Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

The flexibility to use our assets "to promote the success of the company".

 

Whist I have no great objection in principle to using asset based finance, my own business for example could not function without doing so and it is a perfectively normal and useful tool of business.

 

However in saying that there is the caveat of trust and there isn't a single member of the present board that I would trust to ensure any such deal is properly constructed and for the benefit of the club as opposed to certain office bearers and shareholders.

 

We are unable to move forward as long as we are run and controlled by those who see the club as nothing more than a vehicle for personal enrichment or in the Easdales case an attempt to buy credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read someone saying they're tempted to email the club about cancelling their season ticket because they don't want concessions to be made to Sons of Struth :seal:

 

Hahaha. The world is full of idiots:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

they would offer you a region of the turf on lease with your season book or change the terms of your season book purchase or whatever.

 

 

What plan is that exactly? The one that Mr King is still working on, no doubt?

 

Just the turf or any of the infrastruture as well, how about a share of a player or two or the management team?

 

In what way would they change the terms of a season ticket to meet your criteria?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are not; not even GS would say that, well I don't think he would.

 

The puppets occupying the boardroom may have altered have but those pulling the strings haven't. I view them all as being part of the same group responsible for the current financial position. As opposed to the usual 'legacy' of the last individuals who have had to take one for the team and disappear to count their money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

By selling them.

 

NO, I don't see how selling our major assets would promote the success of the company, rather the opposite I would think especially when you look at the criteria:

 

A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

 

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

 

(b)the interests of the company's employees,

 

©the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

 

(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

 

(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

 

(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to realise that whilst remaining out of the top division and competing in Europe our finances were never going to be great as we strive to get back there in the shortest possible timescale

 

Turnover had to drop, money didn't have to disappear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it opened back in 2001 I recall SDM telling us it would be used to produce our own players instead of buying from other clubs. In that respect it has been a failure IMO.

As for a first team training complex all I'd say is after watching these past two seasons against part timers and amateurs it isn't doing great there either.

In all seriousness we should be getting a damn sight more out of MP than we are. If that means changing personnel then so be it

 

The facility itself is not the problem Rab, it's the people we pay to work there which are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO, I don't see how selling our major assets would promote the success of the company, rather the opposite I would think especially when you look at the criteria:

 

A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

 

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

 

(b)the interests of the company's employees,

 

©the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

 

(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

 

(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

 

(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172

 

Oh the companies act. They pay scant regard to that at best.

 

Still if they aren't going to sell them and as they claim they aren't going to raise money against them. Then let them secure them with us.

 

If not we move forward with protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.