wills till on board

[mexico red]

according to latest adver piece. if so im not a happy bunny.

[stfctownenda]

according to latest adver piece. if so im not a happy bunny.

They will still have 18% stake in the club and he will be on the board as a non executive director.  Not the greatest thing but at least they are no longer in a position where they can make the decisions in the club.  Hopefully he will just have to make the tea and bring it in with plates of buscuits to the real businessmen.

[Power to people]

according to latest adver piece. if so im not a happy bunny.

They will still have 18% stake in the club and he will be on the board as a non executive director.  Not the greatest thing but at least they are no longer in a position where they can make the decisions in the club.  Hopefully he will just have to make the tea and bring it in with plates of buscuits to the real businessmen.

Why didn't Fitton say this in his press conf when he went through who was going to be on both set's of board's

[BANGKOK RED]

according to latest adver piece. if so im not a happy bunny.

They will still have 18% stake in the club and he will be on the board as a non executive director.  Not the greatest thing but at least they are no longer in a position where they can make the decisions in the club.  Hopefully he will just have to make the tea and bring it in with plates of buscuits to the real businessmen.

Why didn't Fitton say this in his press conf when he went through who was going to be on both set's of board's

Because Will's isn't on the board? Just a non-exec director with no real say in anything.

[Arriba]

but will get a cut of any future redevelopment i guess?
so his greed will be fulfilled still?
booooooooooo :evil:

[Reg Smeeton]

Not happy with this at all....I've posted before if Wills is around then so is Diamandis.

   OK he may not have any clout, but he never previously showed any interest in the club....never seen him at an AGM.

   If he wants to retain his shareholding to trouser some money.....then fair enough no need to be on the Board.

  Going to have to think whether a boycott is still necessary.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

Mike D won't be around. There is no point for him to be is there? He can't make decisions and he can't even influence them. He has no share holding in the club so he's nothing.

I don't think we'll be seeing much of James Wills either. He'll be at Arsenal with his season ticket.

[mattboyslim]

Not happy with this at all....I've posted before if Wills is around then so is Diamandis.

   OK he may not have any clout, but he never previously showed any interest in the club....never seen him at an AGM.

   If he wants to retain his shareholding to trouser some money.....then fair enough no need to be on the Board.

  Going to have to think whether a boycott is still necessary.

Imagine that 18% of your money (or of any future profitability) ghoes to the Wills' and therefore buy a ticket 18% more expensive then you normally would hence allowing Mr Fitton and fair share of your hard earned.

[axs]

thats £2.70 more  - chips and a bovril should do it.

[Reg Smeeton]

Not happy with this at all....I've posted before if Wills is around then so is Diamandis.

   OK he may not have any clout, but he never previously showed any interest in the club....never seen him at an AGM.

   If he wants to retain his shareholding to trouser some money.....then fair enough no need to be on the Board.

  Going to have to think whether a boycott is still necessary.

Imagine that 18% of your money (or of any future profitability) ghoes to the Wills' and therefore buy a ticket 18% more expensive then you normally would hence allowing Mr Fitton and fair share of your hard earned.

   I imagine a toff who has no interest in the club, beyond lining his own pocket, trying as best he can to move Fitton et al, into decisions  which are not necessarily in the best interest of the club and the fans.

  In this he'll be ably abetted by Diamandis.

[herthab]

And I believe that Fitton and co will not be swayed, or persuaded to do anything by some chinless no-mark. Diamandes is history people, move on FFS!

The new guys are serious, successful and very wealthy businessmen, why would they listen to a hooray henry like the boy wills?

[sonic youth]

i can't work out if some are deliberately looking for something to concern themselves about or whether they're just playing devil's advocate for a laugh.

[Reg Smeeton]

i can't work out if some are deliberately looking for something to concern themselves about or whether they're just playing devil's advocate for a laugh.

 I can't work out if some are  deliberately puting their critical faculties to one side, or are going to be a bit more questioning about Boardroom antics.

[stfctownenda]

And I believe that Fitton and co will not be swayed, or persuaded to do anything by some chinless no-mark. Diamandes is history people, move on FFS!

The new guys are serious, successful and very wealthy businessmen, why would they listen to a hooray henry like the boy wills?

 :goodpost:

[pauld]

Not happy with this at all....I've posted before if Wills is around then so is Diamandis.

   OK he may not have any clout, but he never previously showed any interest in the club....never seen him at an AGM.

   If he wants to retain his shareholding to trouser some money.....then fair enough no need to be on the Board.

There is no link (as some are assuming) between being on the Board or being a shareholder and getting a share of any hypothetical future (re)development profits. Board members do not automagically get a share of any profits (if there are any), nor do shareholders. Shareholders may get such a share if such a substantial profit was made that a divvy was paid (this would of course apply to any profit e.g. from the normal running of the business, not just a redev). In which case all of us who have shares in the club would get a cut, in proportion to our shareholding (so about 72p in my case). Needless to say that is vanishingly unlikely.

The only way James Wills or anyone else come to that would get a cut of any redevelopment profits by virtue of being a shareholder/director in something would be if the redevelopment was done by an external company in which he was a shareholder/director and it paid a divvy to its shareholders/bonus to its directors out of retained profits from a redev (which is what the old holding company was about). Alternately he may get a payout from the current setup, if there is an explicit promise in the contracts surrounding the contracts that past loans made by the Wills family are to stay sat in the club (as loan notes probably) repayable out of any such future profits. In neither circumstance would it be necessary or relevant that he is a director/minority shareholder in the club.