West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I believe that the rationale was that the new GM was unable to take up his substantive role due to the outbreak of Covid-19 occurring while still working out his notice with his old employer; therefore he was co-opted onto the board so as to be able to play a leadership role on the railway pending taking up the GM role in earnest. Of the many things WSR-related, that one seems rather less contentious than most.

Tom

 

If the plc couldn't pay what was due when it fell due, then it should not have taken possession of Promotions. There are no polite terms for such conduct, and no reasonable defence for doing so, even if the specifics of the event mean that the action was actually legal.

The law puts multiple obligations on a company, which extend beyond duties to shareholders. That is before the questions of commercial and criminal law that govern how a company operates.

Were I a plc shareholder, I would be expressing - forcibly - my view that any management that act in this way do not act in my name.

 

This sounds awful, and may be seen by a less than benevolent reader to amount to a declaration of insolvency. Nobody wants the plc to go under - will those who write these outputs from the plc please be more careful.

 

Perhaps JJP changed his mind, and decided that there wasn't, after all, a conflict when the same man held both positions. Perhaps it depends on who that man is.

I wish JJP would change his mind about something else - the S&DRT lease at Washford; perhaps the plc will offer S&DRT an even better location on the WSR?

John

 

Another day, another "press release"; this isn't Downing street you know! The couple of grammatical mistakes and some slightly garbled sentences - is it me or does the sentence beginning "clearly" read the most unclearly of all? - plus the fact that once again there is no name at the bottom, nor a general "from the board of directors", seems to be becoming a signature move by the WSR Plc. I wonder how long this one will stay up, and whether they'll have to almost issue a half apology in another "press release" written by an adult later on?

It's a nice attempt at brushing this under the carpet as a "technical accounting issue" but the trustees felt it was serious enough that they had to make a report to the charities commission, and publicly show their disagreement with the Plc, when it has been lain for some time that they will do almost anything to avoid doing that (I'm thinking S&D Trust).

Why was the sale "99% completed for some time"? What was holding up that final 1%. It sounds like this should all have been done and dusted before coronavirus became an issue.

Whilst opening the physical shop might cost more than sales you make if the railway itself is not operating, there seems absolutely no reason why the online shop could not be open and sell stuff. SO once again, something demonstrably untrue in a WSR official statement, which makes it much easier to question the rest of it.

Edit - @Piggy - where has this statement come from? I can't find it either on the WSR's official website or on Steve's site?

 

To be honest you need to refer to the press release rather than creating new conspiracy theories. The press release explains it very clearly.

 

If you have to express that something is "clear" it is very likely that the point being made is far from clear.

 

@johnofwessex

Do you mean this one?

 

You were a Director & Trustee of the WSRA, a registered charity.
You should know that one of the many roles of a Trustee is to safeguard the charities assets & funds, & ensure that if assets are sold/disposed of it is done so properly.

The WSRA have no choice but to recover either the assets or the agreed funds.

If the plc did not have the funds to purchase the shop/cafe/etc at the end of 2019, then it shouldn't have agreed to continue with the purchase.

If the plc goes into administration, then the shareholders are wiped out, the directors removed, & the administrators take control & do their best to pay off debts/liabilities.


"I would urge anyone who wants to see the plc saved now contribute to the donations page of the official website of the west somerset railway."
Why should people donate to a private company? Why should they put money into what appears to be a blackhole?
Why not join, & donate via, one of the support charities? Or buy shares in the plc?

 

ah, found it

https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...t-of-justin-kerr-peterson-as-company-director
dated 6 May

 

Alex, at the time of writing this, that document has not come to me as a "press release" (or similar) for public viewing. I don't think it yet appears on any WSR website. If the doc arrives, then I will likely add it to wsr.org.uk

Steve

 

One of those problems is that they are unable to clearly & precisely communicate

 

Glad it's not just my usual looking skills!

 

A member organisation of the 'railway family' issues a statement on a matter involving the Plc. The Plc publishes a statement taking issue with comments made by the other party. The two sides seem to have differing views of the situation and the process leading to it. Now, where have we heard something similar recently?

At almost the same time, another WSR member organisation has a Trustee people appointed as a Plc Director and its Chairman says "....At this exceptional time, it is essential that we all work together more closely to get through the current coronavirus crisis and protect the WSR. This is one practical way we can help to make this happen and it is good news for the railway.....". So why does that not happen in the other situation?

 

#ClassicJon ? Sorry, I resisted last time you mentioned it, I couldn't pass it up a second time!

 

I received a copy of said document (about WSR Promotions) thru' HOPS.

There is nothing obvious in it to indicate either the intended target audience, the permitted distribution or any privacy caveats. It is not signed by anyone nor is it attributed to any person or post.

IMHO it does not project a good corporate image.