The board got it badly wrong

[Crafty Canary 495]

Nutty Nigel posted: As far as I''m aware it''s one vote one person in the board room. Each director''s vote counts the same. If you cast your mind back to 2009 you will remember that Bowkett, and associiate director at the time, wrote to criticise those charged with running the club. Much was made of this and after relegation the executive directors were sacked. Some say they left but that was just to pout a veneer on it. They were sacked and their places taken by McNally and ironically enough Bowkett.

What I am saying was that if the executive directors, who are charged with running the club, are out voted in the boardroom it makes their position untenable.

So far as I know we only have one exec director I.e. McNally. If this is the case then it is likely that he would be outvoted on some issues. There is no point to having one vote per director if the exec director''s position becomes untenable any time the vote goes against him.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]Nutty Nigel posted: As far as I''m aware it''s one vote one person in the board room. Each director''s vote counts the same. If you cast your mind back to 2009 you will remember that Bowkett, and associiate director at the time, wrote to criticise those charged with running the club. Much was made of this and after relegation the executive directors were sacked. Some say they left but that was just to pout a veneer on it. They were sacked and their places taken by McNally and ironically enough Bowkett.

What I am saying was that if the executive directors, who are charged with running the club, are out voted in the boardroom it makes their position untenable.

So far as I know we only have one exec director I.e. McNally. If this is the case then it is likely that he would be outvoted on some issues. There is no point to having one vote per director if the exec director''s position becomes untenable any time the vote goes against him.[/quote]This makes about as much sense as your previous post on the NCFC boardroom. Executive directors are not charged with running the club, apart from on the week to week and month to month basis. When it comes to the big-picture decisions - and this applies to important companies no matter what the business - the directors  as a group make the decisions, and on a one person one vote basis. It could not possibly work any other way.The idea that a CEO must always be allowed to win a vote is ridiculous. It is based on the patently erroneous notion that CEOs will always be right about an issue. You seem to think a CEO should get their way even when they are wrong. I doubt many companies work that way. If a CEO is so egotistical as to flounce off when a stupid idea gets rejected then the company is better off without them.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Well maybe on the first occasion Purple. But if, as has been suggested and was what I was referring to, the executive directors continually went to the board recommending Hughton was sacked and the board continually outvoted them then yes I do think that would make their position untenable. Only Brownie can tell us if this was the case and what he was referring to. But it appears he''d rather discredit me which makes me beieve he made the whole thing up[:O]

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well maybe on the first occasion Purple. But if, as has been suggested and was what I was referring to, the executive directors continually went to the board recommending Hughton was sacked and the board continually outvoted them then yes I do think that would make their position untenable. Only Brownie can tell us if this was the case and what he was referring to. But it appears he''d rather discredit me which makes me beieve he made the whole thing up[:O]

 

 

[/quote]I was talking in more general terms, nutty, than in a particular case. As to the particular, we only have one executive director. If - and I don''t for one moment believe this happened - McNally had kept putting forward a really solid argument for sacking Hughton and kept being outvoted for no good reason, then, yes, that probably make the CEO''s position untenable. But there is no evidence that was the case here, and what evidence there is indicates that McNally had kept faith in Hughton up to West Brom. When everybody lost faith.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well maybe on the first occasion Purple. But if, as has been suggested and was what I was referring to, the executive directors continually went to the board recommending Hughton was sacked and the board continually outvoted them then yes I do think that would make their position untenable. Only Brownie can tell us if this was the case and what he was referring to. But it appears he''d rather discredit me which makes me beieve he made the whole thing up[:O]

 

 

[/quote]I was talking in more general terms, nutty, than in a particular case. As to the particular, we only have one executive director. If - and I don''t for one moment believe this happened - McNally had kept putting forward a really solid argument for sacking Hughton and kept being outvoted for no good reason, then, yes, that probably make the CEO''s position untenable. But there is no evidence that was the case here, and what evidence there is indicates that McNally had kept faith in Hughton up to West Brom. When everybody lost faith.

[/quote]

 

So it''s over to Brownie then...

 

 

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Nutty, I''m not going over this again, I''ve explained what I meant, everyone else gets it, you are either choosing not to get it on purpose so you can have an argument with someone, or you''re a little more dim than I''d assumed.

Either way, I''m done talking to you on this thread or any other because it is just a giant waste of time. Don''t bother trying to engage me with one of your cryptic rambles again because I won''t be responding.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

And another personal attack but nothing about your post. If you read the thread it''s quite obvious that everybody doesn''t understand the point you were making. I''ve tried and assumed it was that someone had continually approached the board to sack Hughton but had been outvoted. Is that right? Or is there some cryptic message in there that nobody can work out?

 

I will remain in good humour and not respond to the attacks on me personally.

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,738]

Care to respond to the post about us having only one executive director Nutty that being McNally and if you say that is not true tell us who THEY are ?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Originally we had 2 executive directors but as I understand it Bowkett took a back seat to spend more time on other things. So unless you know of someone else who has taken his place it would be just McNally. What point are you trying to make Tilly?

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Originally we had 2 executive directors but as I understand it Bowkett took a back seat to spend more time on other things.

[/quote]

Where did you glean that info ?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

From the AGM when Bowkett said he''d offered to step down completely but had been persuaded to stay on as a director. You were there...

 

What point are you trying to make?

 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

So that two premier league relegations because the cook held on to her favourite managers long after their sell by date. Firtst Worthington now Hughton.

and no it doesn''t always get decided by a vote. More business is done in the corridor than in the boardroom

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]So that two premier league relegations because the cook held on to her favourite managers long after their sell by date. Firtst Worthington now Hughton.

and no it doesn''t always get decided by a vote. More business is done in the corridor than in the boardroom[/quote]

 

Could be Rocky. But only if the change you wanted would have made any difference. Of course we could have ended up with less points and been relegated sooner. Who''s to say? What is it about you that I need to take your word sacking Worthy / Hughton would have made a positive difference?

 

And once you''ve convinced me of that can you also tell me why I should believe the cook was responsible and not Munby Doncaster / Bowkett McNally?

 

Remember that thread I started saying it would be Delia next.....

 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]So that two premier league relegations because the cook held on to her favourite managers long after their sell by date. Firtst Worthington now Hughton.

and no it doesn''t always get decided by a vote. More business is done in the corridor than in the boardroom[/quote]

That''s absolute poppycock. Unless you''re saying that McNally stood there and openly lied.

David McNally was completely behind Hughton, questionable selections and everything, until he felt there was an irreparable rift between the regime and the fans after the WBA game.

According to David McNally....

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

From the AGM when Bowkett said he''d offered to step down completely but had been persuaded to stay on as a director. You were there...

 

What point are you trying to make?

[/quote]

Making a point to you is a non starter as you will argue for another 10 pages in an attempt to prove your version is right and everybody else has it wrong as been shown on thread after thread. A few posts back you mention executive directors in the plural and now you post the above about Bowkett  suggesting he stood down as an executive director. Now which one of your posts is factually correct or is it both of them ?

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well maybe on the first occasion Purple. But if, as has been suggested and was what I was referring to,the executive directors continually went to the board recommending Hughton was sacked  and the board continually outvoted them then yes I do think that would make their position untenable. Only Brownie can tell us if this was the case and what he was referring to. But it appears he''d rather discredit me which makes me beieve he made the whole thing up[:O]

 

 

[/quote]

So either we have executive directors plural or Bowkett stood down as outlined by you and stated by him at an AGM. Which is it ?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well maybe on the first occasion Purple. But if, as has been suggested and was what I was referring to,the executive directors continually went to the board recommending Hughton was sacked  and the board continually outvoted them then yes I do think that would make their position untenable. Only Brownie can tell us if this was the case and what he was referring to. But it appears he''d rather discredit me which makes me beieve he made the whole thing up[:O]

 

 

[/quote]

So either we have executive directors plural or Bowkett stood down as outlined by you and stated by him at an AGM. Which is it ?

[/quote]

 

Well I suppose it depends on how long they''d been continually going to the board for. Best you ask Brownie...

 

Now again, what point are you trying to make Tilly?