DSA DFCSS and the Club Board

[Shuntz]

I wonder if the club requested the money knowing that the request would be rejected then themselves leaking this to the press and using the fans justified annoyance at this rejection as a further leverage against the Society . Both parties have been at loggerheads since The Americans took over.

[Deeranged]

I wonder if the club requested the money knowing that the request would be rejected then themselves leaking this to the press and using the fans justified annoyance at this rejection as a further leverage against the Society . Both parties have been at loggerheads since The Americans took over.

If they did then that's a very dirty trick to pull. I don't think that would have been the case though.

Why is the fans' annoyance at this justified in your opinion?

The society as it was when the Americans came along is not as it was just six months later but JN has held the grudge against anyone associating with the society since. His gripe was with those in charge of the society at time of take over and not with the society in general but he refuses to see it that way. This relationship was of course worsened when an individual that had been previously asked to leave the society board after a shocking and unforgivable breach of trust and confidentiality managed to weedle his way back onto it unopposed.

Fault on both sides and in my view the rift will never be closed as long as JN is at the club and the society board contains certain individuals.

[hmac]

If they did then that's a very dirty trick to pull. I don't think that would have been the case though.

Why is the fans' annoyance at this justified in your opinion?

The society as it was when the Americans came along is not as it was just six months later but JN has held the grudge against anyone associating with the society since. His gripe was with those in charge of the society at time of take over and not with the society in general but he refuses to see it that way. This relationship was of course worsened when an individual that had been previously asked to leave the society board after a shocking and unforgivable breach of trust and confidentiality managed to weedle his way back onto it unopposed.

Fault on both sides and in my view the rift will never be closed as long as JN is at the club and the society board contains certain individuals.

He’s not interested in anyone's view other than his own, but the continued presence of the newsagent on the society board is both an abhorrence and a constant two fingers up at nelms. It’s also a deterrent to others who might like to be involved.

[BCram]

He’s not interested in anyone's view other than his own, but the continued presence of the newsagent on the society board is both an abhorrence and a constant two fingers up at nelms. It’s also a deterrent to others who might like to be involved.

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?

[hmac]

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?