[Official Site] CLUB STATEMENT: NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS

I thought those running the club were doing well according to you, you’ve soon changed your stance !

 

Yeah could well be. Fair points. Who knows. Hope we can get some clarification tomorrow or next week. Maybe we will get an update in tomorrow's Chron.

 

I've not posted for a long time due to personal abuse. However, my take is this based on the official statement and knowledge on here....
Firstly, there MAY well be better day to day operational control and decision making with this board and there MAY be better engagement and respect for fans in matchday experience, communications etc. All well and good and something to applaud. However, the main issue if where power really lies here has been brushed over imo. If majority shareholders still exert influence as one would expect then today's announcement, although welcome to a point does nothing to change the overall problems with the club in the longer term. I may be misreading things and I do like the the board changes but I'm still not convinced here.
If I get insulted again for this view I'm off. Bye

 

Finlay if like his almost namesake would just smoke all the grass.

 

Glad you’re back. Seems a pretty accurate description to me.

 

Looking forward to the reaction when the hidden investor behind PMG turns out to be Donald J Trump.

 

Thank you. I'd had enough on here mate.

 

I have my money on Ivan V Terrible - Hong Kong proxy for Vlad The Impaler Putin.

 

I was thinking more Conman as Zoe and Jean as Kat

 

Points docked for that.....

 

From Salford? I will get my coat as well... Quay in Quays to pick up some key signings.

 

To a point of course it does. However the fundamental issue of overall control is not simply a matter of boardroom control it is also a matter of overall financial control where that financial control can influence the board. And if your 'Does that help' comment was a snide patronising dig then you can fu.ck off. If had enough. If you explain that away then fair do's and apologies. Until then f off

 

I have a view that Conway in particular and Lee were the most active and influential (albeit I don't know that to be true) and I've therefore associated the dogmatic application of the focus on youth policy most with them. For that reason alone, I'm very encouraged that they've gone. I'm also happy with Neerav and Jean Cryne's statements, particularly because Neerav's acknowledges that relationships are broken, that it takes time to rebuild them, that he accepts responsibility to do that and accepts the Board will be judged by their actions. That's all realistic and strikes the right note imo. I know that he won't have written it himself but I'm pretty sure he'll have approved it and will appreciate the severe implications if those are empty promises. I'm also encouraged by Jean's involvement as I am sure she will be committed to the club as Patrick was and to protect his legacy.

Nevertheless on the basis that Conway and Lee were the investors representatives on the Board, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they were implementing a strategy agreed by the shareholders as the overall ownership group. Unless I've missed it there's been no confirmation yet that the new Board, including Neerav, the Cryne's and Julie Anne Quay now have the majority shareholding (indeed it doesn't actually confirm she has any shareholding at all) and so I'm questionning whether in the future, failing to deliver it will result in another coup and another representative being installed? And I do question her motives - what's in it for her? I really don't know what it means and whether the tensions between the Neerav and the Crynes (do they still have a minority shareholding?) and her as the representative of the shareholders will reduce or it's just replacing Conway and Lee with someone new. I suspect that the majority ownership group recognised that if Conway and Lee continued to be involved the situation was irrecoverable such was the breakdown in the relationship with many fans and therefore replacing them was essential. Whether this results in genuine change remains to be seen. They will be judged by their actions.

Imo the first action they could take would be to remove the early bird deadline. The whole purpose of it is to create pressure, like end of sale discounts. Illustrating that change is happening would be the biggest encouragement to renew (at least for me) and so it'd be a big statement of intent to extend it, take some decisions, communicate and illustrate change is underway. I get that they need to budget, but leaving it in place will just create mistrust when the inevitable departures come. Instead, extend it, explain that departures will happen and illustrate that it's not just contraction, that rebuilding relationships and building for the future is happening too. Illustrate it rather than expecting people to renew based on assurances of change in the future. Doing this would itself demonstrate it.

Oh, one other point. It's clear that some people on here have had some inside info on these changes and some posts in recent times now make much more sense!

 

Pretty sure it was James's idea

 

is this right Gally? Do we know that Quay has a shareholding? And if so, what it is? I'm just wondering if it should read: Crynes, Parekh and sufficient of the other shareholders such that the total is > 50%?