I'm sure I am going to get shotdown here but it is my opinion, whether right or wrong.
Rob Sant is very typical of many self employed people who are able to make a decision, or make a promise, and act on it as they decide. They are not used to being questioned, making compromises or having follow a consensus opinion.
So joining the board with all the constraints that go with it was always going to be a problem. Let's not forget that this is not the first time this scenario with Rob and the board has been played out with exactly the same conclusion.
The last time it happened Rob did what I think he does best and that is to be a able to apply pressure from the outside. For whatever reason he does not seem able to apply that same pressure from the inside when faced with the internal constraints of the board.
The last time Rob resigned it was obvious he had many agendas and perhaps some chips on his shoulder.
Rob obviously has so much to offer our great club and I can only urge him to use those skills and passion constructively to build our club. Please do not use them destructively to bring down other people whose views may be different but whose ultimate aims are the same.

until we here otherwise from rob i'll assume he found out that the board are more right than wrong about the amount of information they release to the fans and he decided that he had nothing to add as a director that he couldn't do as an ordinary fan

xisle wrote:until we here otherwise from rob i'll assume he found out that the board are more right than wrong about the amount of information they release to the fans and he decided that he had nothing to add as a director that he couldn't do as an ordinary fan

that’s one hell of an assumption mate you wouldn’t have needed much persuading to believe in say a purple dragon that lives behind Twm Barlwm then who wears a County scarf.

lowandhard wrote:

xisle wrote:until we here otherwise from rob i'll assume he found out that the board are more right than wrong about the amount of information they release to the fans and he decided that he had nothing to add as a director that he couldn't do as an ordinary fan

that’s one hell of an assumption mate you wouldn’t have needed much persuading to believe in say a purple dragon that lives behind Twm Barlwm then who wears a County scarf.

Newportonian wrote:

lowandhard wrote:

xisle wrote:until we here otherwise from rob i'll assume he found out that the board are more right than wrong about the amount of information they release to the fans and he decided that he had nothing to add as a director that he couldn't do as an ordinary fan

that’s one hell of an assumption mate you wouldn’t have needed much persuading to believe in say a purple dragon that lives behind Twm Barlwm then who wears a County scarf.

if either of you had the ability to think things through you would realise that is a most charitable position to take
you obviously both think less of the man so looking forward to hearing your theories why he capitulated so quickly

It’s more likely that he found the NDA more restrictive than he imagined and then not being able to persuade others to lift some of the restrictions he found himself unable to deliver what he set out in his manifesto so did the honourable thing and stepped down.
Of course that’s just one theory.

Newportonian wrote:It’s more likely that he found the NDA more restrictive than he imagined and then not being able to persuade others to lift some of the restrictions he found himself unable to deliver what he set out in his manifesto so did the honourable thing and stepped down.
Of course that’s just one theory.

And the most likely one imho, and no xisle I don’t have a low opinion of Rob as you suggest, furthermore I’m not sure that yours was a charitable opinion , merely one that flattered the board.

What's all this about NDA's - is everyone gagged forever now then - is that set out in the Trust Constitution, or something sprung on all new Board members like trouser-legging a Mason?

lowandhard wrote:

Newportonian wrote:It’s more likely that he found the NDA more restrictive than he imagined and then not being able to persuade others to lift some of the restrictions he found himself unable to deliver what he set out in his manifesto so did the honourable thing and stepped down.
Of course that’s just one theory.

And the most likely one imho, and no xisle I don’t have a low opinion of Rob as you suggest, furthermore I’m not sure that yours was a charitable opinion , merely one that flattered the board.

well i dont know about you guys but i give rob more credit than to think he is dumb enough to put himself up for election to the board on the issue of transparency knowing that he would have to sign an nda if elected and not ask to see a copy of the nda during the election process
think it through
how stupid would that be
seems he would be better of answering for himself than being made to look a fool by you guys

whoareya wrote:What's all this about NDA's - is everyone gagged forever now then - is that set out in the Trust Constitution, or something sprung on all new Board members like trouser-legging a Mason?

It's sort of complicated. Being a director/part of a board is a serious undertaking, with responsibilities covered by statute (Companies Act 2006, which I presume our directors work under) and case law (with confidentiality coming under the latter).

Directors, whether given such a title or not, have a (fiduciary) duty to the company, and if they depart from that they can be liable for losses incurred to the company and for any prospective losses to the company. And part of that (fiduciary) duty pertains to confidentiality, as determined by case law, as to what should/can be confidential and what is not.**

And recovery of losses, actual or prospective, can lead to you losing all you own to cover the losses. Google something like <failure fiduciary duty director penalty> to bring up oodles of legal/semi-legal writings on the matter.

This is one reason why board discussions should stay within the board, even when such things are fractious. On a board of directors, you may have a valid point and be in a minority of one, but if you can't persuade a majority to your view, then tough. You zip it, accept it for now and fight the battle another day (your objections will/should have been minuted), or you resign.

That much (I think) I know is true with some reasonable certainty.

What I'm less certain of (without researching it) is what happens if you do resign. However, I think you are still held by the articles you signed up to... unless there is some material wrongdoing (and then there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things). And you wouldn't be able to use info gained during your directorship to profit from things like insider trading, I presume.

The thing is, confidentiality does not have to mean lack of communication. I'd contend a line in the regularly published board meeting minutes suggesting "[...] are still ongoing" (where [...] = discussions with Joe Bloggs on burger van siting; discussions with landlord on lease issues; ...) would not breach confidentiality of either party. We all "know" they are ongoing anyway (re landlord, not Joe Bloggs' burger franchise).

**What I'd contend on the confidentiality issue is that only a rich idiot (and by that I just mean any person with serious amounts of money to burn) would wish to pursue a case against an NDA willingly signed up to on becoming a director on what are probably pretty mundane issues. But of course, if you can find pro bono legal representation to pursue such a legal case (and indemnify you?), then more power to you.

If an NDA is being used to hide a crime/wrongdoing/breach of statutory director obligations (as is perhaps the case in things like the Weinstein case) and the signee is (effectively) coerced or blackmailed into signing it, then from Newsnight and a Panorama-type programme about Weinstein such an NDA is then (likely) void anyway. So, to me, I think there is a distinction to be made between those "Weinstein-types" of NDA and company/director confidentiality-type NDAs you willingly sign up to on becoming a board member.

Without wishing to sound too stupid I believe this clarifies some things to me, but as is said it can be complicated. Especially like the explanation about confidentiality doesn't have to mean lack of communication. the thing that appears to anger so many posters on this forum.

so kevin ward says he hasnt been asked to sign an nda
seems we can file the finding the nda too restrictive theory under total bollocks

xisle wrote:so kevin ward says he hasnt been asked to sign an nda
seems we can file the finding the nda too restrictive theory under total bollocks

Agree, looks like it! I’m sure his reticence then is due to not wishing to harm the club

xisle wrote:so kevin ward says he hasnt been asked to sign an nda
seems we can file the finding the nda too restrictive theory under total bollocks

I imagine a very large file

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:

xisle wrote:so kevin ward says he hasnt been asked to sign an nda
seems we can file the finding the nda too restrictive theory under total bollocks

I imagine a very large file

Yeah the “ total bollocks “ file can be found just before the “ unknowns “ and “ unknown unknowns “ files . In this club it’s a matter of guesswork which files are in fact the largest! Then when it comes to the “ known unknowns “ that’s an entirely different matter