|
Post by lostinspace on May 10, 2016 17:12:50 GMT
I'll throw another spanner in the works for you. The pitch was superb for an end of season game. Read more: gasheads.org/thread/5156/rovers-appoint-new-director#ixzz48H2arYe5thought that the first chance that fell to Bodin, before D&R scored, the pitch had been overwatered and caused him to loose his footing and sent the ball high and wide, and through maybe the first 20--30 minutes several players were having some problem with staying on their feet, then the rain came and that never seemed to make matters worse, as it was an even downpoor across the pitch and thought from then on it played as well as the pitch looked
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 18:36:16 GMT
I'm not a businessman. The following is my limited understand, so please correct me. Before, the most major shareholders were directors. Then, the most major (majority) shareholder was Chairman. Then, he and they were accountable mainly to themselves. Minor shareholdings voted at AGMs, but only in proportion. Now, the ownership is almost entirely with the Al Qadis. Wael is thus President. The Chairman is not a majority nor even major shareholder. The Chairman is therefore accountable to, and removable by, Wael. This is true of all new directors. Thus there is another level of accountibility. While the former directors owned the club and did as they pleased... ... there are now four tiers of personnel: 1. The staff, appointed by and accountable to... 2. The management, appointed by and accountable to... 3. The board, appointed by and accountable to... 4. The ownership, manifested primarily by President Wael Al Qadi. Is this all correct? If it is, then I believe it is good. The President's power seems rather absolute. But it is detached from executive action. Directorial and executive action is thus more accountable. Should the President want to control everything directly, ... and should the president be an awful tyrant, ... he could wield power dangerously and destructively. Fortunately, all the evidence so far indicates quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on May 11, 2016 12:44:41 GMT
Hes a partner at a large London law firm and travels alot, I doubt he will have a massive role in the club, beyond the typcial role of a non-executive director (taken from the web): Strategy. Non-Executive Directors should constructively challenge and help develop proposals on strategy. Performance. Non-Executive Directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitor the reporting of performance. Risk. Non-Executive Directors should satisfy themselves on the integrity of financial information and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible. People. Non-Executive Directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors, and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, executive directors and in succession planning. He is there to provide Counsel and almost be a devils advocate against the board. He is just what they said he will be, I cant see anything else. They are just putting a 'normal' board structure. The old structure was abnormal.Never a truer word
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on May 13, 2016 10:32:09 GMT
Hes a partner at a large London law firm and travels alot, I doubt he will have a massive role in the club, beyond the typcial role of a non-executive director (taken from the web): Strategy. Non-Executive Directors should constructively challenge and help develop proposals on strategy. Performance. Non-Executive Directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitor the reporting of performance. Risk. Non-Executive Directors should satisfy themselves on the integrity of financial information and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible. People. Non-Executive Directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors, and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, executive directors and in succession planning. He is there to provide Counsel and almost be a devils advocate against the board. He is just what they said he will be, I cant see anything else. They are just putting a 'normal' board structure. The old structure was abnormal. Maybe he is a Gashead................ I'll get my coat
|
|