The Administration Thread

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am not going round in circles with you Pete, or Kevin. Had enough of that previously, and so have many on here. I will just reinforce the point I have been trying to make since I replied to Duncan.  If anyone accepts a non-executive director's position, being 'in the dark' is no excuse. If you are 'in the dark' or 'against decisions being made' then resign. That is good advice whether you are Lord Alan Sugar, Roy McFarland or PistoldPete.

What if you don't know you are 'in the dark'? #askinforafriend

[Ramant62]

Ashley

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

You do bloody annoy me at times Kevin. You get bogged down in the minutae of language and detail so often, but here you are stating that I am saying Roy McFarland is to blame.  What I said was: Roy Mac has to take some responsibility for the plight we are in, and should not be excluded from ‘blame’.

As far as I am concerned, Roy McFarland has done a wonderful job for the Club as player, manager, and ambassador.  He hasn't apparently done such a great job as a non-exec director, but I am happy to take a steer on this matter from @Brailsford Ramwhose opinion I value. 

Ihttps://www.tmj.co.za/News/Read/90133

The above link explains the 2008 Companies Act and covers a director's liability in detail and that accords to exactly what you say, although you did it succinctly which avoids the need for the layman to plough through it and interpret it.

But Section 77 does provide for a court to exempt a director from liability in certain circumstances, which may apply or not around what Roy MacFarland was aware of:

Section 77(9) of the Act brings some relief to directors, whereby they can raise the defence of honest and reasonable behaviour. This section states that in any proceedings against a director other than wilful misconduct or wilful breach of trust, the court may relieve the directors either wholly or in part from liability set out in section 77 or on any terms the court deems just if:

-    it appears to the court that the director has acted honestly or reasonably; and

-    having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including those connected with the appointment of the director, it would be fair to excuse the director.

However, as we have frequently identified in this thread, the EFL often tries to put its rules above statute law and within its own emporium may choose not to avail Roy Mac of this defence in the current climate simply because of his 55 years long association with DCFC?

[Ramant62]

Wrong place sorry

[sage]

Can we agree that the situation Roy Mac (not 5) inadvertently found himself in is a cautionary tale for any future supporter or ambassadorial role on a club board.  

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

@i-Ramis being very harsh.  Of course RoyMac is legally responsible as a director (there’s no such thing as an honorific director PdP) but to say he is ‘to blame’ is clearly unfair - he doesn’t have the expertise to be morally culpable and anyway it’s quite likely Mel kept him in the dark. 
 

He deserves our sympathy - it will have been a troubling time and I hope Q have put him at ease 

Does corporate manslaughter ring any bells? The days of directors saying they knew nothing about what their managers were upto went out with square wheels so unless a director fancies a trip to the slammer it's in their interest to demand to know exactly what's going on in their business. 

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

What if you don't know you are 'in the dark'? #askinforafriend

No one's going to fall for that 'you have a friend' routine Roy.

[kevinhectoring]

39 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

but I am happy to take a steer on this matter from @Brailsford Ramwhose opinion I value. 

Strange post given you just gave @brailsfordram a mini-lecture on the duties applicable to non execs. Anyway I am of more generous spirit than you and am pleased to say I agreed with every word

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Does corporate manslaughter ring any bells? The days of directors saying they knew nothing about what their managers were upto went out with square wheels so unless a director fancies a trip to the slammer it's in their interest to demand to know exactly what's going on in their business. 

Corporate manslaughter does not carry a sentence of imprisonment. The maximum sentence is an unlimited fine. So there is no trip to the slammer. I would not challenge you on ecclesiastical law vicar but I will on the law of homicide ?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Strange post given you just gave @brailsfordram a mini-lecture on the duties applicable to non execs. Anyway I am of more generous spirit than you and am pleased to say I agreed with every word

 

Kevin, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not aware that i-Ram has ever tried to lecture me. I have always looked upon exchanges with him as sensible discussions, often containing a bit of humour. I too agreed with every word he said. Sometimes there are some things that are best left unsaid and I think you have just fallen into that trap ?

[CBRammette]

25 minutes ago, Ramant62 said:

Ashley

Just catching up - is this in response to another question? Or something else? Sorry its randomly in the middle of other stuff!

[PistoldPete]

34 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am not going round in circles with you Pete, or Kevin. Had enough of that previously, and so have many on here. I will just reinforce the point I have been trying to make since I replied to Duncan.  If anyone accepts a non-executive director's position, being 'in the dark' is no excuse. If you are 'in the dark' or 'against decisions being made' then resign. That is good advice whether you are Lord Alan Sugar, Roy McFarland or PistoldPete.

Thanks Iram .

I have been in that position. And I did resign. Not an easy thing to do though. When you have wife and kids and that and no other job to go to. So I will not beat anyone up who doesn’t do that perhaps didn’t know what was going on. 

[Ram-Alf]

15 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Corporate manslaughter does not carry a sentence of imprisonment. The maximum sentence is an unlimited fine. So there is no trip to the slammer. I would not challenge you on ecclesiastical law vicar but I will on the law of homicide ?

You've been watching to many USA detective programes Brailsford...Murder is a more gruesome term ?

[The_Sheriff]

35 minutes ago, Ramant62 said:

Ashley

Appleby

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Ihttps://www.tmj.co.za/News/Read/90133

The above link explains the 2008 Companies Act and covers a director's liability in detail and that accords to exactly what you say, although you did it succinctly which avoids the need for the layman to plough through it and interpret it.

But Section 77 does provide for a court to exempt a director from liability in certain circumstances, which may apply or not around what Roy MacFarland was aware of:

Section 77(9) of the Act brings some relief to directors, whereby they can raise the defence of honest and reasonable behaviour. This section states that in any proceedings against a director other than wilful misconduct or wilful breach of trust, the court may relieve the directors either wholly or in part from liability set out in section 77 or on any terms the court deems just if:

-    it appears to the court that the director has acted honestly or reasonably; and

-    having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including those connected with the appointment of the director, it would be fair to excuse the director.

However, as we have frequently identified in this thread, the EFL often tries to put its rules above statute law and within its own emporium may choose not to avail Roy Mac of this defence in the current climate simply because of his 55 years long association with DCFC?

Thanks brailsford. And what exactly could Roy have done? Challenge Pearce and the auditors on their compliance with FRS102 ? Challenge Morris that he doesn’t believe him when he says he will fund the club until a buyer is found?

 

[Ram-Alf]

18 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Just catching up - is this in response to another question? Or something else? Sorry its randomly in the middle of other stuff!

The question was...what is the christian of the footballer who married Cheryl Tweedy

Edited February 21, 2022 by Unlucky Alf

[Gritstone Ram]

30 minutes ago, sage said:

Can we agree that the situation Roy Mac (not 5) inadvertently found himself in is a cautionary tale for any future supporter or ambassadorial role on a club board.  

I think he was a director in name only with not much say on what happened. If you look back at what he has done and given our club anyone even doubting his integrity in any of this must really question themselves about whether they actually support Derby County.

[Phoenix]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

Well he bloody well should have done. That excuse is like a parent saying they aren't liable for the damage done by their tearaway teenager.

 

All that said, company directors (in the UK at least), get away with murder! Fred "the Shred" Goodwin being one of the worst examples.

Funny you should mention that. I'm currently ploughing my way through 'Shredded' again. Absolutely jaw-dropping, especially if you've ever worked in banking etc.

I'm just up to the bit where he grossly overpaid for a Dutch bank, in the middle of the biggest financial crash since the 30's.

[Phoenix]

12 minutes ago, The_Sheriff said:

Appleby

Some bugger else

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

You've been watching to many USA detective programes Brailsford...Murder is a more gruesome term ?

No Alf, murder is murder and manslaughter is manslaughter but both are covered in English law by the law of homicide. Manslaughter can sometimes be much more gruesome than murder. I can't be doing with American detective programmes.

Oh just one more thing......Who loves ya baby?