If Diamandis has been banned from running a company?

[Simon Pieman]

I'd expect the club to have made tenders/retenders with programmes.

The CIB is the Companies Investigation Branch (part of the DTI I think).

[Lumps]

To belatedly stick my two penneth worth in, I think there is the point to consider about the distinction between the role of a company director, and the role of a manager. If everyone that were banned from running a company were also not allowed to take on any sort of management role, they might find it difficult to earn a living.

However, in this particular circumstance I think there are a good few reasons to be concerned:

1. The undefined role that Mike D played at the club until recently has always worried most of us. Working virtually full time at the club, with a salary but no job title, and without a clearly defined role. The revelaton, well to me at least, that the finance director reported through him to SSW, rather than through Mark D to the board, just re-inforces this. In all I can't help but suspect that throughout his time at the club Mike D was the effective CEO, with anyone else employed in that role being somewhat powerless. Combine that with a Chariman  who takes very little interest in the day to day operation of the club and it's not hard to see why people might be concerned about who's actually runing the club.

2. Taking that on board the FA's fit and proper person test is suddenly a lot more relevant. That test needs to be applied not just to those people who are nominally the directors and senior management of the club, but to those that are actually running the show.

3. Mavericks outrage at anyone even thinking about Mrs D's directorships is fucking laughable. First thing any DTI ivestigator would look at. After all, the sports marketing company seems to have continued operating throughout Mike D's ban, it's still referred to as his company, he still seems to be running it. It does beg the question of who's now on it's board doesn't it. The first thing in anyones mind will be "he's shifted everything into the wifes name and continued as normal", because it happens a lot.

In a nutshell what everyone is worried about is that someone who has been considered unsuitable to run a business, and banned from doing so,  looks to have been not only continuing to run that business, but has also been placed into a senior executive position at our club, which appears to have been kept on an entirely unofficial basis to get around that ban.

If you look back through my posts on here over the years I've been one of the people who have repeatedly tried to argue that the demonisation of one individual at the club is not helpful, and that it is unlikely that the problems at the club are that one sided.

However, I do think there are questions to be asked about the way the operation has been structured and managed over the last few years. The lack of transparency over roles and responsibilities at the club looks to me as an outsider to be a deliberate mechanism to get over the restrictions on Mike D. And that worries me.

Can I just say to Maverick that if you think asking questions about that and wanting answers to them is some kind of witchunt then can I politely suggest that you look back through your own repeated posts with regard to BP's involvement in the mess at QPR, (allegations that were aired in an open court, with no substantiation, and rapidly dismissed as posing no case for any of the parties named to answer) and have a lttle think about it.

Why is it that you can constantly bang on about your concerns about the probity of the parties involved on one side of this debate, but our concerns are regarded as some kind of personal vendetta?

Pot.......Kettle.......Black..........

[Frigby Daser]

According to the interview yesterday Diamandis stated fairly clearly that a) he's been General Manager since 2000 and b) that the Wills' family and St Modwen put their comlete trust in him with regards board decisions and c) that he attends board meetings.

In sum Mike, you've written you're own guilty plea if you were banned from being a director any time since 2000 - broke the law MATE now its time to fuck off

Character assasination? hardly help yourself out do you - we've got no reasn to slate you day in day out unless there is something pretty bloody significant wrong with what you're doing.

[Simon Pieman]

Yes Moonraker, Mike D, by his own admissions, has been acting as a de facto Director. Yes, he doesn't formally hold the position of Director, but in effect he is making executive decisions. I know others have made this point, but it seems it hasn't sunk in with some people.

[Dazzza]

1. The undefined role that Mike D played at the club until recently has always worried most of us. Working virtually full time at the club, with a salary but no job title, and without a clearly defined role. The revelaton, well to me at least, that the finance director reported through him to SSW, rather than through Mark D to the board, just re-inforces this. In all I can't help but suspect that throughout his time at the club Mike D was the effective CEO, with anyone else employed in that role being somewhat powerless. Combine that with a Chariman  who takes very little interest in the day to day operation of the club and it's not hard to see why people might be concerned about who's actually runing the club.

If you look at the legislation that defines what a banned company director can/can't do there clearly is a strong question of breeches of the order.

The order or undertaking also means that you must not get other people to
1
manage a company under your instructions.
The order or undertaking does not stop you from having a job with a company,
but unless you have court permission it does stop you:
_ being a director of a company;
_ acting as receiver of a company's property;
_ being concerned in or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company and you must not act as an insolvency practitioner.
The order or undertaking does not stop you carrying on business as a sole trader or in partnership with others but, unless you have court permission, you must not be a member of or be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a limited liability partnership.