Liquidators

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Agree..they would not waste time and money on something they did not think had a reasonable chance of achieving something..and hopefully more than a slap on the wrist i.e. "ou were very naughty for letting them on the board without actually putting any money in and you were naughty for saying that you'd put cash in when you hadn't. Don't do it again"

 

Hopefully they did make some sort of commitment to buy the proper shares and that can in some way be enforced to swell the pot for those who have lost out

[fairportnick]

Wouldn't it be nice if they had to pay up and got a tax bill:rollonthefloor:

[bookworm]

If the board told the shareholders that the shares had been paid for when they hadn't then whatever decision arrived at based on that false information would be deemed null and void and any subsequent deal or decision would also be declared invalid. I think this is where fiduciary trust comes in, to gain an advantage through false information which involves public confidence or securities is a breach of that trust. We have to assume that the voting patterns would have been different had the truth about the unpaid shares been available, in other words the meeting was fed a pack of lies.this is just my opinion of course.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Makes sense..but is it illegal/criminal?

 

Not sure

[VantaaVale]

If the board told the shareholders that the shares had been paid for when they hadn't then whatever decision arrived at based on that false information would be deemed null and void and any subsequent deal or decision would also be declared invalid. I think this is where fiduciary trust comes in, to gain an advantage through false information which involves public confidence or securities is a breach of that trust. We have to assume that the voting patterns would have been different had the truth about the unpaid shares been available, in other words the meeting was fed a pack of lies.this is just my opinion of course.

 

This unsavoury nil paid shares issue was just another example of the economies the V2001 board made in communicating information to shareholders and fans. It seemed that there was always that crucial piece of information missing and we should be forever thankful for the diligence shown by people genuinely with the club in their blood to expose the reality, which ultimately resulted in a board of directors that commanded no trust or respect from anybody.

 

The Gibraltar loan took this to a totally new level, with even some directors not knowing what was happening!

[bookworm]

Wrong. All they needed on the Board was a body. It didn't have to be Adams.

 

Of course it didn't but who else was available, who had the best interest's of the club at heart, firstly and formostly,to put him/her self forward.

[andy jones]

Adams was supported by Stan Meigh's shareholding so on that basis Stan Meigh could have proposed any old donkey.

 

The reason the Board chose Adams to become a Director was that they thought it would gain them support from fans and shareholders.

[bookworm]

Adams was supported by Stan Meigh's shareholding so on that basis Stan Meigh could have proposed any old donkey.

 

The reason the Board chose Adams to become a Director was that they thought it would gain them support from fans and shareholders.

Thats about right but they gained little from the exercise as honestly the writing was on the wall long before that, an old saying , desperate men take desperate measures and the rest as they say is history.

[geosname]

I think bringing adams back after sheffield was their bid to gain support and it worked, not as well as they might have hoped but it did buy them time and favour. Drafting him onto the board was, in my opinion, an attempt to do the same. It didnt happen directly but it had a similar effect by splitting the fan base and diverting the opposition. I doubt this was intentional but it did have the effect of divide and rule.

Some wanted them gone and didnt trust them, some thought adams on the board showed intention, others believing adams to be the messiah thought things would get better, with various other probable variations. The focus of the doubt was split as a consequence.

As has been said they could have drafted any old body onto the board, but adams was high profile in the vale community and a fans favourite.

I also think that adams naive comments [only on the board for football matters] helped a little to galvanise the oppositions thinking. If he had said... the club needs a 4th director or it will cease to exist.... I will be playing a full and active role... its temporary until a suitable replacement... the club needs help and I am prepared to help... I take the responsibilities seriously .. etc.. things could have been so different.

I doubt he attended many meetings, if any, I seriously doubt he had knowledge of what was being discussed at the meetings, I also doubt he realised the consequences and responsibilities he took on when he accepted the role... I wouldnt be at all surprised to find that someone else took his place at the meetings as his proxy even though it wasnt his proxy and was probably never informed of matters discussed that didnt directly involve his domain [football]

Does that abrogate his responsibilities... no

Should he have accepted the position without investigating what he was taking on and the possible consequences... no

Did he listen when he was told he couldnt be on the board just for football matters... no

 

Just my opinion of course.

[bookworm]

I think bringing adams back after sheffield was their bid to gain support and it worked, not as well as they might have hoped but it did buy them time and favour. Drafting him onto the board was, in my opinion, an attempt to do the same. It didnt happen directly but it had a similar effect by splitting the fan base and diverting the opposition. I doubt this was intentional but it did have the effect of divide and rule.

Some wanted them gone and didnt trust them, some thought adams on the board showed intention, others believing adams to be the messiah thought things would get better, with various other probable variations. The focus of the doubt was split as a consequence.

As has been said they could have drafted any old body onto the board, but adams was high profile in the vale community and a fans favourite.

I also think that adams naive comments [only on the board for football matters] helped a little to galvanise the oppositions thinking. If he had said... the club needs a 4th director or it will cease to exist.... I will be playing a full and active role... its temporary until a suitable replacement... the club needs help and I am prepared to help... I take the responsibilities seriously .. etc.. things could have been so different.

I doubt he attended many meetings, if any, I seriously doubt he had knowledge of what was being discussed at the meetings, I also doubt he realised the consequences and responsibilities he took on when he accepted the role... I wouldnt be at all surprised to find that someone else took his place at the meetings as his proxy even though it wasnt his proxy and was probably never informed of matters discussed that didnt directly involve his domain [football]

Does that abrogate his responsibilities... no

Should he have accepted the position without investigating what he was taking on and the possible consequences... no

Did he listen when he was told he couldnt be on the board just for football matters... no

 

Just my opinion of course.

 

i know it's all academic now but the board had to be quorate as we couldn't even sign our own players and if a club can't put a team out especially if the said club was in our position then the league remove the golden share. A rock and a hard place springs to mind,fortunately we are on the up when we could have been playing droylesden. having said that there are a section of support who will never forgive adams for joining the board or the blades and would have prefered a drop into oblivion as that would have severed ALL ties with the old regime, hypothetical i know but that mindset still exists.

[geosname]

i know it's all academic now but the board had to be quorate as we couldn't even sign our own players and if a club can't put a team out especially if the said club was in our position then the league remove the golden share.

I agree but we have to remember that anyone could have filled the space because they would have been sponsored, but whoever it was would be taking on the responsibilities of a director.

A rock and a hard place springs to mind

,

Again I agree but the extra director [adams in this case] would also be between a rock and a hard place

 

having said that there are a section of support who will never forgive adams for joining the board or the blades and would have prefered a drop into oblivion as that would have severed ALL ties with the old regime, hypothetical i know but that mindset still exists.

Adams left.. his choice.. he returned on an increased salary.. I wasnt keen but it wasnt my decision to make.. he went onto the board for "football matters".. I didnt want him there mainly because from his statements, he didnt have a clue, and secondly no matter how bad they were they needed someone who knew what to do and what not to do, he wouldnt be my fist choice and given his statements at the time elmer fudd would have been higher up my list.... but its all done and dusted, except for the investigations and possible repercussions.. as a manager I think he is limited but that opinion may change next season.

[bookworm]

I agree but we have to remember that anyone could have filled the space because they would have been sponsored, but whoever it was would be taking on the responsibilities of a director.

,

Again I agree but the extra director [adams in this case] would also be between a rock and a hard place

 

 

Adams left.. his choice.. he returned on an increased salary.. I wasnt keen but it wasnt my decision to make.. he went onto the board for "football matters".. I didnt want him there mainly because from his statements, he didnt have a clue, and secondly no matter how bad they were they needed someone who knew what to do and what not to do, he wouldnt be my fist choice and given his statements at the time elmer fudd would have been higher up my list.... but its all done and dusted, except for the investigations and possible repercussions.. as a manager I think he is limited but that opinion may change next season.

 

agreed,if adams assembles a competitive squad and we are there or thereabouts come seasons end then i think most people will be satisfied. As for being limited he isn't on his own there, at this level most managers have a few shortcomings and some an obvious tile short,football managers as a whole don't come labelled perfect.

[Jacko51]

Of course it didn't but who else was available, who had the best interest's of the club at heart, firstly and formostly,to put him/her self forward.

 

Mark Sims had been elected by the shareholders and every possible obstacle had been put in his way.

[bookworm]

Mark Sims had been elected by the shareholders and every possible obstacle had been put in his way.

 

didn't he back down when his company was folding.

[Santa]

Makes sense..but is it illegal/criminal?

 

Not sure

Well, in Miller's case, it can be argued that he obtained his place on the board of directors by deception (people believed he paid for his shares when they voted him in). He received a tidy remuneration package while he was employed as chairman of the board of directors, and he arranged a loan which was ultra vires and for which he received a percentage commission.

 

There's also a case that the issuing of nil paid shares to only Miller and Deakin without offering them more widely was prejudicial to smaller shareholders. Mike Lloyd even suggested on Radio Stoke (link) that the shares would be used to vote in the second EGM (the one which never happened).