BU Blog

[abee]

I think this thread has at least served to show to the great unwashed what really goes on at a BU meeting. It's not good, is it? Let's hope that the constitutional review process engages with this problem and tries to find a way to re-energise BU and increase the level of transparency, democracy and engagement. It's a tall order!

Well yes......not a pretty picture. There is a school of thought on here that suggests it should be covered up but that doesn't change anything does it.......BU is a weakly chaired body lacking proper leadership. That may well be because Brian Burgess has had his hands full with other stuff at BFC but in that case he should have stepped back from BU temporarily and let someone else pull it together. Anyway what's done is done but the issue of whether or not some of the stuff on this thread should ever have seen the light of day doesn't change the fact that this is what was going on and being talked about.

Would I sleep better not knowing exactly what goes down at BU board meetings......almost certainly.....given my own experience of time served on the BU board under John McGlashan's chairmanship am I surprised at the current state of play...........not for one cottonpickin' minute.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

 

[Carri Bee Un]

Banana was elected partially on a mandate of releasing details of shennanigans :yes: Like it or not BU members choose their representatives.

I don't think many people were labouring under the impression that BU was all that slick either...

 

[PJ]

There is a school of thought on here that suggests it should be covered up but that doesn't change anything does it.......

No. Not covered up, but dealt with discreetly, diplomatically, professionally (call it what you will) - not dealt with publicly with only one objective from the new "master of communications"

We aint gonna agree on this one abee

 

[shaggy]

I'm a little confused. abee, you asked

... how on earth are these erm......amateurs gonna secure the long term future of the Club.

I said that you'd answered your own question - they will secure the long term future of the club primarily by fundraising - I was agreeing with you!! (And I even complimented you at the same time)

As for BU vs BFC, I can only say again - I DO have more confidence in the BFC board than the BU board. The BFC haven't got everything right, and I would prefer it if some of the individuals weren't on it, but even so. I still think they are much more organised and professional than the BU board. That wasn't a dig about your personal contribution to either (you're not on either board so I don't see how it could be).

As for me standing for both boards, obviously I think I'm wonderful and could add value to either board , and equally obviously most other people disagreed. :sad:

I think shaggy was having a gentle dig, as he has suggested elsewhere that other BU Board members haven't commented on this thread because "Probably that they need to maintain a working relationship with everyone else on the new board?". Have I got this wrong shaggy?

Mind you northants bee went on to say that I didn't represent all the facts and luckily Nurse Betty has corrected them. I can't find these corrections. So northants, if you could oblige please - I'd be ever so grateful.

I wasn't having a dig at all. Someone one the BAMB posted wondering why no-one else on the BU board was contributing to the thread (so they missed it, not me).

My view is similar to PJ's - I'd prefer it if BU board members didn't end up with public debates about the minutiae of running BU (hence my comment). Apart from creating a very long thread as all us "great unwashed" try to tell you how to sort the problems out I don't see what value it adds. It just creates strife on the BU board, as the last 3 pages of this thread demonstrate. My comment about maintaining a working relationship with other board members meant exactly that (although it was more of a hope than any comment that I knew their opinion).

So...

BFC Board - Confidence in some of the individuals, confidence in general board management and professionalism, concern that they still fall short of the critical objective of managing to get to break even.

BU Board - Concern over lack of focus, concern over different opinions as to what the BU role ought to be, and concern that more than one BU board member think that exposing the problems is the best way to resolve them (which I disagree with)

 

[abee]

BU Board - Concern over lack of focus, concern over different opinions as to what the BU role ought to be, and concern that more than one BU board member think that exposing the problems is the best way to resolve them (which I disagree with)

I agree with most of your post and I certainly don't take your comments personally; I hope that I take criticism on board both in my personal and business lives but I am comfortable with what I do and how I behave and I am reasonably immune to it.

However you complained earlier in the thread about "whingers and snipers" (including me) criticising Bees United in general and Brian Burgess in particular but your recent posts (including the extract above from your most recent) have offered a devastating critique of his leadership of Bees United.

For me that is rather more telling than the "blunt instrument" frequently used by this writer among others. I respect your views and as I have said I agree with most of them and we are certainly together regarding Bees United's lack of focus and seeming uncertainty on what its role should be.

What has never been explained satisfactorily to me is how in March 2003 Bees United trumpeted to the supporters that it was now......."running the club"........(look it up and Larry Signy reminded us in his "God's Chosen" article that BU was running the club "so very well" ) but then after raising a serious amount of dosh from supporters to complete the take-over we are told by the same organisation that erm.......BU no longer runs the club and shouldn't be.

Perhaps you will advise this ignorant oaf who or what in your opinion was running the club from March 2003 through January 2006. We know that Altonwood was not..(Noades had handed over the day to day management and he certainly believed that Bees United was).....and why you were (I suppose) content for BU in the guise of McGlashan and Callen as executive directors to be running the club for the fat end of three years but now it is entirely the wrong thing for BU to be seen to be doing.

This is where I believe part of the confusion for those of us who still give a toss arises regarding the role of Bees United

 

[shaggy]

I agree with most of your post and I certainly don't take your comments personally; I hope that I take criticism on board both in my personal and business lives but I am comfortable with what I do and how I behave and I am reasonably immune to it.

However you complained earlier in the thread about "whingers and snipers" (including me) criticising Bees United in general and Brian Burgess in particular but your recent posts (including the extract above from your most recent) have offered a devastating critique of his leadership of Bees United.

For me that is rather more telling than the "blunt instrument" frequently used by this writer among others. I respect your views and as I have said I agree with most of them and we are certainly together regarding Bees United's lack of focus and seeming uncertainty on what its role should be.

What has never been explained satisfactorily to me is how in March 2003 Bees United trumpeted to the supporters that it was now......."running the club"........(look it up and Larry Signy reminded us in his "God's Chosen" article that BU was running the club "so very well" ) but then after raising a serious amount of dosh from supporters to complete the take-over we are told by the same organisation that erm.......BU no longer runs the club and shouldn't be.

Perhaps you will advise this ignorant oaf who or what in your opinion was running the club from March 2003 through January 2006. We know that Altonwood was not..(Noades had handed over the day to day management and he certainly believed that Bees United was).....and why you were (I suppose) content for BU in the guise of McGlashan and Callen as executive directors to be running the club for the fat end of three years but now it is entirely the wrong thing for BU to be seen to be doing.

This is where I believe part of the confusion for those of us who still give a toss arises regarding the role of Bees United

I don't think I've said anything here that isn't reiterating the messages from my BU election text. I've never said "stop whinging, BU is great", but I have said "instead of just saying whats wrong, say whats wrong and how it should be fixed". The whole reason I responded to banana's blog in the first place is because I don't the exposing the problems for public consumption (amusement?) is necessarily the way to solve the problems.

As for the past... I'm not sure revisiting the McGlashan era is going to help much here.

 

[abee]

As for the past... I'm not sure revisiting the McGlashan era is going to help much here.

I wasn't re-visiting the McGlashan era David, I was asking why it was perfectly alright for BU to be running the club from March 2003 through January 2006 but it's now erm.........not alright according to you and others with the same mind set.

If you won't answer then I'll throw it out for the general public........

 

[rebus]

As for the past... I'm not sure revisiting the McGlashan era is going to help much here.

Well, I can book-end it now if you wish. I think we gave him a final cheque last month so he must be job hunting now after a £28k pay off.

 

[abee]

Well, I can book-end it now if you wish. I think we gave him a final cheque last month so he must be job hunting now after a £28k pay off.

Mark. You know everything so help me out here please.

We were told that Bees United were running the club from March 2003 onwards and until the take-over was completed on January 20 2006. At one point I believe they may even have had a majority on the BFC board. There were the usual comings and goings but BU during the 2003-6 period certainly had at one time or t'other McGlashan, Callen, Wainwright, Hall and Bourke on the board. Non BU board members were Rogers, Herting, White and Waterman (for about six hours although he has been airbrushed out of the records now presumably because he was never registered). I can't be bothered to look up the "mix" at any one time but my point is that Bees United were running the club from March 2003 onwards and probably had a majority on the BFC board. Noades believed that certainly. So everyone sits back fat, dumb and happy with BU running the Club. At this time I started to get the pleasant emails and PM's when I suggested that having McGlashan and Callen as the executive directors would lead to a disaster.......it was a dispassionate comment but brought abuse down on my poor little head from the usual suspects. Whatever one's view of the "management" then, I still submit that BU was running the club. There was not a peep as far as I can recall saying that this was wrong and during this period Bees United embarked on a fundraising exercise to ensure that in addition to running the club it also had the majority shareholding. I was all in favour and backed it with some of my own dosh as did very many others.

However having done the deal we were then told that BU would not have a majority on the BFC board and in fact getting on for a couple of million quid later BU has far less influence now over the affairs of BFC than it did in the 2003-6 period.

Indeed according to shaggy (post #170) he claims that it would be "an unmitigated disaster if BU has a majority on the BFC board".

He further tells us that his "...fear is that in their search........they say why don't we run the Club".

He may well be right given the experiences at BFC........let's face it if you have McGlashan as the de facto CEO then any business is gonna collapse it doesn't matter whether he is batting for BU or anyone else.

But my question remains.........why was it perfectly okay for BU to be trumpeting that it was running the club (and probably having from time to time a majority on the BFC board) when they were raising the funds for the take-over but have now decided that it is no part of its function to run the club and to retain that majority on the BFC board.

Erm that's all.........first of all Mark......you lived it.......as far as you were concerned was BU running the club by injecting McGlashan and Callen onto the BFC board as executive directors. If the answer is yes.....then why is it so ****ing wrong (see shaggy passim) for BU now not to have a majority on the BFC board.

 

[Banana]

abee, you may also remember that at the SGM of BU to agree the acquistion of the club that the Chairman refused to tell us who was going to be on the board and Callen even demanded to know why I thought I had the right to know

 

[abee]

abee, you may also remember that at the SGM of BU to agree the acquistion of the club that the Chairman refused to tell us who was going to be on the board and Callen even demanded to know why I thought I had the right to know

I remember everything Banana including what I was told..........

 

[Russell]

Oi Shaggy!!

Why don't you stand against Mr Callen in the next set of elections? BU could do with a decent accountant running it's finances.










On second thoughts...

 

[shaggy]

Oi Shaggy!!

Why don't you stand against Mr Callen in the next set of elections? BU could do with a decent accountant running it's finances.










On second thoughts...

lol I've retired as an accountant!

 

[abee]

lol I've retired as an accountant!

...........but not as a politician......

 

[Russell]

lol I've retired as an accountant!

Why's that? Lost your balance in your later years?

 

[abee]

Well no one wanted to pick up the challenge so I'll just post this and then let the thread fizzle out. First of all I don't particularly give a monkey's who runs the club as long as there are the best people possible on the BFC board and if they happen to represent Bees United (preferably) then that would be my first choice. However before it enters into Brentford folklore I again strongly disagree with what we have been told by Bees United that it is not their place to "run the club" Indeed shaggy then jumps on the bandwagon and posts that it would be an "unmitigated disaster if BU has a majority on the BFC board".

However whilst we are now told that Bees United running the club would be A BAD THING I submit that Bees United was indeed running the club from March 2003 through January 20 2006 when of course the official line was that this was A GOOD THING.

Unlike shaggy I happen to believe that there is a very keen measure of talent within Bees United representing the most important disciplines who would be perfectly capable of providing BU with a majority on the BFC board and running the club far more than adequately.

Whatever the technicalities of previous appointments put one thing in your minds. Bees United assumed the management of the club in March 2003 and Callen and Wainwright were elected to the BFC board (to join McGlashan) in return for a cheque of £100k to enable the March 2003 wages to be paid. For God's sake, nobody in their right mind would have chosen McGlashan to be the de facto CEO and of course Bees United was substantially discredited by the performance of both McGlashan and Callen but remember that they were amply supported in incompetences by the non-executive and non-BU directors including White, Herting and Rogers who was chairman and the disastrous appointments of Finch and Wigley.

So shaggy believes that it would be an "unmitigated disaster" if BU were running the club and based upon its track record that would be a fair comment on the past. It does not have to be the blueprint for the future. I don't give a tinkers cuss how Charlton have set up their management structure; what I do care about is that BFC is run in the most efficient manner possible. Bees United (and shaggy I suppose) believe that BU has now exhausted the "talent pool" available to us. I will never subscribe to that. I do not believe that Messrs Dyke, Burgess, Bourke and Gosling are the only Bees United representatives/members who deserve to be on the BFC board and I could name half a dozen in ten seconds who would do a far, far better job that Rogers, Herting, White and Hall did for BFC.

Erm.......that's all.

 

[shaggy]

Well no one wanted to pick up the challenge so I'll just post this and then let the thread fizzle out. ...

Given what you were about to post, I think you forgot to add "" ! lol

...First of all I don't particularly give a monkey's who runs the club as long as there are the best people possible on the BFC board and if they happen to represent Bees United (preferably) then that would be my first choice. However before it enters into Brentford folklore I again strongly disagree with what we have been told by Bees United that it is not their place to "run the club" Indeed shaggy then jumps on the bandwagon and posts that it would be an "unmitigated disaster if BU has a majority on the BFC board"....

Bandwagon, moi? My first comment on this was (I think, although no doubt someone will tell me differently) during the elections for the supporter elected director. Prior to that the debate for everyone was "takeover or not" rather than "how should BU run the club once it has control" - I was totally in favour of a takeover as I'd come to the conclusion that any supporter-owned organisation had to be better than the whims of a sugar daddy. During the supporter-director elections I think I said I believed in a democratic BU and a professionally run BFC. I don't see a bandwagon I'm jumping on to - I've not heard anyone else go out of their way to make that point, all I've heard is BU on the defensive as to why things are the way they are. If there is a "bandwagon" its the populist "BU should have a majority on the board", "its our club and we should run it" stuff - the complete opposite of my view.

...However whilst we are now told that Bees United running the club would be A BAD THING I submit that Bees United was indeed running the club from March 2003 through January 20 2006 when of course the official line was that this was A GOOD THING.

I can't claim to keep totally up to date with every statement BB/BU make, but the impression I get is that BU are sticking to the line that BU running the club is "unnecessary" rather than a "bad thing". Its me who says it would be "bad". Obviously I stand to be corrected if I am mistating BU's official line.

Unlike shaggy I happen to believe that there is a very keen measure of talent within Bees United representing the most important disciplines who would be perfectly capable of providing BU with a majority on the BFC board and running the club far more than adequately....

Its not the talent pool that I doubt, its our ability (as fans) to select them. Democracy, imho, will make us tend towards short term populist policies, whereas what BFC needs is long term stability.

Whatever the technicalities of previous appointments put one thing in your minds. Bees United assumed the management of the club in March 2003 and Callen and Wainwright were elected to the BFC board (to join McGlashan) in return for a cheque of £100k to enable the March 2003 wages to be paid. For God's sake, nobody in their right mind would have chosen McGlashan to be the de facto CEO and of course Bees United was substantially discredited by the performance of both McGlashan and Callen but remember that they were amply supported in incompetences by the non-executive and non-BU directors including White, Herting and Rogers who was chairman and the disastrous appointments of Finch and Wigley.

So shaggy believes that it would be an "unmitigated disaster" if BU were running the club and based upon its track record that would be a fair comment on the past. It does not have to be the blueprint for the future. I don't give a tinkers cuss how Charlton have set up their management structure; what I do care about is that BFC is run in the most efficient manner possible. Bees United (and shaggy I suppose) believe that BU has now exhausted the "talent pool" available to us. I will never subscribe to that. I do not believe that Messrs Dyke, Burgess, Bourke and Gosling are the only Bees United representatives/members who deserve to be on the BFC board and I could name half a dozen in ten seconds who would do a far, far better job that Rogers, Herting, White and Hall did for BFC.

Erm.......that's all.

I agree with most of these last comments, but my fear about the future is not totally based on the past. We'll start getting all political now, but supporters running the club would imho be like the unions running a company (or the nutters running the asylum). There may well be the talent in the supporter base, but they will always be hamstrung by a) the pressures of democracy, and b) their personal emotions regarding the club.

I therefore think that BU as a holding company and fundraising/new investment raising organisation, with fingertip control over a BFC board that is a mix of independent investors, independent professionals (incl GD) and BU reps, is actually quite good. A few tweaks to axe some of those non-execs who are hangers on and/or tarred with the failings of the past, but other than that I think its good.

Obviously they still have to deliver, and BU needs to sort itself out and actually start working as that holding company and fundraising/new investment raising organisation... but once that is done we'll be sorted! (easy when you say it quickly!)

 

[abee]

Its not the talent pool that I doubt, its our ability (as fans) to select them. Democracy, imho, will make us tend towards short term populist policies, whereas what BFC needs is long term stability.

We are in almost total agreement shaggy and I thought that my post would draw you out which is why I was exaggerating a little to demonstrate.......lol

My only comment is when you talk about the ability of the fans to select them (BU reps on the BFC board)........as far as I can recall the only one whom we have selected is Jon Gosling. I don't recall any vote on whether Dyke, Burgess or Bourke should be on the BFC board......they were just catapulted on there.......is that not so??? And before anyone starts saying that I've posted that these three worthies should not be on the BFC board......that is absolutely not my thinking. I have posted elsewhere that in my book those three plus Jon Gosling are all professional and should be on the BFC board and until I am persuaded otherwise that is my stance.

But why shaggy should BU not be able to invite you for example to join the BFC board without going through an election process. You believe that you have something to add and I would not quarrel with that.......

 

[Banana]

The supporters also elected Graham Hall to the BFC Board. Although the election system used probably helped.

 

[abee]

The supporters also elected Graham Hall to the BFC Board. Although the election system used probably helped.

"I forgot to remember to forget" (copywrite Larry Signy and Elvis Presley)

The election of Graham Hall of course reinforces shaggys comments about his doubts regarding the democratic process.......

 

[rebus]

Erm that's all.........first of all Mark......you lived it.......as far as you were concerned was BU running the club by injecting McGlashan and Callen onto the BFC board as executive directors. If the answer is yes.....then why is it so ****ing wrong (see shaggy passim) for BU now not to have a majority on the BFC board.

As a member of staff at the time [Spring 2003] it was made quiet clear to us that the "supporters" were running the club. I don't have answers why that should be different.

 

[abee]

As a member of staff at the time [Spring 2003] it was made quiet clear to us that the "supporters" were running the club. I don't have answers why that should be different.

Thanks Mark and of course that is what we all knew and understood.

The astonishing thing to me is that this was trumpeted as A GOOD THING in 2003 but in 2006 and having raised a chunk of monies to actually own the club having the supporters run the club is now officially A BAD THING.

 

[shaggy]

​

We are in almost total agreement shaggy and I thought that my post would draw you out which is why I was exaggerating a little to demonstrate.......lol

My only comment is when you talk about the ability of the fans to select them (BU reps on the BFC board)........as far as I can recall the only one whom we have selected is Jon Gosling. I don't recall any vote on whether Dyke, Burgess or Bourke should be on the BFC board......they were just catapulted on there.......is that not so??? And before anyone starts saying that I've posted that these three worthies should not be on the BFC board......that is absolutely not my thinking. I have posted elsewhere that in my book those three plus Jon Gosling are all professional and should be on the BFC board and until I am persuaded otherwise that is my stance.

But why shaggy should BU not be able to invite you for example to join the BFC board without going through an election process. You believe that you have something to add and I would not quarrel with that.......

Taken as read that I'm wonderful and would be an asset to any board cool you still end up with the selection process. Off the top of my head you either have;

1. supporters who have been elected to the BFC board because they've convinced everyone that they are what is needed (JG - who campaigned that comms was what was needed, got elected, and has delivered pretty much what he said he would) (me - failed to convince people of my value to BFC, and I had/have a different view as to what was needed from the role)

2. supporters who have been elected to BU, and have then pursuaded BU to nominate them to BFC (BB and JB) (me - failed to get elected to BU)

3. supporters who have not been elected at all, but are appointed (what you're suggesting, and I don't think has happened yet, although was Andrew W elected to BU or not?? can't remember)

4. investors with cash from business success who can bring cash and expertise (and sometimes positive media exposure too) (GD and the investors/nominees) (me - I don't have the odd few hundred grand sitting around, which says I haven't been successful enough in business yet, but I'm working on it )

5. investors who seem to have cash (or friends with cash) who seem to be completely useless at business (I shan't bother listing them, but we know who we're talking about) (me - don't have cash or friends with cash, and wouldn't want to be put in this category even if I did )​

So... for your suggestion of route 3, I (and any other "talent" in the supporterbase) have to be saying that despite competition from people with a democratic mandate (routes 1 and 2) or demonstrable success and the cash to back it up (route 4), I'm so much better that I should be appointed anyway.

Not sure I'm convinced by the logic, and I'm sure as hell those who didn't vote for me wouldn't be. Brickie chap, care to comment? lol

So, I think a mix of 1,2 and 4 is best, with 4 being the counterbalance to those from 1 and 2 (and by counterbalance, that means 1 and 2 can't have the majority, otherwise there is no counterbalance). All we have to do is get rid of the route 5's, and we're sorted!

 

[Banana]

2. JB has never been elected to the BU Board (well OK he was elected by Loan Note holders and then co-opted onto the BU Board)

 

[shaggy]

Thanks Mark and of course that is what we all knew and understood.

The astonishing thing to me is that this was trumpeted as A GOOD THING in 2003 but in 2006 and having raised a chunk of monies to actually own the club having the supporters run the club is now officially A BAD THING.

You keep saying "officially" - are you sure you're not mistaking me for someone important?

Have BU actually said that "officially", or are you inferring it from their rejection of a change?

 

[abee]

Have BU actually said that "officially", or are you inferring it from their rejection of a change?

Yes.......if they reject something as "unwanted" then that makes it officially A BAD THING in my book.

 

[abee]

shaggy, what it boils down to is this. There are nine BFC board members of which four are BU nominees and of these four only one has been elected by BU members.

There are five "others" if you like.....Esteva, Heath, Jones, Rogers and Herting.

I do not understand why BU cannot just nominate two others to go onto the BFC board to give it a voting majority and then we do not have the nonsense that BU cannot influence the BFC board, musn't act as "shadow directors" blah blah.

The "democratic process" doesn't come into it........what "democratic process" put Greg Dyke, Joe Bourke and Brian Burgess onto the BFC board. So what is the objection exactly to having a further two BU members using the Burgess/Bourke route to the BFC board (i.e. this is a good bloke and he is hereby appointed to the board). Yes I know that you have said that this would be an "unmitigated disaster" but I do not understand why.

BU can then nominate an "executive committee" of two of their directors plus the Managing Director for the day to day operational decisions. Isn't this what was happening in practice after Finch was resigned.

Heigh ho, heigh ho it's off to work I go..........

 

[davebee]

Perhaps people in positions of responsibility should resist the temptation to vent their frustration by making ironic comments? I think that people such as banana (sorry to pick you out as an individual) are looked up to by many as a valuable source of information and therefore need to be seen to be transparent and credible. Whilst the vast majority of what bana says is factual, the occasional ironic post, (which to the uninformed person is not always easy to spot) creates doubt and makes it more diffcult to accept factual comments wholly at face value as there is doubt as to whether this is an ironic comment or not.

Whilst I appreciate this is a public forum and that you have the right to say what you want, I think that given your position of responsibility, you should consider how others will recive this information and whether it is liable to be misinterpreted.

 

[Banana]

Which ironic post was this please.

 

[Brickie Chap]

Which ironic post was this please.

How long have you got

 

[Banana]

How long have you got

I was only asking for the one in question

 

[Banana]

It's like rain on your wedding day, a red light when you're already late

 

[Les Beeavinu]

It's like rain on your wedding day, a red light when you're already late

It's like raaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannn on your wedding day

 

[Jezybee]

No, thats just a ****ing annoying coincidence.

 

[shaggy]

shaggy, what it boils down to is this. There are nine BFC board members of which four are BU nominees and of these four only one has been elected by BU members.

There are five "others" if you like.....Esteva, Heath, Jones, Rogers and Herting.

I do not understand why BU cannot just nominate two others to go onto the BFC board to give it a voting majority and then we do not have the nonsense that BU cannot influence the BFC board, musn't act as "shadow directors" blah blah.

The "democratic process" doesn't come into it........what "democratic process" put Greg Dyke, Joe Bourke and Brian Burgess onto the BFC board. So what is the objection exactly to having a further two BU members using the Burgess/Bourke route to the BFC board (i.e. this is a good bloke and he is hereby appointed to the board). Yes I know that you have said that this would be an "unmitigated disaster" but I do not understand why.

BU can then nominate an "executive committee" of two of their directors plus the Managing Director for the day to day operational decisions. Isn't this what was happening in practice after Finch was resigned.

Heigh ho, heigh ho it's off to work I go..........

They could do that.

If they did you'd have two more cooks spoiling the broth, and it would encourage every BU member to question BU as to how they are using that "control". I don't see that as a plus point, in fact I think it will totally confuse everyone as to the difference between BU and BFC.

Furthermore, if that "control" translates into BFC being instructed to do things at the whim of fans that don't make good business sense (like not selling players, not doing business with Franchise FC, making burgers free, keeping Stripes as a sub-optimal bar rather than fleecing the corporates, etc etc) - all of which is quite feasible - then we end up with my "unmitigated disaster".

Even if I'm being overly pessimistic and this doesn't sound likely, what do two more BU nominated directors add? I thought the original reaction to the board structure was that there were a lot of them - and we'd be increasing that number.

I know there are a lot of advocates of BU "control" over the board, but I've not heard anyone spell out what they want to do with that control that couldn't already be done by a shareholders resolution.

 

[shaggy]

No, thats just a ****ing annoying coincidence.

... a message from God... your guardian angel trying to protect you...

... yes dear, I'm logging off now.

 

[Edmundo]

It's like rain on your wedding day, a red light when you're already late

Sorry, but that Crow woman, like 99% of her countrymen, hasn't got a ****ing clue about irony.

 

[beesbeesbarmyarmy]

Sorry, but that Crow woman, like 99% of her countrymen, hasn't got a ****ing clue about irony.

I think you mean that Morrisette woman. lol

 

[Edmundo]

I think you mean that Morrisette woman. lol

:blush Of course. How ironic! lol

 

[Carri Bee Un]

No, thats just a ****ing annoying coincidence.

The one that still drives me into a rage whenever I hear it is "it's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife"

That's just sh*t catering or a badly though out mass cutlery purchase.

I'm going to be annoyed all day now

 

[cpbee2]

The one that still drives me into a rage whenever I hear it is "it's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife"

That's just sh*t catering or a badly though out mass cutlery purchase.

I'm going to be annoyed all day now

rofl At last, something made me laugh rofl

 

[homelessbee]

Sorry, but that Crow woman, like 99% of her countrymen, hasn't got a ****ing clue about irony.

Isn't Morissette Canadian?