[skyclad99]

I've got some sympathy with this opinion, I also thought that the letter from S4A had a confrontational tone.

On the other hand, I can understand their frustrations after banging on a closed door for years.

I understand what you are saying John, but I think we have asked nicely before and got nowhere. In my former professional capacity, having dealt with many letters like that in the past, it was done for a reason and we got the result that most folk expected. It would appear that there is no talking to these owners regardless.

[baggiejohn]

I understand what you are saying John, but I think we have asked nicely before and got nowhere. In my former professional capacity, having dealt with many letters like that in the past, it was done for a reason and we got the result that most folk expected. It would appear that there is no talking to these owners regardless.

Yes, I understand that & thanks for clearing it up. It did occur to me that there could be legal reasons for adopting that style.

[Standaman]

Had I written that letter it would have been different however given the absolute failure of the ownership (as represented by Ken) to engage at any level with the many legitimate questions that S4A posed I doubt there would have a been a different outcome.

I don't know where we go from here. S4A probably haven't got the resources for a legal battle to force disclosure and it must be very doubtful that they would win in any event.

I always felt protest by fans other than a boycott of the club would have only a marginal impact. The protest to date has raised awareness of the issues at the club but it hasn't prompted the ownership to sell up or even settle the loans that are outstanding.

I suspect there will be a slow decline in ticket sales as individual fans become more disenchanted. A couple of disappointing seasons would have triggered that anyway but I suspect the board's stance will do little to turn the tide. However I still think most fans are responding to what they see on the pitch rather than the bigger issues surrounding the club.

The ownership will carry on regardless until they financially can't soldier on. That might be years which is a dispiriting thought.

[skyclad99]

Had I written that letter it would have been different however given the absolute failure of the ownership (as represented by Ken) to engage at any level with the many legitimate questions that S4A posed I doubt there would have a been a different outcome.

I don't know where we go from here. S4A probably haven't got the resources for a legal battle to force disclosure and it must be very doubtful that they would win in any event.

I always felt protest by fans other than a boycott of the club would have only a marginal impact. The protest to date has raised awareness of the issues at the club but it hasn't prompted the ownership to sell up or even settle the loans that are outstanding.

I suspect there will be a slow decline in ticket sales as individual fans become more disenchanted. A couple of disappointing seasons would have triggered that anyway but I suspect the board's stance will do little to turn the tide. However I still think most fans are responding to what they see on the pitch rather than the bigger issues surrounding the club.

The ownership will carry on regardless until they financially can't soldier on. That might be years which is a dispiriting thought.

I don't think there is anything we can do Stan. A4A have raised the issue and put it firmly in the public domain, they were never going to achieve anything more than that. Not sure what S4A are up to, but I do remember a none disclosure agreement being put in place a few months ago. However, I think that was more to do with business boy than Lai. As I have mentioned before, the tone of their latest request stinks of legal terminology.

Other than continue to voice our discontent I think we have to let nature takes its course. Never been a fan of boycotts personally, and I think in this case it will not influence Lai anyway. Given the shape we are likely to be in next year and our potential further demise into L1, we don't need to consider staying away, Lai will have inadvertently done that for us with his catastrophic mismanagement of our once great club. 

[SmethDan]

I think I'll have to find a way of explaining myself better.

I know he doesn't give a flying fart, but S4A & A4A campaigns are now gathering momentum.
If he sees WBA as a continuing project, then it would be in his interests to open a dialogue with them.
The fact that he has chosen not to, suggests to me that he doen't see it as a continuing project.

Not really John but thank you for taking the time. Showers permitting I think I'll make the most of the sun coming out and cut the grass later this afternoon. It grows very quickly this time of year providing me with an ongoing project of my own. With that in mind I'll leave you to ponder what's in Lai's best interests. Toodle pip.

[Nickwba1]

I've got some sympathy with this opinion, I also thought that the letter from S4A had a confrontational tone.

On the other hand, I can understand their frustrations after banging on a closed door for years.

And that goes back to JP’s time too when I was a shareholder. Moving AGM to London, and very little in the way of engagement. It’s just got a whole lot worse now though it seems.

[gazberg]

Ken has officially refused to meet with Action for Albion according to their twitter

[ex coseley kid]

Ken has officially refused to meet with Action for Albion according to their twitter

These bozos are going to bury us aren't they?

[baggiejohn]

These bozos are going to bury us aren't they?

Didn't the statement say A4A still have a dialogue with the Football Club Board?

If I were Ron Gourlay, I wouldn't be happy if a fan group was able to by-pass me to my boss.

[ex coseley kid]

Didn't the statement say A4A still have a dialogue with the Football Club Board?

If I were Ron Gourlay, I wouldn't be happy if a fan group was able to by-pass me to my boss.

Agreed, but we most certainly are not Ron.

[Baggies]

Didn't the statement say A4A still have a dialogue with the Football Club Board?

If I were Ron Gourlay, I wouldn't be happy if a fan group was able to by-pass me to my boss.

Gourlay is the Head of the board isn't he? He is the one they speak of from what I can see.

[tuamigos]

Gourlay is the Head of the board isn't he? He is the one they speak of from what I can see.

Judging by the statement below (taken from the last Assembly meeting) he has about as much influence with the Chinese ownership as I do

RG reiterated his desire to maintain open communication with the fanbase, saying he was encouraged to see a large, diverse group attending the Assembly and that he would continue to engage with all groups – including Action for Albion and Shareholders for Albion, both of whom he meets regularly. He added that he understands the frustration and protests of supporters, and wants to try and bring people together during a difficult time by being in contact with supporter groups, offering information, clarification and attempting to work out issues.

[baggiejohn]

Gourlay is the Head of the board isn't he? He is the one they speak of from what I can see.

But S4A "insisted on" a direct meeting with Ken, thus by-passing Gourlay.

[SmethDan]

But S4A "insisted on" a direct meeting with Ken, thus by-passing Gourlay.

I believe it was done with Ron Gourlay's knowledge and if so I have no reason to believe Ron Gourlay wouldn't have been present were a direct meeting agreed to.

As he's the CEO I can't really see how he wouldn't have been involved unless Ken were to suggest he stayed away of course, in which case I couldn't envisage Ken retaining his services.

[baggie82]

My only criticism of the S4A letter was it is asked lots of questions that could never be answered, demanding the club effectively open up their books and disclose confidential contracts. That all was very naive and made the rebuttal of the letter easier than had the questions stayed within realistic tramlines. Although I suspect the club would have ignored the letter regardless.

[baggiejohn]

My only criticism of the S4A letter was it is asked lots of questions that could never be answered, demanding the club effectively open up their books and disclose confidential contracts. That all was very naive and made the rebuttal of the letter easier than had the questions stayed within realistic tramlines. Although I suspect the club would have ignored the letter regardless.

This is not about the S4A letter, Ken refused a face to face meeting with A4A.

[overseas baggie]

My only criticism of the S4A letter was it is asked lots of questions that could never be answered, demanding the club effectively open up their books and disclose confidential contracts. That all was very naive and made the rebuttal of the letter easier than had the questions stayed within realistic tramlines. Although I suspect the club would have ignored the letter regardless.

Minority shareholders have a legal right to ask questions.  They have invested into the company and so have legal rights. 

[baggie82]

Minority shareholders have a legal right to ask questions.  They have invested into the company and so have legal rights.

Strawman response. My point was not that they should not be asking questions, what I said was that their questions exceeded the scope of what they were entitled to know and went into areas that no company could ever deal with, even one well run; which made the club's decision to effectively throw the letter in the bin easier than it should have been. Albeit, I would not have expected the club to have cooperated regardless, as Lai and Ken have obviously decided to ignore all questions put to them and do as they please; one more reason why I can't get my head around fans thinking that ousting Gourlay and leaving those two alone on the board would amount to a positive step. I doubt we will ever see Lai at the Hawthorns again, and I fully expect he will continue to use whatever revenue we generated to mitigate the loss and debt that he and his other consortium investors are holding.

[BalisPen]

I think that this makes clear how little the folk at Yunyi Guokai investments are bothered about the opinions of a faraway rabble holding placards and shouting obscenities at them.  We might have done better to engage constructively and explain to them how their lead investor Mr Lai has been sold a pup and they would do better to persuade him to sell up before their investment goes completely south.

There is also the matter of potential legal proceedings over unpaid loans that might go to the courts and bring some untoward publicity that they really might care to avoid.

I agree, the protests must be stopped immediately and we must engage with "them" more constructively to tell "them" that their investment is not doing very well.

They wouldn't know that already, of that I am sure. So you provide me with name and address of who to "engage" with in China and I'll write to "them" telling "them" of the bad news of our relegations and that we aren't in the Premier league anymore, and sadly their £200m investment wasn't a wise one and they should sell up and go.

I'm sure that will do it.

[overseas baggie]

Strawman response. My point was not that they should not be asking questions, what I said was that their questions exceeded the scope of what they were entitled to know and went into areas that no company could ever deal with, even one well run; which made the club's decision to effectively throw the letter in the bin easier than it should have been. Albeit, I would not have expected the club to have cooperated regardless, as Lai and Ken have obviously decided to ignore all questions put to them and do as they please; one more reason why I can't get my head around fans thinking that ousting Gourlay and leaving those two alone on the board would amount to a positive step. I doubt we will ever see Lai at the Hawthorns again, and I fully expect he will continue to use whatever revenue we generated to mitigate the loss and debt that he and his other consortium investors are holding.

That is correct re some of the questions, but by no means all of them.  However it is a principal of company law that the board owed a fiduciary duty to ALL shareholders and it is possible for a board to answer questions privately.  The behaviour of the Group board in refusing to answer, and moreover refusing to hold an AGM (the correct forum for putting questions to the board) is Group’s undoing.   

Very simply, if you don’t want to buy a company with minority shareholders then either don’t buy the company, or buy out the shareholders.  They are the only ways to get around the rights of minority shareholders.

[NJS]

I agree, the protests must be stopped immediately and we must engage with "them" more constructively to tell "them" that their investment is not doing very well.

They wouldn't know that already, of that I am sure. So you provide me with name and address of who to "engage" with in China and I'll write to "them" telling "them" of the bad news of our relegations and that we aren't in the Premier league anymore, and sadly their £200m investment wasn't a wise one and they should sell up and go.

I'm sure that will do it.

This sort of dialogue unfortunately can't come from you or indeed me.  The minority shareholders are those who are entitled to ask at least some questions or open up a correspondence with Yunyi Guokai.

[SmethDan]

That is correct re some of the questions, but by no means all of them.  However it is a principal of company law that the board owed a fiduciary duty to ALL shareholders and it is possible for a board to answer questions privately.  The behaviour of the Group board in refusing to answer, and moreover refusing to hold an AGM (the correct forum for putting questions to the board) is Group’s undoing.   

Very simply, if you don’t want to buy a company with minority shareholders then either don’t buy the company, or buy out the shareholders.  They are the only ways to get around the rights of minority shareholders.

And herein lies part of the problem. A member of S4A has previous for publishing correspondence with the club online when the club requested that correspondence remained private.

S4A and AforA are trying their hardest to increase transparency. But it's my belief that despite their best intentions at the time, whomever posted that information online played straight into the club's hands re communications.

[robnewbold]

Keep protesting, stopping will be seen as a sign of weakness and lack of determination. The situation is very very serious, the time to do nothing has passed. Take some lessons from the morons at Just Stop Oil and Just Stop Lai.

[SmethDan]

Don't fancy chaining myself to the gates or super gluing my hands to my part of the Baggies Brick Road in all honesty. And I'm definitely not sitting in front of the entrance to the training ground like they did at the fuel distribution centre. Mind you the sun's out so I could always take a bag of cans and top up the freckles at the same time  .

[gazberg]

Lepkowski just posted the below on Facebook

"I'm hearing Xu Ke has been given until 4pm on 6/6/23 to respond to the recent S4A questions. Failure to do so may see this particular issue escalated down more formal (legal) pathways."