Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Soldier on

Is it a concern that the New Chief Exec

Recommended Posts

will not be a director??  Would this give him little or no influence when it comes to investors that may want to buy the club.

Not really sure how these things work but would be interesting to know why he will not be a director whereas Doncaster was.

Otherwise he sounds like a fantastic appointment.  Hope the new directors are of a similar ilk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
same here,  but two others brought in, both with a little money, not enough to buy out the stowmarket two, they will see to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it so important to you that there''s a buy out of the existing directors?

The three we have at the moment are the only ones who are willing to put money into the club and I''d rather have that than directors who bring no financial moneys to the table, aka ND and RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So given the choice what would you rather have. Two new directors come along with £5 million each to invest.

Option 1 - They join the existing board and the £10 million is fresh capital

Option2 - They buy out Delia and Michael and we have no fresh money as the Smiths walk away with the £10 million.

Seems the best option for moving the club forward is Option 1. Unless of course you don''t give a toss about the club and just want to get rid of the Stowmarket Two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple money makes the world go round.  Richer directors with a good chief executive = greatly improved chance of success on the field.

Perhaps the new executive will ensure that delia can scrap the little norwich image she likes to champion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The controlling factor in selling/buying the club is not the make-up of the boardroom, but Smith and Jones''s 61.2 per cent majority shareholding.As far as this goes it wouldn''t matter if the new chief executive was a director or not, and it wouldn''t matter how many new directors there were and what they felt about any possible takeover. They might have something to say on the question and there might be a boardroom majority for (or against) a particular deal.But ultimately it is not a board decision; it is in the hands of Smith and Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Soldier on"]

will not be a director??  Would this give him little or no influence when it comes to investors that may want to buy the club.

Not really sure how these things work but would be interesting to know why he will not be a director whereas Doncaster was.

Otherwise he sounds like a fantastic appointment.  Hope the new directors are of a similar ilk

[/quote]i thougt this too, but then again he might not have been at other places and if he is purely a businessman he might not have had a sharehoding then.im refusing to worry about it too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?[/quote]if he owned a portion of the shares, he wouldn t want his money going down the pan, if you arent financialy involved, going tits up wouldnt matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="missing in action"][quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?[/quote]
if he owned a portion of the shares, he wouldn t want his money going down the pan, if you arent financialy involved, going tits up wouldnt matter.
[/quote]

 

So what people are saying is, as he is not a director. Getting it wrong would be less of a disaster on his own personal terms - meaning he may not be as bothered about what happens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?[/quote]The essential difference is that he would be on the board, making the key decisions, rather than just reporting to it in order to inform those decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]

[quote user="missing in action"][quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?[/quote]if he owned a portion of the shares, he wouldn t want his money going down the pan, if you arent financialy involved, going tits up wouldnt matter. [/quote]

 

So what people are saying is, as he is not a director. Getting it wrong would be less of a disaster on his own personal terms - meaning he may not be as bothered about what happens?

[/quote]the guy above this post is correct too. he wold be making decisions, but yeah because he isn financially involved, he is safe from losing anything except credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="missing in action"][quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]

[quote user="missing in action"][quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?[/quote]if he owned a portion of the shares, he wouldn t want his money going down the pan, if you arent financialy involved, going tits up wouldnt matter. [/quote]

 

So what people are saying is, as he is not a director. Getting it wrong would be less of a disaster on his own personal terms - meaning he may not be as bothered about what happens?

[/quote]the guy above this post is correct too. he wold be making decisions, but yeah because he isn financially involved, he is safe from losing anything except credibility. [/quote]...and his job.  Which won''t be a problem because I don''t believe this man deals in failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]

[quote user="missing in action"][quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]Can somebody please explain to me in the simplest terms, what would the difference in the new chief executives role be if he was also a director? Basically, what difference does it make?[/quote]if he owned a portion of the shares, he wouldn t want his money going down the pan, if you arent financialy involved, going tits up wouldnt matter. [/quote]

 

So what people are saying is, as he is not a director. Getting it wrong would be less of a disaster on his own personal terms - meaning he may not be as bothered about what happens?

[/quote]No. Unless he owned a great many shares. Doncaster had (has) 103, which only adds up to around £3,000, which is not a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...