Mike Ashley/Rangers

[craig 5,195]

And back on topic......

[craig 5,195]

Those who supported their appointment.

 

Doesn't matter who supported them in the fanbase though, they couldn't have prevented it.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Ashley is an absolute monster, he has a similar arrogance to Gerald Ratner.

 

I suspect Big Mike's fate will be similar to Gerald's? Reference our club, it's the time to be taken for Ashley to journey to the bottom of the slope. His involvement in football is toxic. I note this morning that his other football interest, his main footballing interest, the newly relegated Newcastle United are sitting fourth bottom of the Championship on nil points. There will be a tipping point for Ashley and his football involvement, the fans of both Rangers and Newcastle hope its most soon.

 

Im not really surprised by Newcastle's fate 26th.

 

What struck me from that car crash meeting with the select committee was just how out of touch he was with the happenings within SD itself - and I dont mean as an "innocent" - but as someone who clearly is incapable of effective management or introducing necesary change even its only to cosmetically comply with recommendations.

 

I believe the old saying about the leopard & its spots is true with Ashley & I wouldnt be surprised if it all came tumbling down much closer to home rather than with one of his football playthings.

[jhunter 0]

Im not really surprised by Newcastle's fate 26th.

 

What struck me from that car crash meeting with the select committee was just how out of touch he was with the happenings within SD itself - and I dont mean as an "innocent" - but as someone who clearly is incapable of effective management or introducing necesary change even its only to cosmetically comply with recommendations.

 

I believe the old saying about the leopard & its spots is true with Ashley & I wouldnt be surprised if it all came tumbling down much closer to home rather than with one of his football playthings.

 

yeah, sure he is.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Apart from the board at that time, who do you think supported their appointment?

A few folk on here certainly. Db seems to have BrahimHemdani certainly did. In the wider fan base there was a vocal group who did.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Doesn't matter who supported them in the fanbase though, they couldn't have prevented it.

Perhaps not but they fought hard against those who removed them.

[D'Artagnan 173]

yeah, sure he is.

 

You think it was all a put on JH ? I dont - I doubt he is capable of changing or altering the culture he has introduced - the overbearing, bully boy, draconian practices which not only characterise his conduct within SD - but also his dealings & behaviour outwith the organisation

[der Berliner 3,240]

A few folk on here certainly. Db seems to have BrahimHemdani certainly did. In the wider fan base there was a vocal group who did.

 

As opposed to the shambles we had before, yes. Being the bestest solution for the club, no. Having not as much in-sight-knowledge about Llambias, Ashley and Co. as some on here, very much so. At the time, they were the lesser evils. That it turned out to be worse is history ... and I won't bend my knees in front of your or anyone else's insight and foresight at the time. If you care to remember, it was more often than not "pro-Ashley" et al, but not outright against it. In that day and age, it seemingly was only "either you are with us, or against us" though. Always a great basis for any reasonable discussion ...

 

I have learned, moved on and consigned it to history. It saddens me a lot that some grown up men can't help it but have to open old wounds over and over again with an attitude that borders on malice.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I wasn't really having a go at you db I had no idea if you supported lambias.

 

There were very much people who were pro ashley and lambias. To the exclusion of what we have now.

 

That's what I was talking about.

 

BrahimHemdani the other day was having a go at Chris Graham and Craig Houston for leading the fight that got us this change for example.

[D'Artagnan 173]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/14/sports-direct-large-shareholders-may-vote-against-chair-at-agm?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

 

 

Large shareholders in Sports Direct are considering voting against the reappointment of the company’s chairman and other directors at next month’s annual general meeting in a bid to force change at the top of the embattled chain.

 

Keith Hellawell, who has been chairman since 2009, will be the main target at the AGM on 7 September. At last year’s meeting, almost 24% of independent shareholders’ votes went against him.

 

After a year in which the company’s reputation has been battered by the Guardian’s revelations about its treatment of employees and declining financial performance, critics expect more shareholders to vote against Hellawell and other non-executive directors.

The stories you need to read, in one handy email

Read more

 

The admission of Mike Ashley, Sports Direct’s founder and majority owner, to MPs that the company had become too big for him to control has added to concerns about how the it is managed.

 

A source at a large fund manager said: “I can’t imagine the votes will be kinder to the board than they were last year, and they could be pretty striking numbers. It’s possible that the chairman could face a majority of independent shareholders voting against him based on last year’s result and a stiffening of the mood.

 

“Mike Ashley told the select committee he has not got proper command and oversight of the company, and everything we’ve seen indicates that is a fair assessment. That is a strong indictment of every member of that board.”

 

Sports Direct’s public relations advisers did not respond to a request for comment.

 

New rules require minority investors to approve non-executive directors at companies where a single shareholder owns 30% or more. Ashley owns 55% of the company and is its executive deputy chairman. Sports Direct has become a test of shareholders’ willingness to use the new rule to press for change. “If not now, then when?” another fund management source said.

 

If independent shareholders vote against Hellawell, Sports Direct can force his appointment through by holding another vote of all shareholders within 90 days.

 

Large shareholders, however, also have long-running concerns. Standard Life voted against Hellawell, and other directors such as Simon Bentley, the former boss of Blacks Leisure, at last year’s AGM.

 

Hellawell rejected calls to quit in March when Sports Direct dropped out of the FTSE 100. He said the company was working to improve relations with shareholders and that problems with its corporate governance were often overstated.

 

As in previous years, Sports Direct will hold the AGM at its headquarters in Shirebrook, Derbyshire. The sprawling “campus” is also the location for the company’s giant warehouse, where a Guardian investigation last year found that workers were effectively paid less than the minimum wage.

 

Ashley has since increased pay to above the minimum wage and started his own review of working conditions, which will be assessed by Sports Direct’s legal advisers RPC. The Unite trade union, however, is seeking City support for a resolution, opposed by Sports Direct, seeking an outside review of the treatment of employees.

 

Large shareholders are considering adding to pressure on the board by sending representatives to the meeting. Hermes Investment Management, one of Britain’s biggest fund managers, said it would send a senior official.

 

Some big shareholders believe Hellawell’s departure is needed for the company to show that it is serious about reforming its governance. Others said they would wait to see how negotiations turned out before deciding how to vote.