Positive move.   http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40019618

1 hour ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

Positive move.   http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40019618

Agreed. We now need a director of football responsible for ALL football matters who understands what is needed to take us back to the top league. Malpas maybe that guy. 

This is a start but much more information needed from the board and, critically a decision on the manager by the end of the week to enable any new manager time to organise for next season.

10 hours ago, caleyboy said:

Agreed. We now need a director of football responsible for ALL football matters who understands what is needed to take us back to the top league. Malpas maybe that guy. 

or Charlie Christie?

2 hours ago, ictfcsince94 said:

or Charlie Christie?

Why not? Seems like the natural choice to me..maybe RF can take over running the Centenary Club ..

13 hours ago, caleyboy said:

Agreed. We now need a director of football responsible for ALL football matters who understands what is needed to take us back to the top league. Malpas maybe that guy. 

I'm not over confident that Maurice would be the right man for that role...don't know why mind...just doesn't set my pulse racing with excitement  

3 hours ago, Gringo said:

I'm not over confident that Maurice would be the right man for that role...don't know why mind...just doesn't set my pulse racing with excitement  

He doesn't even set Mrs Malpas's pulse racing with excitement.......

MM may not set the pulse racing but he's a decent coach and well worthy of consideration as Director of Football.

14 hours ago, Glen Mhor said:

MM may not set the pulse racing but he's a decent coach and well worthy of consideration as Director of Football.

Think so - unless he ends up being RF's assistant, or vice versa. Who knows, the guessing game goes on, awaiting an announcement with baited breath (glad I didn't hold my breath as I'd have suffocated by now...)

Willie Finlayson...........................willie talk to us soon please

4 minutes ago, bughtmaster said:

Willie Finlayson...........................willie talk to us soon please

Second that...I'm turning blue holding my breath here...

Looking at the club's publicly available filing record at Companies House today (web-link below), it says that Willie Finlayson resigned as a director on 22 May, the day before the club announcement of his appointment as chairman. A bit odd maybe. His statement the next day did refer to his fellow directors although he did say in his statement that he will not be chief executive officer. I see also that the new director appointments are not officially registered at Companies House yet although that may just be a form-filling delay.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC149117/filing-history

Well spotted. A very curious turn of events.

 

Just now, Yngwie said:

Well spotted. A very curious turn of events.

 

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. Would be interesting to hear. 

1 hour ago, cif73 said:

Looking at the club's publicly available filing record at Companies House today (web-link below), it says that Willie Finlayson resigned as a director on 22 May, the day before the club announcement of his appointment as chairman. A bit odd maybe. His statement the next day did refer to his fellow directors although he did say in his statement that he will not be chief executive officer. I see also that the new director appointments are not officially registered at Companies House yet although that may just be a form-filling delay.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC149117/filing-history

I believe also that new directors  need approval by the SFA

My understanding is that club directors, and the team manager, just have to sign a form confirming that they are a "fit and proper" person under the SFA's articles. It is accepted at face value unless the SFA have information to the contrary and ask for further evidence. It is clearly not a difficult hurdle to overcome!

The new directors are now registered at Companies House. Done later today.

***Update***

Having just looked at Companies House today, it appears that Willie Finlayson is still NOT a director.

Current directors are Ian MacDonald, David Cameron, Allan Mackenzie, Alan McPhee, Graeme Rae and Ken Thomson.

At the end of the season, Finlayson was recorded as having resigned, along with Gordon Munroe and Kenny Cameron. Richard Smith had already stood down in April.

There is nothing filed to reappoint Finlayson. What's going on?

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

***Update***

Having just looked at Companies House today, it appears that Willie Finlayson is still NOT a director.

Current directors are Ian MacDonald, David Cameron, Allan Mackenzie, Alan McPhee, Graeme Rae and Ken Thomson.

At the end of the season, Finlayson was recorded as having resigned, along with Gordon Munroe and Kenny Cameron. Richard Smith had already stood down in April.

There is nothing filed to reappoint Finlayson. What's going on?

Best practice, for the purposes of Corporate Governance, etc, is that the Chairman is a Non-exec appointment and would not therefore be appointed as a Director.

Many occasion where the Chairman is also a Director for numerous reasons.

Fine to be non-exec, but any Chairman (of the Board of directors) has to be on the board of directors and must therefore be a director in the first place!

6 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Fine to be non-exec, but any Chairman (of the Board of directors) has to be on the board of directors and must therefore be a director in the first place!

Agree. Surely the Chairman of the board must be a director.

Is he only temporary till a new Chairman is appointed?

Maybe that's what is written in the stars...

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

Fine to be non-exec, but any Chairman (of the Board of directors) has to be on the board of directors and must therefore be a director in the first place!

Typically the Chairman chairs the 'Main' Board of a Company. This may be made up with a mixture of Executive and Non-executive members. Separate Executive meetings and sub-boards will be common some of which may be restricted to executive members only.

Directors are defined under law and have responsibilities and duties of which there are many.

The non-executives are broadly tasked with providing scrutiny for the Shareholders by being separate from the day to day decisions requiring to be taken by company directors and wider employees.

It is not good governance (though often occurs) for the Chairman to be executive and is frowned upon (but is allowable) to undertake the role of Chief Exec.

As most will now have fallen asleep I'll now be brief in that the Main Board under the direction of the Chairman are responsible with dictating strategy and direction for the company (or in this case the club) with the Executive responsible for implementing these goals.

In summary, the Chairman should not be a Director (but frequently is). Separate requirements outwith the Companies Act exist for Licensing Clubs via the SFA, etc

Everything you say is correct except for the important bit that is actually relevant here! When you say "The Chairman should not be a director" I think you are completely wrong. Whether or not a chairman is executive or non exec, they still have to be a director!

25 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Everything you say is correct except for the important bit that is actually relevant here! When you say "The Chairman should not be a director" I think you are completely wrong. Whether or not a chairman is executive or non exec, they still have to be a director!

Non-exec Directors are not Registered at Companies House. Only Exec Director are.