Takeover bid tested club rules

The fans group which owns Stirling Albion said it was legally unable to accept the offer from a consortium bidding to take over the club.

Stirling Albion Supporters Trust would have breached its own constitution if members gave the green light to the proposal from businessmen John Neill and Colin Rowley, lawyers concluded.

Former professional footballer Mr Neill and Mr Rowley, managing director of Stirling firm Dron and Dickson, offered to lend £600,000 to the fan-own club in return for control.

But they withdrew the bid last month, angry that it had not been put to a vote. They claim those who opposed the offer would seek to destabilise the club even if it was accepted.

However, it has emerged that the consortium pulled the plug shortly after being told by the supporters trust that, following legal advice, they could not put the offer to the vote.

In a statement of almost 1400 words the trust explained to members it was told by lawyers it would not have been competent to sign any contract accepting the offer in its current form.

Outlining the reasons, the statement says:“Trust rules state that the club must be run in the interests of the community and if it does that through a subsidiary company then that subsidiary company must be within control of the trust.

“The offer from the consortium proposed the consortium would control the board of the club so that would break our rules.

“Trust rules also state that the ‘objects’of the club and trust must be consistent with each other and lawyers felt this may not be the case after the investment as there was doubt about whether the club would be run for the benefit of the community if investors stood to gain financially from their investment.

“Trust rules also state that the business of the trust must be conducted for the benefit of the community and not for the profit of its members.

“Furthermore, any profits that are made must not be distributed directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever to members but must be held in reserve or spent to further the society’s objects. Profit-sharing, should the value of the club increase, threw this into doubt.”

Efforts are now being made to “repair some of the damaged professional relationships”which, according to the statement, have arisen due to“unfortunate exchanges”between the old trust board and the club board.

Trust board members are proposing a moratorium on any fresh investment in the club until problems associated with the trust’s rules and constitution are ironed out and the constitution converted to“plain English”.

Looking back on the last few months, the trust admitted feelings have run high, adding:“Individuals who give up enormous amounts of their time to try to make our club a success have been subjected to completely unwarranted external pressure that often borders on the unsavoury.

“Threats and abuse will not help us deliver our collective aim of building a team that we can all be proud of.

“As a board we will not tolerate behaviour that brings our organisation or our club into disrepute.”