S&D Railway Trust

I'm curious as to why you feel that way? I would have thought more engagement betwixt WSRA & WSSRT and other parties would only be positive(?)

 

I had actually originally put volunteers instead of members, but then it occurred that people supporting the railway financially would be excluded! Oh for a simple setup and for those with vision to make it happen.

Keith

 

I suspect that the vision to make it happen already exists amongst many of us. It is their ability to make it happen, and the mechanism by which it can be done, which may be the sticking point.

 

That may depend on the willingness of the plc, or more precisely its leadership, to tolerate such engagement. Their power within the WSR setup is such that “mediation” is only viable with their support, even tacit, and if that support is absent, may be seen as “aggression” with adverse consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That is in part why the present structure has to change, Name me any other railway, where just three people could potentially buy the entire railways share holding, and in effect run it as their own 12" to the Foot hobby ? then ask why would someone want that total power?
when the supporting groups are at the mercy, or otherwise of a chairman, no good can come of it, but the problem though is this to get change, you have to risk everything, even the railway, and if you lose, you stand the chance of ,if your an active member, being thrown off. but i don't think you would some how be alone,

 

As legal proceedings my be imminent it would be surprising if any party involved would discuss the matter with an outsider.

 

I think if it weren't for Covid the silence of the WSRA and WSSRT would be less of an issue. However, Covid changes things.

The position of the WSRA and WSSRT seems to be that they have no need to make public their stance, that the only people entitled to know are those who are members of those organisations.

This would be understandable if not exactly sending the right message, if it weren't for Covid. The WSR faces a very severe threat to its finances because of Covid, and so is appealing for funds from outside.

However, it appears that the WSRA and WSSRT and some on the line, do not believe that potential donors are entitled to know what the position of these organisations is with regard to the S&DRT, even though people are reluctant to give money as they fear that the money will not be used for ensuring the survival of the WSR but will instead be spent on evicting the S&DRT.

 

The issue of course and it has always existed and until the structure changes always will exist is that the WSRA/WSSRT dont hold enough shares to either control the PLC or even call an EGM. The other shares are held in 'Penny Packets' which mean that if an issue occurs that means the board has to be called to account then there is no ability to do so.

 

I've read this four or five times to see if I understand it (one too many "their" for my addled brain - please bear with me). So if the WSRA or WSSRT wanted to engage with talks, even unofficially, with the S&DRT, they would require a by-your-leave from the Plc that they surely wouldn't get and what is more, incur the wrath of the Plc for the temerity?

Now I know I have a simplistic worldview but why couldn't a notionally independent charity tell a Plc leadership that the actions of said charity are a matter for said charity to determine, stay in your lane? I know, I know, the ID cards.

Can 1984-esque diktats not be seen as "aggression"? I never knew how lucky I was to be able to shoot an email without a board's kind permission!

 

An interesting interpretation, John. If, as you suggest, the two big shareholders do not have enough shares to control the PLC , then how are Directors appointed and policy approved and to whom are the PLC Board responsible ?

 

Too right, Keith. You are right to include everyone. And lest we forget, our board members are also volunteers who continue to make huge contributions to our railway. In some cases without their efforts we would have closed by now. Same goes for many staff who chip in countless hours of volunteer time too. There is no bad apple as far as I can see. Just a poor structure that does not enable us to make the progress the venture deserves. Actions to ensure survival of your party can lead to hurt for other parties.

On the S&DRT issue, the current WSR structure does not require a view (or agreement) from the actions of other WSR parties. The issue (and decision) lies squarely within the business of the Plc and I guess the WSSRT and the WSRA, whilst they may express a view, are not involved in a formal sense. That's not to say I'd like to know what they think

Steve

 

But, as I observed above, the PLC is answerable to its shareholders, not the other way round. They cannot ignore their biggest shareholders, without whose support they have no authority.

 

Try telling that to Mr Jones-Pratt!

 

My thanks to Ian and Keith for the correction to my understanding of the origins of the two support/shareholding entities. It still suggests that, however well intentioned and useful the original set-up was, it is now divisive and needs to be addressed.

 

See my post 1507, above.
NB : You will see that I am assiduously avoiding personal references, partly because I don't know the individuals concerned and partly because we have already had discussions closed on the WSR thread due to personal attacks and I would hate to lose this one as well just as we seem to be drawing out some useful ideas.

 

I would agree with everything that you say Steve, except for the comment about no bad apple. Someone who withdraws HR policies, removes ID cards out of spite, evicts a group seemingly for personal reasons/no reason at all, threatens people physically etc etc is someone who would seem to fit the description well

Keith

 

Except, what you get is One counting out the other, If each take up opposing views, it would need both to vote the same way, and even then, thats not enough as many votes are going to be proxy held by the Chairman to use as he see's fit, that is more likily to be the majority vote,

 

Fair point - post amended.

 

Well, I'd suggest that what seems to count for anything is money.

As I've said further up, I'd be happy to support the WSSRT or WSRA and donate via them, if I knew that they were supporting the S&DRT. If one of those organisations were to be critical to the financial survival of the WSR then it would (theoretically) give them some leverage to potentially influence the direction of the PLC.

This of course assumes that the organisations do not in fact agree with the PLC, its decisions and its approach, in which case, looking to the WSRA or WSSRT for help would be a waste of time.

 

You do interpret my intent right, though not as a formal power of veto.

Not a by your leave but, yes, subject to the ultimate power of the plc management to sanction organisation and/or individual(s) if it dislikes their actions. I’m not sure I’d go so far as a 1984 analogy, but I do agree that such behaviour is unreasonable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk