Nobody Resigns these days what is the truth behind this

[komakino 272]

McNally was drunk on Saturday night. Sounds as though the pressure had got too much. Had to go in my opinion.

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

Surely the shareholders - and not just the majority shareholders - deserve an explanation when the CEO quits?

[morty 0]

[quote user="komakino"]McNally was drunk on Saturday night. Sounds as though the pressure had got too much. Had to go in my opinion.[/quote]Shows he cared.In my opinion.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="ricardo"]Snippets will leak out Badger. They always do.[/quote]You may well be right Ricardo but they will be probably be non-attributable and not much more than gossip or spin - unless there was some sort of row in public.[/quote]Well, we still haven''t heard what happened with Lambert, other than gossip/spin/rumours.

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

[quote user="komakino"]McNally was drunk on Saturday night. Sounds as though the pressure had got too much. Had to go in my opinion.[/quote]After watching Norwich it has to be done...[;)]

[Smeg 0]

[quote user="komakino"]McNally was drunk on Saturday night. Sounds as though the pressure had got too much. Had to go in my opinion.[/quote]

he was in Bonds No.28 on tombland, proberley at the same time the tweet was sent

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]Surely the shareholders - and not just the majority shareholders - deserve an explanation when the CEO quits?[/quote]

 

The shareholders get to go to a meeting each year where they can ask these type of questions, based on the answers they get they can appoint other shareholders to a board of directors who run the club for the next year.

 

 

[City 2nd 191]

Looking at the statement today from the club (Balls) in that the resignation was ''out of the blue'' on Saturday night, but discussed by the board on Sunday and ''unanimously accepted'' that Mr McN had made his mind up some time ago that he was leaving.

I would suggest pastures new already agreed!

I don''t think it''s been all plain sailing in and around Carrow Road for McN this season.

[unique 434]

[quote user="frettenhammer"]FWIW My take is that McNally has shown himself to be an emotional man,and I think this coupled with a few too many on Saturday night (after a desperately disappointing day) led him to `tweet` inadvisably.It is perhaps more revealing that Delia and Michael took the opportunity to accept his `resignation` thereby saving a considerable amount in compensation that would have been payable should they have subsequently sacked him.[/quote]This is exactly how I read the situation.McNally made an error of judgment and the board seized the moment. No twitter account and McNally would still be CEO.

[komakino 272]

McNally had reached his limit. I think he''s just lost it and I don''t mean that in a cruel way. He apparently was walking around Tombland in circles on Saturday night so make of that what you will.

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="komakino"]McNally had reached his limit. I think he''s just lost it and I don''t mean that in a cruel way. He apparently was walking around Tombland in circles on Saturday night so make of that what you will.[/quote]He has one leg much shorter than the other??

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="komakino"]McNally had reached his limit. I think he''s just lost it and I don''t mean that in a cruel way. He apparently was walking around Tombland in circles on Saturday night so make of that what you will.[/quote]I blame the one way system.Still, could have been worse, he might have been at the Grapes Hill roundabout.

[Jools 584]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="komakino"]McNally had reached his limit. I think he''s just lost it and I don''t mean that in a cruel way. He apparently was walking around Tombland in circles on Saturday night so make of that what you will.[/quote]I blame the one way system.Still, could have been worse, he might have been at the Grapes Hill roundabout.[/quote][:D][Y]

[Van wink 2,994]

unique wrote the following post at 10/05/2016 3:56 PM:

frettenhammer wrote:

FWIW My take is that McNally has shown himself to be an emotional man,and I think this coupled with a few too many on Saturday night (after a desperately disappointing day) led him to `tweet` inadvisably.It is perhaps more revealing that Delia and Michael took the opportunity to accept his `resignation` thereby saving a considerable amount in compensation that would have been payable should they have subsequently sacked him.

This is exactly how I read the situation.

McNally made an error of judgment and the board seized the moment. No twitter account and McNally would still be CEO.

Yep seized the opportunity that presented itself, that''s the way it looks to me.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="komakino"]McNally was drunk on Saturday night. Sounds as though the pressure had got too much. Had to go in my opinion.[/quote]After watching Norwich it has to be done...[;)][/quote]You usually do it Before watching Norwich Smithy. [:D]

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]Surely the shareholders - and not just the majority shareholders - deserve an explanation when the CEO quits?[/quote]

 

The shareholders get to go to a meeting each year where they can ask these type of questions, based on the answers they get they can appoint other shareholders to a board of directors who run the club for the next year.

 

 

[/quote]That is not how it works at all TCC.

[TCCANARY 263]

How does it work?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Are you really being serious in that you do not know how directors are appointed to the board ? No surely not.

[TCCANARY 263]

Please explain how it works.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Appointments to the board are made by the current directors and when they are up for re -election it is a formal procedure to do so at the AGM on a show of hands. Shareholders have no say in appointments. Blimey do you think if that was the case they would have elected Tom Smith and Stephen Fry to the board ? However if there  is a show of hands against an individual from the floor the decision is made on a block vote so Delia and Michael''s 357,000 no doubt supported by Foulger and others vastly outvotes the rank and file shareholders.I hope you get what i am saying TCC but to think an AGM decides future appointments and can decide who to get rid of is just not right at all.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]Please explain how it works.[/quote]Directors are elected on a three year rotation and shareholders can vote yay or nay as the case me be.Guess what happens when my 20 shares go up against Delia and Winnies 350k.

[Making Plans 936]

You''re not left with many options but to resign when you''ve publicty said that "relegation would be a fate worse than death", especially when you know it is going to happen

[TCCANARY 263]

 

OK, I was confused because you said ''not at all'' so I thought I''d got it completely wrong, looks like I should have used the word ''elect'' instead of ''appoint'', but I disagree that it''s not possible for shareholders to get rid of or elect a director, it''s unlikely given the current allocation of shares but still possible.

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I guess the more shares you own have the bigger say you have. Would we want it any other way? Imagine if you bought Delia out and were told that an ex copper and ex bog cleaner could decide who was on your board...