West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Possibly. But I was answering a specific question on the voting rights, as opposed to what might need to happen to get to a future state.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I look forward to that campaign leading to hundreds of further pages on this thread.

 

My understanding based on last time we went round this on this thread (approx 100 pages ago, otherwise known as last week) is no, they would not contribute towards a chairman's proxy votes. It requires a positive action to give your proxy vote to the chairman, or indeed anyone else.

 

I find this kind of speculation un-helpful; can we stay away from it, please? L-rd knows there's more than enough known things out there (falling income, SDRT eviction, etc, etc, etc, etc) that we don't need to be wondering about 'unknown unknowns' like people's real motives - the kind of thing which is both deeply corrosive, and far too common in the WSR discussion. Thanks.

Noel

 

That would rather depend on where the shares would come from that were bought. Are the shares traded? or would the Plc have to issue another load of shares to futher dilute the existing shareholdings?

 

Thanks for that - so, if individual shareholders who are still active take the trouble to vote and we may yet get rid of JJP; perhaps even make peace with the S&SRT if it isn't too late.

 

Just spotted the WSSRT story in another local rag, they do actually appear to have spoken to both sides this time at least: https://www.somersetcountygazette.c...am-railway-trust-upset-hostile-take-campaign/

I thought the bit about "Most members are upset because they enjoy being part of a small charity with people they know" was revealing. Nothing on how they need to be independent to deliver their charitable objectives, but more like an exclusive club for members. @Lineisclear was quite critical of a similar attitude with respect to the S&DT saying it shouldn't be run for the benefit of its members, but to educate the public.
Then of course there's the rather nebulous "Most members are upset" surely only a vote can determine that?

 

Potentially, it depends when delayed AGMs of both the WSSRT and Plc occur. Otherwise you're into EGM territory, where presumably the numbers could be had to call one, but it all takes time.

 

It's a dangerous assumption. The story has been put about that if you hold 20% shares then you can pretty much control the show for the reasons you suggest. I was plc chairman for the 2018 AGM and a director at 2 or 3 previous ones. At all of those meetings, the chairman held more proxies in his hand than there were present in the room, and the room included WSRA and WSSRT.
Enthusiast railway supporters can be a persistent lot and don't just chuck their AGM papers in the bin.

Ian Coleby

 

No publicity is bad publicity, or so they say..................


Local rags seem to have an obsession with the WSR.

 

Hardly surprising. "The gift that keeps on giving" from their point of view !

 

Thanks for that info. So when the time comes a concerted effort will be required to convince some individual Plc shareholders too. A not insurmountable problem by any means. I suppose you'd be unlikely to reveal what sort of % shares the chairman would be likely to hold as proxies given various stated allegences, but I'll ask anyway!

 

Is it so unknown? The true financial state of the WSR seems to be unknown. Varying at times from on the edge of extinction, back to profit, back to the edge of extinction, depending on the argument being made. We've seen with the SDRT how the goalposts of the rational for the eviction move regularly. Hence, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask if the state of the finances was argued as worse than it actually was at certain times and better at others.

It is also not unreasonable to point out that an existential threat to anything can and is used to justify actions that go above and beyond what is normally acceptable.

Tbh Jones Pratt's contacts are also in the realm of speculation since there no apparent evidence of them in action saving the WSR.

Would it not also be speculation about personal motives to suggest that personal animosity explains some of the hostile reaction to the 15?

 

Personal animosity does play a large part in it, especially towards Ms White, either it's because she was instrumental in decisions made along time ago ( 6412) or its because of her personal situation, some people can't accept a person's person choices.
As regards Rodders , I believe she was one of several WSRA trustees who had concerns about his stewardship of the PLC position when an WSRA nominated board member, so that's clearly personal, His actions, it must be remembered did play a part in the co-opting of JJP, on to the PLC board, And I assume some WSRA trustee's had reservations about it.

 

If I had a million- I'd have had to be cleverer than I am, so I will assume this potential someone with a spare mil is clever. They might, being clever, see that shares in a heritage railway with 50% unsold stock aren't really saleable if one loses interest. They might think that an attempted takeover, if unsuccessful, is just a big donation to the WSR, and in effect, a donation to the board that they had hoped to unseat.
Mr Clever might think it might be better, say, to spend a million on a locomotive suitable for the WSR, which might make them welcome to play trains as much as they liked. They would then be "important". They would be a loco owner, admired by all . Their opinion might count for something, even if it didn't actually buy them the casting vote at the big table. If they lost interest, or found that they weren't loved enough, they could pack up their engine and take it off to somewhere else. Or sell it, whatever-they would still have the asset or its value. I wouldn't want to have to explain to Mrs Ross that the kids inheritance had gone on a railway trip.
There again, Mr Marchington was pretty clever, and he found that locomotive ownership was a costly hobby. Perhaps Mr Clever is clever enough to keep out of it

 

I'm keeping a low social media profile at the moment, at least in part because the cult of personality is most unhelpful in present circumstances. But there is something I MUST say.

I assume the reference above is in part to my being an 'out' trans person. But I have to say that IF people dont like me because I am transgender, they have done very well to hide it. On that score, I am very grateful for the way the wide heritage railway world has accepted me for who and what I am.

I have plenty of character defects. Who doesent? And I have to live with them every day. But if we got up in the morning and asked ourself (or perhaps asked a good critical friend, and took their advice) about what was best for our Railway and our movement, necessary change might come quicker, more easily and much less painfully.

Robin

 

I would have thought that it was essential that the WSRA were neutral at this stage.

When they know with whom they have to deal in the WSSRT then is the time for them to comment and not before unless you condone the involvement (comments) from the plc in matters relating to the WSSRT that is, you cannot have it both ways!

 

As I have already said this a matter for the WSSRT and has NOTHING to with the WSRA or the plc at the moment.

When it does have something to do with the WSRA then is the time to consult their membership but not before!

 

I suggest that this situation is much less clear cut than this suggests. First, though I dislike the tone and content of @rodders154's suggestion that this is a WSRA driven takeover, it is undoubtedly true that there are trustees of the WSRA standing for election as WSSRT trustees, which means that the lines cannot be cleanly drawn. Second, if there does come to be a merger, the votes of WSRA and WSSRT memberships would (correctly) be separate about whether "their" organisations changed rather than summed up in an overall WSRA+WSSRT vote.

 

I think that was the mistake made by the would-be asset strippers who had their eye on the development potential of Kingswear station. You can't buy 50% of the shares, because the current holders won't sell them, not even at a profit. Either they care enough about the railway to turn up at an AGM or send their proxy in, in which case they are unlikely to sell their shares, as what good reason would anyone have for buying worthless railway shares? or they are uncontactable and therefore can't be persuaded to sell, even if they no longer care about the railway. A few may have been ignoring the mailings for years and might jump at the chance of offloading the shares, but it's not going to be anywhere near 50% of the shareholders.
So I think a lack of action in this area shows that any would-be actors have done their homework, just like any sensible investor, before they rushed out and started buying shares. It's not that the game is not worth the candle, it's that the game is unplayable in the first place.