Enlighten us, Harps. What is the legal requirement for the number of directors on the board of a football club?

excessbee wrote:Enlighten us, Harps. What is the legal requirement for the number of directors on the board of a football club?

If you are asking Frank. I have no idea but I believe our club requires a minimum of 9 plus any co opted.
Sure you will enlighten myself if that is not correct.
Regarding the boards of every club in the EFL for instance I would guess they vary considerably but again Frank is happy to be enlightened by your greater knowledge of the subject you appear to be interested in.

Regards Frank

Hoping for another great season with lots of glorious goals coming from my good self.

Well Frank ( ), I believe the club was functioning with a board of two - Les Scadding and Howard Greenhaf - shortly before the Trust takeover so my guess is we may have been pretty close to the minimum required number at that time. I find it quite distasteful that supporters put themselves forward to serve the club, and you dismiss their presence as 'making up the numbers'.

excessbee wrote:Well Frank ( ), I believe the club was functioning with a board of two - Les Scadding and Howard Greenhaf - shortly before the Trust takeover so my guess is we may have been pretty close to the minimum required number at that time. I find it quite distasteful that supporters put themselves forward to serve the club, and you dismiss their presence as 'making up the numbers'.

Nothing distasteful about it.
I wish them all the best but if you do not think their is an inner sanctum at our club who make virtually every decision regardless you really are very naïve.

Virtually everything large or small goes through a very very tiny number of elected personel.

Why do you think the likes of Rob Sant as just 1 example couldn't accept that.

I wish you all the best up on your cloud Excess

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

excessbee wrote:Well Frank ( ), I believe the club was functioning with a board of two - Les Scadding and Howard Greenhaf - shortly before the Trust takeover so my guess is we may have been pretty close to the minimum required number at that time. I find it quite distasteful that supporters put themselves forward to serve the club, and you dismiss their presence as 'making up the numbers'.

Nothing distasteful about it.
I wish them all the best but if you do not think their is an inner sanctum at our club who make virtually every decision regardless you really are very naïve.

Virtually everything large or small goes through a very very tiny number of elected personel.

Why do you think the likes of Rob Sant as just 1 example couldn't accept that.

I wish you all the best up on your cloud Excess

Are you saying it was the inner sanctum that made the decision to keep Flynn ?

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

excessbee wrote:Well Frank ( ), I believe the club was functioning with a board of two - Les Scadding and Howard Greenhaf - shortly before the Trust takeover so my guess is we may have been pretty close to the minimum required number at that time. I find it quite distasteful that supporters put themselves forward to serve the club, and you dismiss their presence as 'making up the numbers'.

Nothing distasteful about it.
I wish them all the best but if you do not think their is an inner sanctum at our club who make virtually every decision regardless you really are very naïve.

Virtually everything large or small goes through a very very tiny number of elected personel.

Why do you think the likes of Rob Sant as just 1 example couldn't accept that.

I wish you all the best up on your cloud Excess

Harps, you’re obviously referring to Gavin Foxall with regards to Rob Sant ‘couldn’t accept decisions’ from the ‘inner sanctum’
Since he resigned from the Board Rob has been very complimentary about GF despite them not exactly being bff’s.

Aside from all the connotations of the term 'inner sanctum'... how else are they meant to run the club?

We have to have a board, and they have to come to decisions.

Nobody wants to say what they really think here. What's the grudge with Foxall, etc? On the face of it, I think there are a few people here who are just jealous of the power the board have, but don't want to take them on in an election and give up their own time.

landinho wrote:Aside from all the connotations of the term 'inner sanctum'... how else are they meant to run the club?

We have to have a board, and they have to come to decisions.

Nobody wants to say what they really think here. What's the grudge with Foxall, etc? On the face of it, I think there are a few people here who are just jealous of the power the board have, but don't want to take them on in an election and give up their own time.

Well I've seen some comments over the years but that must be the scariest worrying comment by a mile.

"Jealous of the power the board have"

FFS Do you not realise this is supposed to be a fan Owned Club.


Happy with that Bryant, Exile and Excess to name a few?

The fans elect a Board to make decisions and run the club on our behalf.

landinho wrote:Aside from all the connotations of the term 'inner sanctum'... how else are they meant to run the club?

We have to have a board, and they have to come to decisions.

Nobody wants to say what they really think here. What's the grudge with Foxall, etc? On the face of it, I think there are a few people here who are just jealous of the power the board have, but don't want to take them on in an election and give up their own time.

I have no problem whatsoever with an elected board running the club in the way that they see fit. That is what happens. Rightly so. However, your comment 'jealous of the power of the board' speaks volumes. If ever a statement encapsulates the saying 'us and them' this was it. Why, oh why should anyone at this club, or any other, have to try to defend the board by saying someone is jealous of their power. It's us, we, the club, the fans, not a bunch of people who are jealous of the board.

landinho wrote: Nobody wants to say what they really think here. What's the grudge with Foxall, etc? On the face of it, I think there are a few people here who are just jealous of the power the board have, but don't want to take them on in an election and give up their own time.

During Mr Foxall's self-appointed tenure: 2 Commercial Managers, 3 CEO/COO, 3 Club Secretaries, 2 Media Managers, 2 Ticketing Managers, Academy Manager, Academy Head of Operations and tens of assistants and operational staff have quit. Left of their own accord. Look at any other EFL club and you'll see this level of departures is terrifyingly high and regular - no staff stick around for more than 18 months. I'm sure none of them are jealous of the 'power' the board have. Makes me wonder why we never seem to discuss why they all regret joining the Club quite so rapidly.

Taunt70 wrote:

landinho wrote: Nobody wants to say what they really think here. What's the grudge with Foxall, etc? On the face of it, I think there are a few people here who are just jealous of the power the board have, but don't want to take them on in an election and give up their own time.

During Mr Foxall's self-appointed tenure: 2 Commercial Managers, 3 CEO/COO, 3 Club Secretaries, 2 Media Managers, 2 Ticketing Managers, Academy Manager, Academy Head of Operations and tens of assistants and operational staff have quit. Left of their own accord. Look at any other EFL club and you'll see this level of departures is terrifyingly high and regular - no staff stick around for more than 18 months. I'm sure none of them are jealous of the 'power' the board have. Makes me wonder why we never seem to discuss why they all regret joining the Club quite so rapidly.

He's been chairman since when, 2015? 4 years. The CEOs are concerning, that should be a long term appointment, but for assistants etc, they do come and go. But good to see you raise actual points about the club, not just meaningless digs at the board.

Re: jealousy of power. Like it or not, we're a fan owned club, not a fan operated club. This forum seems to consist of complaints about the board and nobody being willing to put themselves up for election as an alternative. That sounds more like jealousy than genuine desire to help the club.

As pembs says, we have an elected board running the club in the way that they see fit. If you have a problem, either you raise it or you run for election. It's a democratic model.

Apologies if it's been said before already, but the world is run by the people who turn up. If no-one else put themselves forward, we can't really complain about those who did and who are giving up their time to help the club.

Now, there is an argument that directors should only be eligible to serve for X years, in order to force turnover and new ideas, and to make the membership at large feel emboldened to put themselves forward. I'm sympathetic to that view, personally. But that's not in the constitution we have, and so I'm not going to criticise the same people for sticking at it - especially if there are no alternative candidates willing to put their head above the parapet.

Landinho.

13 senior managers gone in 4 years.

We forget the 4/5 Directors also.

Seriously if you think anybody on here is jealous of the Inner Sanctum I would politely suggest you arrange an appointment with your GP and seek medication.

Remember the first meeting in the Bisley when a lady on the original top table team walked out Crying even before the meeting had commenced. (Apologies but do not remember her name)

Its done and dusted but we do have 5 Unelected board members plus those 2 Co opted also.

Anyway roll on the season ahead

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Landinho.

13 senior managers gone in 4 years.

We forget the 4/5 Directors also.

Seriously if you think anybody on here is jealous of the Inner Sanctum I would politely suggest you arrange an appointment with your GP and seek medication.

Remember the first meeting in the Bisley when a lady on the original top table team walked out Crying even before the meeting had commenced. (Apologies but do not remember her name)

Its done and dusted but we do have 5 Unelected board members plus those 2 Co opted also.

Anyway roll on the season ahead

Fair enough, you're not wrong to take them to task on the turnover. But if you're adamant the board are doing a bad job, either someone needs to run against them, or we all need to make less of the situation. If there's no alternative board, then they're all we've got, like it or not.

I sincerely hope they get our 19-20 sponsor sorted asap though. It could start to become a problem if this goes on much longer.