Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I agree completely. But there is a flip side to this - which is that there is also an onus on leaders to share enough information with supporters to allow them to have confidence in the plans.

There is no consistent definition of "enough", but in any individual case it will be based on trust. Unfortunately, as this thread has illustrated, that trust from supporters is fraying. One side effect will be that, to obtain a similar level of trust, more information will need to be shared.

However, there's also another side to this. Those who aren't comfortable with the leadership or their strategy, for whatever reason, need to be very careful in their questioning or commentary, as there's a fine line between being critical friends and unintentionally undermining the wider objectives of the organisation. I'd suggest that line is generally crossed at the "washing dirty linen" stage of discussion.

I am uncomfortable reading here that natural supporters's are feeding back that reasonable requests for information are not being answered, and also that this appears to be linked to factional issues within the wider L&B set of organisations.

 

We also need to remember that most of the people who are tasked with responding are volunteers. Answering many questions could take their time from things which will move the railway forward and preparing information releases for members.

I recall complaints being made by opposers of the RVR that the railway were not answering their questions - they seemed to think that they were asking a big multinational corporation instead of a group with a handful of volunteers.

 

Whilst it might concentrate minds when it comes to what can or should be said on here (at least, it ought to!), this segment of our forum is available for all to see and membership is predicated on having an interest in railways. We mightn't see it so, but someone opposed to this or that development, say because many dozen trains a day will be thundering past the bottom of their garden, surely by any definition 'has an interest', no?

If we wish to criticise others for spreading unverified and/or unfounded claims, we should be mindful of leaving ourselves open to the same criticism. Do we really need to repeat the discussion concerning this very point, conducted over the last couple of weeks on the 7027 thread?

I'm not saying "don't speculate" (and wouldn't if it were my place to say it .... which it isn't), merely make clear what is based on authoritative statements, what is surmise from same and what is merely our own personal speculation ... and be prepared for that last to be shot down as assiduously as would be hyperbole from those looking at a subject from an opposing viewpoint. Fair enough?

 

There's a lot of difference between buying a lorry load or two of coal and the purchase of a property that has in fact risen in price from 1.2 million to 1.9 million since negotiations,its stated that in the prospectus that its planned to borrow 1 million to complete the purchase, repayments on that amount plus staffing and general running costs have to be taken into account, vast amounts of money involved and some of you question why some of us are concerned, just over the other side of Exmoor people didn't ask questions and look how that's ended up, so let's just let this happen and not worry about the consequences until after the deal is done, ohh and from past experience no I don't have any trust in some of those trustees

 

In reply to ghost's post above you can also cite the significant cost to the Cambrian's legal cost and timescale. In rough terms information gathered from forums increased the legal costs by a factor of three and added around 18 months to the timing. Beware.

 

A most galling and costly situation, but could you clarify please. Was that increased legal component in respect of information which would become known through the normal channels of search and disclosure one might expect anyway, or effectively a direct result of additional fending off of spurious 'disinformation', resulting from ill-informed speculation "in the public domain"?

 

@ghost - the questions I was asking was because I was thinking about investing in the OHSI scheme which is explictly being sold as a business opportunity rather than a property acquisition seeking donations.

As a potential shareholder in the enterprise, I do expect to be able to ask sensible questions about the business plan, the price and the funding - in exactly the same way that I would about investing in anything else; indeed, it would be surprising if I (& others) didn't have these questions. Consider too that the failure to answer these questions doesn't exactly make it more likely that I'd choose to invest. I'm sure that others will feel similarly.

What is frankly surprising and regrettable is the attitude you've recently displayed which could be characterised as a combination of 'we'll decide who is a proper supporter of the L&B (and therefore entitled to have a view)' and 'shut up and send us money anyway - becuase we know best'. I can only hope that this is not the general view of the Trust leadership.

 

Indeed there are. But the points about where and how questions are asked remain the same - I can both be concerned at what @Tobbes reports and not expect to see those answers in the public domain.

 

I'm not asking for the answers in the public domain, I'm merely stating that we are getting no answers as trust members, we are not being told anything, why should we be expected to be kept in the dark until the deal is done as someone suggested then look at the detail, well as the saying goes "the devil is in the detail" and if that turns out to be true it will be too late

 

I'm not asking for the answers in the public domain, I'm merely stating that we are getting no answers as trust members, we are not being told anything, why should we be expected to be kept in the dark until the deal is done as someone suggested then look at the detail, well as the saying goes "the devil is in the detail" and if that turns out to be true it will be too late

 

Never said any of that.
Never said I was involved in the Trust leadership.

I said that those posting negative remarks on a public forum (which the L&B have never engaged with) cannot have the best wishes of the railway at heart. There are other ways of getting a point across and getting answers without running the railway down in public (not aimed at you, but others on this forum).
You haven't said why you can't lift the phone and ring someone if you have questions.
You must by now be aware that certain parties are out to stop the L&B expanding at any cost, so the board has to be careful about what information it puts in the public domain.

 

I don't know the answer but here it may be difficult to define what 'over payment' would mean since, assuming the railway actually needs this property*, this may be the only, or a very rare, opportunity to buy it and the seller must know this. Other than the strip of trackbed this site is unlikely ever to be obtainable via a CPO.

*another question entirely.

 

This is certainly the case with EA. It's a bunch of guys doing their best, and they did ask for extra help during the last meeting.

 

Maybe they are not Trust members.

Exactly - the best way people who are opposed to something can get information is to look at what supporters say.

 

I’m puzzled as to why you expect answers from the L&B Trust regarding the prospective Blackmoor purchase? The Trust and the L&B Blackmoor Company are separate legal entities.

 

As far as I am aware the trust will own some £12,000 worth of A class shares, so in reality every member of the L&BR has a right to know exactly what is going on, investors will own B class shares so will have no overall say in how the company will be run, they are basic shareholders supplying some of the the finance, it is all explained in the prospectus about A and B class shares, the question is will the trust be tied to the Blackmoor company in any other way other than those controlling shares and if it is then what would be the effect on the railway should the Blackmoor company fail

 

That is a quite valid point which is often made in such circumstances and not just on this forum or with this railway.

But look at this way.....it is not unknown for several people all to want answers to essentially the same question. If you were a 'busy volunteer' Trustee, which would you prefer - lots of 'phone calls, maybe at inconvenient times, or just one question posed on a forum to which you can reply at a time convenient to yourself?

The other benefit of getting a written response of course is that it gives a consistent answer to all enquirers, and any subsequent enquirers can be referred back to it, without (hopefully) different people getting different impressions as to the answer. If there is concern about the 'privacy' of the answer, then surely the solution exists already that the response could be put in the members-only section of the website (which IMHO is poorly under-utilised at the moment) ?

 

As I understand it in the basic form, the information about internal society details was taken from the forum by a forum member who then used this in an objection to the TAWO, which then required the use of legal counsel to prepare the case for review. What was budgeted at 10-15k of legal costs came out at 30k plus. It left a very sour taste to all and the CHR board closed down the forum to outsiders and the information during the following period was very, very tightly controlled. Not to mention the delay to the whole project whilst this objection was dealt with.
I could not say for sure if detailed forensic analysis of all of the available data by the objector would have found the information for the basis of their objection.
It's like leaving your front door keys in the door when you go on holiday, publish a picture of them in the door on social media, and then complain you have been burgled when you return.
Please can we learn from previous issues. Again I am not suggesting censorship, just restraint on a public forum.

 

'The Company has A shares, with voting rights, which will be retained by the Trust and B shares which it is offering to you and other outside investors. The B shares do not generally have voting rights at general meetings of the Company although the Articles do provide for a representative of B Shareholders to be appointed to the Board of Directors. The Company will therefore continue to be controlled by the Trust'.

taken from the share offer document

 

Deleted - duplicate post - sorry