Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 22, 2018, 07:08:39 PM
268994 Posts in 21998 Topics by 2238 Members
Latest Member: Daycaredan
www.altyfans.co.uk  |  General Category  |  Altrincham FC First Team  |  AGM this evening... « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: AGM this evening...  (Read 5423 times)
The Thriving Jezza
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +529/-1239
Offline Offline

Posts: 4039


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2017, 10:04:09 AM »

Rowley out
Logged

Please step to the side and allow the club to move forward Grahame, you have no right to hold it for ransom over your personal ego.....
beaker141
First Team Squad
****

Like this post? +20/-36
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2017, 10:27:00 AM »



Can anyone tell me how we have allowed someone with 4% shares in the club to have so much power? To be the king maker? It's a scandal and a scandal we all allowed it to happen

We're back to that confusion between ownership and control.

Shareholders own the club.

The board of directors control and manage the club.

The shareholders elect the board of directors.
no confusion I never mentioned ownership, I said power which is control - I guess that was my point about 4% and power

You did - thats what 4% means - you own 4% of Altrincham Football Club.

My point is you could have no shares at all and still be a director with control.

Our shareholders and directors have allowed some with 4% to have far more power and control than they really should given how much he own.

Its irrelevant how many shares a director owns in this discussion.

The shareholders - whoever they may be, elect the board of directors to run the club in their best interests. Thats where shareholder involvement ends.

At the AGM 16 shareholders turned up and supported the current board by re-electing Derek and electing Bill.

The board of directors then run the club/business together as they see fit - I've not seen the internal constitution of the board rules but I assume within a board meeting the directors have an equal say and vote in any decisions, possibly a casting vote from the chairman if there is a tie.

You may disagree with the shareholders appointment of directors - but that is their choice as they own the club.

You may disagree with the directors running of the club - but again it is their remit to run the club as best they see fit and make many decisions each year to do so.


Logged
HashtagAlty
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +104/-98
Offline Offline

Posts: 466


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2017, 11:04:52 AM »



Can anyone tell me how we have allowed someone with 4% shares in the club to have so much power? To be the king maker? It's a scandal and a scandal we all allowed it to happen

We're back to that confusion between ownership and control.

Shareholders own the club.

The board of directors control and manage the club.

The shareholders elect the board of directors.
no confusion I never mentioned ownership, I said power which is control - I guess that was my point about 4% and power

You did - thats what 4% means - you own 4% of Altrincham Football Club.

My point is you could have no shares at all and still be a director with control.

Our shareholders and directors have allowed some with 4% to have far more power and control than they really should given how much he own.

Its irrelevant how many shares a director owns in this discussion.

The shareholders - whoever they may be, elect the board of directors to run the club in their best interests. Thats where shareholder involvement ends.

At the AGM 16 shareholders turned up and supported the current board by re-electing Derek and electing Bill.

The board of directors then run the club/business together as they see fit - I've not seen the internal constitution of the board rules but I assume within a board meeting the directors have an equal say and vote in any decisions, possibly a casting vote from the chairman if there is a tie.

You may disagree with the shareholder's appointment of directors - but that is their choice as they own the club.

You may disagree with the directors running of the club - but again it is their remit to run the club as best they see fit and make many decisions each year to do so.


Of course, it's relevant. Without Shareholders making him a director, he could not be chairman.

Point 1. The shareholders elect a man with just 4% to the board of directors. This is done because of his Simon Richman attitude to being a director and an easy choice.
Point 2.  As the shareholders have yet to elect anyone other than Grahame who wants his job, they have essentially given him the control of the club (By appointing him head of the people "whose remit to run the club as best they see fit").

He owns run 4% but given the position, he has carved himself into (the club wouldn't run without him, they cry, his influence and therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns.



« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 11:08:35 AM by HashtagAlty » Logged

It's all my fault.
beaker141
First Team Squad
****

Like this post? +20/-36
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2017, 11:17:29 AM »



Its irrelevant how many shares a director owns in this discussion.

The shareholders - whoever they may be, elect the board of directors to run the club in their best interests. Thats where shareholder involvement ends.

At the AGM 16 shareholders turned up and supported the current board by re-electing Derek and electing Bill.

The board of directors then run the club/business together as they see fit - I've not seen the internal constitution of the board rules but I assume within a board meeting the directors have an equal say and vote in any decisions, possibly a casting vote from the chairman if there is a tie.

You may disagree with the shareholder's appointment of directors - but that is their choice as they own the club.

You may disagree with the directors running of the club - but again it is their remit to run the club as best they see fit and make many decisions each year to do so.


Of course, it's relevant. Without Shareholders making him a director, he could not be chairman.

Point 1. The shareholders elect a man with just 4% to the board of directors. This is done because of his Simon Richman attitude to being a director and an easy choice.
Point 2.  As the shareholders have yet to elect anyone other than Grahame who wants his job, they have essentially given him the control of the club (By appointing him head of the people "whose remit to run the club as best they see fit").

He owns run 4% but given the position, he has carved himself into (the club wouldn't run without him, they cry, his influence and therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns.



Its still not relevant. Shareholders every day elect directors, chairman etc who have 0% of the company - you dont need to own a company to run it - I could own 100% of Alty and elect whoever I like to run - its the shareholders free choice.

You state again " therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns" so the confusion continues - ownership is nothing to do with control. You cant have shareholders involved in decisions on day to day running or nothing would ever get done.



 
Logged
PukkaPieman
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +88/-312
Offline Offline

Posts: 1595


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2017, 11:46:36 AM »

The simple conclusion to draw from this is that at present the clubs shareholders dont want GR out or even if they do dont see an alternative.
Logged
HashtagAlty
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +104/-98
Offline Offline

Posts: 466


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2017, 11:51:20 AM »



Its irrelevant how many shares a director owns in this discussion.

The shareholders - whoever they may be, elect the board of directors to run the club in their best interests. Thats where shareholder involvement ends.

At the AGM 16 shareholders turned up and supported the current board by re-electing Derek and electing Bill.

The board of directors then run the club/business together as they see fit - I've not seen the internal constitution of the board rules but I assume within a board meeting the directors have an equal say and vote in any decisions, possibly a casting vote from the chairman if there is a tie.

You may disagree with the shareholder's appointment of directors - but that is their choice as they own the club.

You may disagree with the directors running of the club - but again it is their remit to run the club as best they see fit and make many decisions each year to do so.


Of course, it's relevant. Without Shareholders making him a director, he could not be chairman.

Point 1. The shareholders elect a man with just 4% to the board of directors. This is done because of his Simon Richman attitude to being a director and an easy choice.
Point 2.  As the shareholders have yet to elect anyone other than Grahame who wants his job, they have essentially given him the control of the club (By appointing him head of the people "whose remit to run the club as best they see fit").

He owns run 4% but given the position, he has carved himself into (the club wouldn't run without him, they cry, his influence and therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns.



Its still not relevant. Shareholders every day elect directors, chairman etc who have 0% of the company - you dont need to own a company to run it - I could own 100% of Alty and elect whoever I like to run - its the shareholders free choice.

You state again " therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns" so the confusion continues - ownership is nothing to do with control. You cant have shareholders involved in decisions on day to day running or nothing would ever get done.



 

If you owned 100% then you would have control.

There are other parties with around 4% who have less control, due to their influence, than Grahame does.

Grahame control in day to day affairs outstrips someone who owns less than 1/20th of the business.

Logged

It's all my fault.
Teasierbeaver
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2017, 12:17:16 PM »



Its irrelevant how many shares a director owns in this discussion.

The shareholders - whoever they may be, elect the board of directors to run the club in their best interests. Thats where shareholder involvement ends.

At the AGM 16 shareholders turned up and supported the current board by re-electing Derek and electing Bill.

The board of directors then run the club/business together as they see fit - I've not seen the internal constitution of the board rules but I assume within a board meeting the directors have an equal say and vote in any decisions, possibly a casting vote from the chairman if there is a tie.

You may disagree with the shareholder's appointment of directors - but that is their choice as they own the club.

You may disagree with the directors running of the club - but again it is their remit to run the club as best they see fit and make many decisions each year to do so.


Of course, it's relevant. Without Shareholders making him a director, he could not be chairman.

Point 1. The shareholders elect a man with just 4% to the board of directors. This is done because of his Simon Richman attitude to being a director and an easy choice.
Point 2.  As the shareholders have yet to elect anyone other than Grahame who wants his job, they have essentially given him the control of the club (By appointing him head of the people "whose remit to run the club as best they see fit").

He owns run 4% but given the position, he has carved himself into (the club wouldn't run without him, they cry, his influence and therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns.



Its still not relevant. Shareholders every day elect directors, chairman etc who have 0% of the company - you dont need to own a company to run it - I could own 100% of Alty and elect whoever I like to run - its the shareholders free choice.

You state again " therefore control is far greater than the 4% which he owns" so the confusion continues - ownership is nothing to do with control. You cant have shareholders involved in decisions on day to day running or nothing would ever get done.



 

If you owned 100% then you would have control.

There are other parties with around 4% who have less control, due to their influence, than Grahame does.

Grahame control in day to day affairs outstrips someone who owns less than 1/20th of the business.



The other shareholders can propose themselves to the board and be voted in. The shareholders could propose you to the board and you then get voted in and then you would have more power than the 'owners'.

The chairman has not done anything underhand in assuming his control of the club he is fulfilling a role asked of him.

The issue is he isnt very good at it as far as most of us are concerned

There is not a significant enough shareholding or consensus on the board that agrees with that and so his leadership is not being challenged.
Logged
The Thriving Jezza
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +529/-1239
Offline Offline

Posts: 4039


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2017, 12:34:04 PM »

The majority shareholders couldnt give a toss who is chairman as long as someone takes on this millstone round the neck burden.

So it has always been about the chairman doing the decent thing and standing down.

Id be amazed if the likes of white rosenfield etc were there last night?..apart from being on an ego trip...
Logged

Please step to the side and allow the club to move forward Grahame, you have no right to hold it for ransom over your personal ego.....
TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +2217/-685
Offline Offline

Posts: 5655



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2017, 12:39:27 PM »


The AGM was done in 13 minutes.



13 unlucky minutes to discuss the club's worst season in the last five decades.

I've listened to the late, great Peter Hennerley ask longer questions than that at fan forums!

Logged

"It was just two world class players going for a 50/50 ball."

John King's description of a crunching tackle on Ossie Ardiles in the FA Cup Third Round tie at White Hart Lane: 10th January 1979.
The Thriving Jezza
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +529/-1239
Offline Offline

Posts: 4039


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2017, 01:13:59 PM »


The AGM was done in 13 minutes.



13 unlucky minutes to discuss the club's worst season in the last five decades.

I've listened to the late, great Peter Hennerley ask longer questions than that at fan forums!



Vividly remember Peter's ramblings and wondering if there was a question looming in our distant future.

With such apathy from the major shareholders for such a long period of time it is almost astounding we have not dropped to this level sooner
Logged

Please step to the side and allow the club to move forward Grahame, you have no right to hold it for ransom over your personal ego.....
beaker141
First Team Squad
****

Like this post? +20/-36
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2017, 02:04:14 PM »



If you owned 100% then you would have control.



Yes, but I could elect directors to run it and control it day to day on my behalf.
Logged
George Heslops Moustache
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +352/-346
Offline Offline

Posts: 3683


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2017, 02:30:35 PM »

I think a lot of the issues here are actually being lost in the talk of control and power.

One of the main points is that Derek Wilshaw was reelected, unopposed, to a very weak board.

This begs the question as to the skill set that is needed to join our board of directors, and why we are not opening out our football clubs board to people with set skills that improve us.

The board is stale and they have no interest in changing things. This is what is mean by power being given to them. Our shareholding is so diluted it means it is difficult for anybody to get a majority shareholding which is a good thing, but it also makes it difficult to change the board. GR stated that you don't have to have money to be on the board, so why are we not advertising for skills?

Altrincham football club is a mates club and the way it is ran is an absolute joke. All the events of the past 2 years have brought that to the fore. Until the chairman does the decent thing and steps aside, the clique will not be broken.
Logged
cheshire cat
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +54/-144
Offline Offline

Posts: 649


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2017, 03:05:07 PM »

Suddenly the question of skills has been brought up. Previously we have been looking for a new owner. I was rather hoping the Queen would decide to buy Philip the football club as an anniversary present and then we'd be able to fly a new flag outside the main stand.

I'm not sure what skills he'd bring to the table though.

Seriously, perhaps the ownership is a distraction and it's the perceived skill shortage that needs addressing.

When does the strategy document achieve its first birthday?
Logged
TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +2217/-685
Offline Offline

Posts: 5655



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2017, 03:11:44 PM »



When does the strategy document achieve its first birthday?



The Altrincham FC Strategic Plan was unveiled to the public in a meeting held in the CSH on Sunday, 26th February 2017.
 
Logged

"It was just two world class players going for a 50/50 ball."

John King's description of a crunching tackle on Ossie Ardiles in the FA Cup Third Round tie at White Hart Lane: 10th January 1979.
TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe
Regular First Team
*****

Like this post? +2217/-685
Offline Offline

Posts: 5655



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2017, 03:25:26 PM »


The following comes from the reports in The Times of Arsenal's recent AGM. Remind you of anything?


A female shareholder asked (according to her for the sixth consecutive year) about the make-up of the board, given Arsenal chairman Sir Chips Keswick’s contention that “we have a diverse, modern organisation”.

Arsenal’s board is made up of Ivan Gazidis, Ken Friar, Lord Harris of Peckham, Kroenke and his (37-year-old) son Josh as well as Keswick. So that’s all male, all white, average age 65.
Logged

"It was just two world class players going for a 50/50 ball."

John King's description of a crunching tackle on Ossie Ardiles in the FA Cup Third Round tie at White Hart Lane: 10th January 1979.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
« previous next »
    Jump to: