|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 1, 2020 10:28:14 GMT
the statement seems to clarify the issue that lawyers were representing KM, and not the SC. So it would make sense that he paid for the legal support
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 1, 2020 10:30:03 GMT
the statement states that he hasn't been invited to a board meeting since March last year, but is silent as to which board meetings he did attend - I have heard it said that he was invited, but never attended anyway
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 1, 2020 10:44:02 GMT
'I have no confidence or trust in any corporate governance going forward under the proprietary operational methods now employed by the Club. My position is therefore untenable.'
so, he definitely didn't leave because he was 'asked to stand down', but definitely because of his lack of confidence in the corporate governance?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 10:46:06 GMT
Maybe it's just me but that statement was full of self justification. The resignation is hollow as the board/shareholders could have him removed at Companies House in any event. If they had not, that says more about their own ineptitude.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 10:51:04 GMT
See Ken. Communication is easy, why leave it so long.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 10:55:37 GMT
Maybe it's just me but that statement was full of self justification. The resignation is hollow as the board/shareholders could have him removed at Companies House in any event. If they had not, that says more about their own ineptitude. All me, me, me Oldie but then we knew all along why he craved involvement from the outset and stayed around for so long.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Apr 1, 2020 11:00:11 GMT
In Monty Python style, So, what has Ken Masters ever done for us?
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Apr 1, 2020 11:03:13 GMT
Well ain't he the hero. How will we manage without him representing us. I only skimmed it to be fair - does he say if he's continuing his work with the Community Trust? "Reigns" - freudian slip?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 11:41:21 GMT
See Ken. Communication is easy, why leave it so long. Because, apart from the Community dept stuff, which isn't part of the remit anyway, in a decade, he's done diddly squat actually related to the position he's been elected to represent?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 11:49:35 GMT
See Ken. Communication is easy, why leave it so long. Because, apart from the Community dept stuff, which isn't part of the remit anyway, in a decade, he's done diddly squat actually related to the position he's been elected to represent? It was rhetorical my friend.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 1, 2020 11:50:43 GMT
Because, apart from the Community dept stuff, which isn't part of the remit anyway, in a decade, he's done diddly squat actually related to the position he's been elected to represent? It was rhetorical my friend. but that pre-supposes he wrote it himself
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 11:56:12 GMT
Maybe it's just me but that statement was full of self justification. The resignation is hollow as the board/shareholders could have him removed at Companies House in any event. If they had not, that says more about their own ineptitude. All me, me, me Oldie but then we knew all along why he craved involvement from the outset and stayed around for so long. Indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 12:10:48 GMT
Because, apart from the Community dept stuff, which isn't part of the remit anyway, in a decade, he's done diddly squat actually related to the position he's been elected to represent? It was rhetorical my friend. I knew that, but I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that he seems a bit confused about normal company procedure, and all he does is bang on about stuff that's nothing at all to do with representing supporters in the Board Room. He's lucky that he's been allowed to walk away with some degree of dignity and resign, he should have been removed years ago. How about this Ken, if the FC are not adhering to the terms of the Share Scheme Agreement, why not write to all remaining subscribing members explaining this and see how many want to continue on that basis? Of course, it may mean your position vanishes overnight, but there's a point of principle in play here. Would like to know what he's asked solicitors to do exactly, protect his personal position, or try to force to FC to adhere to the terms of the agreement, thus protecting subscribers' investment? It's nothing to do with the position itself, they've said that a replacement for Ken is welcome. Do you need 2 guesses?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Apr 1, 2020 12:25:27 GMT
So the legal case came to nothing.
What a surprise!!!
We can now move on to appointing a SC representative, therefore raising the pressure on 2 Directors to accommodate a new elected representative.
Who is going to stand? When is the election? Can anyone make this work?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 1, 2020 12:38:54 GMT
is it a complete coincidence that Gasincider and fanny over at the other place have gone quiet with their ITK innuendo since SH and KM have been banished?
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Apr 1, 2020 13:35:30 GMT
Something to keep an eye on is if this has any ramifications for the Community Trust. If I remember correctly it was the previous board, in particular Nick Higgs, who asked KM to lead the Community Trust. This he has done since, keeping 'power' very close; chairing all meetings, arranging agendas and taking minutes. Back under the old regime Toni Watola would attend meetings and 'look after' the finances. So back then the link with the BoD was strong. More recently I understand that Steve Hamer was an attendee at meetings. Then there is the matter of the Study Centre,housed in a room under the Dribuild stand and used by many students. I'm only guessing but I wouldn't be surprised if TG would love to have that space to use to generate funds for the club. So, watch this space.....
|
|
|
Post by irenesfather on Apr 1, 2020 14:05:41 GMT
It was rhetorical my friend. I knew that, but I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that he seems a bit confused about normal company procedure, and all he does is bang on about stuff that's nothing at all to do with representing supporters in the Board Room. He's lucky that he's been allowed to walk away with some degree of dignity and resign, he should have been removed years ago. How about this Ken, if the FC are not adhering to the terms of the Share Scheme Agreement, why not write to all remaining subscribing members explaining this and see how many want to continue on that basis? Of course, it may mean your position vanishes overnight, but there's a point of principle in play here. Would like to know what he's asked solicitors to do exactly, protect his personal position, or try to force to FC to adhere to the terms of the agreement, thus protecting subscribers' investment? It's nothing to do with the position itself, they've said that a replacement for Ken is welcome. Do you need 2 guesses? If,as he says,he has been given no reasons for his banishment,and the fact that he was informed by the ceo of the club in front of spectators, then he is justified in taking legal advice as to the reasons for his removal and the way it was done. As philton will probably confirm from his days on the board,the sc directors were there as a token gesture to maintain the donations and any views they had were of no consequence
|
|
|
Post by irenesfather on Apr 1, 2020 14:07:16 GMT
So the legal case came to nothing. What a surprise!!! We can now move on to appointing a SC representative, therefore raising the pressure on 2 Directors to accommodate a new elected representative. Who is going to stand? When is the election? Can anyone make this work? Would you stand as his replacement,only to be subjected to the same treatment from those above and below?
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Apr 1, 2020 14:12:56 GMT
So the legal case came to nothing. What a surprise!!! We can now move on to appointing a SC representative, therefore raising the pressure on 2 Directors to accommodate a new elected representative. Who is going to stand? When is the election? Can anyone make this work? Would you stand as his replacement,only to be subjected to the same treatment from those above and below? I would hope not to get the same treatment from below, as I would be employed to represent the views first and foremost. Something Ken didn’t do once in 14 years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 14:39:49 GMT
I knew that, but I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that he seems a bit confused about normal company procedure, and all he does is bang on about stuff that's nothing at all to do with representing supporters in the Board Room. He's lucky that he's been allowed to walk away with some degree of dignity and resign, he should have been removed years ago. How about this Ken, if the FC are not adhering to the terms of the Share Scheme Agreement, why not write to all remaining subscribing members explaining this and see how many want to continue on that basis? Of course, it may mean your position vanishes overnight, but there's a point of principle in play here. Would like to know what he's asked solicitors to do exactly, protect his personal position, or try to force to FC to adhere to the terms of the agreement, thus protecting subscribers' investment? It's nothing to do with the position itself, they've said that a replacement for Ken is welcome. Do you need 2 guesses? If,as he says,he has been given no reasons for his banishment,and the fact that he was informed by the ceo of the club in front of spectators, then he is justified in taking legal advice as to the reasons for his removal and the way it was done. As philton will probably confirm from his days on the board,the sc directors were there as a token gesture to maintain the donations and any views they had were of no consequence You do realise that people are appointed to, and removed from Boards, up and down the country on a daily basis, don't you? I trust that you noticed, in amongst Ken's lengthy and rather vainglorious departure rant, a complete lack of detail surrounding how that public conversation was instigated. Philton can respond for himself, but Kim Stuckey did very well as a SS Director. So that kind of pulls the rug out from under that argument. If you are looking for sympathy for a bloke who put himself forward for election via the Share Scheme before he had even ever joined it, and has done virtually nothing of note with the position over a period of many years, I think you may be on the wrong forum.
|
|