Mel Gwinnett

Discussion of all things related to the club and first team
Jamie
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:51 am

No surprise there RogerB.
New membership applications to the trust has been suspended for quite sometime, to stop new sign ups voting on the proposal.
Yet lapsed annual memberships were renewed by the board automatically, with no payment required. Really unfair, when in the last couple of years I signed up for Life Membership, which has turned out to effectively been throwing money away.
RogerB if you had no been contacted about the presentation, and vote, no doubt others were in this situation too.
The updates from the Trust have been awful and rare for quite some time.
The presentation and vote has not been handled well at all.

Tony says all information was available to members, that simple was not the case, I had several email conversations with the Trust Board about this.

Tony is no longer on the Trust board, yet had access to more information than others, as he asked to be some kind of advisor to the Trust Board, yet this was never voted on by the members. Which is bizarre to say the least.
Tony
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:57 pm

RogerB wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:28 pm I am a member of the Trust and wasn’t provided with the information.
As I suggested via the email I provided, contact the Trust to first establish if you were still a member of the Trust and that they had the correct contact details.
Tony
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:57 pm

Jamie wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:48 am No surprise there RogerB.
New membership applications to the trust has been suspended for quite sometime, to stop new sign ups voting on the proposal.
Yet lapsed annual memberships were renewed by the board automatically, with no payment required. Really unfair, when in the last couple of years I signed up for Life Membership, which has turned out to effectively been throwing money away.
RogerB if you had no been contacted about the presentation, and vote, no doubt others were in this situation too.
The updates from the Trust have been awful and rare for quite some time.
The presentation and vote has not been handled well at all.

Tony says all information was available to members, that simple was not the case, I had several email conversations with the Trust Board about this.

Tony is no longer on the Trust board, yet had access to more information than others, as he asked to be some kind of advisor to the Trust Board, yet this was never voted on by the members. Which is bizarre to say the least.
I didn’t ask to become an advisor to the Trust, they asked me and others who were not on the Trust board to help given the complexity of the negotiations. Such an arrangement doesn’t need members to vote.
Jamie
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:51 am

Tony wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:16 am
Jamie wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:48 am No surprise there RogerB.
New membership applications to the trust has been suspended for quite sometime, to stop new sign ups voting on the proposal.
Yet lapsed annual memberships were renewed by the board automatically, with no payment required. Really unfair, when in the last couple of years I signed up for Life Membership, which has turned out to effectively been throwing money away.
RogerB if you had no been contacted about the presentation, and vote, no doubt others were in this situation too.
The updates from the Trust have been awful and rare for quite some time.
The presentation and vote has not been handled well at all.

Tony says all information was available to members, that simple was not the case, I had several email conversations with the Trust Board about this.

Tony is no longer on the Trust board, yet had access to more information than others, as he asked to be some kind of advisor to the Trust Board, yet this was never voted on by the members. Which is bizarre to say the least.
I didn’t ask to become an advisor to the Trust, they asked me and others who were not on the Trust board to help given the complexity of the negotiations. Such an arrangement doesn’t need members to vote.

I much more suitable advisor would have been the Football Supporters Association.

You tell us minions about things you know, and discussions you've had, but then use confidentiality agreements as a reason you can't tell anyone else more detailed information.
TW10
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:21 pm

I am just a supporter and have no insight or interest into the politics of the club..but what I would say is an event event that should have been wholly positive i.e an injection of funding to put the club on a stable footing and to allow it to progress has turned into a complete mess with all this cloak and dagger stuff alienating so many people. The corporate speak of the brothers sounds very false. How can they portray all of "we are in it together" and yet force so many volunteers to leave. It is madness. I really want to share the optimism and I think Mel Gwinnett is a great appointment but the brothers have been a bit of a car crash so far.
BevereeMaster
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 11:10 pm

They did not force them to leave, they told them that they would stop doing cash in hand and start using PAYE and that if they bring value to the club then they would keep their roles, that’s fair no? Any other business or job it’s the same…. The staff/volunteers chose to leave none were forced to leave at all, I think the only one who may have been forced was the bloke who ran the club shop (which was unfortunate). The people who left say it’s because they was not approached by the new owners in the buildup to the take over, they apologised for not coming and saying hello to everyone. But no one was forced to leave.
GRTourist
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:38 am

TW10 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:03 pm Few further questions spring to mind..

1) I think it was said at the the Q&A but who is the backer (some FTSE100 financial doyen) and is it a single individual or a few?
2) are the brothers shareholders or just employed to administer the club?
3) would be interesting to know what they are being paid.
4) finally what did it cost for the new backers to assume control i.e what did they pay for their majority shareholding in the club?

Educated answers appreciated by many im sure!
At the Q&A, Stefano stated (when asked who was calling the shots) quite clearly that he and Rafaele as Executive Directors were calling the shots.

That's backed up by the club statement at the time of the takeover, which announced the brothers as owners (so you can assume they have a shareholding) and EDs. That assumption is backed up by Companies House filings, which shows Ramayana Ventures as having 631,034 shares, or 95.1% of the club. They are also listed as the RLE with controlling ownership (75%+ shareholding). RV have only two persons with controlling interest - Stefano and Rafaele. So yes, through their holding company, RV, they are shareholders and owners.

As for other backers, Scott Forbes, Chris Davies and Simon Davers are listed as Directors. This may mean that they have invested, but also may not. Forbes is former owner of Rightmove and current Chairman of Ascential PLC (Ascential is FTSE 250 with a current market cap of £1.17bn). Davies is CEO of Uncommon (our shirt sponsor) and Davers is a partner with Geldards LLP (which specialises in M&A, so you could infer her was part of the takeover process). These people may or may not be financial backers, and there may be others.

Are they paid? Who knows. As BevereeMaster says, ask them. They're at pretty much every match - at Weymouth away they spent the whole second half behind the goal with the six or seven travelling supporters, and they're regularly walking around the ground chatting home and away.

None of the above is private and all available in open source.
Jamie
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:51 am

GRTourist wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:29 am
TW10 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:03 pm Few further questions spring to mind..

1) I think it was said at the the Q&A but who is the backer (some FTSE100 financial doyen) and is it a single individual or a few?
2) are the brothers shareholders or just employed to administer the club?
3) would be interesting to know what they are being paid.
4) finally what did it cost for the new backers to assume control i.e what did they pay for their majority shareholding in the club?

Educated answers appreciated by many im sure!
At the Q&A, Stefano stated (when asked who was calling the shots) quite clearly that he and Rafaele as Executive Directors were calling the shots.

That's backed up by the club statement at the time of the takeover, which announced the brothers as owners (so you can assume they have a shareholding) and EDs. That assumption is backed up by Companies House filings, which shows Ramayana Ventures as having 631,034 shares, or 95.1% of the club. They are also listed as the RLE with controlling ownership (75%+ shareholding). RV have only two persons with controlling interest - Stefano and Rafaele. So yes, through their holding company, RV, they are shareholders and owners.

As for other backers, Scott Forbes, Chris Davies and Simon Davers are listed as Directors. This may mean that they have invested, but also may not. Forbes is former owner of Rightmove and current Chairman of Ascential PLC (Ascential is FTSE 250 with a current market cap of £1.17bn). Davies is CEO of Uncommon (our shirt sponsor) and Davers is a partner with Geldards LLP (which specialises in M&A, so you could infer her was part of the takeover process). These people may or may not be financial backers, and there may be others.

Are they paid? Who knows. As BevereeMaster says, ask them. They're at pretty much every match - at Weymouth away they spent the whole second half behind the goal with the six or seven travelling supporters, and they're regularly walking around the ground chatting home and away.

None of the above is private and all available in open source.

I signed up to the newsletter you kindly informed me about - but have not had any links sent through to view the Q&A.
Why not just share the video on the website? I think that again would give better interaction.

Hopefully the new sign up to the newsletter (a very good idea to have) we allow supporters to get regular updates.

Just like to point out, I have nothing against the brothers, however I still do not see why the need to get rid of the supporters trust shareholding, a supporters trust will not look to stop investment, it is there to support the club, it's so odd, that the supporters trust board were happy to give it away so easily, rather than stick firm on educating the brothers on the benefits of their involvement.

The supporters trust also stated that the proposal voted on would see them remain with what they had until the end of the season, yet on 9th December the Supporters Trust (in it's role as a director) resigned from the club. Which was not what was voted on.

The brothers also promised an initial investment of £200k, looking at the shares they have acquired from other shareholders, it looks like this figure could actually be similar to the shares they acquired, so it's not really injecting the £200k into the club at all.

It's all just so sad really.
As I say, no real ill feeling towards the brothers, however the Supporters Trust board has completely let down it's members, and hasn't acted well at all.
The recent AGM had 3 of the trust board having to do, by their own rules, step down/"retire" and seek re-election. Myself and at least one other person expressed an interest to stand in the election, and I was told I could not, as those stepping down wanted to carry on. That is simply not how the process works and their should have been an election.
The trust is not acting on it's own rules, and should be held accountable, as the whole proposal and votes have not been conducted properly.

I could go on for several pages about this. The email replies I have received are ridiculous, and the Trust board think they can just fob people off. In my opinion, they deliberately stopped others standing for election, so they could ensure the takeover happened without further questions being asked, or new people giving alternative views.

I am not saying things about volunteers and staff leaving, as that is matter of opinion, but however long and valuable these people were, there will always be comings and goings this way. Just a real shame so many people felt the need to go in such a short period of time. I think the brothers could have interacted better, and knowing the reasons one person felt forced out, it was a terrible way to treat someone. But others probably did have more of an option to stay, but just didn't feel as though they had been engaged with very well. The brothers I am sure will learn for this, it happening mid season makes it harder to manage.
Shepperton Supporter
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:18 pm

Steve Bates has been appointed as Assistant Manager .This will no doubt further cement the Academy through to the first team .
RogerB
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:10 pm

GRTourist wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:29 am
TW10 wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:03 pm Few further questions spring to mind..

1) I think it was said at the the Q&A but who is the backer (some FTSE100 financial doyen) and is it a single individual or a few?
2) are the brothers shareholders or just employed to administer the club?
3) would be interesting to know what they are being paid.
4) finally what did it cost for the new backers to assume control i.e what did they pay for their majority shareholding in the club?

Educated answers appreciated by many im sure!
At the Q&A, Stefano stated (when asked who was calling the shots) quite clearly that he and Rafaele as Executive Directors were calling the shots.

That's backed up by the club statement at the time of the takeover, which announced the brothers as owners (so you can assume they have a shareholding) and EDs. That assumption is backed up by Companies House filings, which shows Ramayana Ventures as having 631,034 shares, or 95.1% of the club. They are also listed as the RLE with controlling ownership (75%+ shareholding). RV have only two persons with controlling interest - Stefano and Rafaele. So yes, through their holding company, RV, they are shareholders and owners.

As for other backers, Scott Forbes, Chris Davies and Simon Davers are listed as Directors. This may mean that they have invested, but also may not. Forbes is former owner of Rightmove and current Chairman of Ascential PLC (Ascential is FTSE 250 with a current market cap of £1.17bn). Davies is CEO of Uncommon (our shirt sponsor) and Davers is a partner with Geldards LLP (which specialises in M&A, so you could infer her was part of the takeover process). These people may or may not be financial backers, and there may be others.

Are they paid? Who knows. As BevereeMaster says, ask them. They're at pretty much every match - at Weymouth away they spent the whole second half behind the goal with the six or seven travelling supporters, and they're regularly walking around the ground chatting home and away.

None of the above is private and all available in open source.
Bruno Petruzzo, presumably the father, is also listed as a director.
tones
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:32 pm

All this politics covers up the main fact that Hampton are heading for relegation. If the brothers, board or Supporters Trust want this to happen they should say so. Then at least the supporters could enjoy their football and not worry about the results. If however everyone one wants the club to stay in the National League someone needs to sign up a striker quickly and get the team scoring some goals!
Brit
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:49 pm

Incidentally, I noticed a local news item that yesterday council officers had recommended that council approval be given for a 5G pitch.
(Facebook Richmond Nub News)
Post Reply