Delboy Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Its nae like you ya Pup. Fek aff young yin lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy bhoys Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Can't get them pm me way those agendas so am in the know .YOU SHOULD HAD LISTENED AT THE FED EGM WHEN I WAS TOLD I WAS GETTING PUT OUT THE MEETING FOR ASKING QUESTIONS THEY COULD NOT ANSWER AND DID NOT LIKE ROBERT THE AGENDAS WHERE GETTNG EXPOSED BY ME THEN. I THINK FOR MYSELF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyleakin Lofts Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Yeah, lets all throw the rule books away and not bother about proper procedures. We could just get all the experts on here to say what's right or what's wrong!! What a stupid statement!!! Don't know who you are naedoos, but it appears you should have called yourself naebrains!!! Why would the particular rule that is being used by Committee be put in place other than to safeguard the Club from un-necessary expense? The Club holds an AGM and by nature they take place annually, usually around the same time of year, thus the name AGM which stands for Annual (yearly) General Meeting. The rules normally state when this meeting should take place and the form of business to be discussed at such meeting. If members call for a Special General Meeting, this by its nature incurs an expense which would be an un-necessary expense if the matter in hand could be dealt with at the AGM, which was due to take place in a short time. In this particular case, the AGM had already taken place. The matter under dispute was ruled on by the President to be out of order and therefore was not discussed. It appears the members did not agree with the President and enough of them signed the relevant petition to call the Special General Meeting to discuss the matter. If the above scenario is correct, then the Committee are again attempting to deny the membership their rights by incorrectly using a rule. If this is the case, then the Committee are attempting to "throw the rule book away" and as such they are ruling themselves out of order and showing a complete ineptitude with regards to the proper running of an organisation. Some advice Mr Naedoos, disengage your typing finger and engage your brain. read what is being typed by others and at least make an attempt to understand it. If you are incapable of this, ask for further explanation. Most things are able to be simplified for those who require it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eby Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 What a stupid statement!!! Don't know who you are naedoos, but it appears you should have called yourself naebrains!!! Why would the particular rule that is being used by Committee be put in place other than to safeguard the Club from un-necessary expense? The Club holds an AGM and by nature they take place annually, usually around the same time of year, thus the name AGM which stands for Annual (yearly) General Meeting. The rules normally state when this meeting should take place and the form of business to be discussed at such meeting. If members call for a Special General Meeting, this by its nature incurs an expense which would be an un-necessary expense if the matter in hand could be dealt with at the AGM, which was due to take place in a short time. In this particular case, the AGM had already taken place. The matter under dispute was ruled on by the President to be out of order and therefore was not discussed. It appears the members did not agree with the President and enough of them signed the relevant petition to call the Special General Meeting to discuss the matter. If the above scenario is correct, then the Committee are again attempting to deny the membership their rights by incorrectly using a rule. If this is the case, then the Committee are attempting to "throw the rule book away" and as such they are ruling themselves out of order and showing a complete ineptitude with regards to the proper running of an organisation. Some advice Mr Naedoos, disengage your typing finger and engage your brain. read what is being typed by others and at least make an attempt to understand it. If you are incapable of this, ask for further explanation. Most things are able to be simplified for those who require it. Absolutely brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter2010 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 What a stupid statement!!! Don't know who you are naedoos, but it appears you should have called yourself naebrains!!! Why would the particular rule that is being used by Committee be put in place other than to safeguard the Club from un-necessary expense? The Club holds an AGM and by nature they take place annually, usually around the same time of year, thus the name AGM which stands for Annual (yearly) General Meeting. The rules normally state when this meeting should take place and the form of business to be discussed at such meeting. If members call for a Special General Meeting, this by its nature incurs an expense which would be an un-necessary expense if the matter in hand could be dealt with at the AGM, which was due to take place in a short time. In this particular case, the AGM had already taken place. The matter under dispute was ruled on by the President to be out of order and therefore was not discussed. It appears the members did not agree with the President and enough of them signed the relevant petition to call the Special General Meeting to discuss theIf the above scenario is correct, then the Committee are again attempting to deny the membership their rights by incorrectly using a rule. If this is the case, then the Committee are attempting to "throw the rule book away" and as such they are ruling themselves out of order and showing a complete ineptitude with regards to the proper running of an organisation. Some advice Mr Naedoos, disengage your typing finger and engage your brain. read what is being typed by others and at least make an attempt to understand it. If you are incapable of this, ask for further explanation. Most things are able to be simplified for those who require it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delboy Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 What a stupid statement!!! Don't know who you are naedoos, but it appears you should have called yourself naebrains!!! Why would the particular rule that is being used by Committee be put in place other than to safeguard the Club from un-necessary expense? The Club holds an AGM and by nature they take place annually, usually around the same time of year, thus the name AGM which stands for Annual (yearly) General Meeting. The rules normally state when this meeting should take place and the form of business to be discussed at such meeting. If members call for a Special General Meeting, this by its nature incurs an expense which would be an un-necessary expense if the matter in hand could be dealt with at the AGM, which was due to take place in a short time. In this particular case, the AGM had already taken place. The matter under dispute was ruled on by the President to be out of order and therefore was not discussed. It appears the members did not agree with the President and enough of them signed the relevant petition to call the Special General Meeting to discuss the matter. If the above scenario is correct, then the Committee are again attempting to deny the membership their rights by incorrectly using a rule. If this is the case, then the Committee are attempting to "throw the rule book away" and as such they are ruling themselves out of order and showing a complete ineptitude with regards to the proper running of an organisation. Some advice Mr Naedoos, disengage your typing finger and engage your brain. read what is being typed by others and at least make an attempt to understand it. If you are incapable of this, ask for further explanation. Most things are able to be simplified for those who require it. heres an unbias opinion and its spot on, well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy bhoys Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 heres an unbias opinion and its spot on, well said.I WONDER IF YOU WILL CHALLENGE THE SNFC DECISION NOW DEL . DONT THINK SO BIG GUY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delboy Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I WONDER IF YOU WILL CHALLENGE THE SNFC DECISION NOW DEL . DONT THINK SO BIG GUY You wonder too much Tommy, concentrate on getting rings on them ybs under the bridge thatll ge ye a time in across the pond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank-123 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 G Rankin Statement re 19th June:Basketting for Maidstone. At Bellshill Marking station I load transporter with 6 other fanciers/markers who were kind enough to wait. Once transporter was loaded, myself and J Cullen wait behind for the second SNFC transporter to arrive.Admission that only two people left with baskets. Doesn't make sense the baskets were loaded on the first transporter. But the comittee say only two people were left with the baskets??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie1234 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 G Rankin Statement re 19th June:Basketting for Maidstone. At Bellshill Marking station I load transporter with 6 other fanciers/markers who were kind enough to wait. Once transporter was loaded, myself and J Cullen wait behind for the second SNFC transporter to arrive.Admission that only two people left with baskets. Doesn't make sense the baskets were loaded on the first transporter. But the comittee say only two people were left with the baskets???Correct Jim and Gareth were left with mccord AFTER the transporter had been loaded etc feel for the big man the hard work he puts in even getting us the better marking station after the green hoose disgrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy bhoys Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 You wonder too much Tommy, concentrate on getting rings on them ybs under the bridge thatll ge ye a time in across the pond. JUST WHAT I THOUGHT BIG GUY IF I THOUGHT I WAS RITE I WOULD STAND UP AND BE COUNTED IVE GOT PRINCIPLES. THERE IS A LAWYER INVOLVED HERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delboy Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 JUST WHAT I THOUGHT BIG GUY IF I THOUGHT I WAS RITE I WOULD STAND UP AND BE COUNTED IVE GOT PRINCIPLES. THERE IS A LAWYER INVOLVED HERE. I heard the same, a lawyer is involved so its a pity the SNFC didn't listen to its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyleakin Lofts Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 After careful consideration by the committee and consultation with solicitors, the request to call a Special General Meeting has been rejected as it would be unconstitutional according to Rule 10 (Special Meetings) which states ‘it shall not be competent to call a special meeting under this clause to deal with the conduct of races during a particular year unless the requisition is lodged before 1st January’. SNFC policy is not to become involved in issues discussed on social media websites or the fancy press. There are procedures in place to handle disputes within the constitution and these have been ignored. I have cut and pasted the above from the letter on the SNFC website.The first paragraph is the part that I am commenting on in previous posts. With regards to the second paragraph, I am not privet to the SNFC Constitution and Rules, so am unable to make any comment. If there are procedures to be followed, most good Constitutions have them, then they should be followed. Trial by media is never the correct way to go, however one can understand that people sometimes become so despondent when they are being continually over-ruled that they occasionally act in an incorrect manner. Notwithstanding any of the above comments, this situation is now public knowledge and as such prudence would direct one towards the best method of quelling the matter with finality. I have browsed the history of the Club and am aware of a past dispute which cost the Club a lot of money, perhaps the damage then was more substantial than just money. Did the Club lose its administrators? Are those who have administrated the Club since this last dispute done so in fear of another dispute arising? I am hearing about a longstanding "problem" in some people's eyes. Should that particular problem have been dealt with in a different manner? Retrospect is good only because it is such. At these previous times, the administrators carried out their duties to the best of their ability, hopefully. If that ability was not good enough then the members can only blame themselves, not the administrators. The current situation requires to be dealt with in an open and clear manner. The issue requires to be dealt with and finalised. Only then shall the Club be able to move forward. Media coverage should stop. The members should be given their meeting, no matter the cost, and the matter should be dealt with to its conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WulDon Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 have to agree with this and if rankin had got the presidents job would we have heard all of this and read about it in magazines id say soor grapes about time this was put to bed along with alot of other nonsense aye, funny how it has all flagged up after G.Rankin didn't get president job, put the dummy back in the pram lads! imo the fanciers who want a meeting just want to kick up more sh*t than they have already done on here! nae wonder yer no getting a meeting!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy bhoys Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 G Rankin Statement re 19th June:Basketting for Maidstone. At Bellshill Marking station I load transporter with 6 other fanciers/markers who were kind enough to wait. Once transporter was loaded, myself and J Cullen wait behind for the second SNFC transporter to arrive.Admission that only two people left with baskets. Doesn't make sense the baskets were loaded on the first transporter. But the comittee say only two people were left with the baskets???frank what went on second transporter mr taxi man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter2010 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 G Rankin Statement re 19th June:Basketting for Maidstone. At Bellshill Marking station I load transporter with 6 other fanciers/markers who were kind enough to wait. Once transporter was loaded, myself and J Cullen wait behind for the second SNFC transporter to arrive.Admission that only two people left with baskets. Doesn't make sense the baskets were loaded on the first transporter. But the comittee say only two people were left with the baskets???True frank doesn't make sense so when do the members get the chance to address these kind of questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank-123 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Looks like you guys won't get a meeting. Until the Agm January 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy bhoys Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 frank what went on second transporter mr taxi man guess you dont know the facts either ?? taxi for frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMS Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 The SNFC is at serious risk off becoming a East off Scotland club now,putting a letter on the web page is a masive cop out,the SNFC should have allowed the EGM . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank-123 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 guess you dont know the facts either ?? taxi for frankWhy don't you tell us Tommy What was loaded onto the second transporter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy bhoys Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Why don't you tell us Tommy What was loaded onto the second transporter?you are garethes bum chum u posted summitt you know .*expletive removed* all about fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Davie Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Yeah, lets all throw the rule books away and not bother about proper procedures. We could just get all the experts on here to say what's right or what's wrong!
Recommended Posts