Jump to content

Administration


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

All we are missing in all this sorry mess is Darren Ratcliffe assuring us all there is nothing to see inbetween sitting on Barry's lap in the directors box...... by the way do we still have a Trust or has it managed to become even more impotent.

To be fair all the club directors are responsible and its no defence not to have an upto date picture of a business finances.

 

Think the other fan on the board needs asking if he was/when he was updated by club

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 957
  • Created
  • Last Reply
50 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

All we are missing in all this sorry mess is Darren Ratcliffe assuring us all there is nothing to see inbetween sitting on Barry's lap in the directors box...... by the way do we still have a Trust or has it managed to become even more impotent.


If we go into administration the new owner/s will form a new company and the 3% share holding and legal entitlement to appoint a representative to the board will not be transferred

 

Hopefully any new owner/s will consider issuing a shareholding and seat on the board to a fans group, maybe PtB as that would be popular 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, underdog said:

To be fair all the club directors are responsible and its no defence not to have an upto date picture of a business finances.

Think the other fan on the board needs asking if he was/when he was updated by club

 


For me, you were the only Trust Director that genuinely tried to engaged with our supporters.

 

Pointless singling out individuals for criticism because as you say its a collective responsibility of everyone who sits round the club board table 

 

The Trust has run its course but hopefully a shareholding and a chance to have a supporter on the board will be offered by a potential new owner/s should we go into administration 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tGWB said:


For me, you were the only Trust Director that genuinely tried to engaged with our supporters.

 

Pointless singling out individuals for criticism because as you say its a collective responsibility of everyone who sits round the club board table 

 

The Trust has run its course but hopefully a shareholding and a chance to have a supporter on the board will be offered by a potential new owner/s should we go into administration 

 

I agree.

 

There doesn't need to be a shareholding to be a board member though. 

 

The new board, whoever it is, should just allow a fan representative to be on there by electing a fan representative seat as a permanent thing.  In my view it should also be a time limited role that has to rotate and can be decided at each election by fans proposing potential members.  There should also be a ban on any fan rep from entering in to any commercial agreement with the club for a period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frankies6 said:

does he know Blitz ? 

 

No idea

 

1 hour ago, Barry Bosnian said:

Rick Holden is so full of shit 😄 A great player back in the day but talks utter bollocks.

 

Seeing some of the things he's put on social media he does give off the whole never meet your heroes vibe. His book is a good read mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yarddog73 said:

All we are missing in all this sorry mess is Darren Ratcliffe assuring us all there is nothing to see inbetween sitting on Barry's lap in the directors box...... by the way do we still have a Trust or has it managed to become even more impotent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tGWB said:


If we go into administration the new owner/s will form a new company and the 3% share holding and legal entitlement to appoint a representative to the board will not be transferred

 

Hopefully any new owner/s will consider issuing a shareholding and seat on the board to a fans group, maybe PtB as that would be popular 

In my opinion, it is futile having any sort of "fan for fan's sake" on the board.

 

At present we've got 2 on the board - one via the Trust and another non-exec from applications from fans earlier this year.

 

What on Earth has having 2 fans on the board achieved for us exactly?

 

For me, one powerful and united supporters' body - completely independent of the board - achieves far more. They can be a positive and supporting force in benign times with respectful owners, whilst also being able to be (properly) adversarial in bad times or with disrespectful owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

I agree.

 

There doesn't need to be a shareholding to be a board member though. 

 

The new board, whoever it is, should just allow a fan representative to be on there by electing a fan representative seat as a permanent thing.  In my view it should also be a time limited role that has to rotate and can be decided at each election by fans proposing potential members.  There should also be a ban on any fan rep from entering in to any commercial agreement with the club for a period of time.

  
I agree with most of that but would add a shareholding in the club and a time limited seat on the board for a fans group would be my preferred option, if the new owner/s allow it 

 

Natural evolvement for PtB maybe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

In my opinion, it is futile having any sort of "fan for fan's sake" on the board.

 

At present we've got 2 on the board - one via the Trust and another non-exec from applications from fans earlier this year.

 

What on Earth has having 2 fans on the board achieved for us exactly?

 

For me, one powerful and united supporters' body - completely independent of the board - achieves far more. They can be a positive and supporting force in benign times with respectful owners, whilst also being able to be (properly) adversarial in bad times or with disrespectful owners.

 

You can have both.  The trust having a share holding was always counterproductive in my opinion, no need for it.

 

Yes, have a strong independent body, but that body can still have a voice on the board as a non exec member allowed a seat.  

 

In a properly functioning club with a properly functioning board this would be the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kowenicki said:

 

You can have both.  The trust having a share holding was always counterproductive in my opinion, no need for it.

 

Yes, have a strong independent body, but that body can still have a voice on the board as a non exec member allowed a seat.  

 

In a properly functioning club with a properly functioning board this would be the best option.

Perhaps my view is tainted by my view of Trust Oldham being an abject failure.

 

You are right, that in normal circumstances, it should be better having a non-exec fans' rep on the board.

 

We certainly agree on one thing - the shareholding has been a millstone around the Trust's neck - incredibly, none of them have been able to see this when it has been pointed out by many others (or certainly haven't admitted it if they have).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yarddog73 said:

Morning Shitpeas.

Oh wow you caught me out 🙄

 

58 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

Seeing some of the things he's put on social media he does give off the whole never meet your heroes vibe.

Absolutely, I wonder how much of what he says is actually true... he's a complete fantasist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Perhaps my view is tainted by my view of Trust Oldham being an abject failure.

 

You are right, that in normal circumstances, it should be better having a non-exec fans' rep on the board.

 

We certainly agree on one thing - the shareholding has been a millstone around the Trust's neck - incredibly, none of them have been able to see this when it has been pointed out by many others (or certainly haven't admitted it if they have).

 

If you looked back on here I've been saying it for years, as have others.  Was a poisoned chalice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

You can have both.  The trust having a share holding was always counterproductive in my opinion, no need for it.

Yes, have a strong independent body, but that body can still have a voice on the board as a non exec member allowed a seat.  

In a properly functioning club with a properly functioning board this would be the best option.

 

38 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Perhaps my view is tainted by my view of Trust Oldham being an abject failure.

You are right, that in normal circumstances, it should be better having a non-exec fans' rep on the board.

We certainly agree on one thing - the shareholding has been a millstone around the Trust's neck - incredibly, none of them have been able to see this when it has been pointed out by many others (or certainly haven't admitted it if they have).


Swayed by your arguments 

 

A strong independent body with a voice on the board would be the better option 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

And yet many supporter trusts would give blood to have what we have...


Dont you think though that the Trust was stuck between a rock and a hard place being unable to ‘protest’ at the same time as feeling the need to keep open communication lines with the club board 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tGWB said:


Dont you think though that the Trust was stuck between a rock and a hard place being unable to ‘protest’ at the same time as feeling the need to keep open communication lines with the club board 

Yes, but don't see what difference, positive or negative, the shareholding made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as appears to be the case, ALMO/Shahed/Bazza/whoever, have withheld information from The Trust and maybe Richard Bowden too, what would people have done differently to ensure that hadn't happened?

 

Or to ensure it doesn't happen again in the future?

 

I don't see how you can do anything about people like AL & MO hiding something from you if that's what they choose to do.

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Barry didn't know either.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

If, as appears to be the case, ALMO/Shahed/Bazza/whoever, have withheld information from The Trust and maybe Richard Bowden too, what would people have done differently to ensure that hadn't happened?

 

Or to ensure it doesn't happen again in the future?

 

I don't see how you can do anything about people like AL & MO hiding something from you if that's what they choose to do.

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Barry didn't know either.

 

 

 

Bearing in mind it happened under the previous owner the key for me is to make it very, very obvious that you need to know to make it extremely clear that it has to be a positive decision not to provide information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave_Og said:

 

Bearing in mind it happened under the previous owner the key for me is to make it very, very obvious that you need to know to make it extremely clear that it has to be a positive decision not to provide information.

 

And if they don't provide that information, what then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, there has been on the Trust agenda for awhile the need to re-evaluate and we made a start at the Feb meeting. Andy and Darren have both been pushing for it

 

FSA are always telling the Trust to stay the course and hang in there, even when we contemplated withdrawing Darren as a Director as a form of protest with regards to how we felt the Trust was being disrespected.

 

We have something (well until Friday) not many clubs have with the shareholding. Charlton Athletic Trust director told me how envious he was not just of the shareholding but the right to appoint a director, equal parity voting and the right to vote if the the owner did decide to cease OAFC 2004. I told him what a double edge sword it has been though.

 

There are models where Trust and clubs do work well. Grimbsy is an example where both owner and Trust rep where complimentary of each other. We all thought when we had a new owner we had a new start. We heard all the right noises, wanting to work with the Trust, leave a legacy..blah, blah blah. I just don't understand why the Trust/club relationship is as strained now as it was under Corney.

 

I can't see the Trust directors  who are left, being precious over its existence. If it has to go, then so be it. 

 

I will presume the the Trust will now be liasing with the FSA. We are entitled to some legal advice as part of our membership. I am sure the PTB will be tapping into the FSA too as part of their membership.

 

Once we know what happens on Friday, maybe all three Trust, PTB and FLG might consider getting around a table and thrashing out what resources each has and what they all can tap into.

 

I am sure it will defo be on the Trust agenda of investigating how the hell we dropped the ball with regards to the HMRC and Darren will have to answer those tough questions. Especially, as it is logged I have been asking those specifics fro several months.

 

What a bloody mess..

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...