West Somerset Railway - Removal of the PLC Chairman and related matters

I wonder who that would be mmm, i think a lot of people have a good idea who it might be and would not be happy about it, someone new maybe but proberly a familiar face more likely mmm

 

That, as far as Membership is concerned, seems to be happening Roger. There is also another facet and that is potential Members. I have, over a few years since retirement, considered Membership and donations to heritage/restoration groups, museums etc., but have only supported those organizations who, in my view, are those that can be classed as 'good house keepers'. I did not find the WSR on my list.

 

Does it not seem strange that some people who normally have a lot to say about the west somerset railway have gone suddenly silent, guilt maybe, very strange to say the least.

 

Ian,

I'm pleased that you are still visiting the forum.

I think that I probably speak for many on here when I express my disgust at the events of the last few days and wish to thank you for your many contributions to the WSR. I am pleased that you continue to have a presence on the Board.

Stef.

 

It appears to me from comments made on this forum that the leaking of committee meeting proceedings - to foment controversy? - is de rigueur for this organisation. Perhaps the "leaker" - who may have their own agenda - needs to be identified and expelled from the organisation as they are clearly untrustworthy in safeguarding what should remain private and confidential until an official statement is published. Putin would be proud of the maskirovka being displayed here.

 

Do they still use the ducking stool down in wildest Somerset.

 

Are organisations really helped by secrecy? Do such leaks actually cause problems or is it actually the failure of committees and boards to take sensible actions which causes the trouble? Whilst there will be a small number of items requiring secrecy we all know that open and transparent organisations which hold their meetings in public and encourage member participation often prosper whilst those who operate in secret usually have their motives questioned and former supporters ebbing away.

 

Yes but only for female miscreants!

I would like to point out that I was not inferring that any females connected with the WSR were included.

 

You don't need to choose only one. Both would be fine by me.
Robin L.

 

I am afraid that you are incorrect. - see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/303

The key Paragraph is Section 303 (2) (a), namely (in context):

303 Members' power to require directors to call general meeting
(1)The members of a company may require the directors to call a general meeting of the company.

(2)The directors are required to call a general meeting once the company has received requests to do so from—

(a)members representing at least 5% of such of the paid-up capital of the company as carries the right of voting at general meetings of the company (excluding any paid-up capital held as treasury shares)

Note it is a power and the Directors have no option in law but to comply with a qualifying request. As the process was used in the WSRA dispute, I am surprised that there could be any mistake or misconception concerning it.

It is not and never has been 29.9% (the only occasion this is of any importance I can think of is the limit to ownership before a formal takeover bid must be declared under Stock Market rules, which clearly do not apply to the unlisted WSRplc).

Why have you made the incorrect statement and indeed why, if they can explain their actions, should WSRplc Board appear to be seeking to avoid answering for them to an EGM?

Steven

 

That let's you off, then.

 

Yet another statement has emerged, see www.WSR.org.uk Is this a case of "A statement a day keeps the truth at bay" ?????

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

That link appears to be incorrect

 

Sorry, forgot the uk, now corrected.

 

In the case of this organisation I think the answer is "Yes". Go back on this and other WSR threads and you will see the speculation, whataboutery, back-biting, back-pedaling and general angst that was caused by people who can't control their fingers/keyboard interface coupled with a seeming desire "to be first with the news". I believe the Plc is a commercial operation - yes? - in which case there is a need for confidentiality of boardroom matters up to the point where the board decides that caveat can be dispensed with. Injudicious leaking of boardroom matters could have a serious negative effect the value of a company's share price.

 

I have no reason to think that the Board is seeking to avoid a GM.

Based on the wild comments being thrown around ( and please note I used the word "demand" ) on
this forum the reservations of 5) under 303 of the Companies Act would seem likely to come into
relevance ? Hence my comment "refer it to an AGM"

Michael Rowe

 

I think I was the one who first mentioned this and I put it up before the Board meeting was held. It is amazing what you hear when working on the railway in a relatively noisy atmosphere. I overheard 2 very senior people discussing the removal of the Chairman. I believed this was something that shareholders should be aware of. I do not consider it a leak.

 

Thanks for the direction Roger. If you are unsure of the link it is www.wsr.org.uk . It occurs to me that many of you will not know Richard Maw. Richard joined the plc in 2016 as the Head of Finance and has assiduously worked away at the accounts. Richard was made an associate director to fill in for the void left when Chris Bolt retired as a director. I had the pleasure to work with Richard, on the Board, until I retired in Oct 2017. He was made a full director this year. I can state that I have great confidence in Richard. He has a great business track record and is not frightened to take the difficult decisions. It is good to see him issuing statements as the Company Secretary. With Richard we can be confident we will receive truthful information.

 

Correct, that's not a leak; it's hearsay and gossip and repeated 20 minutes later in the first post of this thread! As a previous poster pointed out, it's not for the first time that this leaking/hearsay/gossiping has created controversy on this railway. One thing is certain, no matter who starts the ball rolling, it seems they are unconcerned about the public damage that is being done. If that is the way your members want to conduct themselves, then use a private forum, not a public one like this. I would much prefer to be reading about the trains/locos/restoration of what is an incredible asset to heritage railways.

 

Michael, although I applaud your knowledge of steam locos I think you are a bit shaky on Company Law. Sect 303, Sub 5 reads,
A resolution may properly be moved at a meeting unless—

(a)it would, if passed, be ineffective (whether by reason of inconsistency with any enactment or the company's constitution or otherwise),

(b)it is defamatory of any person, or

(c)it is frivolous or vexatious.

I don't thing (a) is effective as no one has died so I can only imagine that you have gained significant psychic powers to be able to know that an as yet unwritten motion is defamatory, frivolous or vexatious. Please enlighten us into how your divination of the future works so we can all have a few bob on the winner of the 5:00 at Kempton Park next Tuesday week.