Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 9:47:34 GMT
We're all assuming that board meetings are actually held. This might possibly not be the case. Perhaps Wael would like to tell us how many formal, minuted board meetings have been held since 05/03/19. Some posters have referred to the club being run by a dictatorship. The absence of board meetings might strengthen this assertion?
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Apr 2, 2020 9:54:11 GMT
This bit surprised me: “Two directorships remain available in accordance with the Share Scheme agreement but no supporter has stood for the office since Brian Seymour-Smith resigned a couple of years ago and frankly I could not recommend anyone to do so now with the Football Club’s accounts in their current state. The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!” Are they really trying to say that a fan representative on the board of directors would be liable to lose all their assets if loans taken out by Dwayne Sports are unable to be repaid? Surely they would be classed as non exec?
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Apr 2, 2020 10:01:11 GMT
the supporters club statement says :- "The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!"
Not sure that is actually a statement of fact - The football club is a limited company isn't it ?
I personally think the club decided to force Ken out and I have some sympathy, however it seems strange that someone could remain in this position for 14 years. What rules do the supporters club have, surely the fans directory should be re-elected every couple of years, and even having a maximum term someone could be in position might make sense ? They say no one has stood for a vacant second position on the board, have they even tried to hold elections ? I don't remember any call for nominations.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 2, 2020 10:12:12 GMT
the supporters club statement says :- "The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!" Not sure that is actually a statement of fact - The football club is a limited company isn't it ? I personally think the club decided to force Ken out and I have some sympathy, however it seems strange that someone could remain in this position for 14 years. What rules do the supporters club have, surely the fans directory should be re-elected every couple of years, and even having a maximum term someone could be in position might make sense ? They say no one has stood for a vacant second position on the board, have they even tried to hold elections ? I don't remember any call for nominations. Its generally bollox. Either a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of a limited company (ie. To protect personal assets) or a serious accusation against the owners of which then personal assets could be liable
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Apr 2, 2020 10:13:01 GMT
the supporters club statement says :- "The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!" Not sure that is actually a statement of fact - The football club is a limited company isn't it ? I personally think the club decided to force Ken out and I have some sympathy, however it seems strange that someone could remain in this position for 14 years. What rules do the supporters club have, surely the fans directory should be re-elected every couple of years, and even having a maximum term someone could be in position might make sense ? They say no one has stood for a vacant second position on the board, have they even tried to hold elections ? I don't remember any call for nominations. He has been there because no one else has wanted to stand
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Apr 2, 2020 10:19:56 GMT
Oh dear. What a mess. Dwayne need to respond to this surely. Are the supporters club accusing the football club of stealing money? Why not get the shares (receipt as Jim put it) when money was paid? That’s how receipts work. More lawyers? That piqued my interest. Why keep handing over money without getting a share certificate/receipt?
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 2, 2020 10:41:04 GMT
the supporters club statement says :- "The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!" Not sure that is actually a statement of fact - The football club is a limited company isn't it ? I personally think the club decided to force Ken out and I have some sympathy, however it seems strange that someone could remain in this position for 14 years. What rules do the supporters club have, surely the fans directory should be re-elected every couple of years, and even having a maximum term someone could be in position might make sense ? They say no one has stood for a vacant second position on the board, have they even tried to hold elections ? I don't remember any call for nominations. Its generally bollox. Either a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of a limited company (ie. To protect personal assets) or a serious accusation against the owners of which then personal assets could be liable From a quick google search; By becoming a director, you agree to act in the best interests of the company, its shareholders, its employees and its creditors. This is called a ‘duty of care’ or ‘fiduciary duty’. Usually, if you are a director (or acting as a director), you are not personally liable for paying the company’s debts. This means that if the limited company does not pay its debts and a creditor takes court action, only the company assets are at risk. However, you can be made personally liable for the following. Your own PAYE and National Insurance payments. Any income tax you have not paid on cash you have taken from the company. Any personal guarantees you have given for the company (usually to banks, finance companies, landlords and major creditors). This is when you sign an agreement to say that if your business cannot pay the money back, you will pay it back yourself. Any liabilities that have come out of your company after it has been investigated in relation to liquidation (a formal option to deal with the company debts and bring it to a close) and found guilty of wrongful trading. This is when you carry on trading when the company was insolvent and there was no reasonable chance of avoiding liquidation. Any liability where you have benefited from a transaction at the expense of your creditors. For example, if you have bought a company asset for less than it was worth, or you have paid your own wages or directors’ loans from the company assets but cannot afford to pay your creditors. This is called ‘misfeasance’. Any liability that comes from committing fraud while you were running the company. For example, fraudulently taking credit in the company name. This is called fraudulent trading. So assuming that Jim wouldn’t say what he has said without knowing the law, which one of the above is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 10:54:35 GMT
Its generally bollox. Either a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of a limited company (ie. To protect personal assets) or a serious accusation against the owners of which then personal assets could be liable From a quick google search; By becoming a director, you agree to act in the best interests of the company, its shareholders, its employees and its creditors. This is called a ‘duty of care’ or ‘fiduciary duty’. Usually, if you are a director (or acting as a director), you are not personally liable for paying the company’s debts. This means that if the limited company does not pay its debts and a creditor takes court action, only the company assets are at risk. However, you can be made personally liable for the following. Your own PAYE and National Insurance payments. Any income tax you have not paid on cash you have taken from the company. Any personal guarantees you have given for the company (usually to banks, finance companies, landlords and major creditors). This is when you sign an agreement to say that if your business cannot pay the money back, you will pay it back yourself. Any liabilities that have come out of your company after it has been investigated in relation to liquidation (a formal option to deal with the company debts and bring it to a close) and found guilty of wrongful trading. This is when you carry on trading when the company was insolvent and there was no reasonable chance of avoiding liquidation. Any liability where you have benefited from a transaction at the expense of your creditors. For example, if you have bought a company asset for less than it was worth, or you have paid your own wages or directors’ loans from the company assets but cannot afford to pay your creditors. This is called ‘misfeasance’. Any liability that comes from committing fraud while you were running the company. For example, fraudulently taking credit in the company name. This is called fraudulent trading. So assuming that Jim wouldn’t say what he has said without knowing the law, which one of the above is it? Absolutely correct. As PP says most of the statement is bollox. If I were a director of Dwayne Sports I would be seriously considering a legal action against both Masters and the SC in itself as an organisation and the SC Chairman as an individual
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 2, 2020 11:02:27 GMT
From a quick google search; By becoming a director, you agree to act in the best interests of the company, its shareholders, its employees and its creditors. This is called a ‘duty of care’ or ‘fiduciary duty’. Usually, if you are a director (or acting as a director), you are not personally liable for paying the company’s debts. This means that if the limited company does not pay its debts and a creditor takes court action, only the company assets are at risk. However, you can be made personally liable for the following. Your own PAYE and National Insurance payments. Any income tax you have not paid on cash you have taken from the company. Any personal guarantees you have given for the company (usually to banks, finance companies, landlords and major creditors). This is when you sign an agreement to say that if your business cannot pay the money back, you will pay it back yourself. Any liabilities that have come out of your company after it has been investigated in relation to liquidation (a formal option to deal with the company debts and bring it to a close) and found guilty of wrongful trading. This is when you carry on trading when the company was insolvent and there was no reasonable chance of avoiding liquidation. Any liability where you have benefited from a transaction at the expense of your creditors. For example, if you have bought a company asset for less than it was worth, or you have paid your own wages or directors’ loans from the company assets but cannot afford to pay your creditors. This is called ‘misfeasance’. Any liability that comes from committing fraud while you were running the company. For example, fraudulently taking credit in the company name. This is called fraudulent trading. So assuming that Jim wouldn’t say what he has said without knowing the law, which one of the above is it? Absolutely correct. As PP says most of the statement is bollox. If I were a director of Dwayne Sports I would be seriously considering a legal action against both Masters and the SC in itself as an organisation and the SC Chairman as an individual I am not saying it is bollox. I’m giving Jim respect at this time and assume that he wouldn’t put something like that in the public domain unless he was absolutely sure of his facts. Therefore I’m asking which of the reasons above is it that a SC director would be personally liable. Surely as the reasons why a Director of a Ltd co would be personally liable are easy to establish (as set out above) Jim can now tell the public for which of those reasons they would be liable or if he prefers, which of the reasons they wouldn’t!
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 2, 2020 11:03:37 GMT
the supporters club statement says :- "The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!" Not sure that is actually a statement of fact - The football club is a limited company isn't it ? I personally think the club decided to force Ken out and I have some sympathy, however it seems strange that someone could remain in this position for 14 years. What rules do the supporters club have, surely the fans directory should be re-elected every couple of years, and even having a maximum term someone could be in position might make sense ? They say no one has stood for a vacant second position on the board, have they even tried to hold elections ? I don't remember any call for nominations. This is utter lies. Every entity which the club trades under is a public limited company with limited liability. The only way a director can be liable for losses or debt is if they give a personal signed directors guarantee to cover such losses. I would assume that the SC aren't stupid enough to be guarantors for any debt accrued by the company which the club trades under. I would also not assume that part of being appointed a director via the SC means that you don't automatically become a guarantor for the losses/debt of the company. I very much doubt as the Chairman that JC is responsible for any of the losses so why would a fellow director be? If the club did go into administration they creditors would likely go after any assets and cash of the SC given they "own" 8% of the club anyway so would duly want their 8% of any debt. The lies and misinformation of the SC have stemmed and continue to stem from the top. They are utterly clueless and its the people at the top of this organisation that needs radical reform and some direction. If this was a literal building you would put a bulldozer to it to its foundations are rebuild it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Apr 2, 2020 11:09:45 GMT
Ta be fair th uncomfortable truth is both th folk in charge of th Supporters Club an th Football Club are both shockingly unfit for purpose.
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Apr 2, 2020 11:09:54 GMT
A lot of smoke and mirrors from both sides; couldn't make it up.
Hang on someone is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 11:10:50 GMT
Absolutely correct. As PP says most of the statement is bollox. If I were a director of Dwayne Sports I would be seriously considering a legal action against both Masters and the SC in itself as an organisation and the SC Chairman as an individual I am not saying it is bollox. I’m giving Jim respect at this time and assume that he wouldn’t put something like that in the public domain unless he was absolutely sure of his facts. Therefore I’m asking which of the reasons above is it that a SC director would be personally liable. Surely as the reasons why a Director of a Ltd co would be personally liable are easy to establish (as set out above) Jim can now tell the public for which of those reasons they would be liable or if he prefers, which of the reasons they wouldn’t! FTB I think you give JC to much respect when it comes to knowledge of Corporate Governance and the laws of liability as a company director. Given that he states (from my understanding) that Masters would personally liable for what, in effect, is a company loan from a company controlled by the same shareholders is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 2, 2020 11:11:32 GMT
Absolutely correct. As PP says most of the statement is bollox. If I were a director of Dwayne Sports I would be seriously considering a legal action against both Masters and the SC in itself as an organisation and the SC Chairman as an individual I am not saying it is bollox. I’m giving Jim respect at this time and assume that he wouldn’t put something like that in the public domain unless he was absolutely sure of his facts. Therefore I’m asking which of the reasons above is it that a SC director would be personally liable. Surely as the reasons why a Director of a Ltd co would be personally liable are easy to establish (as set out above) Jim can now tell the public for which of those reasons they would be liable or if he prefers, which of the reasons they wouldn’t! Well I'm saying it is. JC is in utter contempt of his own statement and has no idea what he's talking about. Some of us here are directors of our own businesses, regardless of how big or small they may be, and will know exactly what we are liable for and what we sign up for, especially if it means personal asset liability on the line. Why do you think there is such a uproar at the moment regarding the emergency business loans from the government. Banks are asking the owners/directors/shareholders for personal guarantees on 20% of all borrowings that a business needs that even with a cash injection loan, is not guaranteed to survive if there is no business for it to continue trading months later. Directors won't take the risk. So by stating that being appointed an SC director makes you part liable for £25m debt is utter nonsense, because the SC don't own it for a start, DS do, and also because there is no way anyone in their right mind would sign such a guarantee without that kind of money in their spare change drawer. JC is talking utter BS.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Apr 2, 2020 11:15:38 GMT
the supporters club statement says :- "The huge deficit has been covered by loans, not gifts, from the Al Qadi family and should those loans be called-in for any reason the Directors would be liable for the losses with Ken or any other ordinary supporter likely to lose all of his or her’s assets – house, car, possesions, whatever!" Not sure that is actually a statement of fact - The football club is a limited company isn't it ? I personally think the club decided to force Ken out and I have some sympathy, however it seems strange that someone could remain in this position for 14 years. What rules do the supporters club have, surely the fans directory should be re-elected every couple of years, and even having a maximum term someone could be in position might make sense ? They say no one has stood for a vacant second position on the board, have they even tried to hold elections ? I don't remember any call for nominations. This is utter lies. Every entity which the club trades under is a public limited company with limited liability. The only way a director can be liable for losses or debt is if they give a personal signed directors guarantee to cover such losses. I would assume that the SC aren't stupid enough to be guarantors for any debt accrued by the company which the club trades under. I would also not assume that part of being appointed a director via the SC means that you don't automatically become a guarantor for the losses/debt of the company. I very much doubt as the Chairman that JC is responsible for any of the losses so why would a fellow director be? If the club did go into administration they creditors would likely go after any assets and cash of the SC given they "own" 8% of the club anyway so would duly want their 8% of any debt. The lies and misinformation of the SC have stemmed and continue to stem from the top. They are utterly clueless and its the people at the top of this organisation that needs radical reform and some direction. If this was a literal building you would put a bulldozer to it to its foundations are rebuild it. You’d do better to take JCs statement at face value and then ask him for which of the reasons (set out in the post above) any SC Director would be personally liable in his opinion. There’s either more to tell or he’s just embarrassed himself. Either way it’s better to let it play out.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Apr 2, 2020 11:16:21 GMT
G1981 how do you know your own stance is the correct one, unless you've seen the full accounts i.e. not the abridged version we've all seen, it could well be JC's concerned that we won't have a club to support soon, hence why he's now finally gone public?
I don't think these comments were posted above but what is this all about, I assume MT must have told JC this was the reason he was stepping down for him to post it?
"I personally genuinely believe that the recent departure of Mike Turner from the Board may be for a similar reason although I stand to be corrected on this!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 11:22:09 GMT
I am not saying it is bollox. I’m giving Jim respect at this time and assume that he wouldn’t put something like that in the public domain unless he was absolutely sure of his facts. Therefore I’m asking which of the reasons above is it that a SC director would be personally liable. Surely as the reasons why a Director of a Ltd co would be personally liable are easy to establish (as set out above) Jim can now tell the public for which of those reasons they would be liable or if he prefers, which of the reasons they wouldn’t! Well I'm saying it is. JC is in utter contempt of his own statement and has no idea what he's talking about. Some of us here are directors of our own businesses, regardless of how big or small they may be, and will know exactly what we are liable for and what we sign up for, especially if it means personal asset liability on the line. Why do you think there is such a uproar at the moment regarding the emergency business loans from the government. Banks are asking the owners/directors/shareholders for personal guarantees on 20% of all borrowings that a business needs that even with a cash injection loan, is not guaranteed to survive if there is no business for it to continue trading months later. Directors won't take the risk. So by stating that being appointed an SC director makes you part liable for £25m debt is utter nonsense, because the SC don't own it for a start, DS do, and also because there is no way anyone in their right mind would sign such a guarantee without that kind of money in their spare change drawer. JC is talking utter BS. Absolutely sir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 11:24:06 GMT
G1981 how do you know your own stance is the correct one, unless you've seen the full accounts i.e. not the abridged version we've all seen, it could well be JC's concerned that we won't have a club to support soon, hence why he's now finally gone public? I don't think these comments were posted above but what is this all about, I assume MT must have told JC this was the reason he was stepping down for him to post it? "I personally genuinely believe that the recent departure of Mike Turner from the Board may be for a similar reason although I stand to be corrected on this!" Gashead 1981 us absolutely correct. As a former director I can confirm it.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 2, 2020 11:30:13 GMT
G1981 how do you know your own stance is the correct one, unless you've seen the full accounts i.e. not the abridged version we've all seen, it could well be JC's concerned that we won't have a club to support soon, hence why he's now finally gone public? I don't think these comments were posted above but what is this all about, I assume MT must have told JC this was the reason he was stepping down for him to post it? "I personally genuinely believe that the recent departure of Mike Turner from the Board may be for a similar reason although I stand to be corrected on this!" What stance? That what JC wrote is utter nonsense about being a director? As for what JC believes to be true about MT is purely speculative on his part and offers nothing but his own opinion and actually flies in the face of what I was told. And, IF (note if, not definitely because it is 3rd party information from a non club member) what I have heard is true, Mike Turner left because of abuse levied at him, in the company of his young son at a game by a member of the presidents club. The rhetoric was so bad that his son was scared and said he didn't want to go anymore. Given all that and I think the way he was treated and spoken to at the last AGM by members of the PC/SC and other shareholders he considered his own position and decided it wasn't worth it. And before you say that possibly couldn't be true, I too very nearly had the same experience by a member of the presidents club before he was put back in his box by Ed Ware. Seems they have form for it.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Apr 2, 2020 11:33:11 GMT
This is utter lies. Every entity which the club trades under is a public limited company with limited liability. The only way a director can be liable for losses or debt is if they give a personal signed directors guarantee to cover such losses. I would assume that the SC aren't stupid enough to be guarantors for any debt accrued by the company which the club trades under. I would also not assume that part of being appointed a director via the SC means that you don't automatically become a guarantor for the losses/debt of the company. I very much doubt as the Chairman that JC is responsible for any of the losses so why would a fellow director be? If the club did go into administration they creditors would likely go after any assets and cash of the SC given they "own" 8% of the club anyway so would duly want their 8% of any debt. The lies and misinformation of the SC have stemmed and continue to stem from the top. They are utterly clueless and its the people at the top of this organisation that needs radical reform and some direction. If this was a literal building you would put a bulldozer to it to its foundations are rebuild it. You’d do better to take JCs statement at face value and then ask him for which of the reasons (set out in the post above) any SC Director would be personally liable in his opinion. There’s either more to tell or he’s just embarrassed himself. Either way it’s better to let it play out. I don't need to let it play out. Its typical of the kind of statement they are known for. Half baked truths not based on any evidence whatsoever. JC and his crew have been embarrassing themselves a fair bit lately and this is just another instalment.
|
|