Eric-sinclair Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 Why would any Dundee fan want to keep any information from other Dundee fans? Or at least explain if they are unable to.Its a lack of communication that is the problem.Fans are concerned and rightly so. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 8 hours ago, Islaydarkblue said: I am saying no more. You should have joined DFCSS prior to the meeting and you could have heard everything that was discussed for yourself. This kind of attitude is why fans owned will never work for us, ever. Too many people, with a 'blazer/childish' attitude, 'your not part of the group so I'm not telling you'. When will people realise, we are ALL Dundee fans, whether you live in Dundee, London, New York, Sydney, Wick, wherever! We are all Dundee fans, no one is more important or less important. If you are part of DSA or DFCSS, it doesn't matter one little bit. We have all equally saved our club twice, we have all put money into the club through various means, writing cheques to keep us going, going to home matches (ST or PATG), being a member or non member of one group, attending club events etc... I'm glad we never voted to keep us fans owned, it was never working, we were a laughing stock of a club. Now we are far more professional, yes results are crap this season, but at least we are in the premiership and able to back our manager with funds each season, far better youth development too. Of course mistakes have been made, but there has been far more positives under FPS. And due to this kind of attitude, I will not renew my membership of DFCSS and I can see why numbers are so low. (I know Islay, isn't speaking on behalf of DFCSS, but why the secrecy of the meeting). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegen65 Posted 13 January 2019 Author Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 8 hours ago, Islaydarkblue said: I am saying no more. You should have joined DFCSS prior to the meeting and you could have heard everything that was discussed for yourself. Thank goodness you are still living on Islay. You have previously posted if you were living in Dundee then you would stand for election to the DFCSS board. With that type of attitude i sincerely hope you are never voted on to the board if you return to Dundee, and you wonder why members are dwindling???? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buster Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 9 hours ago, Islaydarkblue said: I am saying no more. You should have joined DFCSS prior to the meeting and you could have heard everything that was discussed for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThelegendthatisBeto Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 Could have swore we all supported the same team 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjs Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 Am assuming the Islay hotel menu, the Islay transport system, bin collections and ferry times were all discussed and passed with a unanimous verdict and that’s why it was an excellent meeting. On that basis lads we will all sleep easy tonight now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dayster Posted 13 January 2019 Popular Post Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 (edited) There was no secrecy to the meeting at all, if Islay doesn’t want to share details then that his call AGM itself was just usual sort of business The Q&A was completely focused on share issue - there will be a clarification email out in the coming days my takeaways - consultation was a incorrect as it states FPS desire is for 75%+ , it’s not its to amend the entrenched rights ( as they have no desire to purchase dfcss ordinary shares - the entrenched rights have already been broken ie level of borrowing, but the only recourse society has is legal which is a road they would be unlikely to go down -A share holders agreement may give stronger rights but its a shareholder agreement, if the shares are shifted then it’s no longer valid - worry over long term protection -suggestion was that the veto need relaxed for funding of camperdown development - I don’t buy it, the club aren’t part of development that’s dark blue holdings so our rights have no bearing. Club just need to ask Society consent for stadium move that would be granted General feel was that we are being asked to decide something without any detail or a firm proposal. FPS need to layout there long term plans and what the seek to do with change of rights (to all fans) concensus was that there was no value in selling the A shares Edited 13 January 2019 by Dayster 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegen65 Posted 13 January 2019 Author Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 2 minutes ago, Dayster said: There was no secrecy to the meeting at all, if Islam doesn’t want to share details then that his call AGM itself was just usual sort of business The Q&A was completely focused on share issue - there will be a clarification email out in the coming days my takeaways- consultation was a incorrect as it states FPS desire is for 75%+ , it’s not its to amend the entrenched rights ( as they have no desire to purchase dfcss ordinary shares - the entrenched rights have already been broken ie level of borrowing, but the only recourse society has is legal which is a road they would be reticent to go down -A share holders agreement may give stronger rights but its a shareholder agreement, if the shares are shifted then it’s no longer valid - worry over long term protection -suggestion was that the veto need relaxed for funding of camperdown development - I don’t buy it, the club aren’t part of development that’s dark blue holdings so our rights have no bearing. Club just need to ask Society consent for stadium move that would be granted General feel was that we are being asked to decide something without any detail or a firm proposal. FPS need to layout there long term plans and what the seek to do with change of rights (to all fans) concensus was that there was no value in selling the A shares Cheers R, Can i ask what is the level or borrowing now or was that disclosed? It used to be £50,000 is that correct? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayster Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 2 minutes ago, Thegen65 said: Cheers R, Can i ask what is the level or borrowing now or was that disclosed? It used to be £50,000 is that correct? Not something I’ve checked myself but was mentioned yesterday that there was 1m borrowing (from Tim Keyes ) in the last accounts - since been converted to shares technically he he could have bought the shares first as cash injection to avoid hitting the entrenched rights. I believe the can borrow over 50k if it’s classed as short term ie under a year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayster Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 Should have added that FPS suggestion was that any money from the sale of shares was then used by the society as part of DFC in the community Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Buster Posted 13 January 2019 Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 9 minutes ago, Dayster said: There was no secrecy to the meeting at all, if Islam doesn’t want to share details then that his call AGM itself was just usual sort of business The Q&A was completely focused on share issue - there will be a clarification email out in the coming days my takeaways - consultation was a incorrect as it states FPS desire is for 75%+ , it’s not its to amend the entrenched rights ( as they have no desire to purchase dfcss ordinary shares - the entrenched rights have already been broken ie level of borrowing, but the only recourse society has is legal which is a road they would be unlikely to go down -A share holders agreement may give stronger rights but its a shareholder agreement, if the shares are shifted then it’s no longer valid - worry over long term protection -suggestion was that the veto need relaxed for funding of camperdown development - I don’t buy it, the club aren’t part of development that’s dark blue holdings so our rights have no bearing. Club just need to ask Society consent for stadium move that would be granted General feel was that we are being asked to decide something without any detail or a firm proposal. FPS need to layout there long term plans and what the seek to do with change of rights (to all fans) concensus was that there was no value in selling the A shares Islay (or Islam ) Will be raging with you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegen65 Posted 13 January 2019 Author Report Share Posted 13 January 2019 1 minute ago, Dayster said: Not something I’ve checked myself but was mentioned yesterday that there was 1m borrowing (from Tim Keyes ) in the last accounts - since been converted to shares technically he he could have bought the shares first as cash injection to avoid hitting the entrenched rights. I believe the can borrow over 50k if it’s classed as short term ie under a year Cheers for the info fella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Adblock Detected
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.