Liquidators

[Paul6754]

By becoming a director who was essential to making the board quorate he played a key role in the decisions made... without him [or another] no decisions could be made.... even if he wasnt at the meetings his compliance and silence ratified the decisions.

 

The club is a business, the team is the product [main] we pay to watch, adams didnt increase his own budget that was the administrators job so was running the club [the business] on a day to day basis, without that there wouldnt be a team.

Given that expenditure is governed by income the business has to expend if it wants to progress and all income streams have to be maximized, thats why the business sells strips/food/boxes/events/hospitality etc... thats the club... one [the team] is affected buy the other [other products], each is dependent on the other to some extent.

 

First of all MA isn't God, I doubt he professes to be, I don't think he is God but I for one respect what the guy has done for the club particularly since Xmas 2012.

 

Your quote, "He played a key role in all decisions BOLA made", I'll ask again, how do you know, were you there. I very much doubt that BOLA played anything by any rule book, certainly their successors didn't. Are you sure that if you're not at a directors meeting you're adjudged to be compliant and silence can ratify decisions, I doubt both very much but as not being a business law expert I'm happy to be corrected.

 

Thank you for your "tour de force" and interpretation of business life some of which is debatable. The club is indeed a business and the most important part of that business is the team as it plays a, if not the, most important part in generating income. The team is managed by the manager who is one of, if not the most important people at the club and hence is central to its success. MA played key roles from Xmas 2012 onwards, one of which was the glue that held the club together during those difficult times.

[Santa]

MA played key roles from Xmas 2012 onwards, one of which was the glue that held the club together during those difficult times.

I don't disagree with that point, but none of that is relevant to an investigation into the conduct of the previous directors of Port Vale.

 

Micky Adams was on the board when certain questionable things took place. Therefore he will have to be asked certain questions at the very least as a witness.

 

That's because being the director of an insolvent company isn't a game.

 

Personally I don't think he got up to anything dodgy and I don't believe he'll be investigated. But if that does turn out to be the case, the reason why he won't be pursued as a former director of V2001 won't be because he's a popular football manager or because he's the object of one or two people's w*** fantasies on here.

[Jacko51]

I don't disagree with that point, but none of that is relevant to an investigation into the conduct of the previous directors of Port Vale.

 

Micky Adams was on the board when certain questionable things took place. Therefore he will have to be asked certain questions at the very least as a witness.

 

That's because being the director of an insolvent company isn't a game.

 

Personally I don't think he got up to anything dodgy and I don't believe he'll be investigated. But if that does turn out to be the case, the reason why he won't be pursued as a former director of V2001 won't be because he's a popular football manager or because he's the object of one or two people's ****** fantasies on here.

 

Agreed Santa. I don't want Micky Adams to be dragged down with those idiots but he clearly has a role to play in these investigations.

[blackdog]

Agreed Santa. I don't want Micky Adams to be dragged down with those idiots but he clearly has a role to play in these investigations.

 

And thats the very point that the likes of Grebovale fail or just blindly refuse to understand

[geosname]

Hate to say this but YOU and one other seem to repeat yer selves that yer got an axe to to grind with ADAMS,PLEASE NOTE : know one else as :: get over yer it ::

 

Could it be that you are thousands of miles away and some one is winding you up to keep your crusade up against ADAMS going when no one else is interested .. ???

 

Axe?... Crusade?... suggests I care one way or the other about adams, I dont, he is an employee of the club I support. He gets paid to do a job and fans get to see his work on the pitch. Thats the extent of my interest.

[geosname]

First of all MA isn't God, I doubt he professes to be, I don't think he is God but I for one respect what the guy has done for the club particularly since Xmas 2012.

Totally immaterial to the discussion

Your quote, "He played a key role in all decisions BOLA made", I'll ask again, how do you know, were you there. I very much doubt that BOLA played anything by any rule book, certainly their successors didn't.

If BOLA didnt play by the rules then all four shoud be investigated.... Bratt.. Oliver... Lloyd... Adams... so we agree?

 

Are you sure that if you're not at a directors meeting you're adjudged to be compliant and silence can ratify decisions, I doubt both very much but as not being a business law expert I'm happy to be corrected.

It takes 4 directors to make a decision, 1,2 or 3 cant, it has to be 4. There are only 4 directors and decisions are made so any dubious decisions that need to be investigated will fall back on the 4 directors.

If decisions are made by 3 directors it is the duty of the 4th to do/say something to the shareholders who he has a responsibility towards.

A decision was taken to issue shares that were not paid for and as a consequence two people were elected to the board, which was later ratified by the shareholders vote. The information given to the shareholders was that the shares had been paid for. The articles state that a director must have £50,000 invested in shares to be eligible to stand for election.

IF.. again IF an offence has been committed by issuing the shares then the directors who took that vote/decision should be investigated.

Ignorance is not a great defence, and yes he may well have been ignorant of the articles, but as a director he is governed by its rules and responsible for knowing them.

Would a reasonable man have acquainted himself with the rules? Would a reasonable man have made himself aware of his duties and responsibilities on taking the position of director? Its not possible to opt out of those responsibilities.

As some seem to think adams is well above the reasonable man status doesnt that decrease his ability to claim ignorance?

 

Thank you for your "tour de force" and interpretation of business life some of which is debatable. The club is indeed a business and the most important part of that business is the team as it plays a, if not the, most important part in generating income. The team is managed by the manager who is one of, if not the most important people at the club and hence is central to its success. MA played key roles from Xmas 2012 onwards, one of which was the glue that held the club together during those difficult times.

Again totally irrelevant to the discussion about his role as a director.... his role as manager isnt in question

 

As for the "were you there" comment... let me pose a scenario....

Vale play stoke, we win obviously:yes:, stoke field 12 players... do I have to be there to know its not right? Would the ref, who should have known, get castigated? could the linesman claim he didnt know because there were never too many in his half of the pitch at any time? The stoke manager may say he had to do it because they didnt stand a chance if they didnt, quite right too:laugh:, but would that excuse the refs duty to know?

 

Im not saying adams should be made a scapegoat. Im not suggesting adams should be sacked. Im simply saying that if there is an investigation/inquiry into the selling of nil paid shares adams cant be excluded.... in fact if there is an investigation/inquiry into anything that happened when he was on the board he cant be excluded.. if it is decided that he has no case to answer... fine.... thorough job, good result.

[Paul6754]

Totally immaterial to the discussion

 

If BOLA didnt play by the rules then all four shoud be investigated.... Bratt.. Oliver... Lloyd... Adams... so we agree?

 

 

It takes 4 directors to make a decision, 1,2 or 3 cant, it has to be 4. There are only 4 directors and decisions are made so any dubious decisions that need to be investigated will fall back on the 4 directors.

If decisions are made by 3 directors it is the duty of the 4th to do/say something to the shareholders who he has a responsibility towards.

A decision was taken to issue shares that were not paid for and as a consequence two people were elected to the board, which was later ratified by the shareholders vote. The information given to the shareholders was that the shares had been paid for. The articles state that a director must have £50,000 invested in shares to be eligible to stand for election.

IF.. again IF an offence has been committed by issuing the shares then the directors who took that vote/decision should be investigated.

Ignorance is not a great defence, and yes he may well have been ignorant of the articles, but as a director he is governed by its rules and responsible for knowing them.

Would a reasonable man have acquainted himself with the rules? Would a reasonable man have made himself aware of his duties and responsibilities on taking the position of director? Its not possible to opt out of those responsibilities.

As some seem to think adams is well above the reasonable man status doesnt that decrease his ability to claim ignorance?

 

 

Again totally irrelevant to the discussion about his role as a director.... his role as manager isnt in question

 

As for the "were you there" comment... let me pose a scenario....

Vale play stoke, we win obviously:yes:, stoke field 12 players... do I have to be there to know its not right? Would the ref, who should have known, get castigated? could the linesman claim he didnt know because there were never too many in his half of the pitch at any time? The stoke manager may say he had to do it because they didnt stand a chance if they didnt, quite right too:laugh:, but would that excuse the refs duty to know?

 

Im not saying adams should be made a scapegoat. Im not suggesting adams should be sacked. Im simply saying that if there is an investigation/inquiry into the selling of nil paid shares adams cant be excluded.... in fact if there is an investigation/inquiry into anything that happened when he was on the board he cant be excluded.. if it is decided that he has no case to answer... fine.... thorough job, good result.

 

Totally immaterial to the discussion - Totally relevant to my point that he held the club together which you disagreed with.

 

If BOLA didnt play by the rules then all four shoud be investigated.... Bratt.. Oliver... Lloyd... Adams... so we agree? Depends on the rules that were allegedly broken.

 

It takes 4 directors to make a decision, 1,2 or 3 cant, it has to be 4. There are only 4 directors and decisions are made so any dubious decisions that need to be investigated will fall back on the 4 directors.

If decisions are made by 3 directors it is the duty of the 4th to do/say something to the shareholders who he has a responsibility towards etc etc. Don't assume all directors know everything or are party to all information and decisions, look at the lot that followed BOLA.

 

Why are you so anti MA.

[geosname]

Im not anti ma.

It doesnt matter, in this instance, whether he knew or not. I dont assume all directors knew what was going on Im simply stating a fact that all directors are responsible to the shareholders, whether they know information or not.

 

Im not saying adams should be made a scapegoat. Im not suggesting adams should be sacked. Im simply saying that if there is an investigation/inquiry into the selling of nil paid shares adams cant be excluded.... in fact if there is an investigation/inquiry into anything that happened when he was on the board he cant be excluded.. if it is decided that he has no case to answer... fine.... thorough job, good result

 

Totally relevant to my point that he held the club together which you disagreed with

He was part of a team/numerous people who held the club together, which he was paid for... many others werent paid and some lost their life savings, they all played their part in holding the club together, although usually undervalued and underestimated.... but the thread is about the liquidators and his role [and others] in BOLA. As I stated earlier it depends on if any wrong doing took place before the nil paid shares sale, if it did any inquiry into that period must include adams and his role as a director, if there was no wrong doing then it dosent matter. His role as manager isnt in question.

Im not pro or anti anyone.... those are the facts as I see them...

Would I like to see bratt/oliver/lloyd brought to account?... yes of course.... would I like to see an inquiry into just their role in BOLA... no... in the name of fairness it wouldnt be right... would any inquiry be worth the salt if key members were omitted?... if they dont include adams in the inquiry they may never know the truth or know the full extent of the wrong doing by others.... if you base an inquiry on selective evidence you get a very biased selective result and you never know the truth.

 

If you want to know what I think of adams?.... its very simple... I dont think of him at all.... I dont care who he signs, who he picks or doesnt, if he goes or stays or if he farts in the bath... he is an employee of the club I support and have supported for a number of years, which I hope is still going after we are both dead and buried... as a part of the whole I support him [because the club employed him] but as an individual I have no interest.

 

Its all just my opinion of course.

[fairportnick]

And thats the very point that the likes of Grebovale fail or just blindly refuse to understand

 

I just wish Grebo would show he has read and understands the posts by Santa and Jacko and stop spouting this witchhunt ********.

[Andyregs]

Don't assume all directors know everything or are party to all information and decisions, look at the lot that followed BOLA.

 

So by that logic, the likes of Oliver should be investigated because he might not have known everything?

[Andyregs]

I just wish Grebo would show he has read and understands the posts by Santa and Jacko and stop spouting this witchhunt ********.

 

Greco blatantly wants there to be an Adams witch hunt, as he invents one in pretty much every thread. I don't think he posts about anything else.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

***...Adams was on the board and it is the board members who will be investigated to find out what happened and punishment will follow according to what is found to have happened

 

He was part of the board and so part of the decision making process..even if he didn't vote on anything he as a member of the board took on responsibilities which come with being a emember of the board so he has to be investigated to find out what he did and ddin't do as a member of the board

 

Not because he is MA, not becasuse he's also the manager but cos he was a member of the board when the board made decsisons that are being investigated

 

End of :)

[VantaaVale]

Yes, we have to separate Adams the manager from Adams the director. No-one is suggesting that Adams be sacked. There is no witch hunt here.

 

But by becoming a director, against the wishes of many shareholders, he has to be as accountable as the other directors for decisions that were made while Stan Meigh was sponsoring his directorship. There may be nothing to be concerned about, but he cannot just escape scrutiny because he has done a good job as manager.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Don't assume all directors know everything or are party to all information and decisions, look at the lot that followed BOLA.

 

So if a director says that he didn't know anything nor was party to any of the information nor decisions then he should be off the hook?

 

It's irrelevant as the board is treated as a single entity and they all have responsibility

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

I just wish Grebo would show he has read and understands the posts by Santa and Jacko and stop spouting this witchhunt ********.

 

If only