City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

Enjoy and agree with your posts @StillBuesinceHydeRoad but could you please break the post down for ease of reading ?

My brain is geriatric and can only accept bite-sized chunks of info.
My brain's geriatric too - but I'm still young enough to enjoy the sound of my own voice! Anyway, thanks for the generous words and I'll try to be more brief.
 
My brain's geriatric too - but I'm still young enough to enjoy the sound of my own voice! Anyway, thanks for the generous words and I'll try to be more brief.
I don’t think he’s saying that mate. In fact I’m sure he’s not.

I think he asking if you could break your posts down into paragraphs, rather than it all be contained in the same one - although as you say, old habits die hard!
 
I think someone posted earlier that Mai Fyfield is a non-executive director of the PL, so what was she doing spending hours valuing deals? Did she do this regularly for other clubs' deals or was it just the EAG deal? Non-execs sit on the board and exercise oversight of the executive, not roll their sleeves up and get dirty.

And looking at the PL board, there's another thing I noticed. Company boards should have a mixture of executives and non-executives. Back in the mid-2000's, when I got involved in setting up a Supporters Trust at City, one of our key campaigning points was that the board didn't meet good corporate governance standards.

The reason was that there was just one executive (CEO Alistair Mackintosh) and just a handful of non-execs (Chair John Wardle, Mark Boler, Dennis Tueart and Brian Bodek). And we were a quoted company at that time so should have had a better board composition.

The PL is a multi-billion pound organisation yet has a chair, three independent non-executives and a CEO, so exactly the same as City pre-Shinawatra. Where's the Finance Director or the Marketing Director? Corporate Governance guidelines require "an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors...such that no one individual dominates the board's decision making".

How the hell are the PL meeting this requirement?

There's also an existing requirement that if 20% of stakeholders vote against a resolution, the organisation should seek to find out why they did. This seems to imply that if 4 or more clubs vote against something, the PL has a responsibility to investigate and understand the reasons.
GRISLY CREW.png
 
I think someone posted earlier that Mai Fyfield is a non-executive director of the PL, so what was she doing spending hours valuing deals? Did she do this regularly for other clubs' deals or was it just the EAG deal? Non-execs sit on the board and exercise oversight of the executive, not roll their sleeves up and get dirty.

And looking at the PL board, there's another thing I noticed. Company boards should have a mixture of executives and non-executives. Back in the mid-2000's, when I got involved in setting up a Supporters Trust at City, one of our key campaigning points was that the board didn't meet good corporate governance standards.

The reason was that there was just one executive (CEO Alistair Mackintosh) and just a handful of non-execs (Chair John Wardle, Mark Boler, Dennis Tueart and Brian Bodek). And we were a quoted company at that time so should have had a better board composition.

The PL is a multi-billion pound organisation yet has a chair, three independent non-executives and a CEO, so exactly the same as City pre-Shinawatra. Where's the Finance Director or the Marketing Director? Corporate Governance guidelines require "an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors...such that no one individual dominates the board's decision making".

How the hell are the PL meeting this requirement?

There's also an existing requirement that if 20% of stakeholders vote against a resolution, the organisation should seek to find out why they did. This seems to imply that if 4 or more clubs vote against something, the PL has a responsibility to investigate and understand the reasons.
That is quite unbelievable PB
 
Non-exec just means not an employee. Non-execs vote for board decisions but executive directors carry out board decisions.

Where I come from, non-executive means just that. No executive authority, but an advisory position providing a supervisory link between executives and shareholders.

What she was doing on the APTs was an executive role, it seems to me, making executive decisions and presenting them to the Board for approval. Unless I have completely misunderstood the whole thing, of course. Which is possible :)
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.