West Somerset Railway General Discussion

It would not surprise me if that were the case, See, combined, the shareholding will be a potential threat to the cabal that currently is the PLC, Where as, if you can set one against the other, you nullify the threat, because the two in effect count each others share holding out As things stand, its likily the WSSRT would support the PLC, and vote against any WSRA brought action that might depose the current board .

 

Well, maybe not failing, but...

A certain place has an X that it can use to run services in the future
It sells X & it goes away
The person who arranged the sale of X, happens to have 2 Xs that may be available to hire

 

I wonder what other members of the PLC board are hoping to gain from this peculiarly arrived at mess?

 

"Oh good. And you have that in writing from JJP and the other members of the PLC board do you?"

Even then, bearing in mind the plc's track record, I'd not place a lot of reliance on that!

 

Hanlon's razor, "Never impute to malice that which can adequately explained by incompetence" does not rule out the possibility of both factors being in play.

 

I realise it's probably considered bad form to reply to your own post, but it has just struck me that quite a few of the posters on here who are urging people to save the railway by donating have suggested that those donations go not to "the WSR" but to "the Plc".

 

Many bits of mud can be thrown at the WSR, however:

The £100k is payment for the stock and a few other bits and bobs, so its not an adjustment to profit - unless the stock had been sold by year end.

I seem to recall, that the announcement re the accounts said that cash and cash at bank excluded the £100k so they presumably had set it to one side at the year end.

What the situation is now, 3 months on, is anyone's guess.

 

Of note, I know the Constitutions of 2 smaller membership organisations quite well.
Neither one allows the Committee/Board to 'appoint' people to the Board. They only get there via an election.
They can co-opt people to sub-committees.
They also both have minimum Committee sizes

 

I don't have a problem with co-opting per se, but it works best in conjunction with specific vacancies for directorships with clear portfolios where a candidate with the right experience and knowledge is required, and you can have an interview process. Not to be used just to invite your mates on.

 

Doesn't really matter no cash of mine is going to either/or simple as.

 

I recall a situation some years ago at one organisation (not all that many leagues away from Minehead) where one person - for whatever reason - declined each year to stand for election to the Committee. So, as the Committee deemed his skills valuable, each year after the AGM they co-opted him straight back onto the Committee, where he happily served for another 11 months or so . I hasten to add to there was no implication of anything underhand, and I am sure the chap made a valuable contribution, but it did seem to me to be a very curious situation to allow for an extended period.....

 

However, rights are the baseline that we should be striving to do better than.

There is nothing wrong with employees & volunteers being subject to the same HR policies for the majority of things.

 

It’s that part of the WSR (not just plc) structure which seems to allow any incumbent plc board (not just the present one) to be effectively unaccountable to almost all the key stakeholders in the railway.

 

I hope that is correct and borne out by the accounts when they’re finalised and visible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I completely agree - but felt it needed stating given the confusion this issue has caused.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The difference being that if the PLC (can agree to) hold on to the cash (to a later date) it can spend it how it needs to/wishes, whereas any coming back from the charity can only be spent on the restricted thing the charity provides it for.

It wouldn't be available to, say, pay the NI and pension contributions of staff from 1st August.

If the WSRA give it for loco restoration which involves Restorations ordering materials, that cash would have left the railway.

500 ordinary shares (£50) according to the last listing at Companies House (0.002% of issued capital).

Patrick

 

So, the best way to 'give money to the plc' is to buy shares in it, then those that wan't change either donate their shares, or their vote, to the WSRA & tell them.

You also need to get SCC on side, as it will go better if you can have them as an activist shareholder.

Not the plc
Any funds an individual gives to them can be used by the board for anything. It's the equivalent of buying something from Tesco's. You have no say in the organisation whatsoever.

The SDRT don't have any power over the plc, so if you wan't change, it's not via them.

That leaves the WSSRT & WSRA.
I'm sure individuals can assess which one is possibly best to give via.

 

The two statements from WSRA and WSR PLC have a number of differences which may or may not be use of language:

- the transaction date (transferred in December and payment due in February vs transaction not complete by 31st March)
- the amount (£79k or £100k)
- the substance (just shop stock, or shop/cafe/restorations)

There have been queries of the accuracy of statements before and so I've been waiting to see if there are further ones, and whether there's any change in position on what is due when.

They did: £340k excluding the £100k debt. So you'd expect the year end figures to show the £440k cash and creditors increased by £100k unless there is a change in the narrative as to if/how/when/what the transaction went through.

Patrick

 

Purchase of assets affect assets and liabilities on the balance sheet but have no effect on profit and loss account .In theory £100k of assets and £100k liability .