hmac, I think that there may be more to it than personal disagreements. I don't know what it could be but it seems to me that right from the start there has been a difficult relationship once the FPS deal was done. Maybe we should have expected that having us as a major shareholder who had the potential to derail the investment plans needed to turn DFC into a successful club was always going to be a problem. Trying to set up a fund to buy back Dens was unacceptable, trying to raise funds for anything seems also to be unacceptable and having two board members associated with DFCSS seems to be a problem.
I think in part the problem lies with the way DFCSS came into being using a cooperative shareholder format, that's not the right description, but the vehicle used to create the society came with all sorts of regulatory baggage. The DFCSS are not able to act entirely as they see fit and this causes problems. Giving FPS money in return for shares isn't acceptable to FPS, and I agree with their position. giving money as a gift seems to be a problem for the DFCSS board. I'd like to know more about the problems with that. Maybe the DFCSS board cannot act as they see fit, but they could make interest free loans and give money to outside bodies if they got the approval of the members. Is this a possible way forward?
It's a Catch 22 situation. If FPS does not want to have an effective organisation outwith its direct control raising money on the basis of a love of DFC who can blame them. I'd be pretty upset if someone decided that BCram was a worthy cause and a group of people raised money because of my situation and then held on to the money, or decided that they would lend me money as a soft loan, or asked for some kind of equity (shares).
How do you get round that interpretation of the relationship between FPS and DFCSS?
I have made the whole thing up, but it might just be the core of the problem and maybe there is a solution out there?
Currently there are no board members associated with DFCSS, and Nelms refuses to accept DFCSS's nomination.
As my previous post said they'd be fine with interest free loans but Nelms won't discuss anything. He's about to be in enough crap with the voting thing anyway so i can't see the extra 30k or so making much of a difference.
As a slight aside, what is FPS any more? Tim Keys and John Nelms?
Last edited by hmac; 06-07-2020 at 01:51 PM.
I think FPS included Steve Martin but I think it now is just John Nelms and Tim Keyes. I used FPS as the acronym that I was familiar with. If you ignore the poor relationship between FPS and DFCSS is based on personal dislike etc, is there anything that you can think would fix the relationship. I am really disappointed that the the spirit and letter of the agreement made when FPS came in isn't being adhered to.
I ,like you, will be interested to see what the actual communications between our club and the SPFL leadership were. I don't see how they will shed any light other than hopefully, we changed our vote because we thought it was better deal with reconstruction than a straight NO would have been. Maybe Nelms was given fake news, why would that harm him?