DFCSS rears its ugly head again

[Deeranged]

Curious....wud you be for a "rebranding" of dfcss?

I know the answer maybe why shud they but hypothetically?

All for it, I believe that because of certain current DFCSS board influences there will never be agreement between them and the club. I know why and whether I agree with the stance taken by the club or not is irrelevant. I also believe that with the correct people on board amity could be reached. I also believe that with weak people on board the entrenched rights would be too easily surrendered which would not be in the interests of the fans for reasons I'm sure we all know.

[BCram]

If you think it's acceptable to spend thousands of pounds on accountancy fees instead of good causes, that's great. Let's not forget, DFCSS are as tinpot as it gets, £6k income, 130 members, half that at the AGM, wake-up.

The Evening Telegraph reports that the 2 DFCSS directors were jeered. For your last sentence, reap as you sow. DFCSS have just taken the complete piss out of FPS over this shares thing, which should have been resolved 2 years ago.

The stadium project has been on the go for years, why don't DFCSS send a legal letter now, saying they won't interfere, are they expecting FPS to grovel to them? FPS will ignore them, rightly so. I doubt the manner in which DFCSS attained these protections will stand up in a court so no chance of them mounting a legal challenge to stop the project. Although wouldn't put it past them.

DFCSS offered to sell the A-shares to FPS first, that is documented in the club statement, which you can choose to ignore if you wish.

i think this is getting boring now, obviously you won't accept any criticism against them. Maybe you can change it up and tell me what's good about DFCSS, what they've done for the club and the local community? Shouldn't take long

DFCSS were the successor organisation to Dee4life and were the body that took over after administration. That seems a praiseworthy involvement in the life of our club. They also agreed the majority investment by FPS. How can they be the bad guys here?

My understanding of the club statement was that it did not reflect an agreed account from both DFCSS and the club. There is another narrative and at the time the club announcement was condemned as being their version of events.

I disagree that this topic is boring. We disagree but perhaps since there are no other participants I think we may be boring the forum.

[Deeranged]

My understanding of the club statement was that it did not reflect an agreed account from both DFCSS and the club. There is another narrative and at the time the club announcement was condemned as being their version of events.

I disagree that this topic is boring. We disagree but perhaps since there are no other participants I think we may be boring the forum.

The statement by John Nelms was that FPS had minutes from a meeting where they old DFCSS of their intention to gain the 75% shares; the problem is of course the journalist wouldn't think to ask to see the minute. There is therefore serious doubt as to whether this minute exists or not particularly given that nobody at DFCSS can recall this meeting.

This discussion is only boring for people that don't know the facts, I find some of the stuff being posted to be hilarious,

[Returnofrros]

All for it, I believe that because of certain current DFCSS board influences there will never be agreement between them and the club. I know why and whether I agree with the stance taken by the club or not is irrelevant. I also believe that with the correct people on board amity could be reached. I also believe that with weak people on board the entrenched rights would be too easily surrendered which would not be in the interests of the fans for reasons I'm sure we all know.

That's interesting, didn't expèct that.

So wud rather the dfcss board influences walked away, voted off by current members or an uptake In membership and voted off?

I was under the impression you were happy with a low membership as the A Shares would be in safe keeping....do you think an enlarged membership would weaken Dfcss will?

Remind me you are a member but just not an office bearer?

[Taintedice]

If you have a legal agreement, properly agreed between two parties, to show football on a particular channel, with an agreed percentage of the income going to each party, is it really theft to show that football and earn that money?

Imagine another scenario where one of the parties withdraws from that agreement after the other party sets up the system and gets it running - and then decides to keep all the income for itself. I believe in such a circumstance that the wronged party would be well within its rights to drag the other party through the courts don't you?

Which parties were party to the contract when the 30/70 split was 'agreed'? Do you know what IP is? All this cash DFCSS 'donated' to the club, was it over and above the 30% DFCSS were contractually obliged to give to the club?

[Taintedice]

The statement by John Nelms was that FPS had minutes from a meeting where they old DFCSS of their intention to gain the 75% shares; the problem is of course the journalist wouldn't think to ask to see the minute. There is therefore serious doubt as to whether this minute exists or not particularly given that nobody at DFCSS can recall this meeting.

This discussion is only boring for people that don't know the facts, I find some of the stuff being posted to be hilarious,

Which is why you're behaving like a 3-year old? You're calling FPS liars, I'm doing the same to DFCSS. You're not on the board of DFCSS, you're not even a member. How would you know 'facts'?

[Deeranged]

That's interesting, didn't expèct that.

So wud rather the dfcss board influences walked away, voted off by current members or an uptake In membership and voted off?

I was under the impression you were happy with a low membership as the A Shares would be in safe keeping....do you think an enlarged membership would weaken Dfcss will?

For me we need a strong supporters' organisation numbers wise with strong board level leadership that will protect the entrenched rights. DSA will never be that organisation (without significant strengthening at the top) so DFCSS is the only option at the moment. They have a strong board but it's not one that will ever be accepted by FPS and hey suffer from very low membership partly because the brand carries historic barriers for many supporters. That leaves the options you've outlined in your second paragraph but again my own opinion is irrelevant.

End of the day I don't care who holds the A shares as long as it's not the club owners at any time, in order that that the rights are protected, or I can see us being at Tannadice as either lodgers or worse.

For the record being at Tannadice or involved with that lot in any way, manner or form would end my association with DFC completely.

[Deeranged]

Which is why you're behaving like a 3-year old? You're calling FPS liars, I'm doing the same to DFCSS. You're not on the board of DFCSS, you're not even a member. How would you know 'facts'?

No, I'm saying there's serious doubt as to the existence of the minute.

I'm a season ticket holder of many seasons and a member of DFCSS and have been on the board; sorry to pi55 on your bonfire.

[Deeranged]

Which parties were party to the contract when the 30/70 split was 'agreed'? Do you know what IP is? All this cash DFCSS 'donated' to the club, was it over and above the 30% DFCSS were contractually obliged to give to the club?

Access to the IP was agreed via a formal and binding contract.

[Taintedice]

DFCSS were the successor organisation to Dee4life and were the body that took over after administration. That seems a praiseworthy involvement in the life of our club. They also agreed the majority investment by FPS. How can they be the bad guys here?

My understanding of the club statement was that it did not reflect an agreed account from both DFCSS and the club. There is another narrative and at the time the club announcement was condemned as being their version of events.

I disagree that this topic is boring. We disagree but perhaps since there are no other participants I think we may be boring the forum.

DFCSS were the legalised version of Dee4Life, which was just a sort of campaign group, with a bank account, as far as I can say, could be wrong on the details. DFCSS were originally registered in 2004 and from that point on, their main aim was to secure fans representation on the board of DFC, which they secured in 2008. Their intention was to make sure Dundee FC never risked the same happening as admin 1. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, they decided they'd rather be in charge of the whole thing so sat back and did nothing when Melville showed up. They got their chance in 2010 when admin 2 was announced. As for Forbes and McDonald (DFCSS) agreeing the FPS investment, I think you've had too much of the special juice cults give to their members.

As for the club statement, how could 2 parties who have nothing but antipathy towards each other agree on anything? You either believe the statement from FPS or you believe DFCSS. I don't like Nelms any more than I do DFCSS, but it's obvious Tim Keyes would have been involved at some point, perhaps he asked DFCSS for help with some shares. DFCSS are obviously still dedicated to taking control of the club so selling shares is a tricky one for them. They could have just said no at the time (2 years ago, not the date in dfcss minutes, another lie). FPS and DFCSS are mortal enemies, who do you want to win? For me, DFCSS has to go