Guest TAMMY_1 Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 after this meeting no changes were made to anything within the running of the shu , back to racing pigeons now with no more arguing
Guest Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 after this meeting no changes were made to anything within the running of the shu , back to racing pigeons now with no more arguing GOOD
THE FIFER Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 that's a council decision, who we the members elect so this should be final. all the best for the remainder of the season to all. good racing
Henrik Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 Well if Vincie has his way we wont have heard the last of this his words not mine.
JADE Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 Can we please just get on with racing and stop the endless bickering. It is the SHU centenary and we should be celebrating instead of certain individuals trying to cause trouble all the time
Guest Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 Can we please just get on with racing and stop the endless bickering. It is the SHU centenary and we should be celebrating instead of certain individuals trying to cause trouble all the time well keep ya mouth shut then ;D ;D ;D
me Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 after this meeting no changes were made to anything within the running of the shu , back to racing pigeons now with no more arguing Really Tammy that does suprise "me"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALF Posted May 8, 2007 Report Posted May 8, 2007 Well if Vincie has his way we wont have heard the last of this his words not mine. THE THING ABOUT THIS MEETING BOBBY IS THE VOTE COULDNAE BE TAKEN ON EL PRESIDENTI AS CERTAIN PEOPLE WOULDNAE LEAVE THE ROOM FOR THE VOTE TO TAKE PLACE :D
GUTTY HEN Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 I am sure that all members of the council would agree on one thing and that is that the shu council meeting was one of the worst ever in the history of the union.I wont go into all the details as i would need all day to post it.One point that i will make all members aware of is that if you look at page one rule two it would seem that all you need to make a federation is 5 members with 5 lofts and be in all 4 clubs in a federation and that it.To sum up FIVE people can have a federation.Right or wrong?
THE FIFER Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 I am sure that all members of the council would agree on one thing and that is that the shu council meeting was one of the worst ever in the history of the union.I wont go into all the details as i would need all day to post it.One point that i will make all members aware of is that if you look at page one rule two it would seem that all you need to make a federation is 5 members with 5 lofts and be in all 4 clubs in a federation and that it.To sum up FIVE people can have a federation.Right or wrong? this is a case where the interpretation of those rules ie. 5 members make a club and 4 clubs make a fed, for to have 5 members all making 4 clubs so a fed, has doubts, and one is each organisation must register the geographical area it covers, so all clubs having the same could give the council cause not to allow it, i know clubs etc can have the part area of others but this is different, but it all boils down to the council under constitution rule 39, page 8 shu rule book, and the council have the power to decide and is final and binding, so this can be sorted one way or the other by the councillors,(who remember are ure messengers)
GUTTY HEN Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 Fifer you make a lot of good points.However we spent 3.5hours on this and could not even get it to a vote.
Guest WINGS 04 Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 Fifer you make a lot of good points.However we spent 3.5hours on this and could not even get it to a vote. WHY COULD YOU NOT GET A VOTE ??) ??) ??)
Guest TAMMY_1 Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 WHY COULD YOU NOT GET A VOTE ??) ??) ??) BECAUSE THE ELECTIONS WERE ON THE 3RD MAY AND THE SNP WON , SO WAS TOO LATE FOR THEM RAB ;D
Henrik Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 THE THING ABOUT THIS MEETING BOBBY IS THE VOTE COULDNAE BE TAKEN ON EL PRESIDENTI AS CERTAIN PEOPLE WOULDNAE LEAVE THE ROOM FOR THE VOTE TO TAKE PLACE :D The people Vincie wanted to leave were entitled to be there which after Vincies actions at the front door of the Hotel I wonder if he is a fit person to be a counciller
Guest Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 The people Vincie wanted to leave were entitled to be there which after Vincies actions at the front door of the Hotel I wonder if he is a fit person to be a counciller Don't tell me - he set fire to the curtains and was caught on CCTV. ;D
THE FIFER Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 The people Vincie wanted to leave were entitled to be there which after Vincies actions at the front door of the Hotel I wonder if he is a fit person to be a counciller if they did not want non councillors to know how they were voting all they had top do was propose to ballot on paper, b ut its the council that is responcible to sort this out, regarding the terpentation of the rules and if it can be allowed, to have 5 members forming 4 clubs to form a fed, if members paid their shu fees through club A, then club club B C D would be paying nothing, no certainly needs sorting by council, one way or the other, and just to point out i am not anti shu officials, in my view the president is a good asset to the shu, and i know him well, but this must be sorted.
me Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 this is a case where the interpretation of those rules ie. 5 members make a club and 4 clubs make a fed, for to have 5 members all making 4 clubs so a fed, has doubts, and one is each organisation must register the geographical area it covers, so all clubs having the same could give the council cause not to allow it, i know clubs etc can have the part area of others but this is different, but it all boils down to the council under constitution rule 39, page 8 shu rule book, and the council have the power to decide and is final and binding, so this can be sorted one way or the other by the councillors,(who remember are ure messengers) Whats to interpret Fifer 5 guys have set out to circumvent the rules of our union and as Gutty Hen says 5 members now have their own fed! For goodness sake be honest about the thing you and I both know if the President of the union was not involved he himself would probably have stepped in and ruled these actions contrary to the rules. I'll say it again the Shu is a total laughing stock it is absolutely pathetic. Why any other union would want to have anything to do with us is beyond "me".
frank-123 Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 The people Vincie wanted to leave were entitled to be there which after Vincies actions at the front door of the Hotel I wonder if he is a fit person to be a counciller don't know what vincie done at the front door? want to tell thought it was a council meeting for shu councillors could anyone go?
Henrik Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 Mibe you want to stick to being a Moderator Bruno as your attemps at comedy leave a lot to be desired. For the Fifer the people that Vincie wanted to leave were councelors who the bold Vincie had decided were not entitled to be there.
Henrik Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 Bart any one is entitled to go as an observer to any council meeting.
me Posted May 9, 2007 Report Posted May 9, 2007 Bart any one is entitled to go as an observer to any council meeting. The really sad thing is that the man claiming to be The President of the Shu was only entitled to be there as an observer himself. 5 MEMBERS DO NOT MAKE A FED THEREFORE 5 MEMBERS OF THE UNION ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL. Honest not shouting lads just making it clear to some forum members who seem to have difficulty grasping the obvious.
Henrik Posted May 10, 2007 Report Posted May 10, 2007 The really sad thing is that the man claiming to be The President of the Shu was only entitled to be there as an observer himself. 5 MEMBERS DO NOT MAKE A FED THEREFORE 5 MEMBERS OF THE UNION ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL. Honest not shouting lads just making it clear to some forum members who seem to have difficulty grasping the obvious. Time you looked at facts and not Fiction. There are more than 5 members in that Fed. Also as the Rules stand you can have a Fed with 5 members as there is no rule to limit you to one club. I have 4 clubs in my Fed and 43 members which is more than enough but Vincie wanted my Counciller thrown out. Why because he was gonna vote against Vincie.
Guest TAMMY_1 Posted May 10, 2007 Report Posted May 10, 2007 Time you looked at facts and not Fiction. There are more than 5 members in that Fed. Also as the Rules stand you can have a Fed with 5 members as there is no rule to limit you to one club. I have 4 clubs in my Fed and 43 members which is more than enough but Vincie wanted my Counciller thrown out. Why because he was gonna vote against Vincie. you should have been thrown out standing on the stage as if you were chairing the meeting, what were you thinking about, a bottle of grouse most likely
Guest Posted May 10, 2007 Report Posted May 10, 2007 Mibe you want to stick to being a Moderator Bruno as your attemps at comedy leave a lot to be desired. Sorry if my post offended, it wasn’t meant to and was a reference to two things: - after Vincies actions at the front door of the Hotel I wonder if he is a fit person to be a counciller (1) that the information you posted [part quoted above] was incomplete in the extreme leaving others to speculate on what actually 'happened at the door’; (2) the last incident involving our representatives in an hotel was our ‘pigeon’ Parliamentary representative setting fire to a curtain and being caught doing so on CCTV, and was well publicized at the time in the National Press.
Guest TAMMY_1 Posted May 10, 2007 Report Posted May 10, 2007 Sorry if my post offended, it wasn’t meant to and was a reference to two things: - (1) that the information you posted [part quoted above] was incomplete in the extreme leaving others to speculate on what actually 'happened at the door’; (2) the last incident involving our representatives in an hotel was our ‘pigeon’ Parliamentary representative setting fire to a curtain and being caught doing so on CCTV, and was well publicized at the time in the National Press. you should have offended him bruno and told him to like it or lump it ;D ;D, and as you also said bobby's post will have put mixed thoughts in peoples heads as to what actually did happen and he should have put on the full story or none of it at all.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now