May 20, 20179 yr This statement smells of bullshit, utter bollocks. "The rules require at least 3 Board members will resign and stand for re-election, if they wish to." Is this true? I haven't read this before. "In accordance with these rules and due to a change in his personal circumstances, our Chairman Ian Bridge, has decided to step down now, instead of waiting until the election." Is the change in personal circumstance that he's pissed everyone off or because his colourful past has been outted? It makes no sense to blame his resignation, if indeed he did actually resign, on these rules, out of the blue. Anyway, one down, one to go... Which others are standing for re-election?
May 21, 20179 yr This statement smells of bullshit, utter bollocks. "The rules require at least 3 Board members will resign and stand for re-election, if they wish to." Is this true? I haven't read this before. "In accordance with these rules and due to a change in his personal circumstances, our Chairman Ian Bridge, has decided to step down now, instead of waiting until the election." Is the change in personal circumstance that he's pissed everyone off or because his colourful past has been outted? It makes no sense to blame his resignation, if indeed he did actually resign, on these rules, out of the blue. Anyway, one down, one to go... Which others are standing for re-election? Surely the rules would be rules that supporters direct recommended should be easy to check. Wouldn't be suprised if it's right you wouldn't want the whole board to stand down each year.
May 21, 20179 yr Surely it would be a % unless there's a specified number of board roles ie always 5? Anyway, as no one stood against them last year, what makes Mr Bridge think that he's one of the 3, that someone will stand against him and lastly that he'll lose, given he's the "top brass"? It doesn't add up, given they are supposed to be about scrutiny and transparency?
May 21, 20179 yr Author who cares why he has gone what isn't clear, to me, is whether he intends to stand again anyway, daniel, has your letter got lost in the post?
May 21, 20179 yr who cares why he has gone what isn't clear, to me, is whether he intends to stand again anyway, daniel, has your letter got lost in the post? Why do you keep posting stuff like the last line like we all know WTF your on about? Please elaborate. ????
May 21, 20179 yr Author those who need to know, know but, just for you bridge has done the decent thing, its time daniel izza joined him
May 21, 20179 yr those who need to know, know but, just for you bridge has done the decent thing, its time daniel izza joined him I thought that was what you were getting at. Other than him ballooning on twitter (which I also suggested to ST board members was stupid) what's your beef with Izza? Edited May 21, 20179 yr by Mounts Kipper
May 21, 20179 yr Author nothing, i dont need anything else if he goes, they can crack on to their hearts content then, i just dont want to hear from any of them unless 1 disaster hits 2 they have 5 million to tip up
May 21, 20179 yr nothing, i dont need anything else if he goes, they can crack on to their hearts content then, i just dont want to hear from any of them unless 1 disaster hits 2 they have 5 million to tip up Fair enough. Edited May 21, 20179 yr by Mounts Kipper
May 21, 20179 yr Not a mention of this on Twitter but they've wished Quinton Fortune a happy birthday. Twice!
May 21, 20179 yr Not a mention from Iles either. Although he has updated us about the ladies under 17's result. (they won).
May 22, 20179 yr Not a mention from Iles either. Although he has updated us about the ladies under 17's result. (they won). Iles got into bed with Deano's side. Then the ST, and refuses to be critical of them, or even report discontent amongst the fans. I do think it is odd because I can understand a local journalist not wanting to annoy the club directly to preserve coverage and links. But Iles seems to take the other approach of winding the football club up and protecting those firing shots at it.
May 22, 20179 yr OK, I know this is radical but I've read the manual... CONSTITUTION OF BOARD 56. The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than six and not more than twelve persons. OK, so who are the board... According to their website there are 8 board members; John McGinlay, Mike Smith, Ian Bridge, George Bower, Daniel Izza, Mike Egan, Terence Rigby and Maggie Tetlow. So far, so good...
May 22, 20179 yr So, they said "The rules require at least 3 Board members will resign and stand for re-election, if they wish to." But what do the rules ACTUALLY say? Well: 61. At the annual general meetings following the first annual general meeting of the Society half of the members of the Society Board first elected by the members (to be chosen by lot) will resign from office. Thereafter the half of the members of the Society Board elected by the members who have served the longest at the date of the annual general meeting each year will resign. If at any time there is an uneven number of elected directors the Society Board shall decide the number of elected directors to resign in accordance with this Rule, which shall be approximately half of the total number. So, you can see my issue with this, I'm sure. It doesn't mention 3, it says "half of the members of the Society Board first elected by the members (to be chosen by lot) will resign from office". So, how did 3 appear? I guess from this, now there are 7: "If at any time there is an uneven number of elected directors the Society Board shall decide the number of elected directors to resign in accordance with this Rule, which shall be approximately half of the total number." None of this goes any way to explaining Mr Bridge's sharp exit. Indeed, in means that one existing board member will now get to serve another year without election due to what is a clear bending of the rules. Not to worry though as: 59. Members of the Board of Directors will normally serve for periods of two years, according to the Society’s Board Membership and Conduct Policy. So sooner or later they will all be gone.
May 22, 20179 yr And of course they've (re)tweeted the important stuff: #BWFC Birthdays (May 22) 42 - Salva Ballesta 39 - Isaiah Rankin
May 22, 20179 yr Did only 5 get elected and the others were co-opted so they've gone for half of 5 being 3 ?
May 22, 20179 yr I can only go from what their site says! http://www.bwfcst.co.uk/about-us/board-members/
May 22, 20179 yr Author http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wanderers/14615507.amp/ do we have a shrugs shoulders emoticon? Edited May 22, 20179 yr by Casino
May 22, 20179 yr i didnt think mcginlay was aboard member The "Bio coming soon" for SJM must have been on there for 3 months or so - how long is soon??
May 22, 20179 yr The "Bio coming soon" for SJM must have been on there for 3 months or so - how long is soon?? Three months, more like a year and three months! More in fact. McGinlay was named as the ST's Ambassador right from the beginning it was set up and the picture and 'Bio coming soon' as been there ever since!
May 22, 20179 yr And of course they've (re)tweeted the important stuff: #BWFC Birthdays (May 22) 42 - Salva Ballesta 39 - Isaiah Rankin That's harsh and also not strictly true. They also tweeted who won their PL fantasy football game.
May 22, 20179 yr No cheating, who do we think they'll be wishing joyeux anniversaire to tomorrow? I'm going Bo Hansen and Jon Otsemobor.
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.