If I recollect, Gavin has been unable to attend the previous two meetings due to work commitments which raises the question, with the funeral issue an exception, whether he can carry out his function as chairman effectively if work is preventing him from attending what in my view is a primary duty.

Mr Figo wrote:If I recollect, Gavin has been unable to attend the previous two meetings due to work commitments which raises the question, with the funeral issue an exception, whether he can carry out his function as chairman effectively if work is preventing him from attending what in my view is a primary duty.

Figo,
The excuse for the last one was that "he was thinking about his position"
Work was not mentioned.
Both Shaun & Neil stated that.
The first one he said he was hoping to get too but got delayed.
Sully states he is out on a Jolly tonight not a problem.

Gavin is still the figurehead for this club Kevin.
Forget the AGM he needs to be there to answer any questions so clearly it needed postponing again at least the supporters part as his attendance was required.
Who would complain at a postponement for a valid reason?.[/quote]

The AGM of the Trusts and Club are separate events, as Shaun is the Chair of the Trust and will be present, it is perfectly acceptable for Gavin to not be there and to suggest differently is to demean the status of the role of the Trust Chair. Colin[/quote]


Charlie Hopkins, who you reliably informed me knew what he was about and was a proper lawyer left the club because he couldn't work alongside the present regime. Shaun can answer for his part in the whys and wherefores of this, if any. He can't answer for Gavin.

Also Shaun is second in command. The allegations raised of a culture of bullying, of staff taking the club to employment tribunals, of decisions being made by Gavin without the approval or knowledge of other directors are matters for Gavin, not his number two. The idea that Gavin Foxall is not in charge is risible. The idea that Shaun is demeaned is nonsense.[/quote]

Stan, you have absolutely no idea how business entities work, ( Perhaps your not clever enough to understand) I'm a qualified company (GAICD) and board director, you are a shxt stirrer!

jonescmj1 wrote:
Stan, you have absolutely no idea how business entities work, ( Perhaps your not clever enough to understand) I'm a qualified company (GAICD) and board director, you are a shxt stirrer!

Three sentences and three insults.

Fair play Colin you're nothing if not consistent.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

jonescmj1 wrote:
Stan, you have absolutely no idea how business entities work, ( Perhaps your not clever enough to understand) I'm a qualified company (GAICD) and board director, you are a shxt stirrer!

Three sentences and three insults.

Fair play Colin you're nothing if not consistent.

Pot, kettle, black!

jonescmj1 wrote:Gavin is still the figurehead for this club Kevin.
Forget the AGM he needs to be there to answer any questions so clearly it needed postponing again at least the supporters part as his attendance was required.
Who would complain at a postponement for a valid reason?.

The AGM of the Trusts and Club are separate events, as Shaun is the Chair of the Trust and will be present, it is perfectly acceptable for Gavin to not be there and to suggest differently is to demean the status of the role of the Trust Chair. Colin[/quote]


Charlie Hopkins, who you reliably informed me knew what he was about and was a proper lawyer left the club because he couldn't work alongside the present regime. Shaun can answer for his part in the whys and wherefores of this, if any. He can't answer for Gavin.

Also Shaun is second in command. The allegations raised of a culture of bullying, of staff taking the club to employment tribunals, of decisions being made by Gavin without the approval or knowledge of other directors are matters for Gavin, not his number two. The idea that Gavin Foxall is not in charge is risible. The idea that Shaun is demeaned is nonsense.[/quote]

Stan, you have absolutely no idea how business entities work, ( Perhaps your not clever enough to understand) I'm a qualified company (GAICD) and board director, you are a shxt stirrer![/quote]
Think you have totally changed your stance since this morning when you were adamant that GF was not required to be present.

jonescmj1 wrote:[

Pot, kettle, black!

Not at all old chap. I refrained from pointing out that you can own the shares in a company but that as a matter of law a company is a separate legal identity. Therefore the contention 'I am a company' could only be said by a person who had failed to grasp the most rudimentary principle of company law.

Have a nice day.

Jackorias wrote:

theale wrote:The guy is a scumbag stan,he's on the list.

And what list is this?

Any answer at all on this, Theale? You've already mentioned owning a body camera for no provoked reason and now you're mentioning "lists".

I've just now today come back from holiday and had time to review some of the many posts you have had sent to our review area and have issued a ban for 7 days as they pertain to the " personal verbal attack" rule wherein you have gone out of your way to make a thread about a poster on here especially to goad and insult him quite graphically.

Not to mention your horrendous grammar and randomly accusing people of being homophobic with no previous chat at all on gay matters. Very confusing...

That's not how we want things around here.



For all users of this forum, if you see any posts that you believe to be rule-breaking then please use the report button, it helps muchly.

As far as thread removal goes, direct your questions to me or willthiswork for explanations. There are, I suspect, good reasons for pulling threads.

But predictably, trying to restore some sense of order comes with the same old tired cry of over-egged likenings to regimes that killed millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children.

We're doing our best.

Yours sincerely,
North Korea, The Soviets, Hitler, Mugabe, Xi Jing-Ping etc etc.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

jonescmj1 wrote:[

Pot, kettle, black!

Not at all old chap. I refrained from pointing out that you can own the shares in a company but that as a matter of law a company is a separate legal identity. Therefore the contention 'I am a company' could only be said by a person who had failed to grasp the most rudimentary principle of company law.

Have a nice day.

You clearly can't comprehend basic English, but I forgive you.

rncfc wrote:

xisle wrote:
surely you dont think theale is a director

If he is, then God have mercy on us all.

My wife is demanding to know why I’m chuckling away whilst on the toilet.

First Director to get banned from this forum then.
Smirking as I write.

Harps