Can the Board sell the Club over the Heads of the Owners?

[yellow hammer 131]

I would have said an emphatic, No.

 

The owners, being the majority shareholders, could simply out-vote any other group of shareholders.

 

But then I read this morning Daily Telegraph and it seems that the board of Liverpool FC are trying to do exactly that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8047093/Tom-Hicks-vows-to-fight-all-way-as-Boston-Red-Sox-owners-lie-in-wait-to-take-over-Liverpool.html

"In an aggressive attempt to oust Hicks and Gillett from Anfield, chairman Martin Broughton said that he would seek legal permission to sell the club without the Americans’ consent."

If Broughton is successful in the courts, it will have major repercussions on every single club in the land.

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

A quote from the article:

''In order to ensure it is legally watertight Broughton decided to seek confirmation from the High Court that the deal is legal. He said on Wednesday that the owners are in breach of clear undertakings made to him when he became chairman.

“They [the owners] gave undertakings that only I could make changes to the board, that they would take no action to frustrate any sale, and yesterday they flagrantly abused those undertakings,” he said. ''

One wonders what clear understandings, if any,  Bowkett had when he became NCFC Chairman?

Any fellow shareholder know?

OTBC

[Webbo118 0]

In the case of Liverpool, the owners have bought the Club with money provided by RBS. The undertakings were given to the Bank and, if broken , the Club can theoretically be sold without their consent.

[T 191]

Basically it is indeed  up do the shareholders whether they sell or not. However,the exact circumstances depends on the specific memorandum and articles of association and the agreements with the lenders. The situation at Liverpool is dependant on the specific agreement with the banks and the specific agreement with the Chairman who was brought in to sell the club given the debt situation. Any ruling on the specific agreements entered into will therefore not have any bearing on the general rules and regulations governing companies and it is very unlikely that the NCFC shareholders have any such agreement with the new chairman as he was brought in by mutual consent. 

[canary cherub 1]

This was discussed at length on Radio 5 Live last night.  It''s a bit complicated.

Liverpool''s debt to RBS is due to be paid in full on 15th October.  This is an extension to the original repayment date and was agreed by RBS on certain conditions, which mean in effect that Hicks and Gillett can be outvoted.  Failure to make the repayment date would almost certainly result in administration.  H&G haven''t got the money, so sale of the club is the only other option.  The proposed sale would mean H&G losing £140m. 

It was RBS who appointed Martin Broughton as chairman of Liverpool, and he insisted on a condition which meant that the composition of the board couldn''t be altered without his agreement.  This was to prevent H&G changing the board in order to block a possible sale of the club.  The board had 5 members - H&G, Martin Broughton, Christian Purslowe (CEO) and the commercial director (Ian something).  

H&G opposed the sale but were outvoted 3-2.  They have been trying to remove the CEO and the commercial director from the board.  Broughton says that because of the conditions outlined above, they cannot do this without his consent, and H&G are challenging it in court.  It could go either way imo - the condition is there in black and white, but does it conflict with the chairman''s primary responsibility which is to represent the interests of the shareholders?

It seems likely that when Norwich secured a repayment holiday from RBS last season, conditions of some sort would have been imposed.  However, the Liverpool conditions were imposed by Broughton himself as a condition of taking the job, so it''s unlikely (but not impossible) that anything similar would apply in our case, since Bowkett was already in post at the time. 

What strikes me about the Liverpool situation is that there are only five board members (including the two owners) - the minimum allowed.  Things went from bad to worse at Norwich when we had only five board members (including the two owners).  Coincidence?   

 

[canary cherub 1]

Meant to add: even if H&G win their case, there''s no way they can meet the repayment date so administration looks like the only other option.  If that happens  they could lose even more than £140m so what''s the point?  From what I could gather, Hicks seems to be the instigator of the legal challenge and he''s just being pig headed for the sake of it. 

 

[PurpleCanary 6,389]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

This was discussed at length on Radio 5 Live last night.  It''s a bit complicated.

Liverpool''s debt to RBS is due to be paid in full on 15th October.  This is an extension to the original repayment date and was agreed by RBS on certain conditions, which mean in effect that Hicks and Gillett can be outvoted.  Failure to make the repayment date would almost certainly result in administration.  H&G haven''t got the money, so sale of the club is the only other option.  The proposed sale would mean H&G losing £140m. 

It was RBS who appointed Martin Broughton as chairman of Liverpool, and he insisted on a condition which meant that the composition of the board couldn''t be altered without his agreement.  This was to prevent H&G changing the board in order to block a possible sale of the club.  The board had 5 members - H&G, Martin Broughton, Christian Purslowe (CEO) and the commercial director (Ian something).  

H&G opposed the sale but were outvoted 3-2.  They have been trying to remove the CEO and the commercial director from the board.  Broughton says that because of the conditions outlined above, they cannot do this without his consent, and H&G are challenging it in court.  It could go either way imo - the condition is there in black and white, but does it conflict with the chairman''s primary responsibility which is to represent the interests of the shareholders?

It seems likely that when Norwich secured a repayment holiday from RBS last season, conditions of some sort would have been imposed.  However, the Liverpool conditions were imposed by Broughton himself as a condition of taking the job, so it''s unlikely (but not impossible) that anything similar would apply in our case, since Bowkett was already in post at the time. 

What strikes me about the Liverpool situation is that there are only five board members (including the two owners) - the minimum allowed.  Things went from bad to worse at Norwich when we had only five board members (including the two owners).  Coincidence?   

 

[/quote]---

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually

only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently

four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number

in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers

theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would

have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were

appointed. More generally, it is highly unlikely there is any similarity

between the Liverpool and Norwich cases. Broughton (who is not a Liverpool fan

but a heavy hitter in the business world) was brought in by RBS specifically to

sell the club. To that end he got a reconstituted boardroom that gave him a

majority. There has never been any suggestion that the Norwich boardroom

changes were forced on Smith and Jones by our lenders. Bear in mind how soon

after the end of last season the sackings happened (and the decisions were made some

days before they became public on May 12) and the gap then until Bowkett and Phillips came on board. The lenders might have been happy

with the changes, but that is not the same as having forced them. And since then

Stephen Fry has been made a director; that doesn''t seem at all to fit in with

our lenders calling the shots on the make-up of the boardroom.

 

Moreover, as Cherub says, the debt holiday was negotiated quite some time

later by the new lot of directors rather than as any kind of condition of their

appointment.Finally, at Liverpool RBS/Broughton are trying to force a

takeover that apparently solves Liverpool''s debt problem (by getting RBS its

money back). Any takeover at Norwich might well (depending on who was doing the

taking-over) trigger a crisis because the debt (the bank debt and the debt owed

to Smith and Jones and the Turners) all becomes repayable on demand.

 

[Mello Yello 2,573]

Maybe a bit drastic to achieve a solution....but them being a Scally Scouse football club....

They could always ''Club the heads of the Owners''....

[The Butler 0]

It''s the Irish connection!

Half Liverpool and half America are Irish (OK a bit heavy 49%)

Would you expect anything straightforward[:D]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[T 191]

CC, basically agree with most of what you say apart from in the real world when it comes to board members resigning in these circumstances it just a nice word for effectively being sacked. MWJ said very strongly and clearly after the Charlton game that thing''s had to change. I believe that legally ND was party to Gunn being appointed but that was just a technicality and in substance he was already gone.

[T 191]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[/quote]

[T 191]

[quote user="T"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[/quote][/quote]

...and this is why I believe that the NCISA was very misguided on the rebate issue. I think everyone including the Board themselves agree that  aided by David Stringer they made a series of failed managerial appointments which ultimately led to relegation but that the owners continued financial support and management changes has also turned things around: The NCISA failed to recognise the changes and support the return to the championship. The best friends and supporters are there for you when things get tough. THE NCISA got that judgement call wrong and should just admit that their moves were not constructive in this matter and they make mistakes like that the owners have. That does not mean that the owners or the NCISA both do not not both have good intentions as far as the club is concerned.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[/quote]

Interesting theory again Nutty.

Bowkett had stated publicly that he did not want a board position, (in the VERY critical letter to the board)so definately off the radar (poacher/gamekeeper)

If , as you say, they appointed Gunn so that they could then ignore him and concentrate on the board appointments, then that is cruel in the extreme.

To give the man the job he always wanted knowing that they were going to let him go at the first opportunity would be bad  to put it mildly. As you know my views on Gunns appointment was that it was a BIG mistake.

IF they had not planned it that way then  they did get it badly wrong, they might have put the horse  before the cart, but that horse was a donkey and again the actions of people not fit to run the club.

Your idols had got this club into the worse position it had been in for decades and you want to make out that their last desperate attempt at salvation was a well actioned plan.

McNally with no little help from Bowketts connections has started, just started, to get this clubs finances on a proper footing. It has taken them 12 months of solid work and the luck of finding a manager that is excellent and lucky.

Without that combination this club would, as Wiz stated, have gone into liquidation.

The losses are still mounting (McNally stated) and only now are the costs being brought below income. How many years of failure.....!

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"][quote user="T"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[/quote][/quote]

...and this is why I believe that the NCISA was very misguided on the rebate issue. I think everyone including the Board themselves agree that  aided by David Stringer they made a series of failed managerial appointments which ultimately led to relegation but that the owners continued financial support and management changes has also turned things around: The NCISA failed to recognise the changes and support the return to the championship. The best friends and supporters are there for you when things get tough. THE NCISA got that judgement call wrong and should just admit that their moves were not constructive in this matter and they make mistakes like that the owners have. That does not mean that the owners or the NCISA both do not not both have good intentions as far as the club is concerned.

[/quote]

The meeting at St Andrews Hall, although called by NCISA, at the request of it''s members, reflected the groudswell at that meeting. Many attendees were not NCISA members , as Nutty will endorse.

In the end allthough the vote was to accept the rebate offered , which in turn was part of the conditions the tickets were sold under, each ticket holder had their own choice to make. NCISA cannot and would not dictate what actions to take anyone.

The vote taken at that meeting, in terms of % for and against very accuratly reflected what the final rebate taken % was. There were some 400 to 500 at the meeting, how many season ticket holders?

It is very convenient to blame NCISA and gratifying that you think that the opinions of their few hundred members could hold such a mass influence.

Given the mass press and PR team that was wheeled into action at the club, coupled with MF''s offer the fact that the % remained static shows more what the general supporter really felt.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[/quote]

Interesting theory again Nutty.

Bowkett had stated publicly that he did not want a board position, (in the VERY critical letter to the board)so definately off the radar (poacher/gamekeeper)

If , as you say, they appointed Gunn so that they could then ignore him and concentrate on the board appointments, then that is cruel in the extreme.

To give the man the job he always wanted knowing that they were going to let him go at the first opportunity would be bad  to put it mildly. As you know my views on Gunns appointment was that it was a BIG mistake.

IF they had not planned it that way then  they did get it badly wrong, they might have put the horse  before the cart, but that horse was a donkey and again the actions of people not fit to run the club.

Your idols had got this club into the worse position it had been in for decades and you want to make out that their last desperate attempt at salvation was a well actioned plan.

McNally with no little help from Bowketts connections has started, just started, to get this clubs finances on a proper footing. It has taken them 12 months of solid work and the luck of finding a manager that is excellent and lucky.

Without that combination this club would, as Wiz stated, have gone into liquidation.

The losses are still mounting (McNally stated) and only now are the costs being brought below income. How many years of failure.....!

[/quote]

It''s not a theory, it''s contrived nonsense unworthy of debate.

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,902]

T - I don''t think you are being particularly fair to NCISA about the rebate issue. There''s great dollops of hindsight involved since the events following May 2009 and the following football season. I don''t know if you were at the Public Meeting at St Andrews Hall back in May 09, but feelings were running high at that meeting. It was the overwhelming majority view to reclaim rebates. It was the overwhelming majority view that Gunn was the wrong appointment. Smith & Jones words after Charlton weren''t even considered that evening. To use a Tilly phrase they weren''t even on my radar, even though they are supposedly my idols.

Subsequent events have made me consider that my view back in May 2009 was wrong. Subsequent events make me think that while we were understandably letting off steam, thanks to NCISA organising a public meeting, Smith & Jones had begun to make the decisions that have seen the club get back to where we are now. I think that I was right in my decisions at that meeting looking back from that point but wrong looking forward from that point. And I recognise that NCISA were representing the wishes of the people at that public meeting and so their stance was justified. Having said that, whether Commander Butler and the nCIsA will ever come out and say that had they have known what was to follow they''d have called it differently, as I have, I very much doubt. I think it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

The Butler - Again your interpretation of Bowketts letter is different to mine and different to the one he has stated. There can be no doubt he wouldn''t have joined a board with the old Executive Officers but he was offered  a place on the new board after they had left.

They appointed Gunn and left him to carry on what he was doing. I disagreed at the time but hindsight suggests I was wrong. It now transpires that many of the transfer and players contract issues were done very early during that close season. With the Chief Exec gone what would have happened to those deals if the manager had gone too? It seems that by the time we had that public meeting in May Grant Holt was already well on the way to signing for us. Decisions were being made about the futures of Martin and Spillane. Hoolahan needed to be kept at the club. How much would all that have been affected if Smith & Jones had decided to go on a hunt for a new manager rather than CE?

All your idols seem to have been appointed by Smith & Jones. There''s irony for ya!

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]It''s not a theory, it''s contrived nonsense unworthy of debate.[/quote]That''s rich, coming from someone who has posted countless pointless threads completely unworthy of debate. [:S]

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

It''s not a theory, it''s contrived nonsense unworthy of debate.

OTBC

[/quote]

HTF would you know????

These discussions are beyond you. You weren''t here. You won''t find them on google. See if you can find something about "Your Spurs" to add to the debate.

Feckin'' window licker on the outside!

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

T - I don''t think you are being particularly fair to NCISA about the rebate issue. There''s great dollops of hindsight involved since the events following May 2009 and the following football season. I don''t know if you were at the Public Meeting at St Andrews Hall back in May 09, but feelings were running high at that meeting. It was the overwhelming majority view to reclaim rebates. It was the overwhelming majority view that Gunn was the wrong appointment. Smith & Jones words after Charlton weren''t even considered that evening. To use a Tilly phrase they weren''t even on my radar, even though they are supposedly my idols.

Subsequent events have made me consider that my view back in May 2009 was wrong. Subsequent events make me think that while we were understandably letting off steam, thanks to NCISA organising a public meeting, Smith & Jones had begun to make the decisions that have seen the club get back to where we are now. I think that I was right in my decisions at that meeting looking back from that point but wrong looking forward from that point. And I recognise that NCISA were representing the wishes of the people at that public meeting and so their stance was justified. Having said that, whether Commander Butler and the nCIsA will ever come out and say that had they have known what was to follow they''d have called it differently, as I have, I very much doubt. I think it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

The Butler - Again your interpretation of Bowketts letter is different to mine and different to the one he has stated. There can be no doubt he wouldn''t have joined a board with the old Executive Officers but he was offered  a place on the new board after they had left.

They appointed Gunn and left him to carry on what he was doing. I disagreed at the time but hindsight suggests I was wrong. It now transpires that many of the transfer and players contract issues were done very early during that close season. With the Chief Exec gone what would have happened to those deals if the manager had gone too? It seems that by the time we had that public meeting in May Grant Holt was already well on the way to signing for us. Decisions were being made about the futures of Martin and Spillane. Hoolahan needed to be kept at the club. How much would all that have been affected if Smith & Jones had decided to go on a hunt for a new manager rather than CE?

All your idols seem to have been appointed by Smith & Jones. There''s irony for ya!

 

 

[/quote]

Thanks Nutty, hindsight is a fairly accurate science.

How much influence did that meeting have, how much did a vast majority taking their rebate make the board think. I don''t know and neither do you.

As you say NCISA takes the slating but it was the majority who acted.

NCISA was not wrong, at that time, in the actions it took.

If Colchester had not dished up a trouncing on that first day and we had lost say 3-2 would Gunn have stayed. Would we have got promotion? Would Holt have recovered from the broken leg he got at Exeter? (no I know he didn''t but he might have done if....)What excuse would have been used to remove Gunn. You cannot remove one part and still say that outcome would remain the same.

All things change, so lets press on and hope for another good season. (by the way I should start saving madly for your season ticket increase next season)[;)]

 

[T 191]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="T"][quote user="T"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.
 

[/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]

What a theory that is! I thought Smith & Jones said changes had to be made and they were made. Sacked or walked the deal will have been that they walked. We were angry at the time because none of us wanted Gunn as manager. We didn''t consider a new Chairman of CE did we?

There''s of threads on here slating the appointment of Gunn and suggesting other appointments. Interestingly I don''t remember Lambert being suggested. I also don''t remember McNally or Bowkett being suggested for the other roles. So I suggest not one of us posters could have come up with the solution that Smith & Jones came up with.

As for the Gunn appointment. I was angry at the time but us fans can use hindsight to admit we were wrong as well as to show we were right. Jones said they were going to put all their efforts into appointing a new board and CE. That wouldn''t have happened had they gone through a managerial appointment first. In fact if thay had done it that way around it would have cost them a fortune if the new board wanted to change it.

In he spring and summer of 2009 they got most things right. They put the horse before the cart and everything worked out for the best.

 

[/quote][/quote]

...and this is why I believe that the NCISA was very misguided on the rebate issue. I think everyone including the Board themselves agree that  aided by David Stringer they made a series of failed managerial appointments which ultimately led to relegation but that the owners continued financial support and management changes has also turned things around: The NCISA failed to recognise the changes and support the return to the championship. The best friends and supporters are there for you when things get tough. THE NCISA got that judgement call wrong and should just admit that their moves were not constructive in this matter and they make mistakes like that the owners have. That does not mean that the owners or the NCISA both do not not both have good intentions as far as the club is concerned.

[/quote]

The meeting at St Andrews Hall, although called by NCISA, at the request of it''s members, reflected the groudswell at that meeting. Many attendees were not NCISA members , as Nutty will endorse.

In the end allthough the vote was to accept the rebate offered , which in turn was part of the conditions the tickets were sold under, each ticket holder had their own choice to make. NCISA cannot and would not dictate what actions to take anyone.

The vote taken at that meeting, in terms of % for and against very accuratly reflected what the final rebate taken % was. There were some 400 to 500 at the meeting, how many season ticket holders?

It is very convenient to blame NCISA and gratifying that you think that the opinions of their few hundred members could hold such a mass influence.

Given the mass press and PR team that was wheeled into action at the club, coupled with MF''s offer the fact that the % remained static shows more what the general supporter really felt.

[/quote]

Butler, I accept that it is a fair response, I''ve always said that people were pefectly entitled to take the rebate, and I''ve absolutely nothing against anything that you have done recently, but I happen to feel that given change was already underway that the vote against the rebate was a wrong  and I did put my money where my mouth was at the time and with the additional benefit of hindsight I think that call has proved to be right.

I don''t accept we have endured years of failure apart from relegation to league one. The inherent nature of football is that only a few clubs suceed each year and I think you will find that our club has performed within a normal distribution of its financial poistion in most years apart from relagation. Most fans hope and expect that their club will do better and most will be disapppointed. That is just human nature. You only have to look at the championship table this year to see that there is not much difference between most clubs in the championship.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="T"]

...and this is why I believe that the NCISA was very misguided on the rebate issue. I think everyone including the Board themselves agree that  aided by David Stringer they made a series of failed managerial appointments which ultimately led to relegation but that the owners continued financial support and management changes has also turned things around: The NCISA failed to recognise the changes and support the return to the championship. The best friends and supporters are there for you when things get tough. THE NCISA got that judgement call wrong and should just admit that their moves were not constructive in this matter and they make mistakes like that the owners have. That does not mean that the owners or the NCISA both do not not both have good intentions as far as the club is concerned.

[/quote]

I disagree.  In the first place, NCISA had little to do with the fact that two-thirds of season ticket holders asked for a rebate.  NCISA were simply reflecting a widely held view.

Secondly, I believe that the widespread failure to respond to Michael Foulger''s appeal to forego the rebate was the catalyst that began to bring about change.  It sent the board a message that even they could not ignore.  Well done City fans!

 

[PurpleCanary 6,389]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed. [/quote]

As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken. 

According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue.

The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows? 

It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.

 

[/quote]---

Cherub, it is possible you are right that five is the minimum number of

directors, of which four are needed for a quorum. But in that case both Munby

and Doncaster must have stayed as directors for nearly two months, all the way

through to July 2, when Bowkett, Phiilips and McNally were all appointed,

because otherwise there won''t have been the minimum number of directors. The

number needed for a quorum is irrelevant if the (higher) number needed for a

legal board isn''t being fulfilled.At the time what seemed to have

happened was that Munby left the board straight away (even if that didn''t show

up at Companies House for a while) but Doncaster stayed on in theory (though not

in practice) as fourth for legality''s sake.However, as you say, the real

question is not this numbers game but whether the departing directors played any

part in voting for or against Gunn''s reappointment, and whether - as you muse -

their views precipitated their departure. There is, as far as I know, not a

shred of evidence for that notion. And what evidence there is goes against

it. As Nutty has pointed out, Smith and Jones said only hours after the

Charlton defeat that changes would be made, and it was generally understood they

meant boardroom/off-field management changes. It is hardly likely that in the

short time between the defeat and the "things will change" statement that they

held a board meeting, proposed Gunn''s reappointment, seen Munby and Doncaster

vote or argue against, and so decide to sack them, as opposed to different changes they

had been already envisaging. Way too far-fetched.

[PurpleCanary 6,389]

[quote user="canary cherub "]Secondly, I believe that the widespread failure to respond to Michael Foulger''s appeal to forego the rebate was the catalyst that began to bring about change.  It sent the board a message that even they could not ignore.  Well done City fans!

 

[/quote]Simply wrong. Just chronologically wrong.The response to the Foulger rebate appeal came weeks after Munby and Doncaster left, after McNally had been appointed as chief executive, and after Smith and Jones had started trying to persuade Bowkett to become chairman.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "]Secondly, I believe that the widespread failure to respond to Michael Foulger''s appeal to forego the rebate was the catalyst that began to bring about change.  It sent the board a message that even they could not ignore.  Well done City fans!

 

[/quote]

Simply wrong. Just chronologically wrong.The response to the Foulger rebate appeal came weeks after Munby and Doncaster left, after McNally had been appointed as chief executive, and after Smith and Jones had started trying to persuade Bowkett to become chairman.


[/quote]

Not quite right PC

I cannot speak for Doncaster by I know Roger  to be a very honourable man. He did not need to be pushed. His subsequent treatment by a club he served loyally (right or wrong) as been somewhat remiss.

It became apparent that the fans were going to take their rebate in numbers, that was when the Foulger offer was made to try and "greenmail" the supporters.I beleive this to have been monet already promised to the club and just slightly reshaped.

Certainly both Munby and Doncasters resignations had been published Prior to Gunns appointment OR MWJ would not have had to do a fast "shut up" to good old Delia.(again widely reported)

[Lambert is King 0]

Unless I misunderstood I thought that McNally was saying that we had one chance to get out of league 1 or administration it was. I also got the impression that when most fans took the rebate it meant that the money had to be found or it would have been administration last autumn. He was also saying imo that the accounts loss will increase substantially, meaning imo it is likely that somebody put their hands in their pocket to make up the rebate or somehow McNally managed to persuade the banks not only to not recall our loans but give us yet more money. Only the accounts will show who our saviour was. I also got the impression that he thought the rebate fiasco was the most ridiculous business decision the club had ever made. Hine sight as you say is a wonderful thing but if we would have trusted McNally like we do now and he would have said we have got to leave the money in the club I am sure most would have done. 

[. 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]It''s not a theory, it''s contrived nonsense unworthy of debate.[/quote]That''s rich, coming from someone who has posted countless pointless threads completely unworthy of debate. [:S][/quote]In your very humble opinion?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

As Nutty has pointed out, Smith and Jones said only hours after the Charlton defeat that changes would be made, and it was generally understood they meant boardroom/off-field management changes. It is hardly likely that in the short time between the defeat and the "things will change" statement that they held a board meeting, proposed Gunn''s reappointment, seen Munby and Doncaster vote or argue against, and so decide to sack them, as opposed to different changes they had been already envisaging. Way too far-fetched.

[/quote]

I think it safe to say that "things will change" would have been taken by the vast majority of fans (both pro- and anti-Gunn) to include a change of manager.  The exact opposite was what actually happened.  And when you think about it, what does "things will change" actually mean?  Of course things will change if you''ve just been relegated, whether you want them to or not.  It doesn''t necessarily mean that they had any plans in place. 

We were relegated on 3rd May.  RM and ND resigned on 12th May (I can find no evidence that they were sacked - but if they were, why didn''t it happen straight away? it would have given some credibility to the "things must change" statement) and Gunn''s appointment was announced on 13th May.  There was ample time in the intervening 10 days for a split to appear in the boardroom. 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

I suspect the Bowkett didn''t plan to come onto the NCFC board at the time the letter was written but given the state of the clubs finances as a result of relegation to Division One a highly respected businessman was needed to head the required turnaround.  It needed to be a person with such gravitas in order to persuade the main creditors (i.e the holders of the Loan Notes and the Bank) to give the club a £2.5m a year, holiday from servicing the debts.