Fiduciary Duty and the Board

[jonesfach]

Originally Posted by Jaded

Have you read the below post?

Emergency General Meeting - Instructions for WST members

It is easy not to be aware of it as it was hidden in 12-20 pages of bollox

[-luke]

Originally Posted by jonesfach

It is easy not to be aware of it as it was hidden in 12-20 pages of bollox

Very fair comment.

[Bagger Vance]

Fidiciary Duty - A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. The obligated party is typically a fiduciary, that is, someone entrusted with the care of money or property. Also called fiduciary obligation.

As much as I think mistakes have been made not only on the management appointments but on the wider football strategy I very much doubt the club board would fail the legal hurdle of breach of ficiciary duty. Its an interesting attempt to use a lever not many would be aware of to pressure for a DoF but I don't think its a fair one.

Better to outline the failings in terms of league position, cost of management change, training facilities, degredation of youth system coupled with falling transfer revenue therof from youth players and young pro's etc.

I agree with your sentiment but the lever used I don't.

[-luke]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Fidiciary Duty - A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. The obligated party is typically a fiduciary, that is, someone entrusted with the care of money or property. Also called fiduciary obligation.

As much as I think mistakes have been made not only on the management appointments but on the wider football strategy I very much doubt the club board would fail the legal hurdle of breach of ficiciary duty. Its an interesting attempt to use a lever not many would be aware of to pressure for a DoF but I don't think its a fair one.

Better to outline the failings in terms of league position, cost of management change, training facilities, degredation of youth system coupled with falling transfer revenue therof from youth players and young pro's etc.

I agree with your sentiment but the lever used I don't.

I have a question on some of the above... So as much as we have gotten into a fairly stable financial position, how was that done?

Ward money, what else?

Also, what would the projected long term losses in terms of transfer fees and add ons be as a result of the degredation of the youth system. I dont think we have had much value of youth players breaking through on the pitch for us but some of the players we sold on have generated revenue right?

[pagl]

BV, I think legally many of the subjects where ‘suitably qualified’ would count could be argued as a builder (for instance) may not be considered ‘suitable’ to pick a football manager. If however they had been involved in running football teams all their lives then they would be suitable.
I dont think our board come from this ‘football’ type background and the subjects you list certainly back this up. In particular Cost of management change.

[3pmsaturday]

Originally Posted by wrexhamandy

I think most would support any extra football expertise the club could get. And questions do need to be asked about recent appointments.

However suggesting the trust and club are beaching their legal fiduciary duties is a pretty strong thing to say and a whole other level. I would suggest you be careful with that given I cannot see anything in what you have said to support such an allegation. Otherwise there would be directors breaching their fiduciary duties up and down the country every week when hiring or firing managers on the basis they don’t have enough of some undefined “football knowledge”.

I think you are probably right, I'm sure there is but thats irrelevant. Bad practice is bad practice.

I do agree its "pretty strong thing to say". I feel it happens to be the case. "football knowledge" could be salaried by a football club in a direct football capacity.

[3pmsaturday]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

No it isn't about removing directors and that's been made clear, twice.
Seems some people only read what they wanted to, in their desperate attempt's to crush the only way of holding those on the board to account.

If you really support the club and not board members then the opportunity to hold them to account should be welcome as they aren't doing it themselves. Still at least we're not Bury eh?

Well I got to the send your details bit and switched off. You lost me then as I had no idea what it was trying to do. Apologies if thats because I'm slow.

[3pmsaturday]

Originally Posted by Hometown Unicorn

You clearly haven't read the EGM proposals and have been blindsided by those who believe that its sole aim is to remove directors. I thought you were better than that.

No I havent read the EGM stuff as I say I was open ish to an EGM but I was lost by the lack of cohesion of the approach. Is it going to happen and does it follow the Trust rules?

[3pmsaturday]

Originally Posted by CRUMBS

Lets get this right , is he saying that Harris is not qualified to pick a football Manager , and therefore should appoint a suitable person to carry out Football matters .

He is