My son was watching "100 greatest Premiership moments" on the red button and who should pop up to discuss Man Utd's, "wrong kind of shirts" but our Brian.
Why do fans expect accountability? It can't happen, we stopped being a club run by elected committees accountable to members a long time ago.
It's a football business that is only partly financed by fans and it needs investors who may or may not be interested in football. Directors by law are accountable to shareholders not customers. They appoint directors to do their bidding, not fans' bidding. It's a matter of luck whether we get investors who appoint directors with authority to take decisions fans would make.
Fans are free to exercise choice about being customers or not. They can influence board decisions by exercising choice but it doesn't mean they are owed accountability for any board decisions that fans don't agree with.
Criticise communications and customer care but don't waste time getting angry looking for non-deliverable accountability.
Dippenhall. You have actually made the case for Supporters trusts. It is perfectly clear that just because you shop at Tesco you cannot hold the directors accountable for their actions. Football clubs are however not ordinary consumer businesses. They are unique businesses. The customers are captive. They cannot go anywhere else for what they "buy' from their club. The sensible club director thinks of fans as stakeholders, rather than just punters. And as such, the sensible director organises dialogue with his stakeholders on a regular basis. On this, I can assure you, Richard Murray agrees with me 100% and this was what he instigated in the late 90s - early 2000's. There is then a further step where the fans themselves become shareholders. This is the case in Germany. And by the way, despite the fact that there is far more TV money in the FAPL, the Bundesliga is actually more profitable. I got that from the latest Deloitte report. I am not surprised. A block of equity held by fans is likely to put a brake on excessive behaviour by other directors, and spot in advance dodgy self-enriching behaviour. We get accountability when as a group we are able to put a significant amount of money in. Because then we become accountable to ourselves. A Supporters Trust with a long term goal of an equity stake is the way for all of us, not just Charlton fans, to regain control of our club, and our game.
Why do fans expect accountability? It can't happen, we stopped being a club run by elected committees accountable to members a long time ago.
It's a football business that is only partly financed by fans and it needs investors who may or may not be interested in football. Directors by law are accountable to shareholders not customers. They appoint directors to do their bidding, not fans' bidding. It's a matter of luck whether we get investors who appoint directors with authority to take decisions fans would make.
Fans are free to exercise choice about being customers or not. They can influence board decisions by exercising choice but it doesn't mean they are owed accountability for any board decisions that fans don't agree with.
Criticise communications and customer care but don't waste time getting angry looking for non-deliverable accountability.
None of this is true. I draw your attention, in particular to subsection 172 (1)(c) and (d) from Chapter 2 of the Companies Act 2006 which deals with the duties of directors:
172 Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to— (a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, (b)the interests of the company's employees, (c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, (d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment, (e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and (f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
There's shed loads of other stuff in other legislation that clearly demonstrates that directors are accountable to customers. Health & Safety, fraudulent transactions, trading while insolvent - well, you get the picture.
You, as a customer, have the ultimate option to refer a company to the Companies Investigations Branch of the Dept of Business. While it operates within The Insolvency Service, in fact most of the companies CIB investigate are still operating. Of course, you'll need some sort of evidence to back up any complaint of wrongdoing.
The duties are there to protect the "members" who are the shareholders to make sure they don't damage the business's profitability by their behaviour towards customers. The statutory responsibilities of directors for health and safety are nothing to do with this debate, it's about financial accountability I thought. I'm just pointing out it how it is, and suggesting there's a better alternative doesn't change where we are at the moment. Not disagreeing with a better system which gives authority to fans, but no point pretending things change just by caring and moaning about what directors do and don't do and who invests and how much. Directors are not accountable to us for board decisions (unless it breaks statutory duties about toilet facilities and wheelchair access etc. etc. etc.) and legally (apart from statutory duties blah blah blah) they must represent the interests of the shareholders, or the shareholders will just remove them FACT.
A football club is in nearly every case much more than just a business, it is deep rooted in its locality and therefore more of a community enterprise than a pure retail enterprise. Take mkdons, effectively all that was purchased was a franchise, very soon wimbledon will be playing again close to its former location, mk is effectively a new club. Take us as another example.
What I am arguing is you cannot apply normal rules, and when it is perceived rightly or wrongly that a club is in jeopardy far more of its customers will care far sooner than perhaps they might for say the actions of the Board members for Argos.
Nevertheless I can see what Dippenhall's point is, and we will run up against it with the current board. We were blessed with someone like RM who actually had a lot of sympathy for Razil's position. But then RM also argued for fairer distribution of the TV money across two leagues, and very few listened to him. And we as fans, nationally, stood by and let it happen. German fans didnt . As a result they get to watch a really exciting league in front of huge crowds, paying a tenner for it, and standing up if they wish, while drinking decent beer. They also get to their away games by superfast trains without having to negotiate five websites and changing trains ten times, but maybe I'm straying off the point:-). I fear Dippenhall is right, their duties are to their shareholders, in this case TJ plus ANothers. I cannot see real leverage and influence unless we ourselves become shareholders, or unless this lot are replaced by people who actually believe that football clubs are not just plcs.
Southend United are facing their fifth winding-up petition in four years.
The Essex side are due in the High Court on Monday, 18 March over unpaid taxes to Revenue & Customs.
Chairman Ron Martin told BBC Essex the tax bill will be "dealt with in the normal order of business" and that it should be of no concern to the club.
The League Two outfit last fought a winding-up petition from HMRC almost exactly two years ago and staved off two other petitions in 2010.
The first was, once again, over an unpaid tax bill, while the other was from Charterhouse Commercial Finance Plc who were owed £140,000 - which the club paid.
And the Shrimpers also avoided going into administration in November 2009 when they paid off £690,000 of arrears to HMRC.
Comments
My son was watching "100 greatest Premiership moments" on the red button and who should pop up to discuss Man Utd's, "wrong kind of shirts" but our Brian.
Came over well.
It's a football business that is only partly financed by fans and it needs investors who may or may not be interested in football. Directors by law are accountable to shareholders not customers. They appoint directors to do their bidding, not fans' bidding. It's a matter of luck whether we get investors who appoint directors with authority to take decisions fans would make.
Fans are free to exercise choice about being customers or not. They can influence board decisions by exercising choice but it doesn't mean they are owed accountability for any board decisions that fans don't agree with.
Criticise communications and customer care but don't waste time getting angry looking for non-deliverable accountability.
You have actually made the case for Supporters trusts.
It is perfectly clear that just because you shop at Tesco you cannot hold the directors accountable for their actions. Football clubs are however not ordinary consumer businesses. They are unique businesses. The customers are captive. They cannot go anywhere else for what they "buy' from their club. The sensible club director thinks of fans as stakeholders, rather than just punters. And as such, the sensible director organises dialogue with his stakeholders on a regular basis. On this, I can assure you, Richard Murray agrees with me 100% and this was what he instigated in the late 90s - early 2000's.
There is then a further step where the fans themselves become shareholders. This is the case in Germany. And by the way, despite the fact that there is far more TV money in the FAPL, the Bundesliga is actually more profitable. I got that from the latest Deloitte report. I am not surprised. A block of equity held by fans is likely to put a brake on excessive behaviour by other directors, and spot in advance dodgy self-enriching behaviour.
We get accountability when as a group we are able to put a significant amount of money in. Because then we become accountable to ourselves.
A Supporters Trust with a long term goal of an equity stake is the way for all of us, not just Charlton fans, to regain control of our club, and our game.
172 Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company's employees,
(c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
There's shed loads of other stuff in other legislation that clearly demonstrates that directors are accountable to customers. Health & Safety, fraudulent transactions, trading while insolvent - well, you get the picture.
You, as a customer, have the ultimate option to refer a company to the Companies Investigations Branch of the Dept of Business. While it operates within The Insolvency Service, in fact most of the companies CIB investigate are still operating. Of course, you'll need some sort of evidence to back up any complaint of wrongdoing.
I'm just pointing out it how it is, and suggesting there's a better alternative doesn't change where we are at the moment. Not disagreeing with a better system which gives authority to fans, but no point pretending things change just by caring and moaning about what directors do and don't do and who invests and how much.
Directors are not accountable to us for board decisions (unless it breaks statutory duties about toilet facilities and wheelchair access etc. etc. etc.) and legally (apart from statutory duties blah blah blah) they must represent the interests of the shareholders, or the shareholders will just remove them FACT.
What I am arguing is you cannot apply normal rules, and when it is perceived rightly or wrongly that a club is in jeopardy far more of its customers will care far sooner than perhaps they might for say the actions of the Board members for Argos.
I fear Dippenhall is right, their duties are to their shareholders, in this case TJ plus ANothers. I cannot see real leverage and influence unless we ourselves become shareholders, or unless this lot are replaced by people who actually believe that football clubs are not just plcs.
http://www.cafc.co.uk/club/directors/
Off to Wembley in the JPT
Southend United are facing their fifth winding-up petition in four years.
The Essex side are due in the High Court on Monday, 18 March over unpaid taxes to Revenue & Customs.
Chairman Ron Martin told BBC Essex the tax bill will be "dealt with in the normal order of business" and that it should be of no concern to the club.
The League Two outfit last fought a winding-up petition from HMRC almost exactly two years ago and staved off two other petitions in 2010.
The first was, once again, over an unpaid tax bill, while the other was from Charterhouse Commercial Finance Plc who were owed £140,000 - which the club paid.
And the Shrimpers also avoided going into administration in November 2009 when they paid off £690,000 of arrears to HMRC.