Questions for CAST to ask Matt Southall, 11 March

@Rob7Lee - is this thread actually being used to inform any of the questions the CAST board members intend to ask?

Apologies if you’ve already clarified that point, but it might be worth setting expectations if not. 

With Nimer's lawyers now proceeding with MS voluntary resignation or removed via the courts, presumably CAST will no longer be meeting MS.

Well if he doesn't turn up you know where he lives😉

PragueAddick said:

When @Rob7Lee uses the word "impartial" I believe he means that both parties appear right now to be unfit to own our club, until they can prove otherwise. There are plenty of questions for Tanoon and his mates too, but they will be harder to get hold of. That is not a reason not to meet Southall if he is willing to do so. Last time I heard ( this morning), it is still on.

not sure if I agree with that necessarily. If Tahnoon is funding the Club and wants to pay consultancy fees to a couple of 'mates' that is up to him. What Matt Southall has done has been totally underhand and obviously wasn't sanctioned by Tahnoon. Tahnoon has maybe been a bit OTT on social media but it has had the desired effect and has shown MS as the charlatan he is.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

KentishAddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

With Nimer's lawyers now proceeding with MS voluntary resignation or removed via the courts, presumably CAST will no longer be meeting MS.

The meeting does seem rather pointless

I disagree, i'd love to know what he has to say in his defence. Might be the only/last chance we get to hear about it.

He might also reveal stuff about Nimer and his mates, as let's face it they are all on that expense list too. Why was van Seventer for example paid 90k in consultancy fees?

A good point, but can we trust Southall to tell the truth about any of this?

Here's an easy one:

Why are you denying auditors access to the club's accounts?

Please outline the full ownership of the club please and who really owns what? On all sides and please ask if Kia Joorabchian is in the background as rumoured? I am aware that these links with KJ may well be tenuous but they are there in your past Mr Southall. 

DoctorCharlton said:

I would love to know why himself and all his cronies were charging 'Consultancy fees'. What/whom were you consulting and why were you charging fees when you already are earning a salary?

I wonder if he has been charging fees for things like this meeting with CAST as he sees it as extracurricular and he should therefore be paid for it?

carly burn said:

Has he not cancelled yet?

Brave or stupid.

Stupid. 

Has this takeover changed your life and your families for good???

My only question to CAST is, as a member, not to allow this meeting to offer an opportunity for a discredited Chairman to deflect blame elsewhere and or hide behind PR speak in an attempt to buy time.

The whole sorry episode is a sham and he should be ashamed of his personal role in the further dragging through the mire of our once famous football club, one embedded deeply in the community that he so loudly promised to represent.         

RedRyan said:

Today I have gone through rhetorical methods with my class, including some of the below methods of questioning, so here are seven ways to ask questions tonight:

Epiplexis - questions used to chide or rebuke - "How could you dare to sit there making commitments to marquee singings, whilst knowing that we are under transfer embargo?"

Anacoenosis - asking the audience to consider their views - "Does it not seem immoral to you that a Chairman would spout such nonsense?"

Hypophora - asking then immediately answering a question - "How much are you spaffing on a flat, using the club's finances? £12k per month, or £3k per week. What should that money have gone on? Players."

Aporia - questions without a clear answer (or an answer in the negative), often one after another - "What use is a lying Chairman? What hope does the club have for better ownership? What does the future of the club hold after this monumental cock up?"

Antypophora - questioning your own statement with a contrasting response - "Didn't we all welcome you with open arms? Yes, but we knew not the depths of depravity behind that cocksure smile."

Erotesis - questions presupposing a strong and obvious answer - "Isn't it wrong to steal? To lie, to cheat, to defraud?"

Ratiocinatio - making a statement, questioning it, then answering that question - "We were desperate for new owners after suffering with Roland for years. But did we deserve this? No - surely we deserved someone honest."

I'd give this a Like and LOL if I could. Excellent work!

stoneroses19 said:

With Nimer's lawyers now proceeding with MS voluntary resignation or removed via the courts, presumably CAST will no longer be meeting MS.

In normal circumstances all that is needed to remove a director is a board resolution passed by a majority of the directors - but the specifics of the Mem and Arts are what determines procedures. Hillier's position is therefore key and with any luck he simply has to vote with Nimer giving a 2:1 majority.  If Hillier sided with MS, ESI/Nimer would need the power in the Mem and Arts to appoint additional directors to get majority control of CAFC board and remove MS - or a Extraordinary Shareholder meeting would need to be convened when Nimer could use his 65% majority shareholding to force through resolutions to appoint new directors.  It would be the directors, not the shareholders who have the power to remove MS, which is why it gets messy, and why majority shareholders ensure control by making sure their people are a majority on the board of directors.

Lawyers and courts can't tell directors what to do, only take steps to ensure the procedures set out in Mem and Arts are followed and ultra vires acts are corrected.  No one can compel a director to resign - it is simply normally the least messy option for the director concerned if he can see he is going nowhere, that his service contract will be cancelled anyway and he wants to save face or reputation. Afterwards you might take legal action for compensation, but no director in his right mind would piss money up the wall taking futile legal action to prevent a legitimate legal exercise of corporate powers to remove you.  The reasons for exercising the removal powers are irrelevant as long as the correct procedures have been followed in accordance with the Mem and Arts and the Courts would only be involved to assess that fact.  The reasons are only relevant after the event to claim compensation for wrongful dismissal, so no need for MS to try and hang on one minute longer.

Hopefully, Nimer's lawyers have just needed to draw up the board and shareholder resolutions ready to be signed off to legally remove MS in accordance with the Mem and Arts and appoint new director(s).

If it's not as simple as that then Nimer has been screwed, or Nimer wants out and is buying time.