Ashley may not have the authority

[Guest hindu times]

I was thinking last night, looking back to my economics exams a few years ago, and I thought Ashley may not have the authority to change the backroom setup.

 

When a man such as Mike Ashley buys a business, he puts in place board members. Now we assume these include Llambias, Wise, Vetere, Jimenez, Williamson and maybe some others.

 

The reasons behind putting a board in place is to farm out responsibility of making day to day decisions.

 

Ashley could either have put in place a board and kept a majority vote, or he could have relinquished his majority vote.

 

In the latter situation, he wouldn't be able to simply change the backroom setup. He would need the backing of the majority of the board members.

 

I don't know the ins and outs, and someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I just thought I'd post it as a discussion point.

 

PS - even if this is the case, I still wouldn't feel sorry for him because he would have made that decision in the first place.

[Guest johnson293]

Doubt it, as he is still the owner, and everyone else are basically his employees (incl. board members, Players, tea lady, etc).

 

In other board situations, the board members usually have shares, as a result of having put in some form of investment.

 

I can't believe Wise, Llambias, Jiminez et al have put money into the club, for a share.

 

Therefore, if he wanted, I believe he could quite quickly get rid of them all, just as quick as he could sack a manager, as in the case with Allardyce.

 

Yes, there will be contracts, and compensation would probably be due, but as he (probably) still hold all of the shares, he can basically hire and fire who he wants.

[Crumpy Gunt]

It's my understanding that he owns it 100% and can do whatever the fuck he wants to do with it.

 

It's just a pity he has nads the size of peanuts.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Do we even have a 'board' in the traditional sense? Yes we have senior staff but we don't have any shareholders to answer to, surely the owner can do what he wants, within the law and the contracts people have with him.

[Guest gggg]

Or maybe he won't sack them because they're his mates/he's doing them a favour.

 

Jimenez he knows through Kelmsley.

 

Llambias can only be there because Ashley won £2m in his casino.

 

Wise - well there's no other reason for him to be there.

[OzzieMandias]

He owns the company outright. He's not responsible to anyone and has all the authority he wants.

[Ronaldo]

stupid thread, those cunts aren't shareholders so he doesn't have to consult them about anything really

 

he owns the club 100%, he can do whatever he wants

[Syrette]

I'm pretty sure he isn't doing anything illegal.

[Guest Stephen927]

I doubt he would have relinquished control though, simply because of the amount of money he has ploughed into the club. He won't want to be in a position where he can't step in if things start going wrong.

[OzzieMandias]

He can do what he wants, as IanW said, within the limits of the law and the contracts he has with others. There are no shareholders represented on the "board" so they don't get a vote.

[Ronaldo]

stupid thread, those c***s aren't shareholders so he doesn't have to consult them about anything really

 

he owns the club 100%, he can do whatever he wants

 

See my answer to Ozzie

 

mate, Ashley took the club private as soon as he came in, what does that tell you about his desire the lose day to day control

 

no way he would have done that, absolutely no chance

[Syrette]

I'm pretty sure he isn't doing anything illegal.

 

I didn't say he was. I said that, potentially, even if he did want to keep Keegan and change the backroom setup, he'd need the majority vote from the board members that he put in place. Potentially.

 

I didn't say you said he was.

[Guest elbee909]

So is it up to the board to sell the club, according to some people?  Sounds like bollocks to me.

[ChezGiven]

 

He took the club private last year you numpty.

[Ronaldo]

sorry, but this thread needs to be closed

[Guest elbee909]

 

He took the club private last year you numpty.

 

Which was kind of my point

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

He took the club private last year you numpty.

 

Which was kind of my point

 

Mine too.

[Mick]

 

It makes no difference if he has put board members in place. You don't have to be a shareholder.

 

Ashley can do anything he wants, regardless of titles held by others.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

In any event , there's no way he would have put staff members in place who would have to vote for their own sacking. He would never give them the security of a traditional board of directors in a PLC.

[Guest johnson293]

 

He took the club private last year you numpty.

 

It makes no difference if he has put board members in place. You don't have to be a shareholder.

 

So are you telling us he has no authority, or asking us??

 

The thread started as if you were asking the question - now it seems you are trying to tell us what is truth.

 

You don't know that he has handed the 'majority say in day-to-day running' of the club over to these people, rather than simply employing them to run a company for him, which is very different.

 

I believe it to be the latter situation - that Llambias, Wise etc simply do a job, rather than suddenly being able to gang up on/outvote Ashley as/when they want.

 

Whatever you think, Shareholders in a company/business will always have more power over non-shareholders. When there are majority/minority shareholders, then it becomes a 'vote' scenario, and the majority shareholders powers are weakended slightly.

[sparta]

 

He took the club private last year you numpty.

 

It makes no difference if he has put board members in place. You don't have to be a shareholder.

 

So are you telling us he has no authority, or asking us??

 

The thread started as if you were asking the question - now it seems you are trying to tell us what is truth.

 

You don't know that he has handed the 'majority say in day-to-day running' of the club over to these people, rather than simply employing them to run a company for him, which is very different.

 

I believe it to be the latter situation - that Llambias, Wise etc simply do a job, rather than suddenly being able to gang up on/outvote Ashley as/when they want.

 

Whatever you think, Shareholders in a company/business will always have more power over non-shareholders. When there are majority/minority shareholders, then it becomes a 'vote' scenario, and the majority shareholders powers are weakended slightly.

 

I'm not telling you anything. I'm merely telling you that it is a possibility.

 

 

... interesting response 

[Guest ObaStar]

I was thinking last night, looking back to my economics exams a few years ago, and I thought Ashley may not have the authority to change the backroom setup.

 

When a man such as Mike Ashley buys a business, he puts in place board members. Now we assume these include Llambias, Wise, Vetere, Jimenez, Williamson and maybe some others.

 

The reasons behind putting a board in place is to farm out responsibility of making day to day decisions.

 

Ashley could either have put in place a board and kept a majority vote, or he could have relinquished his majority vote.

 

In the latter situation, he wouldn't be able to simply change the backroom setup. He would need the backing of the majority of the board members.

 

I don't know the ins and outs, and someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I just thought I'd post it as a discussion point.

 

PS - even if this is the case, I still wouldn't feel sorry for him because he would have made that decision in the first place.

 

 

 

 

this is completely wrong. First off a board of directors is not for running the day to day stuff. Secondly it is a privately owned company so Ashley is in complete control not like if he were the majority shareholder in a public company. Im gonna go ahead and guess that you did pretty badly on those exams

[OzzieMandias]

So where does it say that the sole owner doesn't have authority over his appointees?

[Robster]

Bloody hell lads. Cant the lad just bring up a topic of conversation.

Sometimes the tone on here is so confrontational and argumentative.

[Guest johnson293]

Is it possible then that Wise, Llambias, Jiminez and Vetere could outvote Ashley on his plans to sell the club, which could lead to them losing their positions/jobs?

 

If, as is a possibility, he has given over the majority say in day-to-day running of the club to them?