If Diamandis has been banned from running a company?

[Samdy Gray]

Goodnight Fred

[TalkTalk]

Hmmm.

Some FA regulations (Fit and Proper Persons) preclude anybody who is disqualified as a director from being any part of the management:

“Director” means in respect of any Club, any individual person operating the powers that
are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the
Companies Act (as a company limited by shares or by guarantee) including, but not limited
to:
(a) a person exercising direct or indirect control over a corporate director of the Club;
(b) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of
Companies;
(c) a person for whom a Form 288(a) (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been
completed in relation to the Club;
(d) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the
board of directors of the Club;
(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the
members of the Club;
(f) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting
the management of the Club are accustomed to act; or
(g) a person who exercises or is able to exercise direct or indirect control over the affairs of
the Club.

And that the penalty is suspension of League Membership unless the "Director" is removed within 28 days.

Suspension of League Membership
Where: -
4.1.1 any individual at a Club qualifies as a Director in breach of any of paragraphs 2.1, 2.2,
and 2.3, and that Club fails to remove that Director within 28 days of being instructed
so to do by The Association (as per paragraph 3.2.4)
or
4.1.2 a Club is deemed to have persistently failed to comply with paragraph 3.1.1 and/or
3.1.2, as described in paragraph 3.1.5 above
then The Association may issue The Notice to the league of which the Club is a
member.
4.2 There shall be no appeal by a Club against the serving of The Notice.
4.3 The suspension of the membership may be removed subject to the Association receiving
satisfaction on the matter that caused it to be required.

http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/C78670E4-FC3D-4AF2-A526-59DEA094982E/97938/Regs_FitProperPersons.pdf

So it might not be an issue now but it certainly would have been over the last five years. Worrying.

Unfortunately it covers the Isthmian Football League as well, Reg.

[Fred Elliot]

What are the regs Alan for those that were privvy to that information but chose not to disclose it and act within the 28 day window ?

Culpable ?

And in the second paragraph, when does a defacto director become acknowledged as a director for the purpose of this ruling ?

[TalkTalk]

What are the regs Alan for those that were privvy to that information but chose not to disclose it and act within the 28 day window ?

Culpable ?

It subjects the club to fines (probably quite punitive).

And in the second paragraph, when does a defacto director become acknowledged as a director for the purpose of this ruling ?

Immediately.

Having said all this, these new tests came in on 1st February 2005, so they might not be applicable to our situation. I don't know what the earlier (if any) regulations stated. I am just highlighting the fact that the FA obviously have some legitimate concerns and that retrospective action could potentially be taken.

[TalkTalk]

Incidentally Schedule III of that document (Schedule of Offences) goes a long way in defining what is within the scope of breaches as a "Fit and Proper Person".

Including:

Companies Act 1985 741 Definition of ‘shadow director’

...and another five pages that I can't be bothered to read.

[Fred Elliot]

I will tonight and ill give you a shout tomorrow

[pauld]

Well well well ... the true colours show through .... this seems to be all about "getting Mike D" really doesn't it?

Now you guys decide to go for his wife as well.

Oh, FFS, Maverick. Do you not think supporters have a right to be concerned if the man who has been running our club for the past five years, by his own admission on the radio this morning and according to club statements issued passim, has possibly been doing so for at least part of that time in violation of a very serious legal ban on managing a business? Especially given Swindon's history, is that not something people have a right to be concerned may possibly come back on the club? And I believe it is fairly common when investigations of such matters are done (watch any Roger Cook episode!) to look at whether a person is attempting to hide their own involvement in a company by hiding behind a spouse? I'm not a company lawyer so I'm not suggesting Mike D has done anything wrong in this, but it's pretty legitimate for people to be concerned about it don't you think? Or do you think everyone should follow your own line of "Only ask questions of the Fans' Consortium for the board can do no wrong, no matter how many times they are caught out". Frankly, you're starting to look ridiculous.

[louavo]

but according to Mark D, thats long since passed. Where is the evidence that states that this wanker is currently under criminal investigation?

Lets fucking see it.

[sonic youth]

Well well well ... the true colours show through .... this seems to be all about "getting Mike D" really doesn't it?

Now you guys decide to go for his wife as well.

If that is the kind of levels supporters of the Consortium will stoop to, then I for one hope that the Consortium either publicly disowns people who are prepared to make it that personal ....... or else it just demonstrates that we have it all to fear with the way they choose to do business.

Let's hope that the other potential investor has a better approach and wins the day.

DON'T BE FUCKING DAFT!

You're quite happy to sit there and criticise anyone should they show the slightest bit of dissent towards the board and/or Diamandis but you're mot than willing to dish it out towards the Trust/Consortium.

What on earth is wrong with discovering whether the man who runs the club - by his own admission - is under investigation by the DTI? If he's using his wife's name then I imagine that's equally unethical.

Unless you're actually going to start applying some logic and thoughtfulness to the stuff you post, just don't bother.

Everything you post questions and criticises the attempts of a group of hardcore Swindon Town fans, they address your concerns and answer your questions but you NEVER respond. Nor do you respond to other people's questions towards you.

IT'S FUCKING TIRESOME.

Stop believing the hype and apply the same scrutiny to the board that you have to the consortium.

EVERY SINGLE QUESTION YOU HAVE ASKED OF THE CONSORTIUM HAS BEEN ANSWERED. WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Have the club provided you with the same? Of course not.

So why on earth do you take them so seriously?

Why don't you understand that people are taking an aggressive tone towards you when your only posts are to criticise the consortium, whom are supported by the vast majority on this site.



n.b. The aggressive nature of this post was bought to you by cups of tea, lack of sleep and mince pies. We are not affiliated with the Trust/Consortium in anyway.

[glos_robin]

here here sonic..........now pop over to the adver site, there's a few more victims for you to rip apart there

[millom red]

i do not have the mental capacity to think,It just ends up hurting

too many drugs.

Not enough sonic in my opinion.

[millom red]

Shocking!

[Dazzza]

Good grief, what a day come home to find it's all kicked off.  

Anyway I've got this from my good friend Alan at the CIB. It doesn't add anything more than has already been posted but the 2nd paragraph is food for thought.  

DTI’s Companies Investigations Branch has the responsibility for conducting investigations into companies using the statutory powers of enquiry contained in the Companies Act 1985.   You will appreciate that for the investigative process to be effective it is essential to maintain confidentiality at all stages.  This includes the process whereby we reach decisions regarding the use of our investigation powers.  We cannot enter into public debate on the merits of complaints, and we do not confirm or deny whether an investigation of a particular company is taking, or has taken place.

Under most circumstances it is not possible to disclose the results of our investigations beyond a narrow range of other regulators (though if we take action in the public interest there will usually be some publicity).  

If, however, you have a specific complaint about a UK registered company, please access our web-site at:
www.insolvency.gov.uk/cib
where you can make a complaint online.

Within the CIB’s powers are the following…
1. Present a petition to the court to wind up a company in the public interest

2. Apply to the court to disqualify a director

3. Prosecute company officials or refer evidence to other investigators or prosecutors (e.g. the police or the Serious Fraud Office)

4. Refer information to other regulators or bodies to consider disciplinary or other action against their members (e.g. the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or the Law Society)

5. Send a Warning letter to the company.

Goodnight

[Simon Pieman]

With reagrds to Bushey's original post about the conflict of interest. As long as related parties are disclosed and related party transactions are disclosed then it 's ok. However, within this there needs to be some assessment that the right thing is being done for the business entity (the club itself). A simple example will be if Mike D bought something from one of his other businesses, was the price a fair market price?

[millom red]

Programmes amonst other things si pie?

What's the CIB dazza?