Jump to content

General Meeting reminder


Recommended Posts

I have no tenuous links to former directors. 

 

Apologies; it wasn't my intention to suggest you did.

 

But I still maintain that bit about Wednesdayite claiming to represent all fans does you no favours. All the other questions are perfectly perceptive and legitimate though.

Edited by DJMortimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BirdonaMaguire

Apologies; it wasn't my intention to suggest you did.

But I still maintain that bit about Wednesdayite claiming to represent all fans does you no favours. All the other questions are perfectly perceptive and legitimate though.

Sadly, to most of us, the name Wednesdayite applied to all fans before it was taken by the group to cover up their past failings, now it's just applies to around 500 odd and some ex directors who are having an ego war on here.

That said ALL current directors should resign or be asked to step down until the matter of who neglected the membership by their continued to failure to submit the necessary paperwork, and the prior directors who are chucking out the it wasn't my fault line should man up too, you all failed the membership.

Unsurprisingly there is a silence from several of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reesh

There isn't a silence.

 

Current members of Wednesdayite, many of whom have been members for several years, have been informed of the situation and of suggestions for the future. Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and vote on proposals either at the members' meeting held after the Forest match or by using an online ballot. As is proper, a report of this meeting will shortly be on its way to members. I hope that this report will be published on the Wednesdayite web site in due course.

 

We have not sought to deny any errors, nor have we blamed others for mistakes which may have been made. Accounts were always properly prepared and audited; presented at AGMs and approved by membership vote for the whole of the period up to July 2011, when Darryl, myself and Charlie were at the helm.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BirdonaMaguire

So when you, Darryl and Charlie were at the helm why was this form http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/forms/annual-return-ar30-industrial-and-provident-societies-act-1965-forms missed on three separate occasions, once is a mistake, twice is unforgivable and three times is frankly negligent and is disdainful to the members who pay their monies on an annual basis.

 

The form is ten pages long, with very simplistic questions.

 

Back to my other question which has been ignored, is the money held in the now dissolved "society" frozen? If so how are you looking to get this money back, which in essence is an asset for the members and the charity.

 

Your glossing over the issues undermines you even more than you realise. As I said if i was a member I'd have a vote of no confidence in all serving directors and if the monies are lost to the state (possible) as a member i'd look into legal action for negligence of duties whilst a serving director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No glossing over going on! Issues are being looked at and will be reported on when there is something to report.

 

There is nothing wrong with people asking questions and these are being noted, but sometimes patience is needed while issues are being progressed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BirdonaMaguire

But questions are being asked of mistakes that happened in 2009/10/11 not this month or year, but between 5 and 3 years ago.

 

No excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

The silence of the directors who allowed this neglect of the members to happen is astonishing, I assume Daryl's excuse is he was 3k miles away? But distance isn't allowed as a stick to beat him with apparently, Hugeowl what's your excuse? Attica? Grandad? eDDie? Dicky, Pah etc etc

 

I don't feel like Ive hidden anything, Ive always answered questions posed and been more than open

 

Clearly major questions need to be asked as to how this sorry state of affairs came about.  The FSA/FCA don't just take action without warning though, letters must have been sent so what happened to them and why were they ignored?

 

As I understand it, and following information received from Wednesdayite in Saturdays meeting, no returns were made to the FCA (formerly FSA) during ANY of the years since it changed to Wednesdayite. The final overdue return was due in 2010, so no returns made 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.  In the rules of the organisation it is the role of the Secretary to make those returns. No one has suggested that the Society was not creating accounts, and these were properly audited. Its a mystery to me why these were then not submitted to the FCA - presumably the easy part.

 

Ref: correspondence - the reason given for the lack of receipt of correspondence was the numerous addresses the Society has held since 2006. Personally I find that disappointing, I have no idea what address is/was registered with the FSA, but the Society has for many years had the same PO Box address. It is claimed that wednesdayite have never received any correspondence from the FCA. Wednesdayite were fined £195.00 by the FCA on 27th February 2012, and it was presumably this fine, and subsequent non payment that led to it being struck off in the November (thats an estimated date as I don't have records). This was then advertised in the local paper, which is when a member contacted Dave Barlow to advise him of it, Dave raised it with me and that is the first I knew of the issue.

 

I spoke with the FCA immediately I was aware of the problem and established that they had not received any accounts, and that as a result no appeal would be heard, the Society would not be re-instated, and therefore the IPS status was lost.

 

Regards the liability falling across all directors - while I accept that is officially the case, in every Board meeting was an agenda item for 'Correspondence Received'. Clearly no meeting was notified of any correspondence from the FCA, and therefore the directors would have been blissfully unaware of a problem.

 

Who was/were the company secretaries during the 3 years the accounts weren't returned?

 

As previously stated it was 5 years. I know that Graeme Cook was Secretary for some of that time but as I wasnt involved I cannot be specific on dates, maybe someone from Wednesdayite can help with that?

 

1) Have you any proof of who was stealing from the car park money?

 

First can I be absolutely specific in saying that nobody has suggested anybody was stealing from the car park money. However, it was suggested to me privately by a number of former directors, and in order to prevent further accusations and suggestions that individuals could be 'on the take' I introduced a system of numbered tickets for non-permit holders. These were to be given to every pay-on-the-day car park visitors. The system was introduced as much as anything for the protection of the car park volunteers reputation, nobody wants to accuse a volunteer who gives many hours in the service of the organisation of stealing, without any evidence. Takings did go up when the system was introduced, but it is impossible to identify that it was this, and not just a better system of parking the cars and improved numbers in a much better organised car park that contributed to that.

 

Thats not to say that this in any way proves that money didn't go missing either, but the new system makes it significantly more difficult for this to happen.

 

2) Is there enough evidence to report it to the police?

 

See above

3) How is it possible not one director picked up on the fact that accounts were not filed? How did all the directors fail to see the warning letters?

 

Again, see the response to Utah Owl. Not a single letter was reported to the directors in the Correspondence Received agenda items (not while I was a director anyway. I can't be sure of my actual date of becoming a director (Summer 2010 I think) although I did resign some months later as a result of my disagreement with certain directors over the 'Inner Circle' which existed at the time. I was reinstated some months later.

4) Do you consider there to be enough evidence of fraud in the way members were allowed to vote who were not paid members and the amount of members who were registered to vote who were no longer members etc? Why was this not reported to the police and the stock market if this was discovered to be happening whilst Wednesdayite was a major shareholder?

 

Fraud isn't a word I would use to describe any of that, its very sensationalist, and implies intentional wrong doing. Wednesdayite had a 10% (circa) shareholding of the club, and none of the votes that Wednesdayite took on matters involving Sheffield Wednesday plc had even been so close for the awful membership database to have created any issues on. There was certainly no fraud, and there was as far as I'm aware, no votes from dead people ever received.

5) Why were AGM's not held when they were supposed to happen annually? AGM's are exactly the place for one director to question the other directors and other staff to find out how the jobs were going, for example how admin was, how finances and books were going and to raise any suspected issues.

 

Nope thats not what AGMs are for at all. Those items were all covered in the monthly board meetings. AGMs are usually for the reporting of matters to the members of the organisation, who were all shareholders. It is a major source of regret for me that I only chaired one Board meeting in 2011, and that the meetings scheduled for 2012 and 2013 didn't go ahead. Both of those meetings had been delegated to a member of the Board who promised to arrange, and both years it just didnt happen. As it turns out the society had been struck off before the second meeting should have been due in 2013 (and therefore there was no legal requirement to hold one) and I was advised that the 2012 meeting (having been pushed back so many times due to non organisation) wasn't necessary according to the rules of the organisation, we could simply move it and do it the following year.

 

AGMs were never particularly well attended events, as the one on Saturday showed, where just 16 people turned up.

6) Do 500 members really represent a high enough number of members to have a mandate to represent all fans under the name 'Wednesdayite'?

 

I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested that Wednesdayite represent all the fans - and I refer you to DJ Mortimers reply on that one.

7) Why wasn't the £20,000 in credit not used better in community schemes?

 

Not all of the money in surplus is used for community schemes, its often used to subsidise member (and fan) initiatives, including sponsorships of SWFC Ladies, and The Wednesday Cricket Club. Some funds are always carried over to the following year too for operational costs such as postage of membership packs etc.

8) Do you really think it is in the best interests of the people who gave their money to Wednesdayite to now see that money being potentially transferred into a new Ltd company made up of the very same directors and staff who all were present in one respect or another whilst the old company was busy physically fighting each other, taking out restraining orders against each other, being to blame for the company being thrown out of supporters direct, not filing accounts, not holding AGM's, standing by while tr company closed and funds were frozen in a bank account etc?

 

Thats not a question for me and would be better answered by someone still on the Board.

9) Does the new Ltd company and directors have any right or legal position to assume the identity of Wednesdayite and assume the funds, members etc of the old company?

 

Again, thats a legal question really which I'm not qualified to answer. However my personal opinion is that ALL surplus funds up to and including the date that the new company was initiated (Wednesdayite Limited) should belong to the previous liquidated company, and should ALL be transferred to community projects, perhaps administered and distributed by the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme.

10) Why should fans of the club, members, the public or the club hold any faith in the same set of people continuing in their roles, regardless of who thinks they were better than who you all played some part in the downfall of Wednesdayite either through neglecting your duties or not recognising the issues and reporting them or sorting them.

 

Subjective question - its clear that lots of fans still do and 552 while low is still one of the largest supporters trusts in the country.

Wednesdayite do a hell of a lot of good for the local community, and the biggest thing that lets them down is the lack of numbers of active people involved in delivering those benefits. Had certain (inactive) members of Wednesdayites Board not forced myself, Eddie and Richard Davies to resign last year, there would be at least 3 more very hard working and active directors still involved in helping to deliver the community initiatives, coaches, events and other great things that Wednesdayite were best at.

 

Wednesdayite have 3 really energetic directors delivering that at the moment, in John, Paul and Jeff and I feel for them that they have to work so hard to cover the lack of effort from some of the others that sit on the Board helping to dictate matters

This should get you started.

Edit: follow up question. Do you think I'm an idiot because I think Wednesdayite should be abolished?

 

Yes.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Undercover_Owl

It's about time someone updated the Wikipedia page btw. Small issue but it is full of factual errors. Number of members, legal status, membership of SD etc all totally wrong. Who is in charge of admin and/or marketing/public relations?

How can seemingly simple things like a Wikipedia page be left so out of date and left to be, frankly, misleading (even if this is by accident and not by design)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

For some reason the edit facility isnt working so can I just resubmit the Question 10 and response for Undercover owl

 

10) Why should fans of the club, members, the public or the club hold any faith in the same set of people continuing in their roles, regardless of who thinks they were better than who you all played some part in the downfall of Wednesdayite either through neglecting your duties or not recognising the issues and reporting them or sorting them.

 

Subjective question - its clear that lots of fans still do and 552 while low is still one of the largest supporters trusts in the country.

 

Wednesdayite do a hell of a lot of good for the local community, and the biggest thing that lets them down is the lack of numbers of active people involved in delivering those benefits. Had certain (inactive) members of Wednesdayites Board not forced myself, Eddie and Richard Davies to resign last year, there would be at least 3 more very hard working and active directors still involved in helping to deliver the community initiatives, coaches, events and other great things that Wednesdayite were best at.

 

Wednesdayite have 3 really energetic directors delivering that at the moment, in John, Paul and Jeff and I feel for them that they have to work so hard to cover the lack of effort from some of the others that sit on the Board helping to dictate matters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

It's about time someone updated the Wikipedia page btw. Small issue but it is full of factual errors. Number of members, legal status, membership of SD etc all totally wrong. Who is in charge of admin and/or marketing/public relations?

How can seemingly simple things like a Wikipedia page be left so out of date and left to be, frankly, misleading (even if this is by accident and not by design)?

 

Bcecause its basically run by 3 people, who have full time jobs, and any spare time is given up running car parks, coaches, events, community initiatives and squeezing in a little family time (occasionally)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

Need some answers on the £30k really, that is quite a lot of money that Wednesday fans have paid one way or another to then give away to Prince Charles under the bono vacantia rules. Pay for Prince Harry's bithday pressie I guess

 

Do you need to restore the old company to the register to access this and even then under the articles of the old Supporters Society under the Industrial and Provident Society rules this should be transferred to a local charity, technically can the new Wednesdayite Limited simply obtain this money from what in my mind would be a frozen account

 

From the Societies Rules

 

101. If on the winding up or dissolution of the Society there remains, after the satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities any property whatsoever the same is to be transferred to:

a. a sporting charity or sporting charities operating in the Area; and/or

b. one or more societies established for the benefit of the community operating in the Area; and/or

c. one or more societies established for the benefit of the community in each case as determined by the members at a meeting called to decide the issue. Nothing belonging to the Society shall be transferred to any other society unless that society has in its rules a rule substantially in the terms of this Rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Undercover_Owl

Thanks for those two answers Grandad.

I admire the hard work done by those who feel they are not to blame for any mistakes or wrongdoings in the past but simple guilt by association and the fact that they missed such glaring errors such as the accounts issue makes me feel that they are as much to blame as anyone else. I guess we will have to just disagree on that. As for the good work that Wednesdayite do in the community, again this is admirable, but as things stand there is £30,000 members funds locked in an account due to the mismanagement of Wednesdayite directors which could and should have been used to further enhance community schemes and for the benefit of members and this money could be lost forever.

As for Wiki, I said it was a minor issue and I agree that the directors are busy and give a lot of time. However it would be a half hour job.

Edit: thanks again for answering Grandad.

Edited by Undercover_Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BirdonaMaguire

The years that submissions were not made were 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

 

http://www.fca.org.uk/static/fca/documents/societies-prosecuted-2012.pdf

 

 

5 years? fúcking hell that's above negligent that's fúcking atrocious. And some of the men who held collective responsibility for this stupidity remain on board?

 

That's like appointing Nick Leeson at the head of your new bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Undercover_Owl

From the Societies Rules

101. If on the winding up or dissolution of the Society there remains, after the satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities any property whatsoever the same is to be transferred to:

a. a sporting charity or sporting charities operating in the Area; and/or

b. one or more societies established for the benefit of the community operating in the Area; and/or

c. one or more societies established for the benefit of the community in each case as determined by the members at a meeting called to decide the issue. Nothing belonging to the Society shall be transferred to any other society unless that society has in its rules a rule substantially in the terms of this Rule

So in short there is no legal status for the limited company set up to continue trading as Wednesdayite to actually take that £30,000 then but it can be selected as the beneficiary by members if the new Ltd company has charitable status?

Conflict of interest much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

Thanks for those two answers Grandad.

I admire the hard work done by those who feel they are not to blame for any mistakes or wrongdoings in the past but simple guilt by association and the fact that they missed such glaring errors such as the accounts issue makes me feel that they are as much to blame as anyone else. I guess we will have to just disagree on that. As for the good work that Wednesdayite do in the community, again this is admirable, but as things stand there is £20,000 members funds locked in an account due to the mismanagement of Wednesdayite directors which could and should have been used to further enhance community schemes and for the benefit of members and this money could be lost forever.

As for Wiki, I said it was a minor issue and I agree that the directors are busy and give a lot of time. However it would be a half hour job.

 

I think its much more than £20,000.00 personally. I'm not sure those assets are frozen tbh - maybe someone could clarify the situation from Wednesdayite?

 

I accept responsibility by association I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Undercover_Owl

I think its much more than £20,000.00 personally. I'm not sure those assets are frozen tbh - maybe someone could clarify the situation from Wednesdayite?

I accept responsibility by association I guess.

Yeah sorry, I meant to type £30,000 (I've edited it now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

So in short there is no legal status for the limited company set up to continue trading as Wednesdayite to actually take that £30,000 then but it can be selected as the beneficiary by members if the new Ltd company has charitable status?

Conflict of interest much?

 

I must admit that was my thought.

 

As someone who worked hard in the 3 years I was involved on developing fundraising initiatives, and having spoken to Eddie and Rich about this too, I know they are very keen for those funds to find their way into the community rather than into the new organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deleted member

Yeah sorry, I meant to type £30,000 (I've edited it now).

 

I'm sorry too, but I think it will be more than that too,

 

As I said - I think that while ever Wednesdayite have been trading in an unofficial capacity, up to the date of the inception of the new organisation, a line should be drawn under the accounts at that point, liabilities settled, and any surplus distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...