- This topic has 23 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I note Kevin’s post last night regarding directorship and paying for other shares. Where did that come from? I knew about the notion of directorships and I knew of a touted £5K figure. I was entirely unaware of the rest.
I was also under the impression that this was to be discussed, not that a decision had been reached, nor had I any knowledge that this was to be publically aired at this time.
I was also blissfully unaware that John wanted involved at director level. What’s that all about and why do I not know about it?
Why?
You may get the impression that I’m not happy about it and you’d be feckin’ right, I’m not.
Whilst there’s loads of enthusiasm around this idea from us all we need to chill out a bit on what information we pass out into the public domain. So I’d politely ask that everyone collude before issuing any statements and that we are all informed of any progress in any area so that there is no confusion.
I am also a bit at a loss as to why we need all this investment into an infrastructure which, for now, is not required. The whole point of ACH is to negate the need for a typical network infrastructure and that’s not even proven yet.
My take was to present the idea to people in September at the Saturday meet and then to go public with the idea, giving us time to build the interested parties and agents and to prove ACH before going public. This with a view to going live Dec/Jan time, again allowing time to get things in place.
My fear is that many will look now and think that they have to pay to play and that was never the intention from the get-go. It is not what has been mooted thus far to the guys and could be construed as either us trying to profit from it off the bat or as us creating some sort of elitist club. Worse still it looks like a reversal on what was promised.
This is not the impression that I want to project.
K.
Re: Concerns
Just to put the record straight, after the meeting with the accountant John said he wanted in and would invest £5K to be the marketing Director. I did tell you this in the ISe office minutes after the accountant had gone.
Granted we’ve done loads since then, but you did know.
I’ll answer the rest later
Kevin
Re: Concerns
Sorry Kenneth, but you read the post with more knowledge than most, by that I mean we have spoken of what the blue print concerns, therefore you read into the post what is not there.
Nowhere does it give the impression of broken promises, pay to play ect, taken in context the structures of the paragraphs are easily followed and does not contradict anything previously said.
As far as investment into infrastructure, well, this time there will be no investment from UK Whitegoods to get the ball rolling. We will have company start up fees, accountant fees, computer requirements, ACH lease payments ect ect to make. ACH does save on administration for the troops but still needs to be administrated by the new company.
of course there is the question of getting work for the system to operate, that will require everything in place before we take on work, agents to see, to vet, to sign up. It can not be done remotely. it has to be funded somehow, that all incurs cost. If you were to be a director of this company you’d want a say in how its formed, thats what the blueprint is about, it’s the carrot to entice those who want to invest as a director.
Think about it, we 4 (5) can’t do it all. We will need assistance, we will need representatives nearer Cornwall and Kent than we are, although they don’t have to be directors.
Re read the post, it asks for those interested to reply, it makes no promises, presents few facts, revealing nothing other than “are you interested”
So the whole idea is just that, at the moment, you know already that the plan was to attract investors into the project, you also know that when the company is formed that all directors, if they are to be share holders, must buy their shares and the company takes those funds in exchange.
About you being unhappy, well no probs there with me, if you want to run the whole show, you can. If you are unhappy about the way I’ve done things up to now, I’ll gladly let you do it, my pleasure. Let me know.
KevinRe: Concerns
I do not recall the conversation at all about John. I only recall John having fears about admin logistics, which we addressed.
Previously I have written that our intention was to give away shares for free, which it was and now it looks as if we are reneging on that by asking for investment. By inference it looks to asking people to pay to be a member. Regardless of how I slice it or how many times I read it that’s what it says.
There is no “(3) No investment, no dividend” or “even if you don’t chip in you still can get work” visible to my eyes. People will assume, the mother of all f*ck ups, but still they will do it.
But always the intent was to operate this as a co-operative, now that has been fundamentaly changed by you without my knowledge and that’s the bit I’m a tad p1ssed about.
I actually think that this is the wrong way to approach this and I also think it flies in the face of what we set out to achieve. The goal was to make our repair companies better and more profitable, now it appears to me that we want to turn the network into much the same thing as is already there, a money making enterprise. In fact, the structure that your using as a blueprint has already been used by a company you won’t know called Mainland Services in the 80’s, which failed, and then by NESN although that got changed and twisted along the ways. But that’s the nature of a company that has voting rights, the few steer the ship for the few.
Irrespective of that being the initial intent or what is meant, that is what can happen.
I’m not really having a go at you for doing it persay or the content so much, it’s the fact that things have been altered and publicised without my knowledge. I see what you’re trying to do but I do think that the path chosen is a dangerous one, too easily misconstrued and too much can be read into it. If I misread it or read it that way, who else did?
There is no need for any setup costs of any size. ACH is on the shelf anyway and, with no work flowing through it, it has no cost attached. Remember that the calls are paid for on a per-transaction basis so when you say you lease the system from UKW all that Network actually pays for is any calls logged to the system other than a basic license fee which is pretty minimal. And it so happens I know a nice company that will give us an indefinite trial period of it too.
I see little point in incurring costs to the company where there need be none and for no reason other than the kudos of doing it.
So, what do we actually need to kick off then?
A company registration, a phoneline, a PC and some headed paper? Accountancy fees should be absolutely minimal as there is no turnover to begin with, that will grow as the business does.
Is there any point in spending money on anything else?
Why do we need to go around vetting people that we have already seen, met or do business with at present? Especially any of the people selling ISE. Seems a bit of a waste to me that does. It may well come in time, but I do not believe that we have to re-do all that we’ve already done.
I’m just not so sure on this whole director thing, the more I think on it the more I don’t like it. Too many complications. It makes a simple thing far to complex at this stage IMO and it’s not the way I envisaged us doing this.
I am not unhappy at what you’re up to, I see what you’re doing but I do think that maybe you should have shared it with the rest of us before you battered ahead. As you often remind me, it’s not a one-man show. Which also goes to your last paragraph, this is a team effort. You may not like my opinion or agree, but you’re gonna get it anyway. Kinda what you do to me. 😉
I think a lot, maybe too much, about things and slowly plan things way in advance of where we’re at now and try to forsee the pitfalls. I see many in this blueprint, a great many. I consider it to be too risky on several levels for a legion of reasons.
Where this my choice alone, here’s what I’d do…
I’d have either the 4/5 of us or, better still from a purely political standpoint, UKW as 51{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} owner/s.
I’d take the other 49{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} and give it away for a nominal sum to a network co-operative that was a properly formed co-operative.
All goals accomplished bar we would have no investment, but I just had an idea there tapping. We could sell the other 49{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} to a co-op for, say, £50K, how they achieve that internally is up to them, but that may create some in-fighting if it wasn’t handled correctly but I could sort that out.
That way you have two companies indemnified from one another and much of the cost burden is removed from us on running and administering the co-op part. It plays well politically as it has massive sway over the network whilst we retain overall business control, although they can kill us at any time by striking, but then you’d run that risk anyway irrespective of the device used. But the goal of making people feel a part of the thing is achieved.
Also, by having only one customer we reduce our accountancy massively.
I do no think that the classic company structure will work here at all, I cannot think of a model which proves me wrong. And, as I said, the more I think on it the less I like it.
I believe that we have to be smarter and fresher than this.
K.
Re: Concerns
No probs then, heres the blue print written so far, form the network as you wish.
I’ll email you the provisional agents list shortley.
UKWhitegoods Network
A Company Blueprint.
Shares
The company should have 3 classes of shares in the following denominations:1) Class A, 500000 shares
2) Class B, 500000 shares
3) Class C, 200000 sharesClass A shares
Available to Board members, these are full voting and dividend shares, only available to purchase in blocks of 5,000 shares.Class B shares
Intended for investors only, these are none voting but with full dividend value, issued as and when required, in blocks of 250 shares with no maximum investment. These will be an ideal vehicle for multi director businesses that are restricted to one seat on the board of the company, being as equally priced as the A shares.Class C shares
Only for allocation to each individual skill level agency, these shares are dividend only, of nominal value, so not to contravene IR rules.Each of the following 4 skill sets are treated as separate networks, each with the same maximum share allocation, which is 50,000 per skill set.
a) Gas cooking
b) Laundry including dishwashing,
c) Electric cooking including hoods,
d) System refrigerationAgents who are assigned a postcode area based upon their skill set will automatically be allocated an equal share of the shares held by that skill set. Agents who are multi skilled therefore are eligible to be assigned areas in more than one skill set.
At no time will the C shares be owned by the agent, they remain the company’s property and move with the agency, not the agent. All dividends accrued by the C shares will be paid to the holder of the agency at the time of the dividend payout. It can also be seen that skill sets with fewer agents will reward the area agency with proportionally more shares than larger agents lists, for example laundry.It should be noted that the above share allocations are 2 to 1 in favour of the agents as far as dividends are concerned, another selling point.
Board Members
The following positions are required:
1) Managing Director
2) Project & Marketing Director
3) Network Director and Product Technical
4) Spares and Distribution Director
5) Company Secretary
With the exception of the Project and Marketing director, all directors will have a day to day responsibility in the running of the network. The Project and Marketing director will deputise for the MD as and when required as well as having primary responsibility for client liaison and support. .
Director titles roughly explain the responsibilities of the job.To increase the experience and credibility there can be further board members as and when required.
Other than reasonable and normal expenses it is expected that Directors will not receive a salary until such times as the company is making profit. Salaries for directors will be consummate for the responsibilities and time required to carry out those responsibilities.
It is intended that each director has exactly the same share holding and voting rights.
Negotiation teams can be formed in accordance with responsibilities and the nature of the enquiry, with full discussion within the board.UK Areas
The country has to be divided into 10 regions, an example is proposed:
1) Scotland
2) Wales
3) North East
4) North West
5) The Roses
6) East Midlands and Anglia
7) West Midlands
8) London
9) Kent and the South Coast
10) West CountryFull details are available on the attached Map point (UKW AREAS) with postcodes available.
It may be required to have primary agents within each of the ten areas to assist in the smooth operation of customer care, installations ect. These agents could be specially selected and rewarded with an enhanced call rate, for example.
Agents and Skills
Running four separate networks allows the introduction of equality and fairness across the selection of agents. For the 1st time the smallest agent can be a contender for a single skill set agency. If the network is to introduce speed of service as a requirement, then small is beautiful.
ACH
ACH is Advanced Call Handling, a system to be leased from UKWhitegoods, which comes with IT hard and software support.
The system is capable of multiple agencies, multiple clients call handling and will be upgraded to include instant reporting and parts look up.Office requirements
Head office and call centre can be handled from Kilmarnock, accounts will require relocation (?), possibly situated in South Yorkshire and contracted out to UKW accounts dept.
Other points
Many of the prospective agents/ directors and investors have existing infra structure that we should consider carefully, the potential advantages of increasing the board to 10 directors have to be discussed. If we are to have more directors, the company needs forming with all on board at that time, easing the logistics and admin with Companies House. The object of this blueprint is to formulate an attractive package to interest those prospective investors/directors.
Spares and distribution
An unknown at the moment, but plans should be made for the scenario of small manufacturers who require this as part of a contract.
Kevin
Re: Concerns
I have the list thus far you sent.
Okay, I need to explain where I’m coming from here and, as usual, we’ll just thrash the sh1t out it till we get it right. Although there’s another two on here that are opinionated bastards too. 😆
Okay, so Class A becomes the ruling lords? If you don’t have the dosh, you can’t join the party. Is this correct?
The way I see it, suppose Penguin wants in. If he doesn’t have the cash then tough sh1t, he’s no chance. On the other hand, Phil Dill does have the cash and can, so therefore he buys a directorship and insists that P’s area is his and won’t budge. Who wins?
But semantics aside, irrespective of the consequences or crap that goes on, ill will is there and will prevail.
Class B, so those with more money to invest can gain a greater share of the profit, which is obviously going to be detrimental to those that hold class C shares. Why do I get the feeling that these are only there as an answer to the conversations with MDM?
Aside from which there’s no maximum, how can that be?
Class C, title says it all. It’s for the paupers that cannot afford to invest only and they get the scraps from the table after all the others have had their fill.
How can there b e a maximum of 50K shares for each skillset when the alloted class C shares totals only 20K?
It appears to me to be a case of, to paraphrase Orwell, “all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others”. This is further exemplified by higher payments to promary agents, again simply appears to be a case of the select few that have the means to be in a position to gain further.
To my mind this is not what we wanted to achieve.
Most of the rest I have no truck with, but the fundemental structure I obviously do. I am no socialist, far from it, quite the polar reverse actually, but I know my audience and I know that if you want an undying loyalty and commitment from the guys that this will not achieve that.
But to cap it on the proposed structure, I can’t defend it in open forums. It is not possible to defend the indefensible and I will not attempt to do so as I don’t believe in it. There is no defense to this strategy, merely excuses as to why it was done this way, like we needed the money etc. Where I a barrister and were this a legal case I’d walk away on moral grounds. In short, if I can rip it apart in 30 seconds others can too, some may merely take a little longer or have the path laid out for them to join in the assasiniation of the idea.
ACH will take time to mature, it may take a couple of years to fully realise its potential. A black box solution is easily accomodated.
I do think that the idea, in our heads, of an admin centre for this is a good idea and will probably be required in time. Of course that’s when the costs kick in, but for the moment I do believe that we can deal with this within our own current structure. We may perhaps need a body to deal with admin six months down the road, but not from the offset.
Expanding the directorship will only be looked upon as favouritism yet again I’m afraid. Human nature, not much you can do about it.
Spares. Okay, that’s another discussion for another day. My primary goal there is to increase retail sales for UKW, where the margin lies, before embarking on any distribution which is costly in time terms and low margin. Small contracts requiring centralised distribution is not an issue, we knew when we signed up that was on the cards and that’s do-able. However there is a cost attached to it.
Sorry, but I’m sure you’d rather have me rip into the plan here than some twat do it in an open forum and it’s the only way that we’ll get it right, even if it is a painful process.
K.
Re: Concerns
I don’t care, you get on with it.
whether you rip or not you completely miss the point….its a starting point, nothing else.
Have fun
KevinRe: Concerns
To save fingers (and keyboards ;)) how about a Skype conference call tommorow night after 9 pm ?
Sean brought that up when he was here last week and probably something we should do more often 🙂
Dave.
Re: Concerns
kheath wrote:whether you rip or not you completely miss the point….its a starting point, nothing else.
Whoooah ! (I didn’t see that before I posted above) 😉
If it’s a starting point it shouldn’t have been posted in the forums IMO, even though it was the subs it’s obviously created some “ripples”
Let’s get our heads together and sort it, I’m a bit in the dark over a lot of this 🙂
Dave.
Re: Concerns
kheath wrote:I don’t care, you get on with it.
whether you rip or not you completely miss the point….its a starting point, nothing else.
I didn’t miss the point at all. I am asking for a discussion on the best way forward and I’ve put across my point of view, is that not what you want me to do, or am I to simply capitulate to whatever?
You say you don’t care, really? I don’t believe that for a minute. I think you’re p1ssed off that I’ve had a pop at the plan and that’s just fine as both of us are thick-skinned enough to take a bit of stick.
But you have dismissed what I’ve written totally without any explanation, is this because I’m right or because you can’t be ar$ed to defend the strategy?
Would you rather defend it here or in open forum?
I’m asking questions of your blueprint and not getting any answers, is this what you intend to do in public? I only want to know what the grisly details are and I want it where we can all see it and have time to contemplate the implications of such important decisions.
This is my thought process people, I take it apart from the inside out, look at it from every angle I can think on and then reconstruct it, whatever the idea is. Then project the possible politics and outcomes based on the knowledge I have at the time to an eventual conclusion. Welcome to my world.
I don’t want you to stop, I don’t want any of you to stop challenging me with ideas and notions. Ever.
And here’s where if your’e squeamish you shouldn’t read on…
You guys have no idea how much I respect your ideas and thoughts on every single subject, they are considered in almost everything I do and always have been. I also cannot help myself from analysing them, tearing up those that I think are of little or no use and, on occasion, telling you bluntly what I think. On other occasions I honestly don’t, I just consider and do what I can with it.
This is an occasion where you, Kevin, are involved and doing something so critical and important to the future of not only the new network, although that is not the primary goal here if you missed the memo, but to UKW and to ISE it’s staggering. It has to be right. There will be no second chance at this, we have one shot, if we fook it up we’re in the sh1t on more than just a network.
But you have to realise that a network, whilst it feeds the other businesses and strategies, it is just so politically powerful within the industry it’s almost beyond comprehension. It is a vital componenent of where we go and how we do over the next ten years at least. So your work now forms the basis of more than just the network project, by a long, long way.
Now, not to put too fine a point on it as I know you like it straight up, if you seriously want to see ISE become a major brand in the UK (for now) and UKW to continue to succeed I need you to care. I need you to care about the troops and get on with championing their cause. I need you to do what you’re good at, getting results.
I need Sean to back that up and support what we do, he props up the operation in more ways than we often appreciate. Again, in his area, he gets results.
Same with Dave, he just gets on with it and gets the job done. He gets all the praise from punters though and that’s not fair! 😆
It’s a tad sentimental I know, but we operate as a team and that’s the point. We all do different things well. It’s no accident that you guys are directors of UKW, I chose you for a reason.
Don’t get dis-heartened if I have a pop, it is not personal at all. I just know, when I do have a go, that you can do better. So I challenge your thoughts, much as I endevour to challenge normality every single day as if people aren’t happy then the system isn’t working. So change the system.
And that is exactly the angle I’m going at the network from, the system isn’t working! None of the systems employed thus far, not one of the business models has worked. To copy one simply seems to me to be a waste of the opportunity, but more than that it’s a waste of our talents. If we are merely to do what’s been done before then what’s the point of doing it? We’ve always broken new ground and by doing so we’ve had a fair degree of success, why change now?
K.
Re: Concerns
Wrong,
you have a pop when you don’t know the facts, you’re annoyed because you’re not in the info loop, well if you can be annoyed so can I. At you for considering yourself to be the only one allowed to develop anything and everything. At your suggestion that UKW owns 51{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the new company, giving you legal entity to 70{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of that holding, just as you have done with ISE.Well not this time for me, you can take this idea forward from here, count me out of the planning and the running of this new venture, I’ll just take my chance on an agency, thanks.
KevinRe: Concerns
I have a pop based on the facts I have, if I’m not given all the facts what do you expect?
So what do you want me to do, sign over UKW to your control? Sign over all the ideas and work I’ve put in to get to it where it is?
Simple fact, without the work we’ve all done thus far under the UKW banner none of this would be possible at all. Period.
I want to be in the loop because I have to be. The very reasons that I voiced concerns on this issue is the reason why, reasons and comment which you still have not addressed. So far as I can see all you’ve done is thrown your teddies out the pram because I deconstructed the idea and have told you what many people will likely think of it.
As for the suggestion of UKW, there was actually two there, one you’ve chosen to ignore, but yes the UKW option is preferable for several reasons and not the one you state. It allows transfer of monies, loans and other flexibility that we would not otherwise have.
I’m sorry Kev, but, to be blunt, to me it seems that you are considering a controlling interest and money more then the goal from what you’ve written and that comes across with your obvious bitterness at ISE as well. All I can see coming across at the moment is greed and some sort of requirement for power.
And, in fact, where I to sign away my shares in ISE, which I was perfectly willing to do, UKW’s 51{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} as things stand would not have given me personal control over ISE as I could have been outvoted by you three plus another if there were another. I’m not stupid and I can can count, even percentages. Currently, given this, I’m re-evaluating the wisdom in doing that.
Whether that’s the impression you wanted to give or not I’m not sure, but that’s what I’m getting.
So, where do we go from here?
If you’re not going to do the network that’s fine. Either I find someone to replace you on the project or I kill it, probably the latter as I do not have time for it right now.
K.
Re: Concerns
WOHA TIME OUT !
Irespective of how the network ideas pan out we all need to fully discuss, digest, debate, deliberate and decide on the best campain plan for any major project.
The biggest single problem that we have at the moment is that we are always trying to deliver new ideas and projects for the troops at the speed of light.Correct me if i’m wrong but I was under the impression that Dave and I had some input into the decision making process too. We need to remember that one of our golden rules right from the begining was the controlled and strategically timed release of any new projects. We have in truth been overwhelmed by people wanting to engage in projects with us and I fully understand that we have to investigate all oppurtunities but out of basic civility should we not at the very least set the presedent that nothing gets released to anyone before it has been fully discussed between all four of us.
We cannot have a situation where subscribers, moderators or anyone for that matter is advised on UKW future projects before all of the UKW directors.
I’m sure that on reflection we would all agree that our National meetings are the correct forum to release news on mutually agreed and prepaired information and projects.
I am very often sworn to secrecy over a certain proposal or project only to hear it come back at me from one of the subscribers, this has to stop.
With regards the pro’s and con’s of how we set up the network we all need to get our heads together I can genuinley see both sides of the argument for the blue print of how to put it together.
Correct me if i’m wrong but basically Ken wants to see it more of a co-operative with UKW owning a 51{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} stake for which UKW provide the I.T. communication infrastructure in the form of ACH. With the remaining 49{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} shared out between the members who provide funds and staff to oversee and run the day to day admistration and any required management of the network. Where UKW merely bill for transmittion of information
Where as Kev wants to see it set up on a more traditional corporate basis of sharehloders, investors, & shareholding service partners with a variety of share voting entitlements. with a Board of 10 or more directors ( 5 of which will be held by UKW directors) to oversee their respective service areas. This option would require a more hands on, administered system. Again UKW would provide the I.T. system
I know that both these descriptions may be viewed as an over simplification but we have to start somewhere. We need to either have a Skype conference or an actual pysical meeting to bounce the options around and come up with the solution with out dummies being spat out all over the place.
Sean
Re: Concerns
Well, I’m stunned at you calling me greedy, bitter and having a requirement for power.
Thats about as far away from my personality as you could possibly get.
How you drag UKW into this I don’t know, why you mention handing things over is beyond me.
As for being bitter about the ISE shares, nope, wrong again. You made a mistake, albiet unwittingly, and we have already put the solution in place, as you are aware of. End of that one.
Now, it staill stands that no one outside of you 3 or John has seen anything, no one has been promised anything, nothing has been decided with or without consultation with anyone else. There has been one post which you did not like, my apologies for the post, but the harm it has done is all in your head.
I am not going to take part in the new venture, you choose to do with it what you like. I will now consider over the weekend my position within ISE, as if you really think of me as Greedy, bitter and power crazed, I’m not sure if I can remain part of the set up.
I’ll let you know on that one on Monday after I talk to Bridie over the weekend.
Kevin
Re: Concerns
That’s the power of the written word Kev…
At you for considering yourself to be the only one allowed to develop anything and everything. At your suggestion that UKW owns 51{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the new company, giving you legal entity to 70{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of that holding, just as you have done with ISE.
What you write, whether the intended meaning is different or not, is what you write. the last sentence illuminates that you are not happy with the ISE arrangements.
The point being and, the one I’ve been trying to make since the start of this thread, is that the impression that you think you’re giving and the impression people are getting are often entirely different. I read your post and the impression was, right, this is what we’ve decided to do as it was too exact to imply otherwise.
But since this is now opened up we may as well explore it…
On top of what you’ve voiced on several occasions, or inferred, regarding your displeasure at the route chosen for the shares in ISE. A route that was chosen in consultation with legal council to advise the best way forward.
In fact if you recall the meeting with John and the accountant the other day you openly mentioned that you wanted to meet again in six months or so and re-distribute the shares again. I believe the comment was to “balance it out”. You’ve always made it perfectly clear to me that you wanted an even split. Over that day you also expressed the fact that you would like to see the shares in UKW protected in some way in case anything ever happened to me.
However, having UKW as the parent makes a hell of a lot of sense on many levels from both business and credibility angles.
Now I would like you to explain to me what was wrong with the way chosen if you don’t mind. I’d like you to tell me what the problem is.
I’d like to know why there is such a concern over shares as I do not understand it.
If you tell me there’s no problem then there’s no problem and I’d be happy with that. But if there is a problem I’d rather get it dealt with now and resolved once and for all.
Without explanation I am forced to hypothisise, it’s all I can do. And all the information I have to go on is your displeasure, or seeming displeasure, at the spares split thus far on UKW and ISE.
I recently increased the shareholdings in UKW to all of you. No cost. No commitment other than that already shown. No strings.
Was that not enough? Tell me what it is you want?
From June 15th…
kheath wrote:
We need to start another company to run the network, one that has us as the major share holders (ie 51{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}) or even (49{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}).However we do it, if the company is ever “bought out” it does not effect UKW.
As well as protecting our own investment, we have also to introduce the cooperative idea of giving agents a stack in the network.
Just my thought here is that it needs thinking through, before we need to call a meeting of interested parties to thrash out the details.
Just have thoughts on the whole project….. as the network takes shape we need to have a script.
By June 17th the idea had switched to shareholders. Why?
Why wasn’t it discussed as you said?
Like I said, what you write is what you write. On this I’ve seen a total u-turn in a matter of days and then you going at it single-mindedly with only one option available with no discussion or consultation with your fellow directors. Why?
Then, when the idea is criticised you withdraw, don’t answer the questions raised and tell us that you no longer want any part of it. Why?
Confused, you bet your ass I am.
Why have you withdrawn at the fact that the idea is being debated? Why is there such resistance to an open discussion on it? Why will you not engage and answer the points raised, which you have yet to do? Why is there such resistance to the idea of UKW owning the leading shareholding?
Can you see why I’m confused? I just don’t understand all these things and you’re not offering me any answers to my questions.
So I have to make assumptions and that’s where the last post came from, but at least I got a response. The post was based on what I’ve seen, heard and read over the past few months but I do tend to over-analyse things. But all I’ve done here is join the dots as I see them and I certainly never considered you as described, but the facts tend to insinuate otherwise.
What I’d like to know is the reason/s behind all these things and I’ve asked you as straight as I can to provide the answers. I’m asking that you explain it to me/us so that we can understand it and where you’re coming from here.
———————————————————————
Now to explain where I’m coming from here.
UKW has become a brand and that brand has values in the userbase as it stands as well as within the trade, at least to a degree. To move away from those core values would be a grevious error and would erode the credibility of UKW. I can’t bring myself to do that, to sell out.
If the UKW banner were not attached to ISE it would never have happened. Fact.
If UKW had not fronted the funds it would never have happened. Fact.
If the UKW name is to be attached to a network, or any other project, then IMO it has to reflect the values that we’ve always promoted. In that UKW either would have to franchise its name or be a major player in anything attached to the brand.
Were the notion of a network floated without the UKW name attached in the manner suggested then it would never get off the ground. Fact.
The only reason that people are prepared to invest into it, or in some cases even take part I expect, is because of the UKW name attached to it. And that’s fine, no problem with me there. But it has to retain the values that we’ve always held and I do not think that the plan that you’ve so obviously worked pretty hard on Kev does that. I think it’s just another company, nothing special and nothing out the ordinary.
I also see great danger in that, theoretically, several directors could “gang-up” quite easily and take control of an entity that bears the UKW name. After that it would be very easy for that name and, all we’ve worked damn hard to achieve, to be sullied.
I do not think that any of us want that to happen do we?
So yes, I am trying to protect UKW primarily but I’m also trying to protect us from ourselves. That is why I took the thing apart, just as I would any other idea and see where it leads me.
Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps I’m being too cautious. But I don’t think I am.
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.