It really is quite funny that the club which pioneered progress through working closely with fans is so ignorant of its own history that it goes off to get advice from other places but not its own ex-directors, etc. I wonder what they are frightened of?
It’s not about structures or representation at all. It’s about commitment, trust, goodwill and sincerity - all concepts that Charlie and his mates are likely to find problematic.
It really is quite funny that the club which pioneered progress through working closely with fans is so ignorant of its own history that it goes off to get advice from other places but not its own ex-directors, etc. I wonder what they are frightened of?
It’s not about structures or representation at all. It’s about commitment, trust, goodwill and sincerity - all concepts that Charlie and his mates are likely to find problematic.
They have implemented a fan as a director...
Do you mean the gentleman who lives in America?
Does it matter where he lives?
If he is being framed as a fan on the board, then yes as long as he is a fan he might as well live in Ouagadougou.
But if a fan on board is supposed to be a credible link with our actual fanbase, more of us live locally than in Burkina Faso.
It really is quite funny that the club which pioneered progress through working closely with fans is so ignorant of its own history that it goes off to get advice from other places but not its own ex-directors, etc. I wonder what they are frightened of?
It’s not about structures or representation at all. It’s about commitment, trust, goodwill and sincerity - all concepts that Charlie and his mates are likely to find problematic.
They have implemented a fan as a director...
Do you mean the gentleman who lives in America?
Does it matter where he lives?
If he is being framed as a fan on the board, then yes as long as he is a fan he might as well live in Ouagadougou.
But if a fan on board is supposed to be a credible link with our actual fanbase, more of us live locally than in Burkina Faso.
He is a fan and he is on the board.
He was a fan long before he became a part owner and was and is a member of CAST, something the supporters' trust have highlighted on many occasions.
He has even visited the museum twice, the true measure of a proper fan.
No one, as far as I can see, has said that he is "supposed to be a credible link with our fanbase" other than you.
It really is quite funny that the club which pioneered progress through working closely with fans is so ignorant of its own history that it goes off to get advice from other places but not its own ex-directors, etc. I wonder what they are frightened of?
It’s not about structures or representation at all. It’s about commitment, trust, goodwill and sincerity - all concepts that Charlie and his mates are likely to find problematic.
Oh I can understand why you may may think that but in reality they are:
A) financially committed (even of money they can 'afford to lose' b) trust - they trust each other but not the fans c ) goodwill - was increased with the acuisition of Jones and will evaporate faster than a piss in the sahara if we dont kick iff this season well d) sincerity - mmm, think you may have them there.
Agree with that but to be clear I draw a distinction between the substantial investors and the rest. My working assumption remains that the latter are attempting to secure reward off the former (you can characterise this cynically or not depending on your perspective), whether through football success or not, and that fans are seen as useful idiots at best by Charlie and co.
It probably doesn’t matter. We can measure their performance in outputs and at the moment that is the worst finish in 98 years. But I am hopeful we will do better this season and look forward to finding out.
The job titles just don't make sense as everyone is called a director but there are only two directors registered at Companies House, Rodwell and Warwick. So Andy Scott can't be given the title of "Techical Director", Gavin Carter cannot be given the title of "Independent non-Executive Director" and Paul Elliot can't be given the title "Vice Chairman of the Board" as all these positions are directorships.
The job titles just don't make sense as everyone is called a director but there are only two directors registered at Companies House, Rodwell and Warwick. So Andy Scott can't be given the title of "Techical Director", Gavin Carter cannot be given the title of "Independent non-Executive Director" and Paul Elliot can't be given the title "Vice Chairman of the Board" as all these positions are directorships.
'Director' can be added to any job title - it doesn't only apply to a Companies House registered director.
The job titles just don't make sense as everyone is called a director but there are only two directors registered at Companies House, Rodwell and Warwick. So Andy Scott can't be given the title of "Techical Director", Gavin Carter cannot be given the title of "Independent non-Executive Director" and Paul Elliot can't be given the title "Vice Chairman of the Board" as all these positions are directorships.
I've been director in a number of roles, never been mentioned at Companies House. Its just a title, the companies house directors have specific legal and regulatory responsibilities, as Paula Vennels will hopefully soon realise
Thanks for your comments. I was always told that "Finance Director" meant you were a director of the company whereas "Director of Finance" meant you weren't. I also take the description "Board" to mean "Board of Directors" hence my confusion. They could all arguably fall under the definition of "Shadow Directors" anyway.
It really is quite funny that the club which pioneered progress through working closely with fans is so ignorant of its own history that it goes off to get advice from other places but not its own ex-directors, etc. I wonder what they are frightened of?
It’s not about structures or representation at all. It’s about commitment, trust, goodwill and sincerity - all concepts that Charlie and his mates are likely to find problematic.
They have implemented a fan as a director...
Do you mean the gentleman who lives in America?
Does it matter where he lives?
If he is being framed as a fan on the board, then yes as long as he is a fan he might as well live in Ouagadougou.
But if a fan on board is supposed to be a credible link with our actual fanbase, more of us live locally than in Burkina Faso.
He is a fan and he is on the board.
He was a fan long before he became a part owner and was and is a member of CAST, something the supporters' trust have highlighted on many occasions.
He has even visited the museum twice, the true measure of a proper fan.
No one, as far as I can see, has said that he is "supposed to be a credible link with our fanbase" other than you.
My friend lives in Harvey, directly opposite the ticket office and 50 yards from the front gates, and he's never been to the museum.
It really is quite funny that the club which pioneered progress through working closely with fans is so ignorant of its own history that it goes off to get advice from other places but not its own ex-directors, etc. I wonder what they are frightened of?
It’s not about structures or representation at all. It’s about commitment, trust, goodwill and sincerity - all concepts that Charlie and his mates are likely to find problematic.
They have implemented a fan as a director...
Do you mean the gentleman who lives in America?
Does it matter where he lives?
If he is being framed as a fan on the board, then yes as long as he is a fan he might as well live in Ouagadougou.
But if a fan on board is supposed to be a credible link with our actual fanbase, more of us live locally than in Burkina Faso.
He is a fan and he is on the board.
He was a fan long before he became a part owner and was and is a member of CAST, something the supporters' trust have highlighted on many occasions.
He has even visited the museum twice, the true measure of a proper fan.
No one, as far as I can see, has said that he is "supposed to be a credible link with our fanbase" other than you.
My friend lives in Harvey, directly opposite the ticket office and 50 yards from the front gates, and he's never been to the museum.
Scott, Carter and Elliott have never been board members, despite repeated claims by the club over the last year that they were. Now we’re told that Elliott is vice chairman of the board that he isn’t and never has been a member of.
Suck it up, if you’re gullible enough, I guess. But it’s as likely to be laziness or incompetence as deviousness.
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
I'm not sure it's much of a hill to die on, Rick. We know Carter and Methven are shareholders (small I believe), you can check Companies House for the registered directors of CAFC Ltd, and as I and others have said the word 'Director' just indicates a role that has responsibility to direct activities in certain areas (def: control the operations of; manage or govern). Not sure there's any great deception going on.
Most Charlton directors down the years have been non-execs, including in the PL years. It doesn’t mean they weren’t company directors; it means they didn’t have a day to day role in the business.
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
I'm not sure it's much of a hill to die on, Rick. We know Carter and Methven are shareholders (small I believe), you can check Companies House for the registered directors of CAFC Ltd, and as I and others have said the word 'Director' just indicates a role that has responsibility to direct activities in certain areas (def: control the operations of; manage or govern). Not sure there's any great deception going on.
I don’t think it’s a massive issue because it wouldn’t make any difference in practice, but it’s the club which is suggesting Paul Elliott is there to hold the execs to account and this just makes it more obvious than it was that this is bullshit. I also think being straight with fans matters, both in itself and as an indicator of integrity.
The title “director” is widely used - I was “director of communications” at one point, but to say someone is both a director and on the board when they are not a company director is strange.
Why did they have to meet the EFL tests if they are not company directors and have no day to day role or control over the running of the business?
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
He was useless
Though I did hear he wore some nice Cardies!
Lies
It's not a cardigan if it has no buttons - and zips don't count of course!
How do you know they arent board members? If they're invited to sit at board meetings then they're board members, and presumably they know if theyve sat at board meetings more than you would?
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
That’s an interesting distinction but the club has called them directors throughout the last year, including in the official programme. That would make them directors in title and board members in fact but not directors of the company in practice. I’ve no idea why you would create such public confusion except to deceive fans.
As an aside it also completely destroys the justification given in 2009 or thereabouts for removing the elected fan director, since it means that person could have continued as a board member without the legal and fiduciary responsibilities that were given as the reason to end it.
He was useless
Though I did hear he wore some nice Cardies!
Lies
Here Henry whilst you are on, and talking of things Sartorial, I managed to Creosote a fence yesterday, as well as my Charlton yellow bucket hat, do you know what colours you have got in as I need a new one for formal occasions (Royal Ascot/ Kings garden Party/ the boat race etc, etc).
Comments
He was a fan long before he became a part owner and was and is a member of CAST, something the supporters' trust have highlighted on many occasions.
He has even visited the museum twice, the true measure of a proper fan.
No one, as far as I can see, has said that he is "supposed to be a credible link with our fanbase" other than you.
So Andy Scott can't be given the title of "Techical Director", Gavin Carter cannot be given the title of "Independent non-Executive Director" and Paul Elliot can't be given the title "Vice Chairman of the Board" as all these positions are directorships.
'Director' can be added to any job title - it doesn't only apply to a Companies House registered director.
I was always told that "Finance Director" meant you were a director of the company whereas "Director of Finance" meant you weren't.
I also take the description "Board" to mean "Board of Directors" hence my confusion.
They could all arguably fall under the definition of "Shadow Directors" anyway.
"The distinction between board members and directors
All directors are board members, but not all board members need to be directors.
Directors are the legally defined group of individuals entrusted with full fiduciary responsibility and voting powers, with significant sway over the company’s directions.
Occasionally, they may invite others to sit on the board in an advisory capacity or expertise-based role. These people won’t have the full responsibility and voting power of directors, but they will still be board members."
https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/guides/can-you-be-on-a-board-but-not-a-director/
Why did they have to meet the EFL tests if they are not company directors and have no day to day role or control over the running of the business?
It's not a cardigan if it has no buttons - and zips don't count of course!
Red, white and yellow/black
@charltonnick will sort you out.
Why has supporting this club become so complicated?