West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Yes, but there are just two things that the shareholders of an ordinary company can reasonably expect their board to do for them: to pay them dividends and to maintain, or preferably increase, the value of their shareholding. The WSR PLC is not likely ever to pay dividends and the shares are of dubious commercial value, so what WSR PLC shareholders can reasonably expect is for the Board to keep the Railway running. That depends crucially on the goodwill of other stakeholders. Therefore keeping all those other stakeholders happy is essential to keeping the shareholders happy.

 

Noting that you do not wish to take the discussion further, your assurances that I mistaken appear to imply that you intended to place the underlying blame for 'controls having slipped' at the door of the previous Chairmen and FD, in the Chairmen's case despite their public statements indicating they appreciated there was a financial issue. Overall evidence of the situation under discussion suggests that you may either mean financial or operational (i.e those which would concern the ORR) controls. A non-Executive Chairman is the 'face' of the Board and can strongly influence its business, but the Board is ultimately responsible for ensuring proper business control. If you believe that controls have slipped under previous Chairmen, then it may well be that the Board failed to act to ensure that control was maintained, but the Board does not, or at least should not, hold responsibility for day to day control but ensure adequate systems are in place for this to be properly exercised.

My statement was that, given the public warnings from the Chairmen, it seemed logical that those warnings were prompted by the presentation of financial information (presumably by the FD) and robust debates at the Board. The seeming lack of effective action until the 11th hour (or perhaps later) under a new Chairman could very logically leave 'an outsider' to conclude that, if the Chairmen made public warnings, they had made or heard and heeded warnings in Board meetings but for some reason the Board had not taken effective action. A wider implication is that there had been an issue, which you call 'controls slipping', for a long period, a decade being oft quoted.

By saying that I am absolute wrong (you repeat this, so I take it to mean my conclusions are the polar opposite of actual events), so we therefore conclude that you either mean no such Board discussion took place or that the Board wished to act but were prevented from doing so by holders of the accused offices, despite public warnings being issued by those holders?

As Board Meeting are confidential, I am also intrigued that you are in a position to be so definite in your dismissal of my conclusions about what happened at Board Meetings.

For the avoidance of doubt, my conclusions are my thoughts based on known information, knowledge of company structures and experience elsewhere - and hence quite willing to accept they may differ from what really happened.

I would also add that in reality, the only true relevance of what happened is the past is whether there may be a fear that any missed opportunities for necessary action are repeated in the future, and whether the past actions or inactions indicate anything about how well equipped the very small current Board may be to be able to realistically tackle the task ahead of it.

Steven

 

Roll on diesel gala

 

and Do What is Necessary!!

 

No chance of that working it's very broke ,but you do have 7018 to play with so all should be well, I wouldn't be shocked to see another peak shaped loco turning up either

 

An interesting post!

As I recall from last year's AGM in June nothing untoward was raised during that meeting and following my question relating to the Number of Paid Employees. I must confess I was shocked when the answer was revealed as being 50.

I can remember a more contentious issue being the Election of the General Manager to be Confirmed as being a Director.

I urge the Present Board and Chairman to be Entirely Honest at all times as to the State of the plc, we Shareholders and of course Supporters and Volunteers deserve nothing less.

And finally whilst the Board of Directors are Collectively Responsible for the Success of Any Business it is up to the Chairman to Lead that Business and Take Ultimate Responsibility.

 

Is the Turntable cafe open 2moro please

 

Your last sentence epitomises the situation that has existed for years. The problem of the pachyderm in the room is even more important.

 

Sorry- but no - it opens again on Monday.

 

AFAIK isnt the biggest responsibility of any company to its creditors - if you are trading in the knowledge you cant pay the bills that can be real hot water time relative to making decisions that may not be in the interests of the shareholders.

 

Trading while insolvent, thats the description...................

 

Certainly looking forward to the return of D7018.

Any idea what the 50 will be

 

If anyone were to take bets on which 50 it will be my money would go on either 50007 or 50049, the two which are going to be painted in GBRf livery, which they have stated will be used, amongst other things, for hauling locos to preserved line galas.

 

Would be good to have former resident Defiance back for a visit. The last BR loco to be given a D-prefix number (D449), the '50' with most livery variations perhaps?

 

Oh yes. That’s would be very good to see. Don’t care for numbers just be nice see a 50 in another livery

 

Yeah that's where my money would go, just look at what's going to the swanage gala and a bit of the SVR gala to guess at other possible visitors, as has been the case the last few years, I just hope this doesn't rule out any current mainline freight locks poping along, whatever you think of them it can't be argued it doesn't put bums on seats. And can I just say how nice it is to talk about what locks may or may not work at a gala instead of constant political faction talk

 

Nobody in their right mind buys shares in the WSR PLC for any reason but to donate to the company with no expectation of any return. It is just a legal device. Whilst all the other “stakebolderrs” have expectations these don’t have much, if any, legal basis. Of course the board should treat them as have a legitimate interest if the board choose to neglect them then an EGM is the only recourse. Not something to be taken lightly.

 

Getting there.

Now that we have a new date, I am happy to repeat my previous offer of a lift from Stogumber, Crowcombe, Bishops Lydeard, Taunton Station or central Taunton out to Oake for anyone who needs it (up to the capacity of my vehicle).

I would also be happy to co-ordinate offers / requirements of lifts from / for others.

Please use my WSRA e-mail address:

robin.white@wsra.org.uk

Robin

 

By its mem & arts it cannot pay a dividend