kowenicki Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Been saying it for years... The 3% share holding is pretty much pointless, a minority shareholder of less than 5% in private limited company?... good luck getting anything done with that. Glad to see other people are finally catching up with me. The point on breach of company law. I don’t think that’s necessarily right. It depends on the rights attached to those shares in the articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 21 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: He’s saying the late submission is the breach which we knew. He’s not saying not letting the Trust see more is a breach. Ah. Is that what he meant? I just read here and saw that some people are saying it’s a breach to deny access to full accounts. That’s not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tGWB Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, underdog said: Hello SJK We have a dialogue with the FLG and regular updates just as we do with the Football Supporter's association. Thanks Underdog The Trust is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place with your recent ‘tactics’. We really cant expect AL to give full access to the clubs accounts knowing that the £information will go straight into the public domain and most certainly in to the hands of the FLG, who AL will most definitely see as a threat to him. You have stated yourself that the Trust is working closely with the FLG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said: Correct, we have. So what are the next steps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, tGWB said: Underdog The Trust is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place with your recent ‘tactics’. We really cant expect AL to give full access to the clubs accounts knowing that the £information will go straight into the public domain and most certainly in to the hands of the FLG, who AL will most definitely see as a threat to him. You have stated yourself that the Trust is working closely with the FLG. No it won’t go in the public domain or be shared with any third parties as it’s not the trust’s information to share. There would be significant legal implications if the trust took this action. The trust is entrusted to see that the club is being run in a responsible manner and in a manner which does not jeopardise its future. The accounts are an important litmus test in this regard. We will have a view on the accounts and what they are telling us about the financial health of OAFC. We wont publish anything which we don’t have a right to or which could be privileged information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Andy b said: We will have a view on the accounts and what they are telling us about the financial health of OAFC. We wont publish anything which we don’t have a right to or which could be privileged information. No you won't as a) you won't get to see them b) it's his club and c) you are an irrelevance to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjk2008 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 'Shareholders are entitled to full accounts rather than the abbreviated ones sent to Companies House' ..so says Maguire (again, I'm certainly no expert in this area). But it sounds to me from those words what Al is doing is illegal (in terms of blocking access to the Trust). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Clifford said: No you won't as a) you won't get to see them b) it's his club and c) you are an irrelevance to him. Hard to disagree with any of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Why would you sit there on a board if you can't even see the finances of the company you are on the board of? Step down from the board, retain the 3% because you can and start to work for the fans against the disease that is killing the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 19 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said: So what are the next steps? The Pensions Regulator will investigate the case. What happens from there depends on how the club communicate with the regulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said: The Pensions Regulator will investigate the case. What happens from there depends on how the club communicate with the regulator. So if the owner stays true to form and doesn't cooperate could shit hit the fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Just now, GlossopLatic said: So if the owner stays true to form and doesn't cooperate could shit hit the fan? The primary reason for losing the FCA authorisation was a failure to communicate/co-operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Just now, GlossopLatic said: So if the owner stays true to form and doesn't cooperate could shit hit the fan? Here’s hoping. The net’s tightening around this charlatan and it can’t come quickly enough. 1. OEC/FLG call in their debts of unpaid rent 2. ST holders in north stand demand ST money back as hospitality not available 3. The Clown reported for non-disclosure of company accounts to a shareholder 4. Pensions regulator assess the Clown operating illegally on pensions #smokehimout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusunga_Is_God Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Midsblue said: Here’s hoping. The net’s tightening around this charlatan and it can’t come quickly enough. 1. OEC/FLG call in their debts of unpaid rent 2. ST holders in north stand demand ST money back as hospitality not available 3. The Clown reported for non-disclosure of company accounts to a shareholder 4. Pensions regulator assess the Clown operating illegally on pensions #smokehimout There’s some weirdo on Twitter who owns about half of them club 100 tickets, loves to boast about it and is a supporter of the regime. Be interested to see his take on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 39 minutes ago, sjk2008 said: 'Shareholders are entitled to full accounts rather than the abbreviated ones sent to Companies House' ..so says Maguire (again, I'm certainly no expert in this area). But it sounds to me from those words what Al is doing is illegal (in terms of blocking access to the Trust). He’s wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 24 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said: So if the owner stays true to form and doesn't cooperate could shit hit the fan? Possibly. I'd imagine it would go to court if he kept ignoring them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, jorvik_latic said: Possibly. I'd imagine it would go to court if he kept ignoring them. It wouldn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 14 minutes ago, Kusunga_Is_God said: There’s some weirdo on Twitter who owns about half of them club 100 tickets, loves to boast about it and is a supporter of the regime. Be interested to see his take on this. Yeah but Urko paid for them after a chance meeting in 235... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: It wouldn’t. What would happen then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, jorvik_latic said: What would happen then? Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 For accounting periods commencing on or after 1/1/16 companies must file at companies house what they prepare for their shareholders. We have. The concept of preparing full financial statements for the shareholders (and HMRC) and a reduced disclosure set for Co House ended for all companies with accounting year ends after 31/12/16. You might not like it (I don’t) but he’s done nothing illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latics22 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: For accounting periods commencing on or after 1/1/16 companies must file at companies house what they prepare for their shareholders. We have. The concept of preparing full financial statements for the shareholders (and HMRC) and a reduced disclosure set for Co House ended for all companies with accounting year ends after 31/12/16. You might not like it (I don’t) but he’s done nothing illegal. Not legally, but morally he has. He has essentially just lined up darren on the steps of the town hall, pulled his pants down. Hes led the trust a merry dance with lies, they have listened and fell for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Just now, latics22 said: Not legally, but morally he has. He has essentially just lined up darren on the steps of the town hall, pulled his pants down. Hes led the trust a merry dance with lies, they have listened and fell for. I agree with you, I’m merely pointing out the legal position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 26 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: It wouldn’t. I believe Jorvik is referring to ignoring the pension regulator, not the Trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ryan said: I believe Jorvik is referring to ignoring the pension regulator, not the Trust. Ah, in that case apologies, too many mini threads in one thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.