Board Room - Anyone else just as pissed off????

[CarolinaRover]

Not sure if anyone has brought this up at all on this forum, I know we don't know what has happened behind the scenes or why our directors and backers have left the club, but it seems they've just fled when the going has got tough.

They seemed more than happy when the club was successful to put their money into DRFC and be a part of our club and take all the plaudits that come with being part of a successful club. But ever since this season has gone tits up, they have all ran away!

To me it is very annoying, I do not know why or what has gone on with the decision making in the past 12 months, but when things aren't going well that's when you need everyone to pull together and it seems like they have left JR high and dry with everything on his head.

I don't know whether it's because they were going to lose money or there was some arguments, but everyone seemed happy when these big names were being linked with the club but since it hasn't worked out they all f**ked off.

I feel sorry for JR, he's had a lot of people let him down and to me it shows that everyone is in it for the money, if they loved DRFC as much as the claimed then there's no way they would've walked away from our club in the position we are in. f**king annoying!!!

[Norfolk N Chance]

Cant put something that's not there my friend!

That's why I adore JR as he is one us but has a few pounds!

[Spankster]

JR the ultimate fan, to be fair to the others business is business, lose money and as the Dragons say.....I'm out!

makes you appreciate JR even more.

I dont believe in God, but JR is the nearest thing IMO

gotta love that man

[River Don]

Hang on the KM2 have both lost a lot of money on the Rovers and expected to. Now they've bowed out you're upset? And Dick Watson is still involved, I still see him at home games.

All the talk about take overs was just that. And they've given us a few years of Championship football and left without recrimination.

Most clubs would be begging for board members as benign as that!

[bedale rover]

Hang on the KM2 have both lost a lot of money on the Rovers and expected to. Now they've bowed out you're upset? And Dick Watson is still involved, I still see him at home games.

All the talk about take overs was just that. And they've given us a few years of Championship football and left without recrimination.

Most clubs would be begging for board members as benign as that!

hear hear

fed up with people who are keen for others to put their hand in their pocket to support someone elses pleasure

its going to be difficult but next year we need to as close to self sufficient as possible

[hoolahoop]

OP did it never occur to you that they might not have agreed to this strategy or at the very least had grave misgivings about it.
Has it not occurred to you that there might be a reason why DW AND his siblings walked away from their Directorships, as for TB he hasn't been throwing cash at the club in any meaningful way for some time.
Yes JR is a true supporter but that could get in the way of the day to day business operations of actually running a business......heart over head perhaps and that's not always prudent.
It's their money and how and when they choose to splash it out and for what motives lies with them.......they have helped out immensely.
DW still attends games despite his apparent ill health. Perhaps they didn't like McKay interfering with the day to day operations of the club which they have subsidised or even were aware that association with such a character might reflect on them ?.........who knows.

[Derby Viking]

Or just maybe they forced this situation which is why JR seemed to make such a turnaround after his conversation regarding SOD staying. Rumours before were that the other Directors wanted this change and not JR in the first place

[Mr1Croft]

Or just maybe they forced this situation which is why JR seemed to make such a turnaround after his conversation regarding SOD staying. Rumours before were that the other Directors wanted this change and not JR in the first place

JR is his own man, if he didn't want this change he now has the final say in the board room, the results hasn't improved and therefore if JR wasn't behind this 100% it wouldn't still be in place.

[RedJ]

Or just maybe they forced this situation which is why JR seemed to make such a turnaround after his conversation regarding SOD staying. Rumours before were that the other Directors wanted this change and not JR in the first place

JR is his own man, if he didn't want this change he now has the final say in the board room, the results hasn't improved and therefore if JR wasn't behind this 100% it wouldn't still be in place.

Or maybe he - like a lot of people - recognised it was too late to do anything about it by the time they'd pulled the plug?

[Snods Shinpad 2]

Or just maybe they forced this situation which is why JR seemed to make such a turnaround after his conversation regarding SOD staying. Rumours before were that the other Directors wanted this change and not JR in the first place

JR is his own man, if he didn't want this change he now has the final say in the board room, the results hasn't improved and therefore if JR wasn't behind this 100% it wouldn't still be in place.

Not strictly true, as JR is not a majority shareholder.

[Mr1Croft]

Or just maybe they forced this situation which is why JR seemed to make such a turnaround after his conversation regarding SOD staying. Rumours before were that the other Directors wanted this change and not JR in the first place

JR is his own man, if he didn't want this change he now has the final say in the board room, the results hasn't improved and therefore if JR wasn't behind this 100% it wouldn't still be in place.

Not strictly true, as JR is not a majority shareholder.

But who else who sits on the Board is?

[BobG]

No one Mr1. You don't have to sit on a board of anything to be able to control it. All you have to do is vote your shares. Key issues have to be put to a formal vote. And postal voting of shares is part and parcel of the process. More immediately relevant though is the funding. JR is totally reliant on Dick and Tom (lol) to fund the rest of this season. All they've got to do is hint the money won't be forthcoming and John has to back down pronto. John shot himself in the foot big time I'm afraid. It's always the problem when someone's ambition outruns their ability to fund and manage a situation. Bring in others to help, and the price is giving away control. Which means you are then always, always, always, a hostage. John doesn't run this club and hasn't done for a a fair while now. He's simply the public face and the fall guy. And he's got nowhere to go either.

BobG

[silent majority]

No one Mr1. You don't have to sit on a board of anything to be able to control it. All you have to do is vote your shares. Key issues have to be put to a formal vote. And postal voting of shares is part and parcel of the process. More immediately relevant though is the funding. JR is totally reliant on Dick and Tom (lol) to fund the rest of this season. All they've got to do is hint the money won't be forthcoming and John has to back down pronto. John shot himself in the foot big time I'm afraid. It's always the problem when someone's ambition outruns their ability to fund and manage a situation. Bring in others to help, and the price is giving away control. Which means you are then always, always, always, a hostage. John doesn't run this club and hasn't done for a a fair while now. He's simply the public face and the fall guy. And he's got nowhere to go either.

BobG

Sorry Bob, but I disagree with just about all of that, most of it is guesswork.

[Wellred]

No one Mr1. You don't have to sit on a board of anything to be able to control it. All you have to do is vote your shares. Key issues have to be put to a formal vote. And postal voting of shares is part and parcel of the process. More immediately relevant though is the funding. JR is totally reliant on Dick and Tom (lol) to fund the rest of this season. All they've got to do is hint the money won't be forthcoming and John has to back down pronto. John shot himself in the foot big time I'm afraid. It's always the problem when someone's ambition outruns their ability to fund and manage a situation. Bring in others to help, and the price is giving away control. Which means you are then always, always, always, a hostage. John doesn't run this club and hasn't done for a a fair while now. He's simply the public face and the fall guy. And he's got nowhere to go either.

BobG

Sorry Bob, but I disagree with just about all of that, most of it is guesswork.

Agreed SM. Typical comment from yet another who thinks he knows everything that happens behind the scenes at DRFC.

[WBDRFC]

No one Mr1. You don't have to sit on a board of anything to be able to control it. All you have to do is vote your shares. Key issues have to be put to a formal vote. And postal voting of shares is part and parcel of the process. More immediately relevant though is the funding. JR is totally reliant on Dick and Tom (lol) to fund the rest of this season. All they've got to do is hint the money won't be forthcoming and John has to back down pronto. John shot himself in the foot big time I'm afraid. It's always the problem when someone's ambition outruns their ability to fund and manage a situation. Bring in others to help, and the price is giving away control. Which means you are then always, always, always, a hostage. John doesn't run this club and hasn't done for a a fair while now. He's simply the public face and the fall guy. And he's got nowhere to go either.

BobG

Shareholders only get to vote at Annual General Meetings. Board meetings are reserved for directors only - nobody outside of the board can vote.

While Watson and Bramall could withhold funds if decisions are made that they disagree with, Bramall has apparently been unwilling to put funds into the club for quite a while - and he is within his rights to do that if he wishes. If true, Bramall is unlikely to be having any influence recently, which leaves with Ryan and Watson with roughly equal shares of the remaining majority shareholders.

In reality, the shareholders who are not on the board won't be having much say in things at the moment.

[Muttley]

No one Mr1. You don't have to sit on a board of anything to be able to control it. All you have to do is vote your shares. Key issues have to be put to a formal vote. And postal voting of shares is part and parcel of the process. More immediately relevant though is the funding. JR is totally reliant on Dick and Tom (lol) to fund the rest of this season. All they've got to do is hint the money won't be forthcoming and John has to back down pronto. John shot himself in the foot big time I'm afraid. It's always the problem when someone's ambition outruns their ability to fund and manage a situation. Bring in others to help, and the price is giving away control. Which means you are then always, always, always, a hostage. John doesn't run this club and hasn't done for a a fair while now. He's simply the public face and the fall guy. And he's got nowhere to go either.

BobG

Shareholders only get to vote at Annual General Meetings. Board meetings are reserved for directors only - nobody outside of the board can vote.

While Watson and Bramall could withhold funds if decisions are made that they disagree with, Bramall has apparently been unwilling to put funds into the club for quite a while - and he is within his rights to do that if he wishes. If true, Bramall is unlikely to be having any influence recently, which leaves with Ryan and Watson with roughly equal shares of the remaining majority shareholders.

In reality, the shareholders who are not on the board won't be having much say in things at the moment.

Directors are appointed by the shareholders and it is the directors' job to ensure the company is run in the best interests of the shareholders.

If anything was happening that the (majority) shareholders disapproved of they could quickly call an EGM and take action or appoint additional directors to ensure their wishes were carried out.

[WBDRFC]

No one Mr1. You don't have to sit on a board of anything to be able to control it. All you have to do is vote your shares. Key issues have to be put to a formal vote. And postal voting of shares is part and parcel of the process. More immediately relevant though is the funding. JR is totally reliant on Dick and Tom (lol) to fund the rest of this season. All they've got to do is hint the money won't be forthcoming and John has to back down pronto. John shot himself in the foot big time I'm afraid. It's always the problem when someone's ambition outruns their ability to fund and manage a situation. Bring in others to help, and the price is giving away control. Which means you are then always, always, always, a hostage. John doesn't run this club and hasn't done for a a fair while now. He's simply the public face and the fall guy. And he's got nowhere to go either.

BobG

Shareholders only get to vote at Annual General Meetings. Board meetings are reserved for directors only - nobody outside of the board can vote.

While Watson and Bramall could withhold funds if decisions are made that they disagree with, Bramall has apparently been unwilling to put funds into the club for quite a while - and he is within his rights to do that if he wishes. If true, Bramall is unlikely to be having any influence recently, which leaves with Ryan and Watson with roughly equal shares of the remaining majority shareholders.

In reality, the shareholders who are not on the board won't be having much say in things at the moment.

Directors are appointed by the shareholders and it is the directors' job to ensure the company is run in the best interests of the shareholders.

If anything was happening that the (majority) shareholders disapproved of they could quickly call an EGM and take action or appoint additional directors to ensure their wishes were carried out.

Strictly speaking, directors have to run the company in the best interests of the company, but this generally means \"run in the best interests of ALL shareholders\" - and not one individual or group. For appointments of directors, it depends on Company's Articles of Incorporation.

It also depends on the Articles if a large shareholder can appoint an individual director. If the Articles stipulate one shareholder equals one vote, then the majority shareholders could easily be outvoted due to the number of shareholders at DRFC (14 or something like that I remember).

[Muttley]

What are the Articles of Incorporation? :dry:

It would be extremely unusual for the Articles of Association to limit shareholders to a single vote no matter what size their shareholding.

Directors can usually be appointed either by a vote of the directors or an ordinary resolution at a General Meeting (ie simple majority vote) - in which case I refer to my previous answer - the directors have to act in the best interests of the shareholders, and logically if there's a conflict then they will act for the majority.

[wilts rover]

It would be very unusual for it to be one vote per shareholder, it is nearly always, one vote per share, so the more shares, the more power/influence. Hence with most companies it is the largest shareholders who compose the board.

[WBDRFC]

Sorry, you're right. Articles of Association. I type too fast, and used the American name - the last company I was a director of was Amercian.

Companies that I have previously been a shareholder in have all been 1 director per shareholder (but that was with a maximum of 4 shareholders in a company, whereas DRFC have a greater number of shareholders), and one vote per director on decisions - the number of shares has only come into play if there is a tied vote (50-50) of directors. Patienceform could well be totally different, as it is up to each company to set the rules when it is a created. Also, a shareholder agreement (if one is in place) could stipulate something very different.