Liquidators

[bookworm]

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).

Plenty there for the liquidators to chew over, i'm sure there is enough meat on the bones, percuniary advantage by deception was once a charge on it's own but now it's rolled up with a clutch of other charges so i would expect they have enough evidence to bring charges, hope so anyway.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

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.[/quote

 

That looks dodgy in the extreme and for me should be criminal..deception/fraud..the obtaining his place on the board by deception bit

 

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).

[Andyregs]

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.

 

If people can't see that Adams was used as a pawn in V2001's game then they must be blind. He was daft, but they were willing to use him when anyone could have stood in. It's also no secret that's Adams supported, liked and backed V2001 to the hilt. It wasn't just because they were his bosses because he thanked them at the end of last season.

[Jacko51]

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).

 

Obtaining a place on the Board by deception could also be levelled at Deakin who claimed publicly on more than one occasion that his shares had been bought and paid for.

[bookworm]

If people can't see that Adams was used as a pawn in V2001's game then they must be blind. He was daft, but they were willing to use him when anyone could have stood in. It's also no secret that's Adams supported, liked and backed V2001 to the hilt. It wasn't just because they were his bosses because he thanked them at the end of last season.

 

if you'd have left and returned on double your previous salary(allegedly) then you'd have thanked them also, when your old enough to use you loaf you'll realise that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Andyregs]

if you'd have left and returned on double your previous salary(allegedly) then you'd have thanked them also, when your old enough to use you loaf you'll realise that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

Try reading my post again.

[Jacko51]

if you'd have left and returned on double your previous salary(allegedly) then you'd have thanked them also, when your old enough to use you loaf you'll realise that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

You might not bite it but you may swerve it if enough people tell you that they'll drop you in the ****.

[Caroline Oakes]

You might not bite it but you may swerve it if enough people tell you that they'll drop you in the ****.

 

Many well respected folk told/informed/ advised him of that and yet he still chose to ignore them/ that advice.

[bookworm]

Many well respected folk told/informed/ advised him of that and yet he still chose to ignore them/ that advice.

 

It's an unfortunate fact of life that a person chooses his own friends and has his/her own likes and dislikes,irrespective of what advice is put their way, we all have our own comfort zone and if Adams was back in his after the debacle at Sheffield then so be it. Quite a few supporters will never forgive him for three unpardonable sins, ie,leaving ,returning and appearing to remain friendly with members of the disgraced board, but those who dislike him will have to live with it, he didn't give them advice on who to be friendly with but they don't half use any opportunity to give him stick because he didn't take their advice on his.

[Paul6754]

It just blows my mind that fans still bring up this stuff about MA, a guy who held the club together during MOLD times and has just managed the club to promotion. Come on, give it a rest.

[geosname]

It's an unfortunate fact of life that a person chooses his own friends and has his/her own likes and dislikes,irrespective of what advice is put their way, we all have our own comfort zone and if Adams was back in his after the debacle at Sheffield then so be it. Quite a few supporters will never forgive him for three unpardonable sins, ie,leaving ,returning and appearing to remain friendly with members of the disgraced board, but those who dislike him will have to live with it, he didn't give them advice on who to be friendly with but they don't half use any opportunity to give him stick because he didn't take their advice on his.

 

From my perspective we are talking at cross purposes [i cant speak for others views].... 3 unpardonable sins.... I dont have a problem with any of the three you mention although I can see why some people may feel bitter about him remaining friends, after a long hard slog to oust the incompetents it may be incomprehensible to some how he could.

[geosname]

It just blows my mind that fans still bring up this stuff about MA, a guy who held the club together during MOLD times and has just managed the club to promotion. Come on, give it a rest.

 

The point is it isnt about adams, it isnt about what he did when MOLD took over, although I would disagree that he held the club together, Its about his role in BOLA the group of directors who allowed MOLD to take control.

Its not being brought up because of a dislike for adams its being discussed in relation to a news item about the liquidators actions regarding wrong doing and his possible part in that.

Lets say that Mr Z accepted a seat on the board to make it quorate and during his time on the board decisions were made that were dubious and lead to wrong doing.... would you, the police, the liquidators or anyone not be concerned about Mr Zs role in that process? He was an integral part of the decision making therefore his role has to be considered and/or investigated... thats fair and reasonable.

Now lets call Mr Z Mr Adams.... does anything change?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

People aren't having a go at MA the manager but MA the man who chose to become a director and so unfortunately may find himself drawn into investigations re the board's conduct and may indeed turn out to be just as culpable as the rest..the responsibilities of a director are considerable even if someone else is pulling all the strings

[Jacko51]

he didn't give them advice on who to be friendly with but they don't half use any opportunity to give him stick because he didn't take their advice on his.

 

He never paid my wages!!

[bookworm]

The point is it isnt about adams, it isnt about what he did when MOLD took over, although I would disagree that he held the club together, Its about his role in BOLA the group of directors who allowed MOLD to take control.

Its not being brought up because of a dislike for adams its being discussed in relation to a news item about the liquidators actions regarding wrong doing and his possible part in that.

Lets say that Mr Z accepted a seat on the board to make it quorate and during his time on the board decisions were made that were dubious and lead to wrong doing.... would you, the police, the liquidators or anyone not be concerned about Mr Zs role in that process? He was an integral part of the decision making therefore his role has to be considered and/or investigated... thats fair and reasonable.

Now lets call Mr Z Mr Adams.... does anything change?

 

no nothing changes, if he's done wrong then he will be brought to account and CO made the point that Adams was given advice from well respected people, who says that they were well respected maybe from someone elses perspective but one mans respected person is another mans charlatan.Well meant advice maybe but can't be taken as gospel as everyone has their own agenda.