.........Magic our Maurice........my slant on the new Chairman position

I've been working away for a few days so I haven't really had access to the internet.
But I've been watching whats been happening with this new Chairmans appointment and I'm surprised that it hasn't caused more of a stir on here than what I would have thought it would have.

The only reason I can see that 'our Maurice' has been brought in to do the Chairmans job is because Pat Cryne is prepareing the ground in case he loses his court battle. Otherwise our Maurice would have become just a director and not the Chairman.
I maybe wrong here - but, if PC loses his court case does his assetts become vunrable (e.g. Barnsley Football Club)?
If they do, then in light of PC stepping down as Chairman, then I can also see an announcement in the near future to say that someone has either bought the club, or more likely one of PCs close relatives such as his wife or his son is now the owner of the club.

And yes............I'm old enough to remember.......... Selwyn Froggit

 

But I don't think we've had a chairman for several years

 

PC is/was the owner and Chaired the board meetings

 

doesnt make him the chairman and the don and barry invisible hardly make a board

 

Of what I have read......the previous board of directors consisted of, Pat Cryne (Chairman), Barry Taylor and The Don.

The new board of directors seem to be 'our Maurice' (Chairman), Barry Taylor and The Don........plus Pat Cryne when he is able to attend.
I haven't seen anything that is saying anything different from that.

This to me looks like a safety net has been put in place just in case PC is unable to attend because of the court case.
If it wasn't, and 'our Maurice' was being appointed onto the board for his obvious skills in this field then he would surely have been appointed onto the board soley as a director and not as the main man i.e. Chairman

 

Mr Cryne wasn't the chairman. He was the owner and still is. His position hasn't changed. Since Gordon Shepherd left we have operated without a chairman.

From the official site:

"Barnsley FC owner, retired businessman Patrick Cryne, said the club had operated without a board chairman for some time but he listened to what fans were saying that strong, new leadership was needed to take the club forward."

http://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/news/article/maurice-watkins-set-for-chairman-role-30052013-846222.aspx

 

Cryne in reality may be the owner but on paper I'm not so sure, according to Panorama its some solicitor in Manchester

 

Can someone just explain to me how you can have a board meeting or any sort of committee meeting without a Chairman?
It just cant happen.
I assume that at every board meeting at Barnsley Football Club that Pat Cryne Chaired those meetings.
There may have only been 3 people there but surely PC chaired those meetings.
Now it is our Maurice who will chair those meeting - that is to say replaceing PC
Only difference is that our Maurice hasn't got executive duties.........meaning when the new board of directors have made a decision then they still have to run it past PC

 

If you don't believe our official site and the words of Patrick Cryne himself, there's nothing I can add.

 

The Panorama documentary said the solicitor in Manchester held the ownership in trust for a third party. It wasn't revealed who that third party was, but I think it's safe to assume it's Patrick Cryne.

 

The company I work for has a few directors but no chairman. My cousin owns a business which has three directors but no chairman. Barnsley FC is a business with two directors and no chairman. It's not exactly rocket science to understand old ****.

 

Gordon Shepherd was the last Chairman. Cryne's the owner, not the Chairman. You can be both but Cryne isn't. Watkins has basically been brought in to stop Don and Barry killing each other. He sounds like a talented bloke, but time will tell to what extent his contribution goes.

SAY NO TO PITCH SIDE ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING!!!!

 

But it can happen Nudge. When there is no designated chair, someone can assume the role at each meeting to ensure balance and flow. Depends then upon the constitution as to whether the chair has voting powers.

 

They may not say there is a chairman - but there is..........alternatively there are no proper meetings held
But thats getting away slightly from what I am pointing out here and that is this - the club by name might not have registered a Chairman but in practice when a proper board of directors meeting was called then PC was that Chairman.

So why bring someone else in to be Chairman when PC is already acting as the Chairman.............unless of course that there maybe a chance that PC might not be attending further meetings.
That is to say - if you are a single owner of a company and want to bring some experience on to the board of directors you bring that expereinced person in as a director. You do not bring them in to do the main mans job as that of the Chairman. If you do then the owner just becomes the person that rubber stamps the direction of the club set down by the new Chairman - why would PC want to do this? Unless of course PC is considering that he may not be around to continue to form the direction of the club.

 

Really?

 

Pat Cryne is not a director of the company