Conway out protest QPR

So the Finance Director has carte blanche with regards to making payments? With no requirement to discuss payments from the company accounts with a member of the board to who the payment is being made? Again, that's incredible if true.

But I'll bow out now, unfortunately all this conversation has taught me is that corporate finance is a horrible, twisted thing, but again thank you for taking the time to try and explain it to me.

 

Hello, Jean speaking
Hi Jean, it's Rob, we're out of paperclips, OK if I nip down to Staples and get a box?
FAX the purchase order through and I'll sign it

You're through to Paul
Hi Paul, it's Rob, we're all out of paperclips...

 

That's not what he's saying, he's saying that not all share holders are consulted on payments. It doesn't need a sign off from them all. Maybe one, maybe just the CEO, but certainly not a consultation with all.

 

He'll make payments according to the bank mandate, which would typically be a two person process. He won't be able to act unilaterally, but he won't need to involve the entire board.

They ultimately get their information via management accounts, which will form part of the board meeting agenda.

In general terms it's the way that most comparable companies would operate, as there needs to be a compromise between practicality and accountability.

It's really not as sordid as you might think. Ultimately, as BFC's accounts show, the relevant information does have to be disclosed to allow the scrutiny that we've been able to apply. The downside is that this is usually some time after the relevant events.

 

Ok, like I said, corporate finance isn't anything like my forte, but to me it seems perverse that a payment from the company accounts to a sitting member of the board wouldn't be discussed with that board member. It just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.

But as my knowledge of these things is obviously very limited I'll happily leave it there.

 

Not sure over timings, all I can recall is he basically said they failed to deliver on promises made

 

Surely the Cryne's not knowing, then, after finding out, starting legal proceedings, makes a lot more sense than them knowing all along and approving the transaction and then beginning legal proceedings. The latter really doesn't make sense to me. Where as them being unaware at the time but then discovering it and then beginning legal proceedings makes perfect sense.

 

The action that causes the problem is not necessarily the club making a payment on behalf of the HK holding company, it is the Board then deciding not to pursue repayment to the club from the holding company. The latter could have happened a while after the former and all it takes is for Chien/NCC and Conway/PMG to vote for it and their shares trump all the others combined.

 

If nothing comes from the Conway out group at the end of all this misery then maybe we could have a game where we hand out big feathers for the caps of those that have done their level best to decry their efforts.

If I get a poster I shall hold it aloft for what 10 secs or so.

If nothing else it may give us a better idea of what the feeling is out there.

Red Army.

 

I'd be more inclined to wear a feather than wave an ill thought-out poster.

 

It's a no from me as it would require me to attend Oakwell which I have stopped doing.

 

Fair do`s dont forget to keep on criticising otherwise

Would that be white feather then you would wear?

 

They do make it very easy to criticise...

 

Maybe so , but to see fans fighting on 2 fronts will get my support. Anything that could bring about something better for our club than we have at the moment will not get me being critical.

 

Completely agree with that, consistent with my experience in companies. And logically the one isn't likely to be James Cryne as one of the minority shareholders.

 

They don't seem to be quite as 'straightjacketed' as us either, on the field at least.

They've been allowed by the owners to appoint a manager experienced in both French and Nancy football recently and their three January window player signings were two 30 year olds and a 26 year old.

 

From Conway's point of view if he sees a video of what happens there's not going to be any in depth analysis of how well thought out it is though Vesp. He's going to see people holding up posters who are showing disagreement with what he's doing or those who aren't who are so apathetic about what's going on that they can't be arsed to lift up a bit of paper.
Judging on the poll on this thread 60% aren't bothered so carry on as you are Paul is the message he'll take.
A lot of what the Facebook group has said and claimed is absolute pie in the sky as far as I'm concerned but we're simply talking here about holding up a poster to give him/the board a quick vox pop that fans are unhappy in large numbers.

 

where do you get your posters ?

do you keep them for re-use?

if you make them into a plane and throw onto pitch, do you get banned?

 

They're being handed out before the match.

 

Plus putting up PDF versions so can be printed at home etc