Court dates provides no answers

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: Lee Power Lee Power

THE boardroom confusion at Swindon Town will continue to rumble on after stalemate in a London courtroom yesterday.

Lawyers representing Swinton Reds 20 Ltd, the holding company publicised as assuming the majority stake in the club at the end of last year, and former Town chairman Jed McCrory and Seebeck 87 Ltd, were locked in deliberations for two hours at the Rolls Building before the case was adjourned by Mr Justice Warren.

Swinton were seeking an injunction preventing Seebeck, who still claim to own the club, from placing three new directors on the Swindon board, after failing in their attempts to do so two weeks previously.

Seebeck have proposed inserting Adam Fynn, David Smith and Debbie Priestnall as directors and the case will now be held at a later date, which has yet to be determined.

Town chairman Lee Power and director Sangita Shah were in attendance in the courts yesterday but none of the five board members of Seebeck - McCrory, Fynn, Priestnall, Smith and Steve Murrall, were present.

The two sides' legal counsel requested extra time when they first came in front of the court at 2pm, stating that they were "close to an agreement". However, after two hours of talks they asked for the case to be put back.

A full day has been requested, including one hour's reading time for the court, when the two sides of the argument are next heard.

Currently, Fynn, Smith and Priestnall have been given provisional status as "observer directors" with no power to make resolutions, according to the statement released by Swindon Town on Good Friday, following revelations in the Advertiser regarding the ownership of the club.

However, Seebeck disagree with that terminology and, in a statement released to the Adver on Good Friday, claim that the trio have made an undertaking not to pass resolutions until the court has heard the cases in full.

Comments (70)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:45am Wed 30 Apr 14

Rgbargee says...

If both parties were close to an agreement, then were not, it almost certainly means Jed & Co are after more dosh IMO. As I said yesterday money is the root of all evil.
Sickening isn't it to think our club is just a toy to be fought over!
If both parties were close to an agreement, then were not, it almost certainly means Jed & Co are after more dosh IMO. As I said yesterday money is the root of all evil. Sickening isn't it to think our club is just a toy to be fought over! Rgbargee
  • Score: 16

6:59am Wed 30 Apr 14

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Rgbargee wrote:
If both parties were close to an agreement, then were not, it almost certainly means Jed & Co are after more dosh IMO. As I said yesterday money is the root of all evil.
Sickening isn't it to think our club is just a toy to be fought over!
Looks that way.
What great timing before the end of season.
[quote][p][bold]Rgbargee[/bold] wrote: If both parties were close to an agreement, then were not, it almost certainly means Jed & Co are after more dosh IMO. As I said yesterday money is the root of all evil. Sickening isn't it to think our club is just a toy to be fought over![/p][/quote]Looks that way. What great timing before the end of season. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 2

7:17am Wed 30 Apr 14

STFConyourpitch says...

Power or a new owner with money?
Power or a new owner with money? STFConyourpitch
  • Score: 2

7:19am Wed 30 Apr 14

Since 1950 says...

STFConyourpitch wrote:
Power or a new owner with money?
Anyone bar See beck!!!!
[quote][p][bold]STFConyourpitch[/bold] wrote: Power or a new owner with money?[/p][/quote]Anyone bar See beck!!!! Since 1950
  • Score: 3

7:23am Wed 30 Apr 14

old town robin says...

If the adjourned new date is undetermined, how is that going to effect the release of players and agreement of new contracts for the players we want to keep.

Don't think too many of us are too surprised with the decision to postpone the proceedings, we are just as much in the dark now as we were before Easter.
If the adjourned new date is undetermined, how is that going to effect the release of players and agreement of new contracts for the players we want to keep. Don't think too many of us are too surprised with the decision to postpone the proceedings, we are just as much in the dark now as we were before Easter. old town robin
  • Score: 5

7:27am Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage.

What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?
The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about? Oi Den!
  • Score: 22

7:28am Wed 30 Apr 14

Since 1950 says...

What makes me wanna throw up is l don't believe for one second that Seebeck actually want control of the club. If they did then they wouldn't have rinquished control half way through the season without resulting to the courts then. No, these vultures are just after a payday from Power or the club from the season ticket money. Just get outta Town your not wanted here.
What makes me wanna throw up is l don't believe for one second that Seebeck actually want control of the club. If they did then they wouldn't have rinquished control half way through the season without resulting to the courts then. No, these vultures are just after a payday from Power or the club from the season ticket money. Just get outta Town your not wanted here. Since 1950
  • Score: 17

7:39am Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage.

What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?
Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain
.
Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans
.
We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15
.
The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains
.
From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along
.
By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?[/p][/quote]Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain . Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans . We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15 . The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains . From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along . By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him London Red
  • Score: 22

7:40am Wed 30 Apr 14

ciclosporindorset says...

The timing does say a lot as it increases leverage of the part of the outsiders. I have no idea what they want but I trust no-one whilst such secrecy surrounds proceedings. My instincts favour Power for no other reason than he comes across as slightly more straightforward and has dealt with and kept the stuff around Comazzi etc quiet as well. It seems his way!,
The timing does say a lot as it increases leverage of the part of the outsiders. I have no idea what they want but I trust no-one whilst such secrecy surrounds proceedings. My instincts favour Power for no other reason than he comes across as slightly more straightforward and has dealt with and kept the stuff around Comazzi etc quiet as well. It seems his way!, ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 6

7:43am Wed 30 Apr 14

Helpme234 says...

Agree with the above comments. If it was totally clear who actually owns the club - that could and should have been resolved without the need to go to court.
The fact that it did go to court and there has been an adjournment suggests that (as said in previous posts) the issues involved are more than that.
I'm sick to the back teeth of this club being dragged down while personal and financial disputes take precedence.
Why oh why can't we just have owners who are normal people with no baggage or hidden agendas and, more importantly, the good of the club at heart?.
Agree with the above comments. If it was totally clear who actually owns the club - that could and should have been resolved without the need to go to court. The fact that it did go to court and there has been an adjournment suggests that (as said in previous posts) the issues involved are more than that. I'm sick to the back teeth of this club being dragged down while personal and financial disputes take precedence. Why oh why can't we just have owners who are normal people with no baggage or hidden agendas and, more importantly, the good of the club at heart?. Helpme234
  • Score: 7

7:51am Wed 30 Apr 14

itslove says...

No smoke without fire . but im not happy with power so maybe a resolution with a wider spread ownership.
No smoke without fire . but im not happy with power so maybe a resolution with a wider spread ownership. itslove
  • Score: -5

7:58am Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

1950, it could be that McCrory could not or would not put any money into the club when he took it over (as evidenced by the transfer embargo, which was eventually lifted by Power's £1.2m loan). As a way of inducing Power to give his support, McCrory promised the opportunity for Power to take control of the club eventually - effectively to buy McCrory out - if he were to take on a certain number of shares at an agreed price. Power eventually takes up the option. In typical McCrory fashion, our former chairman crawls all over the detail to find a legal technicality which he claims nullifies Power's control. He's taken Power's money but he wants to reclaim ownership of what he sold to him.

Mischievous speculation? Perhaps. I certainly do not have any inside knowledge. But what alternative to speculation is there when we have an information vacuum to contend with?
1950, it could be that McCrory could not or would not put any money into the club when he took it over (as evidenced by the transfer embargo, which was eventually lifted by Power's £1.2m loan). As a way of inducing Power to give his support, McCrory promised the opportunity for Power to take control of the club eventually - effectively to buy McCrory out - if he were to take on a certain number of shares at an agreed price. Power eventually takes up the option. In typical McCrory fashion, our former chairman crawls all over the detail to find a legal technicality which he claims nullifies Power's control. He's taken Power's money but he wants to reclaim ownership of what he sold to him. Mischievous speculation? Perhaps. I certainly do not have any inside knowledge. But what alternative to speculation is there when we have an information vacuum to contend with? Oi Den!
  • Score: 3

8:04am Wed 30 Apr 14

Since 1950 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
1950, it could be that McCrory could not or would not put any money into the club when he took it over (as evidenced by the transfer embargo, which was eventually lifted by Power's £1.2m loan). As a way of inducing Power to give his support, McCrory promised the opportunity for Power to take control of the club eventually - effectively to buy McCrory out - if he were to take on a certain number of shares at an agreed price. Power eventually takes up the option. In typical McCrory fashion, our former chairman crawls all over the detail to find a legal technicality which he claims nullifies Power's control. He's taken Power's money but he wants to reclaim ownership of what he sold to him.

Mischievous speculation? Perhaps. I certainly do not have any inside knowledge. But what alternative to speculation is there when we have an information vacuum to contend with?
Possibly Den. Who knows what goes on at this club behind the scenes at the moment? It's 'grim' and murky! I'm not sure about the conspiracy theory, though it's not too difficult to conjure one up. No, I think it's just GREED, simples.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: 1950, it could be that McCrory could not or would not put any money into the club when he took it over (as evidenced by the transfer embargo, which was eventually lifted by Power's £1.2m loan). As a way of inducing Power to give his support, McCrory promised the opportunity for Power to take control of the club eventually - effectively to buy McCrory out - if he were to take on a certain number of shares at an agreed price. Power eventually takes up the option. In typical McCrory fashion, our former chairman crawls all over the detail to find a legal technicality which he claims nullifies Power's control. He's taken Power's money but he wants to reclaim ownership of what he sold to him. Mischievous speculation? Perhaps. I certainly do not have any inside knowledge. But what alternative to speculation is there when we have an information vacuum to contend with?[/p][/quote]Possibly Den. Who knows what goes on at this club behind the scenes at the moment? It's 'grim' and murky! I'm not sure about the conspiracy theory, though it's not too difficult to conjure one up. No, I think it's just GREED, simples. Since 1950
  • Score: 5

8:05am Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

LR, isn't the matter already public if it is progressing through the courts? I know there can be a ban on proceedings being made public but nobody has suggested that's the case here have they? Sam says yesterday provided no answers. It's worse than that. We don't even know the questions.
LR, isn't the matter already public if it is progressing through the courts? I know there can be a ban on proceedings being made public but nobody has suggested that's the case here have they? Sam says yesterday provided no answers. It's worse than that. We don't even know the questions. Oi Den!
  • Score: 3

8:22am Wed 30 Apr 14

LeGod says...

I would have thought as most have said already slimey JED and his slimey mates are after money and not the slightest bit interested in this football club.
As the saying goes what goes around comes around and Jed will very soon get his day where things explode in his face and the sooner the better for my liking.
Jed and his mates should not be allowed anywhere near a football club which is why all the other sensible clubs have turned him away even Hereford who are still desperate for money yet want nothing to do with him and that just proves to me what the guy is like and cant be trusted.
The problem with all this is as well it unsettles the players who we want to sign up and renew contracts with that are currently at the club the longer this drags on and I would imagine Jed and his bunch of bent mates will try and string it out as long as they can to make it difficult for Power.
I would have thought as most have said already slimey JED and his slimey mates are after money and not the slightest bit interested in this football club. As the saying goes what goes around comes around and Jed will very soon get his day where things explode in his face and the sooner the better for my liking. Jed and his mates should not be allowed anywhere near a football club which is why all the other sensible clubs have turned him away even Hereford who are still desperate for money yet want nothing to do with him and that just proves to me what the guy is like and cant be trusted. The problem with all this is as well it unsettles the players who we want to sign up and renew contracts with that are currently at the club the longer this drags on and I would imagine Jed and his bunch of bent mates will try and string it out as long as they can to make it difficult for Power. LeGod
  • Score: 9

8:33am Wed 30 Apr 14

redbythesea says...

Lots of speculation here, but let's face it, none of us know the real motives behind any of this. There seem to be two general assumptions:
1) Jed only wants money
2) Power is the innocent party in all of this.
I would like to see any evidence (and i don't count Fredi's ramblings), that either of the above statements are true.
Lots of speculation here, but let's face it, none of us know the real motives behind any of this. There seem to be two general assumptions: 1) Jed only wants money 2) Power is the innocent party in all of this. I would like to see any evidence (and i don't count Fredi's ramblings), that either of the above statements are true. redbythesea
  • Score: 0

8:52am Wed 30 Apr 14

Di kanny oh says...

Oh Dear is it just Swindon Town, right on cue we have a very important time of the season in players contracts yet the leaches and slugs are out ,is it Deamantis all over again ( and we have a large slug visiting the CG Saturday with his Rotherham team). I am lost for words and to think many of us have committed to season tickets and now not knowing the future, in fact I may well cancel my DD if this drags on. Yes if the circus still own 40% then why would not come back to cash in and at a time when we have a few prize assets and season ticket money this is purely extraction time for the leaches who have very little interest of what goes on on the football pitch. My biggest worry is Power may well think sod this and put the club into the "A" word and tell the leaches to fight over whats left. After such a great season and better than most expectations here we are in the swamp again and left in no mans land what a nightmare.
Oh Dear is it just Swindon Town, right on cue we have a very important time of the season in players contracts yet the leaches and slugs are out ,is it Deamantis all over again ( and we have a large slug visiting the CG Saturday with his Rotherham team). I am lost for words and to think many of us have committed to season tickets and now not knowing the future, in fact I may well cancel my DD if this drags on. Yes if the circus still own 40% then why would not come back to cash in and at a time when we have a few prize assets and season ticket money this is purely extraction time for the leaches who have very little interest of what goes on on the football pitch. My biggest worry is Power may well think sod this and put the club into the "A" word and tell the leaches to fight over whats left. After such a great season and better than most expectations here we are in the swamp again and left in no mans land what a nightmare. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 3

8:58am Wed 30 Apr 14

Brainy_G93 says...

London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage.

What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?
Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain
.
Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans
.
We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15
.
The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains
.
From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along
.
By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him
Like the man says, why don't they tell us?
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?[/p][/quote]Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain . Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans . We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15 . The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains . From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along . By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him[/p][/quote]Like the man says, why don't they tell us? Brainy_G93
  • Score: 1

9:00am Wed 30 Apr 14

harley red says...

Hope this gets sorted ASAP , what players can we get when we don't have a settled board . It looks very gloom at the moment . As I said when the clowns took over we would have trouble and they wanted to strip the club of its assets for there own gain , then leave us up the creek without a paddle . The longer this goes on the more likely the FA will get involved and Stfc will be the losers .
Hope this gets sorted ASAP , what players can we get when we don't have a settled board . It looks very gloom at the moment . As I said when the clowns took over we would have trouble and they wanted to strip the club of its assets for there own gain , then leave us up the creek without a paddle . The longer this goes on the more likely the FA will get involved and Stfc will be the losers . harley red
  • Score: 0

9:07am Wed 30 Apr 14

hertz says...

I think most of us have an idea what is going on , but how to resolve ?
I don’t think the situation is unique only to STFC the whole game is rife with underhand dealings from top to bottom , even in local non league football clubs are signing players and paying them well over the capped rate they pay the player 200 pound a week then put the Mrs on the books for cleaning tables at 250 pounds a week , if it goes on down there just imagine the scams going on further up the chain . The agreement between the two parties was probably only documented to a degree to keep some of the money under the table , unfortunately you cannot make allowances for human nature such as Mr McCrorys Seebeck so without proper terms he simply asks for more , only way to stop it is to properly document every piece of the agreement in contract terms , but that will never happen at any level . Like most my concern is how much effort will Mr Power put into pre season if he is unsure what the future holds for him ? . Its all adas state of affairs for us Town fans
I think most of us have an idea what is going on , but how to resolve ? I don’t think the situation is unique only to STFC the whole game is rife with underhand dealings from top to bottom , even in local non league football clubs are signing players and paying them well over the capped rate they pay the player 200 pound a week then put the Mrs on the books for cleaning tables at 250 pounds a week , if it goes on down there just imagine the scams going on further up the chain . The agreement between the two parties was probably only documented to a degree to keep some of the money under the table , unfortunately you cannot make allowances for human nature such as Mr McCrorys Seebeck so without proper terms he simply asks for more , only way to stop it is to properly document every piece of the agreement in contract terms , but that will never happen at any level . Like most my concern is how much effort will Mr Power put into pre season if he is unsure what the future holds for him ? . Its all adas state of affairs for us Town fans hertz
  • Score: 2

9:32am Wed 30 Apr 14

Wilesy says...

London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage.

What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?
Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain
.
Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans
.
We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15
.
The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains
.
From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along
.
By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him
LR how does installing 3 more directors force Power to buy the remaining shares?

Why wouldn't Power not have bought Jed out 100% originally?

Genuine questions I'm not knowledgeable on this.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?[/p][/quote]Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain . Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans . We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15 . The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains . From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along . By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him[/p][/quote]LR how does installing 3 more directors force Power to buy the remaining shares? Why wouldn't Power not have bought Jed out 100% originally? Genuine questions I'm not knowledgeable on this. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

9:42am Wed 30 Apr 14

port de soller says...

Get the feeling LP may just sell up and walk away.He does not need these problams he has done a decent job so far,now Jed and his crew want money for nothing.
God knows where this will end,fear if aint sorted out the FL will be looking at us yet again,what baffles me it was LP and his money who got us out of the embargo last time.
Has Jed actually invested his own money??????
The Fans need the truth
Get the feeling LP may just sell up and walk away.He does not need these problams he has done a decent job so far,now Jed and his crew want money for nothing. God knows where this will end,fear if aint sorted out the FL will be looking at us yet again,what baffles me it was LP and his money who got us out of the embargo last time. Has Jed actually invested his own money?????? The Fans need the truth port de soller
  • Score: 1

10:00am Wed 30 Apr 14

umpcah says...

I wonder how much all this legal wrangling is costing THE CLUB ? It`s not yet been drawn to closure either !
I wonder how much all this legal wrangling is costing THE CLUB ? It`s not yet been drawn to closure either ! umpcah
  • Score: 3

10:01am Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

Wilesy wrote:
London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage.

What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?
Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain
.
Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans
.
We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15
.
The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains
.
From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along
.
By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him
LR how does installing 3 more directors force Power to buy the remaining shares?

Why wouldn't Power not have bought Jed out 100% originally?

Genuine questions I'm not knowledgeable on this.
I'm guessing it's because Power won't be able to get rid of them unless he has full control of the club, the suggestion being that McCrory knows d@mn well that he won't be getting back in, so he's put these people there as an obstacle. And the only way Power can get them out of the way is paying more money to McCrory, who probably knew what he was doing all along in giving Power a majority share but not total control. Nice little earner.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?[/p][/quote]Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain . Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans . We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15 . The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains . From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along . By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him[/p][/quote]LR how does installing 3 more directors force Power to buy the remaining shares? Why wouldn't Power not have bought Jed out 100% originally? Genuine questions I'm not knowledgeable on this.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing it's because Power won't be able to get rid of them unless he has full control of the club, the suggestion being that McCrory knows d@mn well that he won't be getting back in, so he's put these people there as an obstacle. And the only way Power can get them out of the way is paying more money to McCrory, who probably knew what he was doing all along in giving Power a majority share but not total control. Nice little earner. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

10:07am Wed 30 Apr 14

Redgollum says...

I don't understand any of the wrangle.
But, what I do know is, to get it sorted out, there will have to a meeting to decide on the date of the next meeting. And, I bet that that will give no definite result, appeals etc.
This is going to take time as even the first meeting has yet to be arranged, let alone the court proceedings thereafter.
The legal guys must be very happy with all this, easy money for them & it is in their interest to keep it rolling on as long as they can.
Some posters suggest that Mcrory is jumping in on money from ticket sales, so whilst this is all being sorted out, why not go out and spend it on a decent striker?
I don't understand any of the wrangle. But, what I do know is, to get it sorted out, there will have to a meeting to decide on the date of the next meeting. And, I bet that that will give no definite result, appeals etc. This is going to take time as even the first meeting has yet to be arranged, let alone the court proceedings thereafter. The legal guys must be very happy with all this, easy money for them & it is in their interest to keep it rolling on as long as they can. Some posters suggest that Mcrory is jumping in on money from ticket sales, so whilst this is all being sorted out, why not go out and spend it on a decent striker? Redgollum
  • Score: 0

11:39am Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote: The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?
Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain . Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans . We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15 . The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains . From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along . By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him
LR how does installing 3 more directors force Power to buy the remaining shares? Why wouldn't Power not have bought Jed out 100% originally? Genuine questions I'm not knowledgeable on this.
I'm guessing it's because Power won't be able to get rid of them unless he has full control of the club, the suggestion being that McCrory knows d@mn well that he won't be getting back in, so he's put these people there as an obstacle. And the only way Power can get them out of the way is paying more money to McCrory, who probably knew what he was doing all along in giving Power a majority share but not total control. Nice little earner.
Pretty much it as I understand it
.
I'm no expert but I understand the new directors could block/pass motions via a show of hands 3-2 in normal everyday board meetings - unless Power then hires 2 more directors - which he may not want to do or thinks STFC can afford to do
.
It will then have to go to the AGM where Power can do what he likes as he controls the company - so can pass/block everything proposed
.
However, he will not want to have to keep waiting to do anything at the AGM
.
i.e he could be outvoted to release Ranger - and unless an EGM is called his clause could be activated by the Seebeck directors - or vise versa if Power wants him to stay
.
So really Seebeck can casue issues for Power by being around
.
Thus forcing him to buyout the extra 40% either at an inflated price or way ahead of schedule
.
Hopefully Power still sees the benefits of owning STFC and will want to push ahead with his plans and will swallow the bitter pill and settle so he takes the remaining shares
.
I guess the whole claim and counter claim sitution is purely to get that fee as small or as big as possible depending on what side of the fence you sit on
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The frustrating thing is that none of these people, all of whom want to be custodians of our club, has any interest in telling the supporters what they're arguing about. The supporters are permanent and will still be backing the club long after all these characters have all quit the stage. What do they have to fear by telling us what the case is about?[/p][/quote]Come on Den - you are not that naive to think that cases can be discussed openly in the public domain . Also Power to be fair to him has been the most open owner we have had - he has done lots of interviews and been very open about his views and plans . We know why he has cut the wage bill, we know he is covering losses until that bill can hit the requires level, we know how he wants to shape the squad (young and ambitious who can be developed to continue the benefit of STfC on and off the field) and we know his ambitions - Championship football - starting with an Assult in 2014/15 . The only confusion is why the Adver keep writing confusion remains . From all those I know who were there and spoke to parties involved it appears Jed and Co are using the fact they own 40% to extract more money off Power - which is what lots of us thought all along . By using their legal right to install directors it is forcing Power to buy the remaining share off them - it's now just how much Jed and Co can squeeze out of him[/p][/quote]LR how does installing 3 more directors force Power to buy the remaining shares? Why wouldn't Power not have bought Jed out 100% originally? Genuine questions I'm not knowledgeable on this.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing it's because Power won't be able to get rid of them unless he has full control of the club, the suggestion being that McCrory knows d@mn well that he won't be getting back in, so he's put these people there as an obstacle. And the only way Power can get them out of the way is paying more money to McCrory, who probably knew what he was doing all along in giving Power a majority share but not total control. Nice little earner.[/p][/quote]Pretty much it as I understand it . I'm no expert but I understand the new directors could block/pass motions via a show of hands 3-2 in normal everyday board meetings - unless Power then hires 2 more directors - which he may not want to do or thinks STFC can afford to do . It will then have to go to the AGM where Power can do what he likes as he controls the company - so can pass/block everything proposed . However, he will not want to have to keep waiting to do anything at the AGM . i.e he could be outvoted to release Ranger - and unless an EGM is called his clause could be activated by the Seebeck directors - or vise versa if Power wants him to stay . So really Seebeck can casue issues for Power by being around . Thus forcing him to buyout the extra 40% either at an inflated price or way ahead of schedule . Hopefully Power still sees the benefits of owning STFC and will want to push ahead with his plans and will swallow the bitter pill and settle so he takes the remaining shares . I guess the whole claim and counter claim sitution is purely to get that fee as small or as big as possible depending on what side of the fence you sit on London Red
  • Score: 1

11:45am Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

As for the why not 100% - as the original agreement may have only be for control - not 100% for the Shares owned
.
It could have been seen that Jed would resign and Power takes over - as he had control
.
Then when the project was completed and Power was able to sell us as a profitable Championship club for a decent whack - the new buyer would settle the bill due to AB and the remaining 40% owned by Seebeck as part of that and Power still gets a decent return on his initial outlay and costs incurred during the project - i.e. the £1m this year etc
As for the why not 100% - as the original agreement may have only be for control - not 100% for the Shares owned . It could have been seen that Jed would resign and Power takes over - as he had control . Then when the project was completed and Power was able to sell us as a profitable Championship club for a decent whack - the new buyer would settle the bill due to AB and the remaining 40% owned by Seebeck as part of that and Power still gets a decent return on his initial outlay and costs incurred during the project - i.e. the £1m this year etc London Red
  • Score: 1

12:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Since 1950 says...

Some good points being made. I am no accountant and all I can see is that this has absolutely nothing to do with wwhat's good for STFC and all about a payday for Seebeck.
Some good points being made. I am no accountant and all I can see is that this has absolutely nothing to do with wwhat's good for STFC and all about a payday for Seebeck. Since 1950
  • Score: 2

12:22pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Helpme234 says...

Will we needing three more Mercs, and did Jed and co hand theirs back?
Will we needing three more Mercs, and did Jed and co hand theirs back? Helpme234
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 30 Apr 14

redbythesea says...

Helpme234 wrote:
Will we needing three more Mercs, and did Jed and co hand theirs back?
Considerably Cheaper than Mr Powers regular flights to and from Switzerland :-)
[quote][p][bold]Helpme234[/bold] wrote: Will we needing three more Mercs, and did Jed and co hand theirs back?[/p][/quote]Considerably Cheaper than Mr Powers regular flights to and from Switzerland :-) redbythesea
  • Score: -7

1:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Billy hunt 65 says...

Get Jed back ... Power is dodgy ask Rushden and diamonds..
What did Jed do wrong? Not a lot in my opinion took over when nobody else wanted the club.
Perhaps with Jed onboard we might not have the smallest budget next season
Get Jed back ... Power is dodgy ask Rushden and diamonds.. What did Jed do wrong? Not a lot in my opinion took over when nobody else wanted the club. Perhaps with Jed onboard we might not have the smallest budget next season Billy hunt 65
  • Score: -19

1:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the wizard says...

First off I don't think The Adver can print all what they know, legally. Second, I don't think either side are willing to "tell us what is going on". because (1) the take over by Power was probably a "gentleman's agreement", and (2), neither side would want to spill the beans and tell all for fear of losing any advantage they may have, (3), I would think negotiations are at a tentative stage where confidentiality is everything.and going to the press before any settlement is reached would be seen by the other side as a breech of confidence.
Lets face it, all all know the size of Jed's pot, and the fact LP has put in a lot of his own cash, more than anybody here, so in reality we are in no position to criticize. All this is about Jed wanting a second bite of the apple and Power should have put things in place long before now to prevent a situation such as this arising. My guess is Power to a point trusted Jed, sadly that has turned out to be an expensive error, but noticeably according to The Adver, none of Jeds cronies were at court yesterday, so I see it as a complete charade by them and I see their actions as a strategy for cash and nothing else, which reveals them for what they are.
First off I don't think The Adver can print all what they know, legally. Second, I don't think either side are willing to "tell us what is going on". because (1) the take over by Power was probably a "gentleman's agreement", and (2), neither side would want to spill the beans and tell all for fear of losing any advantage they may have, (3), I would think negotiations are at a tentative stage where confidentiality is everything.and going to the press before any settlement is reached would be seen by the other side as a breech of confidence. Lets face it, all all know the size of Jed's pot, and the fact LP has put in a lot of his own cash, more than anybody here, so in reality we are in no position to criticize. All this is about Jed wanting a second bite of the apple and Power should have put things in place long before now to prevent a situation such as this arising. My guess is Power to a point trusted Jed, sadly that has turned out to be an expensive error, but noticeably according to The Adver, none of Jeds cronies were at court yesterday, so I see it as a complete charade by them and I see their actions as a strategy for cash and nothing else, which reveals them for what they are. the wizard
  • Score: 2

1:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

old town robin says...

Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions.

i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.
Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions. i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand. old town robin
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Since 1950 says...

Billy hunt 65 wrote:
Get Jed back ... Power is dodgy ask Rushden and diamonds..
What did Jed do wrong? Not a lot in my opinion took over when nobody else wanted the club.
Perhaps with Jed onboard we might not have the smallest budget next season
Don't tell me you believed that BS about the affable Jed wanting to buy Swindon because he didn't want to see us go under!?
He bought STFC because no one else wanted him anywhere near their club and Black wanted to sell out to the first person to come along with a £ in their pocket - regardless of who it was and what their motives were. That's not to say that Power is a saint by the way.
[quote][p][bold]Billy hunt 65[/bold] wrote: Get Jed back ... Power is dodgy ask Rushden and diamonds.. What did Jed do wrong? Not a lot in my opinion took over when nobody else wanted the club. Perhaps with Jed onboard we might not have the smallest budget next season[/p][/quote]Don't tell me you believed that BS about the affable Jed wanting to buy Swindon because he didn't want to see us go under!? He bought STFC because no one else wanted him anywhere near their club and Black wanted to sell out to the first person to come along with a £ in their pocket - regardless of who it was and what their motives were. That's not to say that Power is a saint by the way. Since 1950
  • Score: 5

2:23pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Wilesy says...

LR, Den, thanks for comments which make perfect sense.

Sounds a bit tit for tat to me, I got the impression Power played a bit heavy when he took over and McCrory seemed to be 'pied off,' as the Trust might eloquenlty say. Maybe this move is a bit of getting his own back, timing it when he has knowing the season ticket money is around and pushing Power into a corner with the threat of the three stooges.

All sounds a bit unpleasant not sure I would want to play hardball like this with either party

Just hope that the cost to the club isn't too much or the fallout any messier than it already sounds....
LR, Den, thanks for comments which make perfect sense. Sounds a bit tit for tat to me, I got the impression Power played a bit heavy when he took over and McCrory seemed to be 'pied off,' as the Trust might eloquenlty say. Maybe this move is a bit of getting his own back, timing it when he has knowing the season ticket money is around and pushing Power into a corner with the threat of the three stooges. All sounds a bit unpleasant not sure I would want to play hardball like this with either party Just hope that the cost to the club isn't too much or the fallout any messier than it already sounds.... Wilesy
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

lifelong red says...

All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .
All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long . lifelong red
  • Score: 1

3:02pm Wed 30 Apr 14

smirg kcab says...

Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club.
Power your powerless
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless smirg kcab
  • Score: -5

4:46pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tifosi says...

lifelong red wrote:
All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .
Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can.
Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.
[quote][p][bold]lifelong red[/bold] wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .[/p][/quote]Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know. tifosi
  • Score: 1

5:19pm Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made London Red
  • Score: 4

5:30pm Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

tifosi wrote:
lifelong red wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .
Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.
Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever.
.
He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections
.
What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover.
.
Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish
.
It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season
.
That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is.
.
The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?
[quote][p][bold]tifosi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lifelong red[/bold] wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .[/p][/quote]Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.[/p][/quote]Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever. . He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections . What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover. . Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish . It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season . That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is. . The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on? London Red
  • Score: 4

5:46pm Wed 30 Apr 14

LeGod says...

smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far.
He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.
smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far. He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it. LeGod
  • Score: -1

6:02pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tifosi says...

London Red wrote:
tifosi wrote:
lifelong red wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .
Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.
Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever.
.
He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections
.
What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover.
.
Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish
.
It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season
.
That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is.
.
The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?
Thanks for the explanation LR. Your posts always make sense. So maybe McCrory is on the make. I must say that I was looking forward to some financial security next season. Maybe no spectacular signings, but a solid basis for development further down the line. I am happy with Lee Power and I think Cooper has done a terrific job under difficult circumstances. what I don't want is some chancer muscling in and upsetting the apple cart.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tifosi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lifelong red[/bold] wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .[/p][/quote]Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.[/p][/quote]Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever. . He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections . What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover. . Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish . It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season . That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is. . The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?[/p][/quote]Thanks for the explanation LR. Your posts always make sense. So maybe McCrory is on the make. I must say that I was looking forward to some financial security next season. Maybe no spectacular signings, but a solid basis for development further down the line. I am happy with Lee Power and I think Cooper has done a terrific job under difficult circumstances. what I don't want is some chancer muscling in and upsetting the apple cart. tifosi
  • Score: -1

6:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

mancrobin says...

London Red wrote:
tifosi wrote:
lifelong red wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .
Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.
Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever.
.
He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections
.
What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover.
.
Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish
.
It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season
.
That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is.
.
The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?
Good explanation LR. Thanks
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tifosi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lifelong red[/bold] wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .[/p][/quote]Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.[/p][/quote]Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever. . He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections . What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover. . Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish . It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season . That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is. . The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?[/p][/quote]Good explanation LR. Thanks mancrobin
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

old town robin wrote:
Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions.

i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.
OTR, I don't pretend to understand it properly. London Red seems to have a pretty good grasp of it all. As for "non-executive", that just means not having an operational job in the business. We were told that Sangita Shah is non-executive. I suppose Power is too because he's not involved in the day-to-day running of the club.
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions. i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.[/p][/quote]OTR, I don't pretend to understand it properly. London Red seems to have a pretty good grasp of it all. As for "non-executive", that just means not having an operational job in the business. We were told that Sangita Shah is non-executive. I suppose Power is too because he's not involved in the day-to-day running of the club. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

6:16pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dazzastfc says...

HA HA Another day were the fans know what is going on,!!!! WELL THEY LIKE TO THINK THEY DO....

HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS HES NILE RANGER HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS
HA HA Another day were the fans know what is going on,!!!! WELL THEY LIKE TO THINK THEY DO.... HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS HES NILE RANGER HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS dazzastfc
  • Score: -4

6:20pm Wed 30 Apr 14

smirg kcab says...

London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift. smirg kcab
  • Score: -1

6:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Redgollum says...

smirg kcab wrote:
London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift.[/p][/quote]If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football? Redgollum
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

smirg kcab wrote:
London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
Depends - club rules are probably not the same as the general law
.
Players will be told to behave in a certain way and I doubt that video is within them!
.
Anyone can be sacked without breaking the law if they behave in a certain way and criminal charges normally lead to people being sacked legitimately!
.
Up to his case he had actually not done anything "wrong" - turning up late and missing a few days is unprofessional but not a crime - I seen that in every company I have worked in!
.
However - smashing up a taxi, assult and being charged with criminal damage are actual crimes and probably just cause to be sacked
.
I guess the hearing is to decide if we exercise the option or not - or would he go into a programme etc as it seems to be drink related issues!
.
I feel it is now a step too far and the recent up turn in form will weaken his "case" and we will simply see him released
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift.[/p][/quote]Depends - club rules are probably not the same as the general law . Players will be told to behave in a certain way and I doubt that video is within them! . Anyone can be sacked without breaking the law if they behave in a certain way and criminal charges normally lead to people being sacked legitimately! . Up to his case he had actually not done anything "wrong" - turning up late and missing a few days is unprofessional but not a crime - I seen that in every company I have worked in! . However - smashing up a taxi, assult and being charged with criminal damage are actual crimes and probably just cause to be sacked . I guess the hearing is to decide if we exercise the option or not - or would he go into a programme etc as it seems to be drink related issues! . I feel it is now a step too far and the recent up turn in form will weaken his "case" and we will simply see him released London Red
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
old town robin wrote:
Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions.

i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.
OTR, I don't pretend to understand it properly. London Red seems to have a pretty good grasp of it all. As for "non-executive"
, that just means not having an operational job in the business. We were told that Sangita Shah is non-executive. I suppose Power is too because he's not involved in the day-to-day running of the club.
Football doesn't tend to work the same as general business
.
In England the CEO is the main guy who runs the business
.
The chairman - heads the board
.
Non Executives like Den said are normally experts who are not within the company to provide balance - as executives may be serving their own purposes more than the shareholders etc
.
Yet in Football the chairman is the top dog and most of the time the owner too
.
Den - you say Power has no involvement day-to-day - yet you have said all season Cooper is his puppet and Power has been the one deciding who we sign, who plays, how we play etc - how can he do that with no involvement?
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions. i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.[/p][/quote]OTR, I don't pretend to understand it properly. London Red seems to have a pretty good grasp of it all. As for "non-executive" , that just means not having an operational job in the business. We were told that Sangita Shah is non-executive. I suppose Power is too because he's not involved in the day-to-day running of the club.[/p][/quote]Football doesn't tend to work the same as general business . In England the CEO is the main guy who runs the business . The chairman - heads the board . Non Executives like Den said are normally experts who are not within the company to provide balance - as executives may be serving their own purposes more than the shareholders etc . Yet in Football the chairman is the top dog and most of the time the owner too . Den - you say Power has no involvement day-to-day - yet you have said all season Cooper is his puppet and Power has been the one deciding who we sign, who plays, how we play etc - how can he do that with no involvement? London Red
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 30 Apr 14

lifelong red says...

tifosi wrote:
London Red wrote:
tifosi wrote:
lifelong red wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .
Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.
Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever.
.
He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections
.
What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover.
.
Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish
.
It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season
.
That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is.
.
The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?
Thanks for the explanation LR. Your posts always make sense. So maybe McCrory is on the make. I must say that I was looking forward to some financial security next season. Maybe no spectacular signings, but a solid basis for development further down the line. I am happy with Lee Power and I think Cooper has done a terrific job under difficult circumstances. what I don't want is some chancer muscling in and upsetting the apple cart.
I agree with all of that- I have always felt safer with Lee Power at the helm , not only has he put his own money in, but he has also given us all a fair indication on his future plans for the club , along with Mark Cooper - who has also done a good job . The two seem to have a good working relationship, and plans were also in place to take the team a step further next season . So all in all everything seemed fine and dandy - but alas! this is S.T.F.C - nothing is easy or straight forward. I can only hope , that one fine day, we can not only cheer on a successful team , but also see some stability , on and off the pitch.
[quote][p][bold]tifosi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tifosi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lifelong red[/bold] wrote: All this legal stuff- does my head- don't understand the half of it , but which ever way it all ends I just hope its for the good of our beloved football club , with that in mind , then I don't think that would include Jed . My major worry though , is the impact it may have on the plans and preparations for next season , if it drags on to long .[/p][/quote]Can't understand why this gets a minus, so I'm also going to admit that I don't understand what's going on either. Either I'm incredibly dim or everyone else on here can compare the financial / company details about Jed and Lee and can weigh up why Jed is the villain. Damned if I can. Someone might try to explain using simple words and short sentences so that I know.[/p][/quote]Probably as Jed came in and didn't invest any money whatsoever. . He talked a good game - but as it transpires that it was only when Power came on board that we got the embargo lifted via his investment and then the loanees from Spurs arrived - again via his connections . What we actually got from Jed is a bar in the Town End which got shut down and a summer concert which made a loss for Power to cover. . Power however has gone on to fund the club this season to the tune of £1m - meaning we have been able to be competitive and secure either a 7th or 8th place finish . It has also been Power's vision, connections and negotiating skills which has provided us with a good core of a squad which had this whole scenario not blown up given us a good platform to go forward from next season . That is why most want to see Power continue as he has been reasonably open with us and has actually put his money where his mouth is. . The only thing I don't get is why this is actually in court as the Judge doesn't seem to be doing anything - surely if negotiations brokedown like they did the Judge should have heard the case and delivered a verdict on?[/p][/quote]Thanks for the explanation LR. Your posts always make sense. So maybe McCrory is on the make. I must say that I was looking forward to some financial security next season. Maybe no spectacular signings, but a solid basis for development further down the line. I am happy with Lee Power and I think Cooper has done a terrific job under difficult circumstances. what I don't want is some chancer muscling in and upsetting the apple cart.[/p][/quote]I agree with all of that- I have always felt safer with Lee Power at the helm , not only has he put his own money in, but he has also given us all a fair indication on his future plans for the club , along with Mark Cooper - who has also done a good job . The two seem to have a good working relationship, and plans were also in place to take the team a step further next season . So all in all everything seemed fine and dandy - but alas! this is S.T.F.C - nothing is easy or straight forward. I can only hope , that one fine day, we can not only cheer on a successful team , but also see some stability , on and off the pitch. lifelong red
  • Score: 2

7:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
old town robin wrote:
Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions.

i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.
OTR, I don't pretend to understand it properly. London Red seems to have a pretty good grasp of it all. As for "non-executive"

, that just means not having an operational job in the business. We were told that Sangita Shah is non-executive. I suppose Power is too because he's not involved in the day-to-day running of the club.
Football doesn't tend to work the same as general business
.
In England the CEO is the main guy who runs the business
.
The chairman - heads the board
.
Non Executives like Den said are normally experts who are not within the company to provide balance - as executives may be serving their own purposes more than the shareholders etc
.
Yet in Football the chairman is the top dog and most of the time the owner too
.
Den - you say Power has no involvement day-to-day - yet you have said all season Cooper is his puppet and Power has been the one deciding who we sign, who plays, how we play etc - how can he do that with no involvement?
Some great posts from you today LR.

I'm not sure I ever said Cooper was a puppet. What I have said is that he was given a squad of players that he may or may not have wanted and he was told to play a passing game, whether he liked it or not. Is either of those points really in dispute?

Don't see how Power can be an executive director if he's not he's not there to execute any director duties for at least three quarters of the year. But I wasn't trying to make any point about Power, just trying to answer OTR's question. Shall we compromise and agree to call Power a part-time executive director?!

Glad to see that you have at last seen through Transparent Jed!

Re Ranger, yes the club could just let his contract expire but that would be the easy way out. Wouldn't it send a much better message to everyone who supports or works for the club if he was sacked?

Grim, what does it matter who owns the club if there are senior employees who manage it every day? I doubt if the shareholders of many companies have the faintest idea of what happens in their disciplinary hearings.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: Without having any knowledge of how it should work with regards to ownership. I would have thought whomever is registered at Company House as the owner (holding Company) is the owner, For Power to maintain status quo he could increase the number of STFC board members from Swinton Red to exceed those of Seebeck, a ploy for which I would agree with LR on. I don't know why Stephen Crouch only remains on the board of Swinton Red and not on the board of STFC but his appointment i would have though added weight to the position of Swinton Red, Another question I have is wouldn't the Seebeck lot be considered non-executive Directors as they have no financial investment in STFC and therefore no rights to pass or block any resolutions. i would have thought election to the board would be in line with the number of shares owned by each holding company. i.e if Swinton have 60% (with proxies) and Seebeck have 40%, then that's a ratio of 3:2 and therefore the maximum Seebeck would be allowed is 2 seats for every 3 of Swinton's. Simple solution, but there is probably a good reason it doesn't work like that, one that I certainly do not understand.[/p][/quote]OTR, I don't pretend to understand it properly. London Red seems to have a pretty good grasp of it all. As for "non-executive" , that just means not having an operational job in the business. We were told that Sangita Shah is non-executive. I suppose Power is too because he's not involved in the day-to-day running of the club.[/p][/quote]Football doesn't tend to work the same as general business . In England the CEO is the main guy who runs the business . The chairman - heads the board . Non Executives like Den said are normally experts who are not within the company to provide balance - as executives may be serving their own purposes more than the shareholders etc . Yet in Football the chairman is the top dog and most of the time the owner too . Den - you say Power has no involvement day-to-day - yet you have said all season Cooper is his puppet and Power has been the one deciding who we sign, who plays, how we play etc - how can he do that with no involvement?[/p][/quote]Some great posts from you today LR. I'm not sure I ever said Cooper was a puppet. What I have said is that he was given a squad of players that he may or may not have wanted and he was told to play a passing game, whether he liked it or not. Is either of those points really in dispute? Don't see how Power can be an executive director if he's not he's not there to execute any director duties for at least three quarters of the year. But I wasn't trying to make any point about Power, just trying to answer OTR's question. Shall we compromise and agree to call Power a part-time executive director?! Glad to see that you have at last seen through Transparent Jed! Re Ranger, yes the club could just let his contract expire but that would be the easy way out. Wouldn't it send a much better message to everyone who supports or works for the club if he was sacked? Grim, what does it matter who owns the club if there are senior employees who manage it every day? I doubt if the shareholders of many companies have the faintest idea of what happens in their disciplinary hearings. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Wed 30 Apr 14

smirg kcab says...

Redgollum wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?
Because cooper and his medical team says so.
Anyway we don't need him now smiths stepped into his boots lol
[quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift.[/p][/quote]If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?[/p][/quote]Because cooper and his medical team says so. Anyway we don't need him now smiths stepped into his boots lol smirg kcab
  • Score: -2

7:37pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Di kanny oh says...

Baldrick I have a cunning plan, why not let the us the fans buy the 40% shares that the circus owns and help Mr Power oust these leaches once and for all. If 5000 fans could afford £100 each surely this 500k would be enough to pay off this bunch of nobodies. Or even fans can buy what they can afford but the thought is lets help Mr Power and STFC our football club. I would gladly put £100 in.
Baldrick I have a cunning plan, why not let the us the fans buy the 40% shares that the circus owns and help Mr Power oust these leaches once and for all. If 5000 fans could afford £100 each surely this 500k would be enough to pay off this bunch of nobodies. Or even fans can buy what they can afford but the thought is lets help Mr Power and STFC our football club. I would gladly put £100 in. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 5

7:43pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Di kanny oh says...

LeGod wrote:
smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far.
He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.
Could not have been Ranger in the pictures as he is injured and out for the season or something like that.
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote: smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far. He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.[/p][/quote]Could not have been Ranger in the pictures as he is injured and out for the season or something like that. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

Di kanny oh wrote:
LeGod wrote:
smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far.
He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.
Could not have been Ranger in the pictures as he is injured and out for the season or something like that.
Yes, even if the criminal damage and woman beating is left aside, we've still got a player who is supposed to have a serious hamstring injury, running at and kicking in a reinforced door at 4 o'clock in the morning. It's just the latest in a long line of incidents.

LR, how can you say he has done nothing wrong until now? If that's the case, why were Power and Cooper on the point of sacking him months ago? Why would they want to sack the most talented footballer in the club if he had done nothing wrong? It wasn't because he'd done nothing wrong that they changed their minds, it was because he was seen to be too talented to lose. Cooper said he took advice from other people in the game who said he should keep Ranger because we didn't have an adequate replacement. Easy for them to say when it's not their club being disrespected, their training sessions messed up and their match preparations disrupted.
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote: smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far. He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.[/p][/quote]Could not have been Ranger in the pictures as he is injured and out for the season or something like that.[/p][/quote]Yes, even if the criminal damage and woman beating is left aside, we've still got a player who is supposed to have a serious hamstring injury, running at and kicking in a reinforced door at 4 o'clock in the morning. It's just the latest in a long line of incidents. LR, how can you say he has done nothing wrong until now? If that's the case, why were Power and Cooper on the point of sacking him months ago? Why would they want to sack the most talented footballer in the club if he had done nothing wrong? It wasn't because he'd done nothing wrong that they changed their minds, it was because he was seen to be too talented to lose. Cooper said he took advice from other people in the game who said he should keep Ranger because we didn't have an adequate replacement. Easy for them to say when it's not their club being disrespected, their training sessions messed up and their match preparations disrupted. Oi Den!
  • Score: 2

8:37pm Wed 30 Apr 14

The Jockster says...

Oh and then there's the drink drive charge to come yet now let's see what else can he manage to get charged with - we haven't had robbery yet have we and what about gbh that must be a near certainty? Like I said the other day he needs to see the trickcyclist !
Oh and then there's the drink drive charge to come yet now let's see what else can he manage to get charged with - we haven't had robbery yet have we and what about gbh that must be a near certainty? Like I said the other day he needs to see the trickcyclist ! The Jockster
  • Score: -1

9:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Di kanny oh says...

Looks like Caddis may be back next season with Brum after loosing at home last night got a hard away game at Bolton next. Now Brum are in the bottom three.
Looks like Caddis may be back next season with Brum after loosing at home last night got a hard away game at Bolton next. Now Brum are in the bottom three. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 1

9:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the wizard says...

The Jockster wrote:
Oh and then there's the drink drive charge to come yet now let's see what else can he manage to get charged with - we haven't had robbery yet have we and what about gbh that must be a near certainty? Like I said the other day he needs to see the trickcyclist !
Is that the guy with a bike on the high wire at Billy Smarts then Jock, LOL ??
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Oh and then there's the drink drive charge to come yet now let's see what else can he manage to get charged with - we haven't had robbery yet have we and what about gbh that must be a near certainty? Like I said the other day he needs to see the trickcyclist ![/p][/quote]Is that the guy with a bike on the high wire at Billy Smarts then Jock, LOL ?? the wizard
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dazzastfc says...

Di kanny oh wrote:
Looks like Caddis may be back next season with Brum after loosing at home last night got a hard away game at Bolton next. Now Brum are in the bottom three.
GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SCOTTISH !!! HUNT
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: Looks like Caddis may be back next season with Brum after loosing at home last night got a hard away game at Bolton next. Now Brum are in the bottom three.[/p][/quote]GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SCOTTISH !!! HUNT dazzastfc
  • Score: 1

9:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Redgollum wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?
My Mrs can turn the cooker on but she can't cook.

Get rid. How many more chances.
[quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift.[/p][/quote]If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?[/p][/quote]My Mrs can turn the cooker on but she can't cook. Get rid. How many more chances. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Redgollum wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?
My Mrs can turn the cooker on but she can't cook.

Get rid. How many more chances.
[quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift.[/p][/quote]If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?[/p][/quote]My Mrs can turn the cooker on but she can't cook. Get rid. How many more chances. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Redgollum wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
London Red wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless
He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made
See what you mean
But why does he need a discipline?
Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case.
If you get my drift.
If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?
My Mrs can turn the cooker on but she can't cook.

Get rid. How many more chances.
[quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Look forward to rangers discipline tomorrow, if he gets sacked he will no doubt sue the club and rightly so. Because no one has the power to sack him if nobody owns the club. Power your powerless[/p][/quote]He can't sue the club as he won't be sacked - they will simply decide not to take up his option and release him - if that is the decision to be made[/p][/quote]See what you mean But why does he need a discipline? Unless they are going to stop his wages untill his contract ends, if so who has the authority to do it? Power or jeds mob? Anway he's pleaded not guilty, so he's innocent utill proven other wise, so he shouldn't be disaplined untill after the court case. If you get my drift.[/p][/quote]If he can kick a door in, why can't he play football?[/p][/quote]My Mrs can turn the cooker on but she can't cook. Get rid. How many more chances. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

The Jockster wrote:
Oh and then there's the drink drive charge to come yet now let's see what else can he manage to get charged with - we haven't had robbery yet have we and what about gbh that must be a near certainty? Like I said the other day he needs to see the trickcyclist !
Maybe the trick cyclist can help him become a pheasant plucker.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Oh and then there's the drink drive charge to come yet now let's see what else can he manage to get charged with - we haven't had robbery yet have we and what about gbh that must be a near certainty? Like I said the other day he needs to see the trickcyclist ![/p][/quote]Maybe the trick cyclist can help him become a pheasant plucker. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

10:07pm Wed 30 Apr 14

The Jockster says...

Nah Den he's certainly not a pheasant plucker & yes Wiz he's part of Monty Pythons Flying Circus aka the shambles that passes for the owners of STFC.
Nah Den he's certainly not a pheasant plucker & yes Wiz he's part of Monty Pythons Flying Circus aka the shambles that passes for the owners of STFC. The Jockster
  • Score: -3

10:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

The Jockster says...

Dukey hope the Duchess doesn't read this thread you could be going hungry if she does lol!
Dukey hope the Duchess doesn't read this thread you could be going hungry if she does lol! The Jockster
  • Score: -1

10:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the wizard says...

Away from football altogether, Toon Town very quiet tonight, R.I.P Bob Hoskins, one of our finest. Always enjoyed him on screen, he will be missed.
Away from football altogether, Toon Town very quiet tonight, R.I.P Bob Hoskins, one of our finest. Always enjoyed him on screen, he will be missed. the wizard
  • Score: 4

10:32pm Wed 30 Apr 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Di kanny oh wrote:
LeGod wrote:
smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far.
He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.
Could not have been Ranger in the pictures as he is injured and out for the season or something like that.
Yes, even if the criminal damage and woman beating is left aside, we've still got a player who is supposed to have a serious hamstring injury, running at and kicking in a reinforced door at 4 o'clock in the morning. It's just the latest in a long line of incidents.

LR, how can you say he has done nothing wrong until now? If that's the case, why were Power and Cooper on the point of sacking him months ago? Why would they want to sack the most talented footballer in the club if he had done nothing wrong? It wasn't because he'd done nothing wrong that they changed their minds, it was because he was seen to be too talented to lose. Cooper said he took advice from other people in the game who said he should keep Ranger because we didn't have an adequate replacement. Easy for them to say when it's not their club being disrespected, their training sessions messed up and their match preparations disrupted.
Den - I said nothing wrong in terms of illegal or immoral activities. All the list of offences on his rap sheet were pre-STFC. However - that is now not the case anymore.
.
Yes he was late (but what was that 5 mins, 10 mins, an hour?) and he did miss some secessions - but nothing really wrong which is not seen in every walk of life - we have all worked with people who fit that description!
.
He was displined, then coached via time off and then disciplined again before it seemed it finally hit home - plus his performances were never effected by it - I can only think of one game where you could say he was poor!
.
Now who knows what is going on as he seems to have completely gone off the rails - and this time the reason for that is no longer there
.
So it probably is time to say good bye - especially as we now have the summer to address the whole left behind
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote: smirg kcab - do you not know anything - As London Red has pointed out his contract is up this summer all they will do is not renew it if this is a step too far. He has pleaded not guilty and with the CCTV footage he must feel he has a case and it is a clone Ranger look a like and not him - but looking at it I don't know how he is going to talk his way out of it.[/p][/quote]Could not have been Ranger in the pictures as he is injured and out for the season or something like that.[/p][/quote]Yes, even if the criminal damage and woman beating is left aside, we've still got a player who is supposed to have a serious hamstring injury, running at and kicking in a reinforced door at 4 o'clock in the morning. It's just the latest in a long line of incidents. LR, how can you say he has done nothing wrong until now? If that's the case, why were Power and Cooper on the point of sacking him months ago? Why would they want to sack the most talented footballer in the club if he had done nothing wrong? It wasn't because he'd done nothing wrong that they changed their minds, it was because he was seen to be too talented to lose. Cooper said he took advice from other people in the game who said he should keep Ranger because we didn't have an adequate replacement. Easy for them to say when it's not their club being disrespected, their training sessions messed up and their match preparations disrupted.[/p][/quote]Den - I said nothing wrong in terms of illegal or immoral activities. All the list of offences on his rap sheet were pre-STFC. However - that is now not the case anymore. . Yes he was late (but what was that 5 mins, 10 mins, an hour?) and he did miss some secessions - but nothing really wrong which is not seen in every walk of life - we have all worked with people who fit that description! . He was displined, then coached via time off and then disciplined again before it seemed it finally hit home - plus his performances were never effected by it - I can only think of one game where you could say he was poor! . Now who knows what is going on as he seems to have completely gone off the rails - and this time the reason for that is no longer there . So it probably is time to say good bye - especially as we now have the summer to address the whole left behind London Red
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the wizard says...

Is there something in the water at CG that promotes bad behavior ? We've seen all sorts of it down the years, Bronco Lane, Macari, Austin, Mayes and Rowlands, one at it with the others wife, opppps ! even PDC kicked in the odd door, and that was before the melee at the end. Then of course false accounting, and the list goes on.
We can only hope that soon this bug leaves us and goes elsewhere. I know, Rotherham would be good, lol, see the Slug sizzle in his own fat, LOL.
Is there something in the water at CG that promotes bad behavior ? We've seen all sorts of it down the years, Bronco Lane, Macari, Austin, Mayes and Rowlands, one at it with the others wife, opppps ! even PDC kicked in the odd door, and that was before the melee at the end. Then of course false accounting, and the list goes on. We can only hope that soon this bug leaves us and goes elsewhere. I know, Rotherham would be good, lol, see the Slug sizzle in his own fat, LOL. the wizard
  • Score: -2

10:53pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Oi Den! says...

LR, the truth is that you don't know and I don't know the precise detail of Ranger's breaches of club discipline. Cooper and Power do know and they've clearly been exasperated by them. As Ranger was close to getting the bullet, it's a fair bet that it was more than the odd instance of being a few minutes late. You think he's only recently gone off the rails? I'm sure most of us would like to see a fit, interested and rehabilitated Ranger doing his superb stuff for the Town. But I never really thought that's what we'd get. I thought we'd get the same trouble that Ranger's carried with him everywhere.
LR, the truth is that you don't know and I don't know the precise detail of Ranger's breaches of club discipline. Cooper and Power do know and they've clearly been exasperated by them. As Ranger was close to getting the bullet, it's a fair bet that it was more than the odd instance of being a few minutes late. You think he's only recently gone off the rails? I'm sure most of us would like to see a fit, interested and rehabilitated Ranger doing his superb stuff for the Town. But I never really thought that's what we'd get. I thought we'd get the same trouble that Ranger's carried with him everywhere. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

9:32am Thu 1 May 14

umpcah says...

Well he`s due to meet the STFC bosses today and we all know the likely result ! Hope he doesn`t kick the door in on his way out !
Well he`s due to meet the STFC bosses today and we all know the likely result ! Hope he doesn`t kick the door in on his way out ! umpcah
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree