Steve1872 4 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Consultation result: 36% in favour of "NO" to "Newco" In recent weeks I have taken all appropriate soundings, having canvassed the views of all shareholders and all season ticket holders aged 18 or over. I also attended the meeting organised by the Supporters' Association and the Supporters' Trust when I shared a fair amount of commercially sensitive information with those present and answered a number of questions from the audience. The result of the consultation process (36% of all shareholders and all season ticket holders aged 18 or over in favour of "NO" to "Newco") was far removed from the mood of the supporters' meeting but of course involved almost 2,500 shareholders and adult season ticket holders, as opposed to the 150 or thereby at the meeting. As everyone now knows, the SPL clubs voted by 10 - 1, with Kilmarnock abstaining, to reject Rangers "Newco" application to join the SPL. I elected to abstain in order to reflect the result of the consultation process and in recognition of a number of other factors, not least of which was Section 172 of the Companies Act concerning my fiduciary duty as a Director to act in the long terminterests of The Kilmarnock Football Club Limited and to ensure its success as a business. I also believe that the plan to parachute Rangers "Newco" into SFL1 is highly controversial and wished to register my concern about the timing of the SPL vote and the resultant pressure now placed on the SFL clubs to accommodate "Newco" in SFL1 when they vote on the issue on 13th July. If the SPL can't function in its present form without four "Old Firm" derbies, then the SPL should have come up with a solution rather than passing the buck to the SFL. In the course of the SPL General Meeting, prior to the vote, it became evident that a number of clubs which had previously been ambivalent about how they would vote were leaning towards "no" to "Newco" and the result of the vote was a foregone conclusion before it was taken. My abstention was therefore symbolic and was never going to influence the outcome. I'd like to thank all of our supporters who have shared their views on this issue with the club through the various consultation processes undertaken. It is now of utmost importance that all Kilmarnock supporters focus on helping the Club to maximise season ticket and sponsorship revenues in order to mitigate the financial consequences of the exclusion of "Newco" from the SPL. These can be overcome but only if we put the "Newco" debate firmly behind us and unite in support of Kenny and the team. The current situation is not of our making and the bond which exists between the Club, its supporters and the town will see us overcome this crisis. Scotlands oldest professional football club is at the heart of our community and the "Killie effect" was demonstrated to all when we lifted the League Cup for the first time in our history in March. Please buy a season ticket if you have not already done so and encourage your friends and family to do the same. I look forward to welcoming you to Rugby Park on 4th August when we take on "Club 12". Michael Johnston, Chairman http://www.kilmarnockfc.co.uk/articles/20120705/official-statement_85961_2833623 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I elected to abstain in order to reflect the result of the consultation process and in recognition of a number of other factors, not least of which was Section 172 of the Companies Act concerning my fiduciary duty as a Director to act in the long terminterests of The Kilmarnock Football Club Limited and to ensure its success as a business. That may well become significant in the months ahead. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Spoken like a man who knows his club is buggered. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigy 0 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 A fair statement. Wonder if any other SPL chairmen will be pulled up on their fiduciary duty. Also wonder if any shareholders could complain about them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 not least of which was Section 172 of the Companies Act concerning my fiduciary duty as a Director to act in the long terminterests of The Kilmarnock Football Club Limited and to ensure its success as a business. For the people that know about this stuff, is this a way of saying other clubs directors could be in trouble about this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 not least of which was Section 172 of the Companies Act concerning my fiduciary duty as a Director to act in the long terminterests of The Kilmarnock Football Club Limited and to ensure its success as a business. For the people that know about this stuff, is this a way of saying other clubs directors could be in trouble about this? Indeed it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Indeed it is. Cheers mate, this could get very interesting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,121 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Excellent statement. Well done to Kilmarnock and their supporters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 not least of which was Section 172 of the Companies Act concerning my fiduciary duty as a Director to act in the long terminterests of The Kilmarnock Football Club Limited and to ensure its success as a business. For the people that know about this stuff, is this a way of saying other clubs directors could be in trouble about this? I'm no expert but if a company fails because of the actions of its directors they can be in bother. this could well constitute that. though its a bit indirect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I'm no expert but if a company fails because of the actions of its directors they can be in bother. this could well constitute that. though its a bit indirect. Recklessly slashing your own revenue stream would be considered more direct than indirect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.