Message to Both Boards.......

[simcity]

So based on the good description from Edward on the make up of the board who had the authority to sack the manager?

The CEO/Exec Directors or those with a vote?

Whole thing is so confusing!!

 

[Egg]

So based on the good description from Edward on the make up of the board who had the authority to sack the manager?

The CEO/Exec Directors or those with a vote?

Whole thing is so confusing!!

Those with a vote, surely?!

 

[simcity]

Those with a vote, surely?!

You’d assume so and if that’s the case then what’s the point of the CEO/President roles if they are purely there as a body and anything they want to do/change has to be voted on by the 6/7 with a vote!

 

[Edward]

So based on the good description from Edward on the make up of the board who had the authority to sack the manager?

The CEO/Exec Directors or those with a vote?

Whole thing is so confusing!!

This is straightforward if they are following their own Governance Manual.

Section 2.1 of that manual details the Role of the Board and includes the following:

Appointing and evaluating senior managers, incluing executive directors and the football manager.

 

[DB9]

So based on the good description from Edward on the make up of the board who had the authority to sack the manager?

The CEO/Exec Directors or those with a vote?

Whole thing is so confusing!!

We certainly are a "Unique" club if we can't seem to fathom out who can actually decide anything or gets to vote on the 2 boards, Let alone let a manager go!

 

[Egg]

This is straightforward if they are following their own Governance Manual.

Section 2.1 of that manual details the Role of the Board and includes the following:

Appointing and evaluating senior managers, incluing executive directors and the football manager.

Sorry to be dim, but does this mean the non-voting members of the board somehow get a say on the future of the manager?!

[Extremely] Confused of Countess Wear

 

[Edward]

Sorry to be dim, but does this mean the non-voting members of the board somehow get a say on the future of the manager?!

[Extremely] Confused of Countess Wear

A decent Chairman would allow anybody attending the board, and with expertise in a particular area, to express their opinion but if it goes to a vote only the view of the voting directors will count.

That said, in my experience, votes at board level are quite scarce and normally there has been some pre-meeting activity to ensure a potentially divisive vote is avoided.

 

[John William]

Sorry to be dim, but does this mean the non-voting members of the board somehow get a say on the future of the manager?!

[Extremely] Confused of Countess Wear

They can and one assumes will take part in the discussion - and I assume the views of El Presidente will have weight - but if it comes to a vote, only the 6 voting Directors (3 "Trust appointed", 3 "External") can vote. The Chair has no casting vote. As all motions fail in the event of a tie, I assume a motion to dismiss the manager would fall if any 3 voted against.

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand"; though if you need to have a vote you have failed.

(crossed with Edward's post)

 

[Grecian Max]

Surely Tipper has a vote as CEO?

 

[scottus86]

"Together with Phillip Cocu, Ronald Koeman, Dirk Kuyt, Henrik Larsson and (agent) Rob Jansen we were going to buy the shares. It is still a dream of mine to develop players, run an academy, and use all our knowledge and experience to get promoted. Not with a foreign billionaire who puts in a lot of money just to go up quickly. If you have a group of former top footballers together then you just start lower. I am convinced that with a club in League One, with real football knowledge, you can get promoted to the Championship within five years, 10 years at most. We are not talking about the Premier League. That is a very difficult league to enter.”

ImPOssIbLE No ONe Is INteRestED

I believe those in and around the club would rather keep their hobby and free drinks/entry whatever else they get than ever be open to something like that. In my view they enjoy the power and control and sitting in a boardroom, it's the same in any situation where there is a power structure. Even something founded with the best intentions can become something it's not meant to be.

These people do not speak for the fans any more, we're just a number on the gate. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

They sound like just what we need. It's actually almost a perfect fit and possibly what our club should consider as a way forward.