Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

A very interesting analysis gfg. The only area I might strongly disagree with you is regarding Chris Thomas. His skill, nay artistry, in vacillation clearly demonstrated by his spouse at the other place and here may be enough to protect him from the chop.
The waxing of Paul Taylor over Niel Dancer as project honcho is possibly a result of the severe drubbing inflicted upon him by Ian Baxter. Whilst Plan B is an excellent design its other attribute is the demonstration of an appalling brief given to Phillip Howl by the selected few of the design team; most if which are new faces. Are we seeing yet another repeat of an incompetent SVR(H) board failing to keep its GM in check?

Even if only half true the candidate most likely to receive the kiss of Madame Guillotine is beginning to emerge.

 

Lingus
You decline to reveal your id, or even reply to my PM, but your posts suggest you are a Bridgnorth volunteer.
So why the criticism of Chris? Do you think he should resign, so he can join the 'rebellion'?
How well served would Bridgnorth Station and its historic integrity be in that case?
'Protect him from the chop'?
He does not fear the chop - far from it - he (like others) would resign if Bridgnorth is not protected.
PS Have you supported the plan b?

 

I see no evidence that Mrs Tigger is speaking for Mr Tigger, even in the post below, or that he has vascillated or sought forgiveness yet. I think her recent posts –since being displaced from the Working Group - have been independent, in accord with the principals of social media, very much her own, and probably causing some quite lively pillow talk Chez Thomas. That, or a deafening frosty silence every night.

But the Operating portfolio is his, and being practical, where would you place that if Mr Tigger is killed for his sins or resigns? It would bounce round the board room like the proverbial hand grenade with the pin out. No-one wants it. It has to be some-one current in Rules (there go four of ‘em), under 75 so they can do the jobs they are supervising (there go at least another two),acceptable to HMRI (exit the Vice Chairman from the list) and not doing anything else (there go the rest). They are trying to co-opt an additional pair of hands to the board but that is supposed to be a head of the Audit Committee so unlikely to be much of a railway operator. And who in their right mind would want to be on the Board right now anyway?

Nor do I think I worry too much about the quality of the architectural brief. What I hate about Plan A (apart from my personal opinion that it is ‘effing horrible and far too much money) is that it has cost a six figure sum (so far) when a FREE solution was available FROM WITHIN THE FAMILY, and was hidden. That, for me, is unforgiveable.

Yes, I think a candidate to lose his head is emerging. At least I hope so. Choose from one of the following options to explain how we got here in the first place;

A) SVR wanted to commit collective suicide by spending £5 million it doesn’t have on a castle in the air at Bridgnorth.

B) The General Manager wanted a shiny thing to put on his tourism CV ready for when he can escape the clutches of the tedious railway enthusiasts he does not understand or empathise with at all.

Just saying....

GF-G

 

My god, you and Lingus are a pair of cowards. The pair of you hide behind psydonyms, publicly criticising people. Just show that you have some bottle by revealing who you are.

 

GF-G: Some of what you say has validity, but the trend over time is that your language here is becoming more and more wild and over-the-top, and that devalues the points you try to make.
I think the personal attacks you are making on two people ( tigger and CT) are quite unwarranted, and as std tank says, it is becoming rather unfair of you to continue under the cloak of anonymity if you are going to keep posting these rather personal remarks about two people who I am quite sure are trying to "walk on eggshells" at present.

46118

 

Dear 'Standard Tank' and 'Welch Fusilier'

I am afraid I genuinely do not understand your – and some SVR Board members - pre-occupation with my name. Why would it help? I doubt you would be any better off for knowing. I do not care a hoot WHO you are – I take what you say seriously because you have invested time and effort in posting to a national forum, and it is a given that if you are in here and making the effort, you care about the railway, even if I don’t like what you say any more than you like GF-G. But I am not here to be liked.

If everyone agreed with me, there would be no point to GF-G’s existence. As I have said before, if who I really am matters to you, come to the Holdings AGM. I will be there – and quite easy to spot. Part of the underlying problem is that people don’t go – they just assume everything in the garden is rosy. And it isn’t.

By the way, I did not attack Mrs Tigger. Go back and read it again. Yes, two men are indeed walking on eggshells. But who put them there? Not me...not Mrs Tigger, and probably not you either. They did it all by themselves.

Best

GF-G

 

I am a long-standing SVR member, but not a volunteer, and not involved in any way with the project or the SVR management.

46118

 

Right now if you care about plan B can I suggest that write to either a Holdings Board director or the Chairman of the G Board saying why plan B is better, that you are a shareholder / member/ working member and saying you are asking for their support and before the 18th of February, which is when the Holdings Board will see the revised plans. Putting comments on here will not get to all of those Directors.

 

I agree with your sentiments BUT a small numbers of letters supporting plan 'B' will not surfice, nor will they indicate the overwhelming view of the many who will not write for one reason or another. How many letters of support do you think plan 'A' gathered ?

I asked the question over a week ago concerning the number of people who supported plan 'A' or its as yet unseen revision, in the hope that such posts could shed some light on why this break from tradition was felt attractive. There has been no response. To anyone involved in the SVR the overwhelming view is self evident. If this view is not understood by the board, then we are in more serious trouble than even I thought possible.

I would add one further point. The cost of this poorly managed and presented 'investment' of course makes people unhappy. After all, they consider it is their Railway, and more to the point represents an investment in their passion, labour and money. If views are strongly expressed then one should not be surprised !

 

Latest news regarding Plan B

We have had no response from the Company to our open letter, not even an acknowledgement.
There will soon be an updates section on the Plan B website and an e-petition to have the proposals taken seriously.

KS

 

I am a little mystified. Why does the Board have such a dogged blind enthusiasm for their own scheme that they cannot even respond – courteously or otherwise - to members of the family who have offered something for one third of the total price and with a huge saving in professional fees?

Why on earth is Project Xanadu SO important to the Board? Is it that they just don’t know what to do, or are so divided they cannot even agree a holding statement? Unlikely – they have been through the odd crisis before. Any benefit isn’t in the future profitability of the Company, because they don’t know what Xanadu does – for better or worse - to the bottom line even if it was actually built - they haven't done the financial projections yet. If there are no quantifiable benefits in Operating the outcome, they must be in the Design or Build stages.

So is there something else? What benefit is in their scheme that Plan B doesn’t or will not provide for them? Something that makes it worthwhile to run the gauntlet of throwing away the goodwill and trust of the SVR family built up over decades, and the professional good name of the Company with it? With every day of silence that passes Xanadu looks more and more like a weapon of self-destruction, but they press on regardless. Why would anyone "with the interests of the railway at heart" do that?

I think we should be told.

GF-G

 

I seem to remember that after the consultations the SVR GM quoted that over 70% of all feedback on plan A was favourable.

Just proves the truth in the old addage regarding statistics doesnt it.

 

The “consultation” presented Plan A as the only alternative to doing nothing. We now , thanks to some courageous outspoken men, know that to be untrue. Since the consultation was built upon foundations of deceit the results – and those who peddle them - are easily dismissed.

GF-G

 

GF-G I can't endorse all your postings however I can vouch for the basic truth in your post above.

I recall attending a meeting in Bridgnorth Buffet, perhaps, a few years ago hosted by Neil Dancer. At that meeting he acknowledged the existence of a number of alternative designs. One of which that had a close resemblance to, what is now, Plan B. He stated all that work was being ignored henceforth and everything was starting afresh.

At the presentation held within Bridgnorth boiler-shop around the time of the launch of what is now referred to as Plan A the same gentleman stated there was no Plan B. I accept it may not have formally existed as Plan B but the existence of its precursor was known about.

Perhaps I should have a degree of concern for Phillip Howl and his architectural practice becoming embroiled in this controversy.

 

I guess that explains the silence if that is trued the board may of decided there is no plan b then they should just come out and say it with the reasons why and put a end to all the speculation.

 

Thanks Brian, I would be genuinely worried if you agreed with everything I say. But I don’t think you have to worry about Phil Howl, he is just doing other peoples bidding and can rely on the “Nuremberg Defence” – and keep the money. We might usefully have a closer look at Mr Dancer though...he seems to have some difficult questions to answer. A heartfelt plea today in the Other Place for the Guarantee Company to intervene in the Xanadu v Plan B war indicates that perhaps not everyone understands the seismic power shift that took place at SVR just before Christmas.

Even with the miserable response to the Share issue, G failed to keep its stake at a percentage level where H is compelled to listen to it.They would have had to buy more than 200,000 new shares and they could not –they did not have the cash, and they are no longer the Duty Holder for operations either. In law and practise G is now completely sidelined beyond having 2 votes, out of 11, on the H Board, held by “legacy” semi-detached Directors. Honest men both, but corporately impotent.

Conversely, the “Gang of Four” have emerged very powerful indeed. Their only problem is that they have taken over a Company that is dying on its financial feet.

If they really want Xanadu, they WILL get it. If you plan to drain your own pond, you don’t bother too much about consulting the frogs first. I suggest the question that should be on everyone’s minds is why do they want it SO badly that they risk uncloaking themselves? Who benefits from something in Project Xanadu that would not be available to them through Plan B? Is it truly a case of back to the 1970s, but without the ludicrous handlebar moustache of less-than-blessed memory? If so, anyone in the other place or here who expects GF-G to moderate his language or pull his punches or just to go away at such a critical time can, with all due respect, jog on.

Regards as always

GF-G