ChezGiven Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Bloody hell lads. Cant the lad just bring up a topic of conversation. Sometimes the tone on here is so confrontational and argumentative. Because he is talking through his arse by saying "Ashley may not have had the authority to change the backroom setup" (whatever the fuck that means) and is then persisting in saying it could be true by posting regulations on company directors when its not even clear whether these regulations relate to PLCs, LLCs, Private companies limited by shares / guarantees and the structire of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Bloody hell lads. Cant the lad just bring up a topic of conversation. Sometimes the tone on here is so confrontational and argumentative. Because he is talking through his arse by saying "Ashley may not have had the authority to change the backroom setup" (whatever the fuck that means) and is then persisting in saying it could be true by posting regulations on company directors when its not even clear whether these regulations relate to PLCs, LLCs, Private companies limited by shares / guarantees and the structire of the club. So be it. I am just getting a bit fed up of everyone being snappy and arsey with each other. If he is wrong tell him he is wrong and leave it at that. I am not having a go at you mate. Just the frustration of everything is obvisouly getting to everyone else too and its getting too much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Bloody hell lads. Cant the lad just bring up a topic of conversation. Sometimes the tone on here is so confrontational and argumentative. Because he is talking through his arse by saying "Ashley may not have had the authority to change the backroom setup" (whatever the fuck that means) and is then persisting in saying it could be true by posting regulations on company directors when its not even clear whether these regulations relate to PLCs, LLCs, Private companies limited by shares / guarantees and the structire of the club. So be it. I am just getting a bit fed up of everyone being snappy and arsey with each other. If he is wrong tell him he is wrong and leave it at that. People already have though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 And quoting Wikipedia edit - in response to Chez Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 It's been a good few years since I did company law during my law degree but i can say with relative certainty as outright owner of the company he can do whatever he pleases. Regardless of day to day running of the company, any constitutional articles that he bizarrely chose to draft would be his and his only to amend, so he could change them and do as he pleased. This is such a silly conversation as we're talking about a successful businessman who would never ever relinquish control of his companies in such a way unless it saw him benefit (sports direct becoming plc), not to mention his undoubted hoardes of legal advisors who would have said more than a few things had he suggested he was going to give over power for no apparent reason. No offence intended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Fair enough, that may be true. It's nice to hear someone answer me and actually give reasoning rather than "nah it's bollocks that like". A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 He owns the company outright. He's not responsible to anyone and has all the authority he wants. Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 He owns the company outright. He's not responsible to anyone and has all the authority he wants. Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. "The Board" as we are calling it, is not a board of directors, it is just a grouping of senior managers that Ashley has employed to run his business for him, as he can't be everywhere at once. They are just 'employees' in the very traditional sense (no matter what their titles) and they will 'advise him', but at the end of the day have to do what he wants them to - or get sacked! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 He owns the company outright. He's not responsible to anyone and has all the authority he wants. Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. "The Board" as we are calling it, is not a board of directors, it is just a grouping of senior managers that Ashley has employed to run his business for him, as he can't be everywhere at once. They are just 'employees' in the very traditional sense (no matter what their titles) and they will 'advise him', but at the end of the day have to do what he wants them to - or get sacked! That's it in a nutshell, its also the reason the Halls & Shepherds put themselves back on the board after the fake Sheikh fiasco, because in reality they were appointed by a shareholders' vote. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Fair enough, that may be true. It's nice to hear someone answer me and actually give reasoning rather than "nah it's bollocks that like". A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" It may be unlikely, but it's still very possible, and by the looks of things quite common (granted more-so in smaller Private companies). I'd counter that with a view that is LESS likely in smaller private companies. In my experience (and as an auditor for 4 and a bit years I worked with a different company every couple of weeks of all sizes) the smaller the company the more direct control the owner has. Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership and the more delegated the control Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 He owns the company outright. He's not responsible to anyone and has all the authority he wants. Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. He would have to give a damn better reason than "because they disagreed with me". Quite the opposite in fact, he can terminate their service agreements at any time by giving them the notice & compensation laid out in them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 If Ashley gave roles to Llambias and co., he's given them a contract which states their responsibilities, and if he was to undermine these contracts, they could resign and sue for constructive dismissal. Ashley does ultimately have the ultimate authority, but only if he can/will pay for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 He owns the company outright. He's not responsible to anyone and has all the authority he wants. Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. He would have to give a damn better reason than "because they disagreed with me". "The Board" as we are calling it, is not a board of directors, it is just a grouping of senior managers that Ashley has employed to run his business for him, as he can't be everywhere at once. They are just 'employees' in the very traditional sense (no matter what their titles) and they will 'advise him', but at the end of the day have to do what he wants them to - or get sacked! I don't know the ins and outs, but in that case their "titles" are very misleading. A Board of Directors, running a company in which they own shares is one thing, working as an employee for Mike Ashley (albeit as a 'senior' employee) is quite another. They do as he tells them to do, in the final analysis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Fair enough, that may be true. It's nice to hear someone answer me and actually give reasoning rather than "nah it's bollocks that like". A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" It may be unlikely, but it's still very possible, and by the looks of things quite common (granted more-so in smaller Private companies). I'd counter that with a view that is LESS likely in smaller private companies. In my experience (and as an auditor for 4 and a bit years I worked with a different company every couple of weeks of all sizes) the smaller the company the more direct control the owner has. Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership and the more delegated the control So what are your views on my original post, that he may have stripped himself of some of the say on matters regarding the day to day running of the club, with the employment of a Managing Director and Executive Directors. Bearing in mind that I'm basing this on A level economics so I don't, neither do I profess, to know the ins and outs. I'm just working off the way I understood it. The reality is halfway between your argument and other people's arguments. The board have some contractual protection from Ashley's interference, but if Ashley really wanted to change things, he could hand out the compo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Fair enough, that may be true. It's nice to hear someone answer me and actually give reasoning rather than "nah it's bollocks that like". A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" It may be unlikely, but it's still very possible, and by the looks of things quite common (granted more-so in smaller Private companies). I'd counter that with a view that is LESS likely in smaller private companies. In my experience (and as an auditor for 4 and a bit years I worked with a different company every couple of weeks of all sizes) the smaller the company the more direct control the owner has. Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership and the more delegated the control So what are your views on my original post, that he may have stripped himself of some of the say on matters regarding the day to day running of the club, with the employment of a Managing Director and Executive Directors. Bearing in mind that I'm basing this on A level economics so I don't, neither do I profess, to know the ins and outs. I'm just working off the way I understood it. The key information is (from the above that you quote) - Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership In this case, the ownership is NOT diluted at all. Whatever duties and powers and authorities Ashley gave to (say) Wise in his contract - Ashley sets ALL the overall policies, which Wise must obey, or face dismissal having breached his contract. A simple example. Ashley employs Wise as a senior manager to buy players. Thats his job. He has freedom to buy who he wants without interference from Ashley, within budget. However, Ashley can still insist that his "overall policy" is that Wise only buys two-legged players for HIS club. If Wise doesn't do this (and insists on buying three-legged players) then he gets the sack. Ashley has total ultimate authority - end of!!! Im not wanting to be rude, but what is so difficult about grasping that fact? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Fair enough, that may be true. It's nice to hear someone answer me and actually give reasoning rather than "nah it's bollocks that like". A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" It may be unlikely, but it's still very possible, and by the looks of things quite common (granted more-so in smaller Private companies). I'd counter that with a view that is LESS likely in smaller private companies. In my experience (and as an auditor for 4 and a bit years I worked with a different company every couple of weeks of all sizes) the smaller the company the more direct control the owner has. Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership and the more delegated the control So what are your views on my original post, that he may have stripped himself of some of the say on matters regarding the day to day running of the club, with the employment of a Managing Director and Executive Directors. Bearing in mind that I'm basing this on A level economics so I don't, neither do I profess, to know the ins and outs. I'm just working off the way I understood it. Ok, this is veering ever so slightly off topic: If one person owns a business it is his decisions which ultimately drive the direction of the business. He may have a finance director/controller who look after the numbers, a marketing director/manger to print colourful brochures, a sales director to look after the customers and a Managing Director to control the rabble which he has assembled. Each of the above will have a remit to carry out their jobs but ultimately work to the benefit of the owner. If he tells the MD, I want to move to a new market or prodcut then the MD cascades this down to the marketing guy etc and they do their job accordingly. If the FD throws a hissy fit over this and quits then the owner can intervene to reinstate the FD or to instruct the MD to find a replacement - again it is decision what to do. Now Mr owner may simply want to be a sugar daddy to the company and let the 'board' run it for him. Thats his choice, but he retains the right to step in. You are right in saying that Llambias etc can not be sacked for disagreeing with the owner, but under contract law a contract can be temrinated with the appropriate compensation regardless of the reason (tribunals ocurr where this cannot be reached amicably). Now, imagine a plc. 100s, if not thousands of shareholders own the company, and hence the board have to work to their wishes. Impossible! This is where the powers of the articles etc come into play and the board is given power to act in the interests of the shareholders as a whole - typically taken to be profit maximisation (simplification there!). So NUFC are owned by one man who has set out a blueprint to which Wise et al work with. Ashley could easily turn to them and say, stuff this deliver me Ronaldo. He can also reinstate Keegan over Llambias's head if he wishes. A bit rushed and simplified in parts, the subject can get quite technical so you could probably find grey areas in this if you want. But that is essentially the key difference between control of a company and the running of the company Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 LEGALLY the Board are supposed to represent the interests of the shareholders - when there is only one that's pretty easy they only have any power when the shareholding is widely spread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 LEGALLY the Board are supposed to represent the interests of the shareholders - when there is only one that's pretty easy they only have any power when the shareholding is widely spread Sums it up (again!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 LEGALLY the Board are supposed to represent the interests of the shareholders - when there is only one that's pretty easy they only have any power when the shareholding is widely spread What I said (but more concisely!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 it looks to me that someone is trying to apply the rules of a plc board, but this club is privately owned, isnt it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 it looks to me that someone is trying to apply the rules of a plc board, but this club is privately owned, isnt it? In fact, the entire thread is something of a complete waste of time (in a 'nice' way) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 it looks to me that someone is trying to apply the rules of a plc board, but this club is privately owned, isnt it? In fact, the entire thread is something of a complete waste of time (in a 'nice' way) How it's got to 3 pages is beyond me. Hmmm...maybe replying wasn't a good idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 it looks to me that someone is trying to apply the rules of a plc board, but this club is privately owned, isnt it? In fact, the entire thread is something of a complete waste of time (in a 'nice' way) How it's got to 3 pages is beyond me. Hmmm...maybe replying wasn't a good idea Aye, true - but I just felt the 'need' to . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Mike Ashley, on reading this thread.... http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a249/johnson293/Cartman.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now