Questions for the Board re Sims

[Jacko51]

Questions for the Board following today’s press release:

 

1. Why did the club fail to counter-sign Mark Sims’ application to the Football League re the Owners And Directors Test? This documentation had been completed for all the prospective directors but the club did not counter-sign it. Why? Mark Sims already had agreed sponsorship with a major shareholder so why was this paper exercise not completed in order to smooth the process should any of the three be elected? Was this deliberately obstructive and if so, why?

 

2. With regard to the section stating: “Mark will also note that the "financial obligations, guarantees, responsibilities" which he would be required to assume are exactly the same as those which the present and preceding Directors have sustained for many years, and which the present Directors continue to sustain now.” Has Micky Adams been informed of these requirements and has be agreed to undertake the "financial obligations, guarantees, responsibilities"?

 

3. The statement accused Mark Sims of “Engaging in negative and unfounded comments about the state of the Club's finances,” How are any comments made by Mark Sims or anyone else in relation to concerns about the clubs finances an issue when they are clearly founded on the worrying information in the last published Accounts? A loss over three years in excess of £1 million coupled with an accumulated deficit of in excess of £2 million causes every shareholder concern, not just Mr Sims. Would the Board care to comment on their activities prior to the General Meeting when they engaged “in negative and unfounded comments” about a prospective investor, including distributing these remarks to every single shareholder?

 

4. “Major shareholders have not had current Directors asking them to consider selling their shares.” So the purchase of the Broxap shares never happened?

 

5. “Our best understanding of the facts is that one major shareholder, who currently has some business difficulties, was given the generous offer by one former Director of help in finding someone to buy his shares.” Interesting – the response of certain directors to Mr Chaudry’s bid was to issue misinformation to supporters about him wanting to buy existing shares to the value of £600,000 to gain control of the club. This was criticised because it did not put new money into the club. Yet now we have a situation in which the Directors, either one of them or collectively, bought Mr Lee’s existing shares on Tuesday last and now another ex director is planning to do the same with another shareholder. How did buying Mr Lee’s shares help the club? Why, if the directors wished to buy more shares, had they not bought new shares to the value of £50,000 which would have assisted Micky Adams in his attempts to bring in new players?

 

6. The final paragraph of the statement says: “If Mark Sims is still serious in his intent to join the Board, then Port Vale Football Club would encourage him to work with the Board and the Club staff to finalise his admission formalities and then to join us in making the coming season very successful.” If the Board is concerned about these matters being conducted in the public domain, why have we had the longest club statement in the history of Valiant 2001 ownership on the website? Why was there not a brief statement saying tha some technicalities needed sorting re written confirmation of Mark’s sponsorship? Why the very long diatribe criticising the behaviour of an elected member of the Board? And why, if the Board are serious about accepting Mark Sims’ desire to review the club’s finances have they waited until the day of his arrival at the club before making such a long-winded and quite frankly, unprofessional statement?

 

By the way, I don’t expect a response from the Board to any of these questions.

[vale in the blood]

Spot on as usual.

[johnstreet]

an excellent appraisal.. I wish some of these posts could be read by all supporters of the club ..

[Animal]

Good post is that.

[Santa]

4. “Major shareholders have not had current Directors asking them to consider selling their shares.”

 

Interesting use of semantics there. From this we can surmise that:

 

• Any 'major' shareholders who were contacted were spoken to by the two directors who were voted off last week.
   
  
• The shareholders who were contacted by current Directors asking them to consider selling their shares are considered to be 'minor'.

[pjg1876]

Questions for the Board following today’s press release:

 

By the way, I don’t expect a response from the Board to any of these questions.

 

Good job because you won't get one Jean

[PVTony]

Very pertinent questions.

 

But don't expect an answer from the board.

[HappyClapper]

Questions for the Board following today’s press release:

 

1. Why did the club fail to counter-sign Mark Sims’ application to the Football League re the Owners And Directors Test? This documentation had been completed for all the prospective directors but the club did not counter-sign it. Why? Mark Sims already had agreed sponsorship with a major shareholder so why was this paper exercise not completed in order to smooth the process should any of the three be elected? Was this deliberately obstructive and if so, why? Well the problem was that the only pen that was available was a pen with green ink and as it happens the CHairman Peter Jackson...erm I mean Stan Meigh...erm I mean Bill... Whatsisname has a phobia of green ink. WOuldn't you know it. Anyway we asked Rob Lee to lend us the pen he used to sign agreements but apparently it'd run out, probably because he'd signed so many. Also the only surface on which the chairman Lemony Snickett could lean on was too low cos he has a bad back you know.

 

2. With regard to the section stating: “Mark will also note that the "financial obligations, guarantees, responsibilities" which he would be required to assume are exactly the same as those which the present and preceding Directors have sustained for many years, and which the present Directors continue to sustain now.” Has Micky Adams been informed of these requirements and has be agreed to undertake the "financial obligations, guarantees, responsibilities"? Has he ****! Erm I mean, the lines of communication are clear and transparent between the board and our illustrious director elect and I was going to ring him and tell him but someone had told me that Saint Micky had had 2 phone calls already and if I rang him then that would mean his Mrs wouldn't be able to ring him and ask what he wanted for his tea. However Micky has every confidence in ensuring the club is there until something better comes along around Christmas time...erm I mean is there for our grandchildren.

 

3. The statement accused Mark Sims of “Engaging in negative and unfounded comments about the state of the Club's finances,” How are any comments made by Mark Sims or anyone else in relation to concerns about the clubs finances an issue when they are clearly founded on the worrying information in the last published Accounts? A loss over three years in excess of £1 million coupled with an accumulated deficit of in excess of £2 million causes every shareholder concern, not just Mr Sims. Would the Board care to comment on their activities prior to the General Meeting when they engaged “in negative and unfounded comments” about a prospective investor, including distributing these remarks to every single shareholder? Eh? Micky Adams doesn't plan on buying the ground and renting it back to us y'know. He isn't interested in stuff off the field, he just wants to do whats best for him..erm I mean his bank balance erm I mean the club. Micky was told by Bill Oddie (is that him?) that the club is progressing on and off the field year on year. Micky is mates with Bill so why wouldn't he believe him?

 

4. “Major shareholders have not had current Directors asking them to consider selling their shares.” So the purchase of the Broxap shares never happened? What purchase of who's shares? Broxaps? Never heard of em... I can confirm that a certain director was concerned for a largere shareholder because they overheard him say that he had an ear infection, so I erm... I mean Mr. Oliver (jeez why do I keep doing that... I wonder if I made a mistake when I cooked that last batch up....anyway) thought I'd accompany this shareholder to the polling booth. I couldn't manage by myself so asked a Community care officer to assist me in helping Mr Lee to vote. What? Mr Lee has a lot of shares? He's a partner in Broxap? No I never knew that, honest.....

 

5. “Our best understanding of the facts is that one major shareholder, who currently has some business difficulties, was given the generous offer by one former Director of help in finding someone to buy his shares.” Interesting – the response of certain directors to Mr Chaudry’s bid was to issue misinformation to supporters about him wanting to buy existing shares to the value of £600,000 to gain control of the club. This was criticised because it did not put new money into the club. Yet now we have a situation in which the Directors, either one of them or collectively, bought Mr Lee’s existing shares on Tuesday last and now another ex director is planning to do the same with another shareholder. How did buying Mr Lee’s shares help the club? Why, if the directors wished to buy more shares, had they not bought new shares to the value of £50,000 which would have assisted Micky Adams in his attempts to bring in new players? Because we're skint....(f f s has Jens used scopolamine again...****** hell I'll kill him) erm what I mean is unfortunately such information is confidential, so I could tell you, but not until Mr Jackson says so...erm I mean but not until you have signed a confidentiality clause.

 

6. The final paragraph of the statement says: “If Mark Sims is still serious in his intent to join the Board, then Port Vale Football Club would encourage him to work with the Board and the Club staff to finalise his admission formalities and then to join us in making the coming season very successful.” If the Board is concerned about these matters being conducted in the public domain, why have we had the longest club statement in the history of Valiant 2001 ownership on the website? Why was there not a brief statement saying tha some technicalities needed sorting re written confirmation of Mark’s sponsorship? Why the very long diatribe criticising the behaviour of an elected member of the Board? And why, if the Board are serious about accepting Mark Sims’ desire to review the club’s finances have they waited until the day of his arrival at the club before making such a long-winded and quite frankly, unprofessional statement? Because Facebook was offline and I was bored because I couldn't play Farmville.

 

By the way, I don’t expect a response from the Board to any of these questions.

 

Straight from the horses mouth.