Jump to content

Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, StAndrew7 said:

The latter point is flabbergasting.

D'you think he's holding out hope it gets voted through? He was only on the board as one of the WS representatives? I assume that there will be some kind of justification for keeping the quorum or whatever until a replacement can be found but that absolutely stinks.

No idea... we've had interim periods with very few directors I don't know our rules.

But yes, using that seat for any kind of influence in the meantime is totally outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once this offer is launched into the sea the next battle is going to be in the boardroom. Beyond the initial eye widening at the reasoning or lack of moral compass we need to start being wise and use the defined rules available to us.

The current Articles of Association of the Club state:

Quote

21.5 Any Ordinary Director may at any time be removed from office by the holder of the Ordinary Shares in accordance with Article 21.8.

.......

21.8  Any appointment or removal of a Director by the Shareholders of the Company pursuant to this Article 21 must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the holder(s) of a majority of the issued A Ordinary Shares or Ordinary Shares (as the case may be) and served on the Company at its registered office, marked for the attention of the Secretary. Any such appointment or removal takes effect as at the time of such lodgement or delivery or at such later time as may be specified in such notice.

There are no A shares in issuance at present only ordinary. The majority shareholder of ordinary shares (WS with 71.7%) via the majority of the WS board (currently 4 of 7 needed) can write to the company secretary and advise of any removals.

That extends to the chairman from my reading. The chairman is a director first, the title and responsibility is a role facilitated by being a director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

No idea... we've had interim periods with very few directors I don't know our rules.

But yes, using that seat for any kind of influence in the meantime is totally outrageous.

The club AoA are on companies house and available to download. You need one "A" director and two ordinary directors to make any decisions. The holder of "A" shares can appoint two "A" directors which I assume relates to the well society. So I read that as the well society can remove their nomination for him to be on the board or at least appoint two others if he was to become an ordinary director. This would mean no board decisions can be made unless someone else from the well society was present to form a quorum.

Interesting that the AoA were updated a few months ago to state that if there are no well society appointed directors, there must be between 6 and 8 ordinary directors instead which we are nowhere near 

 

Edit: or what @Vietnam91said

Edited by standupforthemotherwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Swello said:

I think comfy seats and steak pie in boardrooms the length of the country will be harder to give up than seats on the WS board..

If there isn't more to it than what @Vietnam91posted above, the Society should removing those two from the executive board by tomorrow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Handsome_Devil said:

If there isn't more to it than what @Vietnam91posted above, the Society should removing those two from the executive board by tomorrow.

 

There is a formal process to remove someone who is registered as a Director with Companies House - it's not that onerous but it would need to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2023 at 13:40, Desp said:

What's the story with the guy who does the tannoy?  I like the cut of his jib.  Promote him to the top job, IMO. 

Its Happening Ron Paul GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ML4 said:

100 times yes. And the WS board should be moving immediately to remove them all from power, appoint a new board and stall this whole thing pending proper strategic review of the business. 

That's it for me.

The executive board are supposed to be the ones who came up with the valuation of the club.

Was that arrived at by them plucking a figure out of the air or was it arrived by a full and forensic examination of assets/liabilities by independent auditors, I doubt it.

Edited by santheman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope that the WS board aren't on their way to Germany as we speak. Haha. 

Have to say, the moves here with Dickie, Downie and perhaps Feely dropping out does give me more hope than I had about an hour ago even, for the WS as a whole moving forward in regards the strategic vision. 

Edited by eliphas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Being a leading figure in an organisation which exists for fan ownership and objecting when it tries to protect fan ownership is some going.

One more to go.

THIS! 100% this man. 

42 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said:

Feeley needs to resign today.

Feeley is like a Chameleon IMO.He'll be 100% behind the WS again in a week.

2 minutes ago, eliphas said:

Let's hope that the WS board aren't on their way to Germany as we speak. Haha. 

well, not yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said:

Interesting that the AoA were updated a few months ago to state that if there are no well society appointed directors, there must be between 6 and 8 ordinary directors instead which we are nowhere near.

It says early on in the document in the absence of any A shares, you can effectively ignore any references to them.

The amendment was off the back of the AGM where the resolution was offered to the floor and passed unanimously.

The A shares were issued around Les' involvement to facilitate things I was told by Feely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These resignations are some giggle, being against fan ownership but sitting on the board that is designed to champion and protect it? That's some stance. 

Showing exactly what they stood for, themselves. Care more about a claret and amber tie, their CVs/LinkedIn profiles and a comfy seat in the main stand. Bye, bye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...