, but when we are talking about a new ground back in the home community there is a need to take it to a higher level.

eg; Getting into schools and working with them to stage events that are valuable to development of the kids but also naturally attract both the kids and their parents to the stadium. Win-win. The Performing Arts Showcase with Swinton High school from a few years ago showed the sort of thing that can be done, and that was with 100% voluntary effort.

BUT! You need a proper basis, sufficient number of motivated people and organisation, i.e. a strategy. This is what the Trust can deliver when it is done properly. Sadly it has been some time since we had the right ingredients in place, but it doesn't need to be that way.

Edited by PhillH, 04 July 2012 - 10:55 AM.