Bees United AGM 2016

hatfieldbee

Active member
Joined
13 Dec 2007
Messages
5,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Hatfield, Herts
Perhaps it is like our compensation for Mawson, undisclosed?:idea:

Its the BU AGM on March 5th according to the e-mail and flier I have been sent despite no longer being a member. Can a question be asked there maybe?
I know off topic for this thread, but my agenda says one of the items for voting at the AGM is not sending out details of future AGMs?

Please note this and below posts have been moved from another thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
I know off topic for this thread, but my agenda says one of the items for voting at the AGM is not sending out details of future AGMs?
To clarify, it's a motion proposing that we no longer send out formal written notification of AGM's in the post, notifying members instead via email, the BU and BFC websites and via an advert in a local newspaper. The thinking behind it id simply that with so many of our members having access to the Internet, email and social media that we may have the opportunity to better spend the several thousand pounds it costs each year to send out physical mail shots.
 

stevil

Active member
Joined
27 Dec 2002
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
53
Location
Haywards Heath, W Sussex
To clarify, it's a motion proposing that we no longer send out formal written notification of AGM's in the post, notifying members instead via email, the BU and BFC websites and via an advert in a local newspaper. The thinking behind it id simply that with so many of our members having access to the Internet, email and social media that we may have the opportunity to better spend the several thousand pounds it costs each year to send out physical mail shots.
:suspect:
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
To clarify, it's a motion proposing that we no longer send out formal written notification of AGM's in the post, notifying members instead via email, the BU and BFC websites and via an advert in a local newspaper. The thinking behind it id simply that with so many of our members having access to the Internet, email and social media that we may have the opportunity to better spend the several thousand pounds it costs each year to send out physical mail shots.
The website says:
"We have been investigating methods by which to reduce the costs associated with written communication to our members. Howevever, even having explored cheaper suppliers, we are still looking at spending several thousands of pounds each year on mail outs. This costs comes from BU membership contributions and we would rather put that money to better use."

What else is BU going to spend its money on that is "better use"?
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
What else is BU going to spend its money on that is "better use"?
Following the AGM the Bees United board will number eleven :eek: so the monies are probably needed to buy a bigger table and two more chairs.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
Following the AGM the Bees United board will number eleven :eek: so the monies are probably needed to buy a bigger table and two more chairs.
Yes it seems that there are two seats available and they just happen to be those of the two representatives of BU on the BFC board that co-incidentally have to retire by rotation this year. Two other people want to stand and all of a sudden the Constitution of the BU board is being amended to increase the number of BU directors from 9 to 11. All to avoid spending money (or if you are a conspiracy theorist - to keep Merritt and Kerr on the BFC board as BU cannot replace them without Cliff Crown's explicit approval). I'm not even sure that there is a motion in the AGM to change to Constitution to change the number of BU directors, so that might be interesting.

I am really starting to get concerned about BU which now seems to be hoarding STOs payments after abolishing their memberships and not spending it on the democratic process
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
Yes it seems that there are two seats available and they just happen to be those of the two representatives of BU on the BFC board that co-incidentally have to retire by rotation this year. Two other people want to stand and all of a sudden the Constitution of the BU board is being amended to increase the number of BU directors from 9 to 11. All to avoid spending money (or if you are a conspiracy theorist - to keep Merritt and Kerr on the BFC board as BU cannot replace them without Cliff Crown's explicit approval). I'm not even sure that there is a motion in the AGM to change to Constitution to change the number of BU directors, so that might be interesting.

I am really starting to get concerned about BU which now seems to be hoarding STOs payments after abolishing their memberships and not spending it on the democratic process
There's no conspiracy Nana. The constitution enables the BU Board to increase the number of representatives on the board.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
There's no conspiracy Nana. The constitution enables the BU Board to increase the number of representatives on the board.
OK
i) can you demonstate your assertion?
ii) why did the BU Board decide to increase the number of directors when there was a very public decision to reduce it from 12 to 9 a few years ago.
 

Gee Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2001
Messages
22,448
Reaction score
45
Location
Rayleigh
What do all these board members do?
 

Sultan

Active member
Joined
19 Mar 2001
Messages
7,580
Reaction score
93
Location
Staines
One way of saving costs is to not send details to non members.
 

hobbsy

Optimist
Joined
23 Apr 2005
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
401
Location
KT3 New Malden
To clarify, it's a motion proposing that we no longer send out formal written notification of AGM's in the post, notifying members instead via email, the BU and BFC websites and via an advert in a local newspaper. The thinking behind it id simply that with so many of our members having access to the Internet, email and social media that we may have the opportunity to better spend the several thousand pounds it costs each year to send out physical mail shots.
You could always hold the AGM at the beginning of the season and notify members when you send the membership cards out. Which is what BIAS do.
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
One way of saving costs is to not send details to non members.
The issue of the membership list is something I'm trying (still) to get to grips with. I've frankly no idea how we've ended up with a list which includes lapsed members but the ability to track the email mail shots has now given me the opportunity to analyse who has opened the emails, which emails haven't delivered and who has unsubscribed which although a lengthy process should enable the membership list to be corrected.
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
Hi Owlsmoor Bee,

Looking at the BU website and the directors standing for re-election are shown as :

Jan 2014 Carpenter, Kerr, Merritt
Jan 2015 Bruzon, Skeggs, Sawyer
Jan 2016 Kerr, Merritt

So Kerr and Merritt have stood twice in three years..........where are Tate, Cooper, Waterman and Gosling in all of this and when do they stand??
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
OK
i) can you demonstate your assertion?
ii) why did the BU Board decide to increase the number of directors when there was a very public decision to reduce it from 12 to 9 a few years ago.
I'll need to refer to the constitution which I won't have access to until tomorrow.

In response to your second point though, it was felt by the other board members ( ie not Dave or Donald) that it would be beneficial to BU if they continued to represent us at BFC Board level. It was also felt that we didn't want to discourage our members from standing for election and therefore it was proposed that to increase the number of board members on this occasion would be a good solution. I fully accept that such a decision may not be agreeable to all our members but I believe it was the right one in the circumstances.
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
Hi Owlsmoor Bee,

Looking at the BU website and the directors standing for re-election are shown as :

Jan 2014 Carpenter, Kerr, Merritt
Jan 2015 Bruzon, Skeggs, Sawyer
Jan 2016 Kerr, Merritt

So Kerr and Merritt have stood twice in three years..........where are Tate, Cooper, Waterman and Gosling in all of this and when do they stand??
Hi abee,

That doesn't correlate with the election cycle and is wrong. Another glaring error which I'll put right tomorrow.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
I'll need to refer to the constitution which I won't have access to until tomorrow.

In response to your second point though, it was felt by the other board members ( ie not Dave or Donald) that it would be beneficial to BU if they continued to represent us at BFC Board level. It was also felt that we didn't want to discourage our members from standing for election and therefore it was proposed that to increase the number of board members on this occasion would be a good solution. I fully accept that such a decision may not be agreeable to all our members but I believe it was the right one in the circumstances.
That's interesting because, by convention, it is the newly constituted board that has that decision i.e. the board as constituted after the elections and not the current board. All appointments are in the gift of the board, annually, after every election. So I now need to move my opinion to "conspiracy", especially now that it is confirmed.
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
That's interesting because, by convention, it is the newly constituted board that has that decision i.e. the board as constituted after the elections and not the current board. All appointments are in the gift of the board, annually, after every election. So I now need to move my opinion to "conspiracy", especially now that it is confirmed.
Well as that's not something I can counter without sight of the constitution you'll need to give me until tomorrow to come back to you.
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
That's interesting because, by convention, it is the newly constituted board that has that decision i.e. the board as constituted after the elections and not the current board. All appointments are in the gift of the board, annually, after every election. So I now need to move my opinion to "conspiracy", especially now that it is confirmed.
I can confirm it anyway. I was told by a current member of the BFC board that only Messrs Merritt and Kerr were acceptable as the BU reps on the BFC board.

I asked 'So they've both got jobs for life then?'

The reply was 'Effectively yes'
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
Well as that's not something I can counter without sight of the constitution you'll need to give me until tomorrow to come back to you.
That is an irrelevant point. The new board can do what they like. Now back when Merritt was elected Chairman the then board all agreed that all appointments in the gift of the board would be appointed annually i.e. no jobs for the boys. What seems to have happened is that the outgoing BU Board have decided to tenure Merritt and Kerr. Which is unacceptable cooperate behaviour IMHO.
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
That is an irrelevant point. The new board can do what they like. Now back when Merritt was elected Chairman the then board all agreed that all appointments in the gift of the board would be appointed annually i.e. no jobs for the boys. What seems to have happened is that the outgoing BU Board have decided to tenure Merritt and Kerr. Which is unacceptable cooperate behaviour IMHO.
I don't accept that making a decision which we feel is to the benefit of the BU Board and our members in ensuring the continuation of what we consider to be the best representation on the BFC Board to be unacceptable. Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'll let one of my other Board colleagues continue to respond to this particular line of questioning.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
I don't accept that making a decision which we feel is to the benefit of the BU Board and our members in ensuring the continuation of what we consider to be the best representation on the BFC Board to be unacceptable. Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'll let one of my other Board colleagues continue to respond to this particular line of questioning.
How do you know what the new board will decide? For the current board to tie the hands of an incoming board is simply unacceptable.

I do appreciate that it is only you of plenty of BU Directors that post on here....which emphasises my point further. BU has retracted into a shell of non-communication. Consequently it is now irrelevant to 99% of supporters and we have jobs for two boys on the BFC Board.
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
I don't accept that making a decision which we feel is to the benefit of the BU Board and our members in ensuring the continuation of what we consider to be the best representation on the BFC Board to be unacceptable. Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'll let one of my other Board colleagues continue to respond to this particular line of questioning.
Thanks for your replies Owlsmoor Bee.

You plough a lonely furrow on here when it comes to promoting/defending Bees United and it's appreciated.
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
How do you know what the new board will decide? For the current board to tie the hands of an incoming board is simply unacceptable.

I do appreciate that it is only you of plenty of BU Directors that post on here....which emphasises my point further. BU has retracted into a shell of non-communication. Consequently it is now irrelevant to 99% of supporters and we have jobs for two boys on the BFC Board.
My final post on this thread this evening but "jobs" suggests that they are paid for their considerable time. Unless I've missed a memo, being a BU Board member is not something which enjoys any degree of remuneration.

In actual fact, Collins defines the term "jobs for the boys" as "the appointment of one's supporters to posts, without reference to their qualifications or ability" which suggests your comment to be both inaccurate and more than a little offensive bearing in mind the explanation I've given for the reasons behind it.
 

davidccpigeons

Active member
Joined
14 Nov 2010
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
10
Hi Owlsmoor Bee,

Looking at the BU website and the directors standing for re-election are shown as :

Jan 2014 Carpenter, Kerr, Merritt
Jan 2015 Bruzon, Skeggs, Sawyer
Jan 2016 Kerr, Merritt

So Kerr and Merritt have stood twice in three years..........where are Tate, Cooper, Waterman and Gosling in all of this and when do they stand??
Just for the record abee, Carpenter did not stand for re-election in 2014.
I think some of the people you mention did not stand for a year or two. They were co-opted, possibly elected only recently.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
My final post on this thread this evening but "jobs" suggests that they are paid for their considerable time. Unless I've missed a memo, being a BU Board member is not something which enjoys any degree of remuneration.

In actual fact, Collins defines the term "jobs for the boys" as "the appointment of one's supporters to posts, without reference to their qualifications or ability" which suggests your comment to be both inaccurate and more than a little offensive bearing in mind the explanation I've given for the reasons behind it.
OK then I will assume that they are doing the roles under duress and will willingly give them up. This scenario is, of course, completely contrary to creating new seats on the BU Board to accommodate their current terrible roles that they are only fulfilling as no-one else wants to do it. Which I find unlikely considering North London Bee is on the BU Board :)
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,294
Reaction score
1,574
Location
London
Just for the record abee, Carpenter did not stand for re-election in 2014.
I think some of the people you mention did not stand for a year or two. They were co-opted, possibly elected only recently.
This is course is the responsibility of the Secretary? Who is that these days and what other roles do they have in the BU and BFC?
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
OK then I will assume that they are doing the roles under duress and will willingly give them up. This scenario is, of course, completely contrary to creating new seats on the BU Board to accommodate their current terrible roles that they are only fulfilling as no-one else wants to do it. Which I find unlikely considering North London Bee is on the BU Board :)
That assertion bears no relation to what I've said lol
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
Thanks for your replies Owlsmoor Bee.

You plough a lonely furrow on here when it comes to promoting/defending Bees United and it's appreciated.
Thanks abee. It's feeling a rather thankless task at the moment :)
 

davidccpigeons

Active member
Joined
14 Nov 2010
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
10
My final post on this thread this evening but "jobs" suggests that they are paid for their considerable time. Unless I've missed a memo, being a BU Board member is not something which enjoys any degree of remuneration.

In actual fact, Collins defines the term "jobs for the boys" as "the appointment of one's supporters to posts, without reference to their qualifications or ability" which suggests your comment to be both inaccurate and more than a little offensive bearing in mind the explanation I've given for the reasons behind it.
I think Banana might have been talking about being on the BFC board which does carry some perks such as special cramped seats with part of the pitch obscured by a pillar, and access to that 1980s Formica-chic Black Hole of Calcutta which they call the boardroom at half time, which they are most welcome to, although I admit to being envious of their meat pies at half time. As you rightly say there are no perks for the BU board, although the verbal matches between Banana and Rebus used to be great entertainment. I understand there is not even a pint in the Griffin after BU board meetings now.
It would be interesting to hear what contribution our boys make to the BFC board meetings these days.
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
Just for the record abee, Carpenter did not stand for re-election in 2014.
I think some of the people you mention did not stand for a year or two. They were co-opted, possibly elected only recently.
Thank you.

I took my information from the Bees United website and Owlsmoor Bee (post #16) has acknowledged that it represents 'another glaring error' which he will correct.

:wave:
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
Off subject - but

Absolutely delighted to see you on the GPG abee.

Hope all,is well with you
Hi Paul.........I read the GPG everyday but only occasionally post on threads that interest me..

:wave:
 

PJ

Active member
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
5,563
Reaction score
3
Location
Lowestoft
I am really starting to get concerned about BU which now seems to be hoarding STOs payments after abolishing their memberships and not spending it on the democratic process
I've been emailing BU and asked that the whole issue of S/O donors/members' voting rights is raised at the AGM.
Hopefully common sense will be restored as the current proposal is completely unacceptable, disrespectful to members and plain wrong imo :nono:
 

Gee Bee

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2001
Messages
22,448
Reaction score
45
Location
Rayleigh
I've been emailing BU and asked that the whole issue of S/O donors/members' voting rights is raised at the AGM.
Hopefully common sense will be restored as the current proposal is completely unacceptable, disrespectful to members and plain wrong imo :nono:
I cancelled mine in the end. They took the money never got my change of address right. Never sent me a single response (banana assisted by corresponding on here. Communication is dreadful and yet there are 9 soon to be 11 board members. What do they do? If you put yourself up to do something then can't comiit then resign
 

davidccpigeons

Active member
Joined
14 Nov 2010
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
10
Only about a week to go to the AGM, are we going to see the report & accounts soon? Be interesting to see what's changed in the past 12 months.
 

Owlsmoor_Bee

Moderator
Joined
22 Aug 2005
Messages
11,068
Reaction score
51
Location
The Queen's County
I've been emailing BU and asked that the whole issue of S/O donors/members' voting rights is raised at the AGM.
Hopefully common sense will be restored as the current proposal is completely unacceptable, disrespectful to members and plain wrong imo :nono:
PJ, the issue of S/O's has been added as a formal agenda item for discussion at the AGM.
 

PJ

Active member
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
5,563
Reaction score
3
Location
Lowestoft
PJ, the issue of S/O's has been added as a formal agenda item for discussion at the AGM.
Thanks, can't get to the AGM myself (too early) but if you could convey my view i'd be grateful :sorted:
 

liverbee

Active member
Joined
17 May 2006
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
113
Location
Liverpool at present
:idea:
Only need two more on the board (with Banana in the Chair?) and you can have a re-run of The Last Supper!
Sorry. Keep up the good work, everybody.
 

hobbsy

Optimist
Joined
23 Apr 2005
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
401
Location
KT3 New Malden
:idea:
Only need two more on the board (with Banana in the Chair?) and you can have a re-run of The Last Supper!
Sorry. Keep up the good work, everybody.
Who's Judas?
 

liverbee

Active member
Joined
17 May 2006
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
113
Location
Liverpool at present
Who's Judas?
He wasn't there Hobbsy. Did his Thirty pieces of silver in Ladbrokes and hung himself. I'm in no way blaming Ladbroke for this apocryphal tale,by the way and he'd only deny it anyway. They brought in a new apostle from the Disciple Development Squad. I think it might have been Phillip.
Really must brush up on my Scriptures, before it's too late.
 

davidccpigeons

Active member
Joined
14 Nov 2010
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
10
Thanks OB.
The chairman’s statement that BU’s focus is on the high levels of debt of BFC to Matthew Benham and the £10m+ a year losses by BFC, is to be welcomed. Many of us remember the losses/debt crises and the threat of extinction of BFC in times gone by. BU seems content that the present financing of BFC is sustainable and that risk is being avoided. That is encouraging.
The chairman also warns that after the last year’s departure of managers and players, “with change comes uncertainty.” He also says that finding adequate replacements is important for BFC’s quest for sustainability. He believes that the club is doing well in that regard. Some might not agree. He adds: “The approach being taken to player identification, transfers in and transfers out is absolutely focused on getting the best value for Brentford FC, and therefore is directly aligned with the BU emphasis on sustainability.” Let’s hope that next year he is able to report that approach has been successful, and that BU maintains its pressure for sustainability.
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
The chairman’s statement that BU’s focus is on the high levels of debt of BFC to Matthew Benham and the £10m+ a year losses by BFC, is to be welcomed.
The chairman also warns that after the last year’s departure of managers and players, “with change comes uncertainty.”
We haven't yet seen the BFC accounts for fy ending June 30 2015 have we?

I can't find them anywhere and they have not been downloaded to the BU website where the latest BFC accounts are for 2014.

David Merritt's statement is very interesting but where can we see exactly what are the 'high levels of debt of BFC to Matthew Benham' to which David refers?
 

abee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Apr 2000
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
31
Thanks David and I saw the Bees United accounts. However there is no debt to speak of in these accounts and I assumed that David Merritt was referring to the 'high levels of debt of BFC to Matthew Benham' in the BFC accounts which I cannot find.

I guess my point is that we've always understood that there is very little debt in the BFC balance sheet and now the Bees United chairman deems the debt situation as something justifying a fairly detailed comment in his Statement.

The debt exit plan is understood and explained but it would be interesting to know exactly how much we are talking about...........or is it just me? :)
 
Last edited:

davidccpigeons

Active member
Joined
14 Nov 2010
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
10
Thanks David and I saw the Bees United accounts. However there is no debt to speak of in these accounts and I assumed that David Merritt was referring to the 'high levels of debt of BFC to Matthew Benham' in the BFC accounts which I cannot find.

What are the 'high levels of debt'?
We'll have to wait for the BFC account to see the debt level. But if it is part of the main topic for BU board meetings, it must be significant. According to the report debt "mainly relates to Lionel Road, and there is a clear line-of-sight to that being paid back - in full -as part of the Lionel Road development funding." So not a problem?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom