Changes to Boards.ie Ltd. company structure

Blazer

Kuva wrote: »

You're here long enough to know reg date means nothing.

Sshhh...they might cop it

muffler

Blazer wrote: »

I’m suppose the main fear is that Boards will start locking any potentially libelous threads for fear of getting sued. It happens with the journal when it was taken over and now the same people will be over boards in complete control.

hmmm, an interesting point. Libelous and slanderous posts/threads etc have always been removed completely never mind being locked. Thats the way it has been in my time here so I cant see any change there.

But you say "potentially libelous" which is similar and in that situation it is a judgement call again by the mods of the forum where the post has been made. But mods arent trained to recognize "potentially libelous" posts other than using a bit of common sense and if in doubt then the matter is passed up the food chain for someone more qualified in that field. Of course the thread would be locked until such time as a determination has been made. Again this is standard procedure and has been the norm and I cant really see that changing in the future.

By and large there's a good team of mods here and unlike Facebook we arent given any instructions to ignore certain posts or threads. In fact its the opposite so Id consider the site being a hell of a lot better run than FB.

blackwhite

Whilst I can understand the business reasoning for the changes (and agree with the rationale), I’d have some concerns as to how this will impact the site in future.

The Journal is very obvious in pushing an editorial bias, and makes no pretences that they will push certain viewpoints and agendas and ridicule or try to ignore or silence others.

If the outgoing management cannot see why users might have a concern that journal management could take a similar approach. All it takes is carefully appointing the “right” mods over time and the tone of the site can be shifted in whatever way management want.

The journal has an unashamed bias towards certain viewpoints. Posters voicing concern that the journal management migh take the same approach here isn’t exactl a massive leap of logic - and trying to paint anyone who dares raise this as a concern as a “tinfoil hatter” is fairly nasty behaviour TBH

muffler

Im like a lot of others posting here in that Im not a big fan of change and if Im being honest Id prefer if Boards had remained the way it has been but thats show bizz baby...others perform and we get to watch but have no say in the act However given the connections between the Journal and Boards over the years I dont think we have too much to worry about going forward. So unless some clown has an axe to grind with the Journal and uses Boards for revenge then we shouldnt worry too much.

But a question for Sean if he is still around or Dev or someone in the office. Can we be told the makeup of the company wrt to directors and shareholders and percentage shares held by the various entities?

LollipopJimmy

Blazer wrote: »

It’s amazing how the posters for this are all fairly recent accounts , Max 3 years old.
But those of us with accounts over 10 years plus who have seen the changes before and the usual old chestnut “nothing will change” and experienced them on the site are dismissed.

Reg date means nothing, I was knocking around here during the whole MCD debacle which probably predates you. It's actually sad, I'm almost 20years using this site and realistically none of the changes have ever really had any impact. The only real change that I witnessed was when feedback was cleaned up, it used to be where banned users went to bitch out the mods that banned them but when the daft boys came that was changed.

KyussB

Boards already has a sketchy reputation when it comes to freedom of discussion - merging with an online newspaper, with all of the inherent Conflicts of Interest that brings, isn't likely to surprise many.

If anything, it's better that Distilled Media discard with the perception, that the various arms of its parent company are 'independent' from one another - bit more honest that way.

randylonghorn

Blazer wrote: »

But those of us with accounts over 10 years plus .... are dismissed.

I know exactly what you mean, Blazer.

*whistles innocently*

DeVore

muffler wrote: »

Im like a lot of others posting here in that Im not a big fan of change and if Im being honest Id prefer if Boards had remained the way it has been but thats show bizz baby...others perform and we get to watch but have no say in the act However given the connections between the Journal and Boards over the years I dont think we have too much to worry about going forward. So unless some clown has an axe to grind with the Journal and uses Boards for revenge then we shouldnt worry too much.

But a question for Sean if he is still around or Dev or someone in the office. Can we be told the makeup of the company wrt to directors and shareholders and percentage shares held by the various entities?

I dont actually know. I will receive about 0.6% of The Journal in shares as a result of this merger (I havent held a lot of Boards shares for a long time now...). What other people's holdings are, I'm not aware and even if I was, I think thats private to them.

Beasty

DeVore wrote: »

I dont actually know. I will receive about 0.6% of The Journal in shares as a result of this merger (I havent held a lot of Boards shares for a long time now...). What other people's holdings are, I'm not aware and even if I was, I think thats private to them.

It's all public and on the CRO website. Last Annual Return for Boards.ie was filed in November and shows everyone's shareholdings at 30 September 2017;)

Hotblack Desiato

DeVore wrote: »

I dont actually know. I will receive about 0.6% of The Journal in shares as a result of this merger

About tree fiddy.

Cloud

Dear all -

I am (quite) a bit late to the conversation but as a former director of boards.ie Ltd. from 2000 to 2018, I am fully supportive of this integration which will help ensure the future sustainability of the boards.ie community.

I haven't been a shareholder of boards.ie since 2011, but I did stay on as a director after that to continue helping with the strategic and operational decisions for boards.ie.

My lack of comment so far was solely because of Gmail hiding some of my emails from me :-)

Onwards,

John.
--

Cloud

I also wanted to say thanks to Seán for being an amazing CEO, carrying out the combined duties of leader and manager with both diligence and ease.

It has been my pleasure to serve as a non-executive director under Seán as CEO - he always did things true to the values of boards.ie and you knew those things would be 'done right'.

Thank you Seán.

John.
--

DeVore

I certainly second this post from Cloud.

Amalgam

Some people that are members of boards.ie do their best not to ever visit thejournal.ie..

Oh dear.

Beasty

Amalgam wrote: »

Some people that are members of boards.ie do their best not to ever visit thejournal.ie..

Oh dear.

Nothing should change on that front. There's already a link to the journal at the bottom of the page (legacy site). It's optional whether you click on it......

sexmag

Have to say the responses from the people of boards.ie seem very....corperate, i understand its a compnay but boards seems more like a place where you go meet your friends and have a chat with the barman, never seemed very business but all these response dont install confidence in this new "merger"

Beasty

sexmag wrote: »

Have to say the responses from the people of boards.ie seem very....corperate, i understand its a compnay but boards seems more like a place where you go meet your friends and have a chat with the barman, never seemed very business but all these response dont install confidence in this new "merger"

This is feedback. This is not a light-hearted discussion in AH. The CEO has responded. Some of the founders have responded. Of course when posters are demanding such feedback it is going to be provided by such individuals in a well thought out manner.