TopSix

SACK THE BOARD

Recommended Posts

Huisdean    401
5 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

Should be the same as any business IHE, if we go down this board should fund the losses incurred by relegation. Those not prepared to satisfy this basic business need should step down as soon as our fate is decided.

The Board are private individuals and, whatever you may think of them for our current plight, some have invested their own money already in the club. Why then should the individuals fund the losses incurred by relegation. If this was to happen you would have no board members or only ones who can afford to throw away money like Uncle Roy up the road.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caleyboy    262
3 hours ago, Huisdean said:

The Board are private individuals and, whatever you may think of them for our current plight, some have invested their own money already in the club. Why then should the individuals fund the losses incurred by relegation. If this was to happen you would have no board members or only ones who can afford to throw away money like Uncle Roy up the road.

Exactly. As in any business directors know the risks associated with their role as custodians of the business. Their decision. Either manage a profitable business accept the financial consequences. Simple.

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caleyboy said:

Exactly. As in any business directors know the risks associated with their role as custodians of the business. Their decision. Either manage a profitable business accept the financial consequences. Simple.

One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration for what they do on the club's behalf and you also appear to want to make them financially responsible for losses incurred - in a business which doesn't follow the basic rules of economics in the first place. Jam on both sides and butter round the edges comes to mind. Any profit they make goes into funding a player pool which already has costs way out of proportion with what the customers pay for the product. Any loss in what is an extremely high risk business and you expect these volunteers to be personally responsible. I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules? And what precisely is meant by "fund the losses"? How would you propose they do this?

In advance of a definitive outcome to the current situation, I'm not going to attribute blame publicly although I generally take the view that, in an environment where room for manoeuvre has always been extremely limited, the Board have made mistakes which must also be viewed alongside the successes of their watch.

I am prepared to say as much, and elaborate on it objectively when things become clearer... all under my own name. On the other hand, I can't help but feel that caleyboy has a preconceived "anti-board" agenda which he is content to express from behind a mask of anonymity.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 6
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of the money any company or business is ultimately judged on its profits / losses, stability / instability, performance and decision making ? Many will point to the manager and the background team as the scapegoats but the Board are ultimately responsible for those choices. But I am as worried as to who would replace them.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caleyboy    262
48 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration for what they do on the club's behalf and you also appear to want to make them financially responsible for losses incurred - in a business which doesn't follow the basic rules of economics in the first place. Jam on both sides and butter round the edges comes to mind. Any profit they make goes into funding a player pool which already has costs way out of proportion with what the customers pay for the product. Any loss in what is an extremely high risk business and you expect these volunteers to be personally responsible. I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules? And what precisely is meant by "fund the losses"? How would you propose they do this?

In advance of a definitive outcome to the current situation, I'm not going to attribute blame publicly although I generally take the view that, in an environment where room for manoeuvre has always been extremely limited, the Board have made mistakes which must also be viewed alongside the successes of their watch.

I am prepared to say as much, and elaborate on it objectively when things become clearer... all under my own name. On the other hand, I can't help but feel that caleyboy has a preconceived "anti-board" agenda which he is content to express from behind a mask of anonymity.

"One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration"

So you are telling me that we have no directors receiving any remuneration either directly or via business relationships with associated companies? 

"I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules?

Absolutely no idea but I think you would find others outwith the current carefully selected members. The rules for limited companies are pretty clear and do not give any allowances to the "football type" business. If the directors have no financial responsibility then who should bear the losses?

I'm not going to attribute blame......

I would be very interested who you feel is to blame for the current state of this club

I can't help but feel that caleyboy has a preconceived "anti-board" agenda which he is content to express from behind a mask of anonymity.

Absolutely no "anti-board" agenda here Mr Bannerman just looking for a well run football club with astute financial management. Just looking for those responsible to hold up their hands as they all seem to be keeping very very quiet.

As you are well aware I am entitled to protect my anonymity for personal and professional reasons and I fully expect it to stay that way.

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about "the losses incurred by relegation".   What losses?  Can anyone say what they are, and then quantify them?

If the club is relegated then there will be less money coming in next season than this season, and, one hopes, less going out.  But losses?  Less or no TV money isn't a loss - it's less or no TV money.  Less or no prize money isn't a loss - it's less or no prize money.

The club will have a smaller turnover. It may make a loss - though there is the parachute payment to take into account. But relegation is a fact of life for a football club, and I think you'd be hard pressed to point to a particular loss - an actual loss, not a shrinkage in revenue - and say "that is directly as a result of relegation".

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caleyboy    262
1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that caleyboy has a preconceived "anti-board" agenda which he is content to express from behind a mask of anonymity.

Maybe you would like to check the posts I have made on this subject. To label these as having an "anti-board" agenda is harsh to say the least. Maybe you should check the 16 posts I have made and you will find the majority are replies to posts. Your apologies are awaited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

"One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration"

So you are telling me that we have no directors receiving any remuneration either directly or via business relationships with associated companies? 

"I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules?

Absolutely no idea but I think you would find others outwith the current carefully selected members. The rules for limited companies are pretty clear and do not give any allowances to the "football type" business. If the directors have no financial responsibility then who should bear the losses?

I'm not going to attribute blame......

I would be very interested who you feel is to blame for the current state of this club

I can't help but feel that caleyboy has a preconceived "anti-board" agenda which he is content to express from behind a mask of anonymity.

Absolutely no "anti-board" agenda here Mr Bannerman just looking for a well run football club with astute financial management. Just looking for those responsible to hold up their hands as they all seem to be keeping very very quiet.

As you are well aware I am entitled to protect my anonymity for personal and professional reasons and I fully expect it to stay that way.

The last (and indeed only) ICT director that I am aware of having received remuneration as a director is Graeme Bennett.

The company is owned by the shareholders who in turn approve the appointment of (most of?) the directors to run its affairs on their behalf. By losses, and this MAY answer Snorbens' question, I am guessing you may be referring to any excess of expenditure over income in the financial year ending a fortnight Wednesday and/or any drop in income in the event of relegation.

While there is still a chance of Premiership survival, I am very reluctant to become embroiled in any discussion of "blame" which does occur to me as a rather divisive distraction while there is any remaining chance of staying up. I am also not certain that this forum would be where my eventual viewpoint would emerge first.

On the subject of any "anti board" sentiment, that is simply my ongoing perception. If you are a shareholder, and I have a hunch that you may be, you presumably have the right to place a motion of no confidence in the Board before the next AGM should you wish. I am not fully conversant with the Articles of Association, but I would guess that there may well also be the means of assembling an earlier Special General Meeting of the Company for the same purpose. In both instances, I would imagine that it would be advisable to have in place the means of quickly assembling a new board should any motion succeed.

 

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caleyboy    262
27 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The last (and indeed only) ICT director that I am aware of having received remuneration as a director is Graeme Bennett.

The company is owned by the shareholders who in turn approve the appointment of (most of?) the directors to run its affairs on their behalf. By losses, and this MAY answer Snorbens' question, I am guessing you may be referring to any excess of expenditure over income in the financial year ending a fortnight Wednesday and/or any drop in income in the event of relegation.

While there is still a chance of Premiership survival, I am very reluctant to become embroiled in any discussion of "blame" which does occur to me as a rather divisive distraction while there is any remaining chance of staying up. I am also not certain that this forum would be where my eventual viewpoint would emerge first.

On the subject of any "anti board" sentiment, that is simply my ongoing perception.

 

The last (and indeed only) ICT director that I am aware of having received remuneration as a director is Graeme Bennett.

Really?

The company is owned by the shareholders who in turn approve the appointment of (most of?) the directors to run its affairs on their behalf. By losses, and this MAY answer Snorbens' question, I am guessing you may be referring to any excess of expenditure over income in the financial year ending a fortnight Wednesday and/or any drop in income in the event of relegation.

Fully aware of who owns the company but directors are appointed on the number of votes received which really means that those holding the majority of shares elect the nomination. They can also be co-opted. Profits are profits and losses are losses no matter how they are painted. Should we be relegated (which I hope is not the case) I fully expect our income to reduce considerably. Our expenditure is another subject as any business has fixed costs which are generally not controlled by the division we play in. To control costs is not an easy option unless you cut wages, reduce staff and general overheads etc. Are you saying that it's ok for the small shareholders of this club to take the loss of their hard earned donation?

While there is still a chance of Premiership survival, I am very reluctant to become embroiled in any discussion of "blame" which does occur to me as a rather divisive distraction while there is any remaining chance of staying up. I am also not certain that this forum would be where my eventual viewpoint would emerge first.

Premiership survival should help the club/business to survive but even if we do (here's hoping) I would not consider this season as being acceptable either on or off the park. Changes are desperately needed. Absolutely NOTHING divisive in any of my comments. 

On the subject of any "anti board" sentiment, that is simply my ongoing perception.

And as we all know you are not always correct. Again, check all my posts the first of which was on 9th April.

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Tree    136

"One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration"

So you are telling me that we have no directors receiving any remuneration either directly or via business relationships with associated companies? 

If they are receiving indirect benefits as you suggest then this may well result in a conflict of interest and a breach of duties as Director. I doubt that this is therefore the case in a tangible form.

 

"I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules?

Absolutely no idea but I think you would find others outwith the current carefully selected members. The rules for limited companies are pretty clear and do not give any allowances to the "football type" business. If the directors have no financial responsibility then who should bear the losses?

The people who bear the losses are called Shareholders. Shareholders may or may not be Directors but being appointed as a director does not imply any direct financial responsibility or consequential impact. One of the extensive duties of an appointed Directors is promoting the success of the company however I doubt it would be fair to conclude that every club that gets relegate has Directors acting contrary to duty. In normal circumstances if Shareholder believe that the board are not performing the Directors are removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huisdean    401
2 hours ago, Tree said:

"One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration"

So you are telling me that we have no directors receiving any remuneration either directly or via business relationships with associated companies? 

If they are receiving indirect benefits as you suggest then this may well result in a conflict of interest and a breach of duties as Director. I doubt that this is therefore the case in a tangible form.

 

"I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules?

Absolutely no idea but I think you would find others outwith the current carefully selected members. The rules for limited companies are pretty clear and do not give any allowances to the "football type" business. If the directors have no financial responsibility then who should bear the losses?

The people who bear the losses are called Shareholders. Shareholders may or may not be Directors but being appointed as a director does not imply any direct financial responsibility or consequential impact. One of the extensive duties of an appointed Directors is promoting the success of the company however I doubt it would be fair to conclude that every club that gets relegate has Directors acting contrary to duty. In normal circumstances if Shareholder believe that the board are not performing the Directors are removed.

This is the point I was trying to make but Tree puts it so much better. As with any company, it is the shareholders who bear any loss, not the directors and I reiterate my earlier point that if you make directors liable for losses, very few will want to be a director. To suggest otherwise is nonsense Caleyboy. I am certainly not commenting on the performance of the current board as that is another discussion for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still unclear as to what exactly is meant by the directors having to "accept the financial consequences" of any "losses" and how such a process was likely to be implemented.

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Long Man    323

I do think you are way off the mark suggesting that directors take any money out of the club or that they are in it for financial benefit. Plenty to talk about after the season ends, and plenty to say about the structure of the club and how it might be improved, but just blasting at directors in frustration is not going to get anyone anywhere. Whatever mistakes they have made, the question is the best way forward, not a slanging match to blame people who are probably just as horrified as we are at how things have turned out.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Long Man said:

I do think you are way off the mark suggesting that directors take any money out of the club or that they are in it for financial benefit. Plenty to talk about after the season ends, and plenty to say about the structure of the club and how it might be improved, but just blasting at directors in frustration is not going to get anyone anywhere. Whatever mistakes they have made, the question is the best way forward, not a slanging match to blame people who are probably just as horrified as we are at how things have turned out.

BUMP!!! Best post of the night.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PerfICT    1,137
15 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

All this talk about "the losses incurred by relegation".   What losses?  Can anyone say what they are, and then quantify them?

If the club is relegated then there will be less money coming in next season than this season, and, one hopes, less going out.  But losses?  Less or no TV money isn't a loss - it's less or no TV money.  Less or no prize money isn't a loss - it's less or no prize money.

The club will have a smaller turnover. It may make a loss - though there is the parachute payment to take into account. But relegation is a fact of life for a football club, and I think you'd be hard pressed to point to a particular loss - an actual loss, not a shrinkage in revenue - and say "that is directly as a result of relegation".

There is no question that there would be a big financial loss on account of reduced revenue with only a small reduction in costs. Only today, auditors have issued a warning to Dundee Utd after they posted a £1.5 M loss on account of relegation (despite the parachute payment). Somebody on this site previously indicated that we lost £900k after the previous relegation, evidencing the accounts. There will undoubtedly be a big loss and it would be the shareholders that would carry the cost. Directors might be responsible for the decisions leading to the loss, but have no obligation to fill the hole.

Edited by PerfICT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yngwie    3,259

To clarify, Dundee Utd's £1.5m loss was for 15/16, their relegation season.

I suspect we will have made a loss of around £0.5m this season. That number is somewhat plucked from the air but we all know that to break even we need a high league position, cup runs, player windfalls etc and we've had none of those things this season.

The only saving grace is that we must have saved a fortune in win bonuses! :lol:

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yngwie said:

To clarify, Dundee Utd's £1.5m loss was for 15/16, their relegation season.

I suspect we will have made a loss of around £0.5m this season. That number is somewhat plucked from the air but we all know that to break even we need a high league position, cup runs, player windfalls etc and we've had none of those things this season.

The only saving grace is that we must have saved a fortune in win bonuses! :lol:

Yngwie... is it possible that any "windfalls" from the previous season weren't paid until the current accounting period so may lighten the load? Just a thought. Also, your remark about win bonuses may well come into the "many a true word spoken in jest" category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I'm still unclear as to what exactly is meant by the directors having to "accept the financial consequences" of any "losses" and how such a process was likely to be implemented.

BUMP!

  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Renegade    2,295

Question that needs an answer - who sacks the board and how does it happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Tree    136
3 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Question that needs an answer - who sacks the board and how does it happen?

Shareholders can call an EGM and look to vote in/out subject to the company articles

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.