MAL
Disabled account
I am amused that when searching this quote Google points first to Dickhead quotes. I am sure that's not where you found it but it gave me a chuckle
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Rugby Club progress...
- Thread starter Gareth
- Start date
MAL
Disabled account
I am really not sure what this is trying to prove - the ability to cut and paste? I know the responsibilities of directors, I have explained my opinion. This just feels like filling up space in the absence of anything constructive to add to discussion.
However it may have been prudent of you to review the information relating to Companies Limited by Guarantee. This will answer some of the more ill informed comments and accusations you have made. I am sure with your claimed knowledge you realise the club is limited by guarantee rather than by shares.
MAL: You're the only person posting here in an official capacity. From the start you evaded questions about whether one of you fellow RC directors was also a senior employee of the council. Why was it a secret if you thought there was no conflict of interest? Why has be resigned from both companies if there was no problem? But of course there is a problem, because anyone can find the council's code of practice and general Company Law, which makes it clear that this situation is unacceptable from both sides.
MAL
Disabled account
Just for clarity I am on here in a PERSONAL capacity.
Again I do not agree with your interpretation. It is clear for the Companies Limited by Guarantee rules that it is foreseen that councils can appoint to boards of companies limited by guarantee. This is not what happened here but if it is foreseen as that being acceptable I am bemused by the open declaration being unacceptable. I went to the AGM of the Playing Fields Trust - this is full of council people - is this wrong, I do not think so. It is entirely within a persons decision as to whether they wish to continue in a volunteer position. You could consider that other time pressures were a factor, you could consider a recent marriage was a factor, you could consider many things but you don't - you as others simply try to take 2 facts and guarantee association. It cannot always be so. I will state I have no idea of the answer.
I have never evaded the question, it is not a secret - it is a matter of public record. I was asked how many senior employees of SBC were on the rugby club board. The answer when I was asked was zero. I was entirely correct and factual in that answer - yet people accused me of lying. People ask for straight answers and then get upset when they get them. The Stafford Rugby company is a new entity and directors were carried over and it simply took time from a companies house point to get log ins etc to amend. There is no avoidance, there is also no obligation to spell out every meeting every detail, every admin step. I am sure people can see the answers I gave were honest and straight forward
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
Or is it
Not quite sure help
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
So the question I will ask you again and perhaps you can answer a straight yes or no ! Any associations with the club and or directors of the club
MAL
Disabled account
So you agree SRUFC Ltd, the organisation which runs the club is limited by guarantee. You accept that it is not for profit. You will I am therefore sure distance yourself from comments about being paid. Stafford Rugby Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of SRUFC Ltd. Given your apparent detailed knowledge of all these details I am sure you know that. There is therefore no dividends payable to individuals - again I am sure you will disassociate yourself from previous comments about directors getting dividends. I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, I think it is clear I was not wrong.
MAL
Disabled account
Is this some suggestion that one would not 'friend'councillors or parents on FB. Or that this is in some way an undue influence. I never cease to be amazed at the depths folks will go for trying to stir a cheap argument, trolling somebodies social media accounts is certainly an interesting approach. I don't hide my social media contacts - this is quite a ridiculous post, especially form somebody who appears to share views expressed elsewhere that being anonymous is a good thing as it prevents bullying
MAL
Disabled account
I don't even understand the question. I must be being thick or perhaps the question is too obtuse. I will say i do not know the backgrounds of everybody (or indeed most) of people associated with the club as members, or parents of players - how could I. I obviously cannot discuss anything that could be considered confidential but if I understood the question this may help me reply
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
That's funny the pecuniary interest was that the Councillor has links with SRUFC was this not the case ? the question ? any links whatsoever ? With the club its directors professionally or personally ?
Last edited:
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
For the sake of clarity, would you please pose the question(s) you are asking in English.
Thanks in advance.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
I'm sorry but most of your posts are gibberish. You may, or may not have valid points but most of the time I have no idea WTF you are on about.
Give @MAL and the rest of us a break and express yourself properly please
It would also be good to give the guy a chance to answer before bombarding him with post after post after post...
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Mal...
To clarify...
There's no mass conflict..... "they" just don't want us to have something that "might" affect a revenue stream "they" wish to protect. There's more than enough room for us, as a cricket and hockey club, to play cricket and hockey.
However, we do "appreciate" having our betters protect us from ourselves.
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
With the greatest respect, much of that is irrelevant waffle. I don't think people can see your answers as straightforward. Council codes of conduct are about transparency and avoiding doing things that an average person would perceive as a conflict of interest. No matter how honorable the intention, having the council head of leisure as a director of a private sports club that's trying to secure £480,000 in public funding just isn't cricket (or rugby), particularly when it involves a proposal that normally wouldn't have a hope of being given planning permission, based on all the rules and regs.
I don't know how you can say that the 'Stafford Rugby company ' (assuming you're talking about Stafford Rugby Ltd) just 'carried over' its directors as though forming a limited company that might have a turnover of £millions was just a casual exercise.
If you check, I think you'll find I agreed with the poster who said it didn't matter whether money was involved, because the principle was the same.
It's Community Interest Cos that can't pay anyone. IKBA, but I think you'll find that while limited by guarantee companies obviously can't pay directors with share divis, they're free to remunerate directors, unless it specifically states other wise in the Incorporation doc. Thanks to the internet we see that SRUFC articles make it pretty clear that directors can be paid and get expenses. Stafford Rugby Ltd can dole out as much as it wants.
MAL
Disabled account
I apologise sincerely if I mis represented anything as I am very supportive of the Hockey club. As I read it the ECB objected to the development which seemed to me to be the biggest hurdleMal...
To clarify...
There's no mass conflict..... "they" just don't want us to have something that "might" affect a revenue stream "they" wish to protect. There's more than enough room for us, as a cricket and hockey club, to play cricket and hockey.
However, we do "appreciate" having our betters protect us from ourselves.