+ Visit Dundee FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: DSA DFCSS and the Club Board

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    9,426
    Quote Originally Posted by islaydarkblue View Post
    I hope that John Nelms has applied for and received the £50,000 each SPFL club is entitled to receive
    as a result of the ‘no strings’ donation to the SPFL by philanthropist James Anderson.
    Every club applied for and received the £50k, three teams donated it to charity

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,387
    Quote Originally Posted by jdfc View Post
    Every club applied for and received the £50k, three teams donated it to charity
    Thank you for your information.
    These three teams obviously did not need the money.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by hmac View Post
    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?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,805
    Quote Originally Posted by BCram View Post
    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by hmac View Post
    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?
    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?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,805
    Quote Originally Posted by BCram View Post
    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?
    Having seen the what’s app stuff at the time I don’t think it looks great for us to change the vote

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,387
    Quote Originally Posted by hmac View Post
    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?
    According to the latest set of Dundee Football Club Limited annual accounts for the year ending 31st May 2019 only Tim Keyes name is mentioned as part of FPS. The accounts are available to read on the Dundee Football Club website under the section ‘Club’.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by hmac View Post
    Having seen the what’s app stuff at the time I don’t think it looks great for us to change the vote
    That's a big disappointment for me. I was hoping that there might be some justification for our change of vote.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,805
    Quote Originally Posted by BCram View Post
    That's a big disappointment for me. I was hoping that there might be some justification for our change of vote.
    Hearing of redundancies among the part time staff now, not sure yet if it’s just the youth set up or more widespread.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •