Grendel
Well-Known Member
Remind me who are the shareholders?
As I posted in another thread If the directors of a business don't persue money that is owed to a business especially (but not limited to) if it is a large amount then yes the shareholders can take action against the directors of a business. They are not meeting their fiduciary duty to the business. The same was true when Young Timothy suggested liquidation was on the cards they had to protect the amount outstanding to ACL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduci..._jurisdictions
http://www.ricoharena.com/about-us/Remind me who are the shareholders?
can you point me to the website showing me who the shareholders & directors of SISU are please?
Yes, you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_Act_2006#Directors (sorry I posted the wrong link earlier) otherwise there would be nothing to stop directors making decisions that either hugely benefitted themselves, disadvantaged the shareholders etc.So you still stand by your statement the shareholders can take legal action against the directors?
Well then I suggest you read this on the companies act 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_Act_2006#Directors before becoming the director of a company.
Why did you then was it the prospect of a day pass from Rampton you twat?Whilst I agree the NT fans don't deserve the agree any legal actions cause, I also don't think the cov fans deserve it either, and ultimately as a cov fan I have a vested interest! Maybe the legal case might work maybe not, but ultimately sisu have forced ACL into this. Oh how I miss the old days, when all I cared about was if cov was going to beat villa or fester! I certainly didn't become a football fan to learn all about corporate law, oir the intricacies of property contracts. And I definitely didn't start supporting cov because a group of cretins want to grab 1/5 of the club for free! Shame on them all
can you point me to the website showing me who the shareholders & directors of SISU are please?
| Ms Joy Seppala (born 51 years ago) Director, Investment Manager 28 Feb 1998 — Present (15 years, 4 months, 12 days) | Open |
|
Mr Dermot Coleman (born 50 years ago) Director, Investment Manager 28 Feb 1998 — Present (15 years, 4 months, 12 days) | Open |
|
Ms Joy Seppala (born 51 years ago) Company Secretary, Investment Manager 28 Feb 1998 — Present (15 years, 4 months, 12 days) |
can you point me to the website showing me who the shareholders & directors of SISU are please?
That is indeed exactly what has happened, many of those that were supporting City's struggle are now defending their own club and so have turned against Cov.People are letting emotion get in the way of their ability to think rationally. Whatever frustration we feel at the decision by NTFC to agree to the ground share, they surely have no legal case to answer (seems an absurd notion to me), so then why threaten legal action at all? It is very unhelpful, and all it will do is alienate those NT fans who were previously sympathetic to our plight, who I suspect will now rally behind their club.
My point is that directors are supposed to look after the business on behalf of the shareholders, not doing so is considered 'bad form' and action can be taken against them. As I understand it from what the people with far better legal minds have posted is that the club is still in Admin at the moment and this post explains it better than I can.I am the director of my own company. I'm not sure what your point is. Keep posting the wiki links if you wish - none of this explains how why think suing NTFC is justified. What is the legal basis for this, and is there precedent?
There is a company that owe my company a lot of money. They were on an IT support contract and they refused to pay, breaching that contract. They now receive their IT services from another company. Should I then pursue that third party company for monies owed to me by their customer? Please find me the wiki link that suggests that would be a good move on my part. It is absurd if you ask me.
I think the approach of ACL's lawyer is that a deal has been agreed between NTFC and Otium for the club, who are ACL's tenant, to break the lease and play at Sixfields. Since neither NTFC nor Otium have any rights, at the moment, to decide where the club play, then this could be construed as enticement for the club to break its lease with ACL.
Seems a sensible argument to me.
My point is that directors are supposed to look after the business on behalf of the shareholders, not doing so is considered 'bad form' and action can be taken against them. As I understand it from what the people with far better legal minds have posted is that the club is still in Admin at the moment and this post explains it better than I can.
Yes, you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_Act_2006#Directors (sorry I posted the wrong link earlier) otherwise there would be nothing to stop directors making decisions that either hugely benefitted themselves, disadvantaged the shareholders etc.
And so the brain dead moron shows why he is the perfect spokescunt for the clique! Did your parents sue the hospital for throwing away the wrong stuff from the birth? What an unbelievable moron you really are. "I support the trust" but won't be a member! How big of a bell end are you? How original of you to insult! are the cretins at the clique jumping uip and down in your padded cell with you! ooh you said a swear you must be a real tough nut! You aren't really aren't all there are you? Certainly you don't have any whit charm charisma, talent, or intellect. Yep the Ideal poster boy for the clique. What is your nexgt trick - having a protest outside the bins at the back of tesco - Great idea going back to the place of your conception! Did you ever find out the name of your dad? Maybe you were named after him weren't you turkey baster?
You will obviously know a lot more than me being a layperson in all this and I defer to your real world experience and knowledge in this case. I'm not a director and have limited knowledge in this area. And with that I'm going home, night all.Are you a director of a company? I am actually and have faced this scenario - I suggest you ignore wiki for legal advice you sound absurd.
They've done it as a delaying tactic and also to try and make Northampton nervous. Commendable strategy really but they have no legal requirement to do so as a protection whatsoever.
That post doesn't explain anything. NTFC don't need any 'rights' to decide where the club play - because that's not what they are doing. They are simply renting their facilities to another company following a direct approach. What has the 'right to play' got to do with anything? ACL didn't/don't have any rights as to where CCFC play either, but they have a right to sign commercial agreements for use of their facilities. This is a simple commercial arrangement between two companies. NT didn't court SISU, there was no 'enticement', and therefore the idea that ACL might sue a third party for monies owed to them by a tenant is bordering on the barmy is you ask me.
The argument will be that NTFC are entering into the arrangement knowing that CCFC have an existing arrangement with ACL. In doing this they will be seen to be enticing CCFC to break their existing agreement as nobody is going to claim CCFC are going to pay the rent at the Ricoh and Sixfields. Doesn't matter who approached who so long as NTFC were aware of the agreement, which from Cardoza's public comments they clearly are. It's not an open and shut case but they do have an argument they can make. Would ACL win? Who knows and I suspect that isn't the point, I would think the point is to make it very clear to the FL that CCFC do have somewhere to play in Coventry and / or to try to get Cardoza to withdraw from the deal.
People are letting emotion get in the way of their ability to think rationally. Whatever frustration we feel at the decision by NTFC to agree to the ground share, they surely have no legal case to answer (seems an absurd notion to me), so then why threaten legal action at all? It is very unhelpful, and all it will do is alienate those NT fans who were previously sympathetic to our plight, who I suspect will now rally behind their club.
Are you a director of a company? I am actually and have faced this scenario - I suggest you ignore wiki for legal advice you sound absurd.
mm ACL obviously are not as independant of needing to fleece Coventry of extortinate rent as many have made out.......this latest measure proves how desperate they are for the cash. It is deperate at best and downright embarassing to sue Northampton town at worse. Have not got a cat in hells chance and are only far too late realising the error of their ways.
Gutted to having to move out of Cov but honestly think it may save the club in the long run.....what a bloody mess! :slap:
So perhaps you can explain why the Articles of Association of a "Non Trading Property Subsidiary" say that they were formed to run "the business of the playing activities of "the Coventry City Football Club Ltd " and to carry on such business under the name of "Coventry City Football Club"?
The particular argument centres around the legitimacy of suing Northampton town. The view expressed that the directors have to for fear of being taken to court by their own shareholders is nonsense.
You have in the last been very vocal that ACL don't need the club. Why take the action then? Surely ACL are denying their shareholders potential millions from 365 concerts a year.
They can do what they like but lets not pretend this is anything other than a recognition they need the club as indeed the club needs to play somewhere in the city.
The particular argument centres around the legitimacy of suing Northampton town. The view expressed that the directors have to for fear of being taken to court by their own shareholders is nonsense.
You have in the last been very vocal that ACL don't need the club. Why take the action then? Surely ACL are denying their shareholders potential millions from 365 concerts a year.
They can do what they like but lets not pretend this is anything other than a recognition they need the club as indeed the club needs to play somewhere in the city.
Well I guess we'll have to wait and see what pans out. One thing that I am certain of is that we move to NTFC and we've stuffed next season because we won't have as much revenue (actaul and cross invoiced) as we would have done under FFP rules if we had stuck at the Ricoh.mm ACL obviously are not as independant of needing to fleece Coventry of extortinate rent as many have made out.......this latest measure proves how desperate they are for the cash. It is deperate at best and downright embarassing to sue Northampton town at worse. Have not got a cat in hells chance and are only far too late realising the error of their ways.
Gutted to having to move out of Cov but honestly think it may save the club in the long run.....what a bloody mess! :slap:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?