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

I've looked at the accounts for a number of years, and my impression is that large sums are spent just on sustaining the WSRA. Over £200k on staff costs, and just look at how £121k spent on "charitable activities" is broken down.
The accounts mentioned a small sum of £300 to Blue Anchor station but a £58k loss was recorded for the year.
I am far from impressed, and with the current political nonsense added to this dire performance, I will not be renewing my membership.
Robin L.

 

But what would be the point in the board discounting?

 

I hope that is a message for others to leave well alone and leave the present board to do its job?

 

Yes and the WSRA needs to put its own house in order before it involves itself in the affairs of others!

 

Richard,
Has your Nat Pres account been hacked by someone??
Jeff

 

Richard
In this message you sound like a disaffected (declined) WSRA trustee
Are you sure your account has not been hijacked ???
Jeff

 

With warnings about the finances dating back to Alan Nicholson's time, and, from postings here and indeed the 2017 Annual Accounts suggesting that the 'change of financial course' hasn't really happened yet, and all this talk of needing to bring in a hard-nosed outsider to do 'the dirty work', I would suggest that the WSRplc Board, whatever its composition at the moment, needs to convince its Stakeholders that it understand and accepts what 'its job' in the present circumstances is and has the courage to do it.

Undoubtedly, the finances of both the WSRplc and WSRA need some urgent attention. The somewhat unusual structure of both running different parts of what to the uninitiated visitor must like the same commercial operations don't help, but also the clear, continued lack of a willingness (somewhere) to work together and admit that both parties, and other Groups, are all part of the West Somerset Railway and its continued success depends on all parts working together to enable the lines many supporters to 'support' it in as many full and varied ways as possible.

Ultimately, that is more important than who holds the 'musical chairs' of Directorships etc. at the moment!

Steven

 

and why would you think that Jeff?

 

Is there a good argument for saying that existing shares are worth face value?

If there isn't a discount to face value would be needed if more shares are going to be sold.

 

It is indicative of the specific problems faced by those poor folks trying to manage the WSR that the passing of apparently routine resolutions at the AGM results in some folks looking for yet another conspiracy. It must be an awful lot easier to be a Director on any other heritage line.

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

 

But how does selling more shares at a lower price help? What matters is the money raised, not the number of shares allocated.

You could probably argue that for the vast majority of people, buying shares is essentially a means to make a donation, with no thought of any future return beyond a warm fuzzy feeling. Therefore, the likely value is probably £0. So I cannot see why you would discount them from face value.

Of course - more generally - I tend to think for that very reason that in the long term, shares in heritage railway companies represent a terribly expensive way of raising funds for the organisation doing the fundraising. Not least because once the money is donated, the company has an ongoing cost in perpetuity of maintaining a shareholder register and distributing annual accounts etc. As an example, last year the WSR plc raised just £59k selling shares - how much of that was spent simply distributing the annual accounts to the thousands and thousands of shareholders on the share register?

If the true reason that people buy shares in a railway company is essentially altruism, why not just be done with it and give them a mechanism to donate altruistically - which generally means via a charity?

Tom

 

Tom

I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the situation at the WSR other than that I have read on this forum.

The purpose of my questions is to determine whether there is a possibility that one of the warring parties, whilst having control of the plc board, might use a discounted sale to bring on board reinforcements. It might not be good for the railway for a discounted sale to go through but it might suit one of the factions involved.

There may well be mechanisms in place to prevent this happening and if so I apologise for starting a hare running.

 

Getting off topic here, but I am assuming most of these staff costs are employment cost at Williton, where people are working on restoration contracts ?? Certainly not routine 'sustaining WSRA' admin.

 

It’s a tough job being a director on ANY heritage line....

 

I have no accurate knowledge of exact cost. However a shareholder receives normally one letter per year. I guess postage costs and printing wouldn't be more than £1 or £2. Say £2.50 for overheaded costs. Shareholders are sent warrants for free travel and one would expect they would spend in the shop or buffet which would recover the postage cost. You might argue that the free ticket is a lost cost, but I suspect some (most?) shareholders would not have travelled except for the free warrant.
Making a gift aid donation to a charity is better, but some people like the feeling of buying shares.

Ian Coleby

 

I have to say that I find it rewarding and fulfilling.

Robin

 

If your only knowledge of the situation is this forum then you cannot begin to understand the problems much less offer A solution. Much of what hs been said on here is very far from the reality. The only thing I can say with certainty is that it is an unholy mess caused by weak management and vast egos. A recipe for disaster. My enquiries suggest that there was a plan by a few people to sell off Odney Manor but it never reached the point of being considered by the WSR board though some members were involved. I suspect that the publicity killed the idea but I take no credit for that.

 

Cor Blimey Gov I spends a tad o time modelling and when I get back there is 7 new pages.
So are we adding to the Chairman's dismissal page lets bash the WSRA Board subject. Perhaps I could attempt to offer some suggestions that may help. I rejoined the WSA in 2007 as I had been working in London and Bristol. I was interviewed by the Chairman and Secretary of the WSRA and the PLC General Manager. At that time the WSRA was a membership organisation and provided volunteers to all departments, managed and ran the S & T group, had a PW gang, managed Bishops Lydeard station and ran the RAMS (Restoration and Maintenance Service). A director/Trustee of the WSRA was the PLC's Special Projects Officer and advised on Safety. The WSRA then employed the services of a Association Manager and relationships between the WSRA and the WSR plc started to rock as this new manager took issue with the long established 'gentlemen's agreements' that existed. The hassle started and never stopped. The GM was a Trustee of the WSRA and was excluded from a meeting unjustly and the 6+1 started their rule and were eventually disposed of at EGM 3 (note not 2). EGM 2 was campaigned against vociferously by one of the people embroiled in this current debacle.
This earlier WSRA set up Restorations that resided in a PLC building rent free and restored Braunton. After Braunton left for pastures new Restorations continued work on other projects which were often out with the PLC. Any profits went to the running of Restorations and the Charity even though the whole operation was housed in the PLC building. Not a comfortable situation.
Now as Aldfort keeps saying Paul Whitehouse and his Trustee's inherited a veritable box of frogs and for 2 years have worked very hard to get back into a good position. They are just about there and should be applauded not vilified.
Paul Whitehouse is a great chairman and knows charities inside out as well as being an astute businessman.
Ian was removed because, we are told, he connived with the WSRA to have 2 Directors removed. Ian did not connive. The WSRA representative on the PLC Board stated that another WSRA director was to be coopted onto the PLC board. Ian checked that out and found it was not true. A statement appeared on an internal website that soon was made public which consisted of Ian saying various things about the WSRA dismissing 2 Trustees. The 3rd paragraph in that statement has been inserted by someone other than the author, the tone is wrong and the text size is different.
The WSRA has just emerged from major surgery having had its heart and soul replaced and is getting there. There is only one place for history and that is in the past. We need a membership organisation and a good one, be it Charity , CIC or Trust. The PLC has spent 3 years spending its reserves. The black hole constantly being referred to is not here yet. If you could find out how much is currently in the bank I would lay odds of 10 to 1 that with the takings for the rest of the year there is not sufficient funds to get over the lean autumn and winter months unless drastic action is taken to reduce the wage bill significantly. My guess would be that £0.25M per annum pays 6 managers!
So having written all this I leave you to make up your minds but will say this. Ian was a trailblazing Chairman, he worked very closely with other organisations and his dream of a 'String of Pearls' would have revitalised passenger numbers from what is a relatively stale offering of a trip to Minehead by the sea.
Goodnight
Ken

 

OK Having re-read it while I'm more than half awake I can see what they are saying. (must stop these late nights ) Don't know why they think they need 'special' permission though, as a significant Plc shareholder they can call for a Plc EGM with a motion to remove any Plc director so long as it gets sufficient support from the other shareholders.

 

Well said.