West Somerset Railway General Discussion

So do I!

 

I'm not sure on that one Chris, sorry.

Thank you for the apology, perhaps you shouldn't practice putting words in other's mouths. Thank you

 

A results sheet that makes clear that the voting boiled down to a straightforward battle between those who supported the current trustees, and those who support the "10". Two specifics seemed of note to me:
1. The extra votes cast against certain of the 10, suggesting a particular personal reaction they provoke; and
2. The markedly lower votes for the "political" WSSRT trustees (Steve Williams, Geoff Evens, Mike Thompson) compared to the "role based" trustees (Alan Smithers, Helen Anson, Matt Jackson). While their majorities were still robust, that difference does suggest the existence of some disquiet which the "we won, get over it" tone of the results communique does an injustice to.

 

That maybe because the "10" advocated voting ‘for’ the role based trustees.

 

So members trusted the '10' enough to cast votes on the basis of their advice, but not enough enough to elect them ?

 

The supporters of the 10, around 50 or so, voted exactly the way they were asked, for the 10, for the 3 roles based trustees, and against the political ones, and for resolution 7. The rest voted more or less exactly opposite, except they also voted in favour of the role based trustees. I've only briefly glanced at the numbers but I can't see anything that isn't explained by those voting patterns. Basically, the other side recruited more members than the ten. The only other thing that can be inferred is that the longstanding members also largely fell into the block of voters following the pattern of voting that included voting against the 10.

 

And the abstainers came from which camp? Personally, I wonder if some abstainers had been recruited by the 10 and then stepped back.

 

I was interested to read in WSSRT minutes:

Patrick

 

That would be my suspicion, as I thought the number recruited by the 10 was closer to 70 than 50. But what it suggests to me is that the less than satisfactory way the 10 executed their campaign made little difference in the end, which made me feel a bit better about it!

 

Shareholders can submit questions to the AGM should they wish answers

 

Bayard posted
A sample of PLC shareholders who were “trialled” in relation to the proposals to establish a new charity lead organisation with the plc as an operating subsidiary had given a 98% response in favour of the proposals.

I wonder how those shareholders were selected. It would not be difficult to ask the right people and get the right answer. For a proper answer ALL shareholders should be asked .

What happens to the travel rights of shareholders if shares are compulsorily purchased? More questions,

 

I think you will find that it was @D1039 that posted that, not me, however, I think most people realise that, without being given the number and the method of selection of the shareholders asked, that statement is pretty meaningless. After all, it would still be true if only two shareholders who were also directors of the company were asked.

 

Ah, so the owners of the company get updated as to what is going on once a year.

 

Asking questions does not mean that you necessarily get answers, or ones which are relevant...

 

@Lineisclear has written at some length on here about the rights of shareholders in a company, so I won't repeat what he has written, but yes pretty much that is their only entitlement unless the articles specify otherwise. If the plc was a listed company then there are stock exchange requirements, but AFAIK the plc isn't listed.

 

Shareholders don't seem to count for much.

 

Oh dear, here we go again:-

We won't tell you what, we won't tell you who and we wont tell you how....

The HRA mediation (?) on the WSR has been "derailed" according to this on P. 7 of the latest Steam Beano ...

"Heritage Railway Association mediation in “escalating factional confrontation” at the West Somerset Railway has been “derailed”.

HRA member the WSR plc, asked the trade association to act as mediator – but although the HRA provided a “road map” to address the unspecified issues, the other party is alleged to have breached confidentiality before it could be endorsed by all parties involved. The HRA has declined to name the other party.

The HRA stated: “This resulted in a breakdown in trust which derailed the process.

“The HRA urges that the parties should be allowed to negotiate and implement this road map without further distraction and challenge. This can only happen if governance is given time to do so”."

Will all the moaners please note that NP is not responsible for starting discussions on this. It's in the national steam press. If they didn't want it discussed then the HRA or the plc (or both) shouldn't have gone to the press.

Edit, Added:- article on WSSRT resignations on P 20 and another about 4160 on P 23.

 

Was it because they were not seen as individuals but as one of the 'ten' who would set out to fundamentally change the nature of the WSSRT?

 

Surely the monetary value of the shares is £nil anyway? And, come to think of it, is there any other heritage railway where share values are a big deal? I thought we all bought shares in whichever railway to support it, not to expect any material return.
Pat

 

That was part of a reply to @D1039 , who was suggesting someone might offer the WSSRT £6K for their shareholding.