It’s getting a little bit like a soap opera at Rovers these days: each day brings a new instalment. The problem is that this isn’t just harmless entertainment but the future of our football club and the way things are going at the moment it’s not a happy ending we’ll be seeing.

Let’s look at the facts in the light of the latest episode, the Chairman’s ‘detailed’ statement (link here), which provided a good deal of character assassination but few of the answers that gasheads have been calling for since the first resignations were announced last week.

The most glaring omission amongst the spin of the statement is exactly how the remaining Board members plan to finance the money that Mike Turl was prepared to invest / loan. Ron Craig says in the statement:

“We do not understand where the purported £500,000 investment comes from, the facts are that Mike offered to invest £200,000 in share funds which we have already covered with new investors, and a further £240,000 was to be used to buy club property to be put into a property company owned by Mike and Colin Williams.

"He would not be at risk, and he expected to move everyone out and take control."

Well, first up perhaps Ron and the other directors would understand the detail of the proposal if they had seen it in full at a board meeting, but more of that later. Secondly, the quote from Craig details £440,000 in total, which isn’t too far from the £500,000 Mike has talked about. Note too that Mike was looking to invest £200,000 (the shares) immediately and then the rest to cover ongoing losses while his two-year plan was carried out. The additional £60,000 or so would presumably have been invested during this period.

The term ‘property company’ is a clear scare tactic too, evoking images of rogue directors with plans to knock down grounds and build houses or supermarkets instead. Let’s put this into context: There is a property company in place and properties were transferred into it from the club. This was a method of refinancing which allowed loans made by Mike Turl and Colin Williams to be given some security and provided the club with £300,000 from the two former directors, which effectively kept it afloat.

The club is able to re-purchase these properties (i.e. pay the loan back) at any time and there was also a clause included which stated that any profit from the future sale of the properties would go to the football club, not Mike and Colin. Incidentally, we believe that Geoff Dunford’s loans are secured against the ground itself, which is far riskier for the club. There are also remaining properties owned by the club and these could also have been refinanced to allow further loans to be made.

Crucially, there is nowhere within the statement that explains how the remaining board members are planning to find the £500,000 that Mike Turl was prepared to invest. The statement talks about £200,000 in share funds being covered by new investors – presumably Nick Higgs and A.N. Other – but what about the other £300,000? Add to that the fact that this £300,000 was dependent on Mike Turl’s plan being followed and you realise that under a different regime with a poor record of financial control it could end up being way more than this that needs to be found in reality.

The next question that remains unanswered is the way forward for the club. The statement talks about Geoff Dunford a lot but at gasheads.com we’re rather more interested in the health of the football club. Mike Turl had put together a plan to get the club to break-even point in two years, using a combination of effective financial planning, good stewardship and his investment. The statement from the board simply confirms: “that the seven-point plan that the board adopted would continue to be adhered to.” Now that’s all well and good – we have continually said on gasheads.com that we think it an excellent document – except that Mike’s new plan would have superseded it and thus steered BRFC towards much needed solid ground within two years. How exactly are the current board planning to do this?

The third question that remains unanswered is the issue of why the proposal was never discussed at a board meeting. The statement says: “Geoff has confirmed that Turl held separate meetings with various directors, and that the proposals were "plainly rejected at the outset", even before he was able to table them at a main board meeting.”

Well, forgive us for being a bit thick, but surely it was GD who held meetings with individual directors and decided to reject the proposals? As we understand it the full proposals had been seen by no-one bar Mike Turl – including Geoff Dunford – at the time they were rejected. How can something be rejected when its detail hasn’t even been heard? This does not, in any way, explain why no board meeting was held and it was this lack of democracy, let us not forget, that was the reason that Kevin Spencer resigned. Surely the Board has a duty to tell us – and the former directors - why a democratic decision was not taken?

The explanation for the rejection given is: “Mike wanted myself, Barry Bradshaw, Ron Craig and associate directors David Brain and Pete Thornell to step down and become non-executive directors attending board meetings just four times per year.” Yet gasheads.com understands that had any such proposal been put to a vote then this would not have been passed at a board meeting. The inclusion of David Brain and Pete Thornell is also a red herring: as neither are full directors they do not have the same status as the other three and do not have to be invited to board meetings or have voting rights as a result.

The fact that any proposal requiring Geoff Dunford, Ron Craig and Barry Bradshaw to become non-executive directors would have been rejected negates much of the rest of Geoff Dunford’s arguments; had the three stayed on the board then they would have retained control over their investments and, of course, had a meeting been held then they would have found this out.

Some of the further detail of the statement leaves rather a sour taste. Just days ago, Mike and Kevin were being thanked for the work they had done. Many Rovers fans, including everyone at gasheads.com, remain appreciative of the time, money and effort these two, and Colin Williams, have put in over the past few years. To hear that commitment belittled and individuals attacked is pretty unpleasant.

As stated above, Mike Turl and Colin Williams financed some £300,000 of loans which were later re-financed within the property company detailed earlier (link). Because of the nature of this re-financing, it means that Geoff can get away without mentioning it in the statement and thus talk about only £10,000 of remaining loans to Mike and Kevin (no mention of Colin at this stage in the statement, presumably because he has loans outstanding). We understand that somewhere in the region of £700,000 has been invested via shares and loans by the three former directors since they joined the board. This has, at times, been money that has paid players wages when no-one else could and, quite simply, kept Bristol Rovers alive. Surely that deserves some thanks? Especially as we believe that one of the three directors quoted in the statement has invested precisely nothing during this period.

We also understand that Colin Williams helped to purchase the Memorial Stadium via preferential shares, in the same way that other existing directors did, something which is not mentioned in the statement.

Geoff Dunford goes on to talk about the roles that Mike Turl wanted within the club: "Turl wanted to control the club with just himself as chairman, Kevin Spencer as chief executive, and Kim Stuckey as media spokesperson."

And Barry Bradshaw adds: "Mike advised me he wanted to become chairman and appoint Kevin Spencer as chief executive at a salary of £60,000 per annum in year two, which is totally out of the question.

"Once directors are paid for their time and services like this, we are on a slippery slope."

Now, we all know that Mike Turl has previously rejected the role of Chairman and has recently stated that he did not want that role. This is something which has also been stated by Kim Stuckey, someone who has always been open and totally honest in his dealings with fans. As for Kevin Spencer, well, he already has a successful business to run so why give that up to become a full time Chief Executive of Rovers for what is not, after all, a huge sum of money?

The other, glaringly obvious, point that Barry Bradshaw makes is that about directors being paid for their time and services. Is this the same Barry Bradshaw that negotiated a shirt deal with Errea and shortly afterwards became a director of Errea Sport (formerly Errea UK) and established Errea South West? There is nothing illegal in this, we stress, but surely all directors should declare business interests to both the club and, in the interests of transparency, its fans?

The final point that needs to be made is the position of Kim Stuckey, a man who has rightly earned tremendous respect amongst the fanbase. The statement seems to be a clear attempt to shut him out, presumably due to his public support for the Turl proposal last week, and as the only current (full) director not quoted we can only assume that he was not consulted about the statement. If this is the case, then it once again brings into question the nature of democracy in the BRFC Boardroom; what kind of a Board of Directors puts out a statement as a board rather than as individuals without consulting every person who sits on that Board?

In conclusion then, the statement from the board offers the exact opposite of hope. There is no plan to move forward evident, a (minimum) £300,000 deficit on what would have been on offer with the Turl proposal, a complete lack of democracy in the boardroom and seemingly no way back for those that have resigned. For the sake of Bristol Rovers, there seems to be only one course of action left, and that is the removal of Geoff Dunford, Barry Bradshaw and Ron Craig from the board and the reinstatement of Mike Turl, Kevin Spencer and Colin Williams. We call on all gasheads to be united in helping that to happen.

News Index here

News Archive here