kirkyblue2 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, JessieField said: Doesn't matter the size of the Company, the Directors have the same legal responsibilities as a giant Company. I don't get what your concerns are. If it's confidential information then whoever is appointed will have to sign agreements not to divulge the contents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 27 minutes ago, JessieField said: The decision will rest with the shareholders. Indeed. Which is why it probably won't happen. The directors will be able to call upon the support of the largest shareholders, I suspect. So you are most probably knicker wetting about nothing. 24 minutes ago, JessieField said: Doesn't matter the size of the Company, the Directors have the same legal responsibilities as a giant Company. I'm sure if there are any legal issues the relevant parties will seek your advice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessieField Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 15 minutes ago, Flash said: Indeed. Which is why it probably won't happen. The directors will be able to call upon the support of the largest shareholders, I suspect. So you are most probably knicker wetting about nothing. I'm sure if there are any legal issues the relevant parties will seek your advice. I note you resort to petty comments when you can't agree with a straightforward point of view. It's up to the Trust to explain and sway the shareholders as to why their proposal would be of benefit to the Company. I don't think they've put forward a strong enough argument yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, JessieField said: I note you resort to petty comments when you can't agree with a straightforward point of view. It's up to the Trust to explain and sway the shareholders as to why their proposal would be of benefit to the Company. I don't think they've put forward a strong enough argument yet. I understand the issues, you don't need to explain them to me. Thanks. And the trust doesn't need to convince all the shareholders. If there are 1,000 shareholders, but the majority of the shares are held by 5 people, the 5 people can defeat the proposal by voting together. Or the 5 could approve it without having to convince the other 995 about anything. So, if the 5 (or however many it is in this case) side with the directors, you have nothing to worry about whatever way the case is presented. Edited February 20, 2017 by Flash 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessieField Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, Flash said: I understand the issues, you don't need to explain them to me. Thanks. And the trust doesn't need to convince all the shareholders. If there are 1,000 shareholders, but the majority of the shares are held by 5 people, the 5 people can defeat the proposal by voting together. Or the 5 could approve it without having to convince the other 995 about anything. So, if the 5 (or however many it is in this case) side with the directors, you have nothing to worry about whatever way the case is presented. I'm glad you understand the issues. Some people may not which is why we're having a debate. You are, of course, correct about the mathematics of the share distribution. I recall a night when that "uneven" share distribution saved the Club from a backdoor takeover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Genuine question: What is the stated rationale behind the board's resistance to accepting a supporters' representative onto the board? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 14 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Genuine question: What is the stated rationale behind the board's resistance to accepting a supporters' representative onto the board? I'm sure someone could post the exact wording but the gist was they didn't think fan representation would be helpful in the running of the club, sorry company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 To be fair the rationale for having one hasn't been made particularly clear either. The whole thing just seems like a massive waste of time to me. The only thing to come out of it will be lots of ill feeling between various parties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I'll feeling or not, what's the problem with some supporter representation. It's not that long ago bucket collections were everywhere to keep us going. There is a lot of great work going on among various supporters groups. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 And a place on the board will allow them to do more of this great work? Or do it better? If not what's the point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, palmy_cammy said: And a place on the board will allow them to do more of this great work? Or do it better? If not what's the point? I said in an earlier post on this that such an appointment might involve a degree of tokenism. I wouldn't imagine that someone in such a position would wield immense power, but it sends out a positive signal about fans being part of the club, with a say (even to a limited extent) in its direction. To be honest, I think that the onus is on the club to explain its objections, given that this kind of representation is recognised as a goal of the Trust movement. That's even before we consider the very positive noises the board has made on such matters in the past. There's a contradiction in saying that such a move will make no difference; yet wishing to strongly fight it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I could understand the movement if we had Claude Anelka or Vladimir Romanov running the club. As it stands though our board is made up of successful local businessmen, who are also Queens fans. It's hard to think of a better combination. Personally speaking I place far more importance on the former attribute than the latter but I understand why both are important to people.I know this isn't the fault of the supporters groups, but the response their motion has caused doesn't suggest a very successful working relationship could be formed.As I said, it seems to me to have caused a lot of negativity without any real obvious positive outcomes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said: I could understand the movement if we had Claude Anelka or Vladimir Romanov running the club. As it stands though our board is made up of successful local businessmen, who are also Queens fans. It's hard to think of a better combination. Personally speaking I place far more importance on the former attribute than the latter but I understand why both are important to people. I know this isn't the fault of the supporters groups, but the response their motion has caused doesn't suggest a very successful working relationship could be formed. As I said, it seems to me to have caused a lot of negativity without any real obvious positive outcomes. I wonder if the charge of creating negativity, might be better directed at those saying no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PALMYLAD Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Hewitson wins 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I reckon this should be like the shirt sponsorship. All names in a hat, pick one out! Congratulations to 9 year old Bobby who is now on the BoD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, PALMYLAD said: Hewitson wins No surprise. What's his plan to move the club forward? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeredbook Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Was never going to lose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said: I said in an earlier post on this that such an appointment might involve a degree of tokenism. I wouldn't imagine that someone in such a position would wield immense power, but it sends out a positive signal about fans being part of the club, with a say (even to a limited extent) in its direction. To be honest, I think that the onus is on the club to explain its objections, given that this kind of representation is recognised as a goal of the Trust movement. That's even before we consider the very positive noises the board has made on such matters in the past. There's a contradiction in saying that such a move will make no difference; yet wishing to strongly fight it. As do I 1 hour ago, palmy_cammy said: I could understand the movement if we had Claude Anelka or Vladimir Romanov running the club. As it stands though our board is made up of successful local businessmen, who are also Queens fans. It's hard to think of a better combination. Personally speaking I place far more importance on the former attribute than the latter but I understand why both are important to people. I know this isn't the fault of the supporters groups, but the response their motion has caused doesn't suggest a very successful working relationship could be formed. As I said, it seems to me to have caused a lot of negativity without any real obvious positive outcomes. I suspect this is the problem. We already have Queens fans on the board, and they feel special because they are putting in money and running the club. Why would they want some shitmuncher with a three figure bank balance, some sellotape and a handful of match posters sharing the glory... Edited February 20, 2017 by Margaret Thatcher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 This is exactly what I'm on about. I don't recall any mention of this supposed "us and them" mentality until the Trust started this futile exercise. I fear there is a real chance it will have done more harm than good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said: This is exactly what I'm on about. I don't recall any mention of this supposed "us and them" mentality until the Trust started this futile exercise. I fear there is a real chance it will have done more harm than good. Aye but if you extend that logic, cammy, no-one should ever try to do anything in case someone else tells them "no". The onus is on the people saying "no" to trust their supporters and explain why. Also, the Trust started this many years ago, and I am not sure there was any "us and them" mentality then. Things definitely got frayed around the time of the Skelton departure, with feelings among many fans that favoritism was rife and the BoD were not communicating honestly with the fans. The appointment of someone already known to the BoD as an internal "supporters liaison officer" did little to allay those feelings. Perhaps the Trust does have to shoulder some blame, I am sure you have valid reasons for seeing it that way, but not the majority of the blame in my view. Edited February 20, 2017 by Margaret Thatcher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.