[Albion] McGhee 99% likely to leave by end of week!

[Uncle Buck]

If Martin Perry was a director of the Albion and the owner of McAlpines, that would indeed also be something to worry about once the tendering process took place.

But he isn't, so that's a complete red herring. Being a former employee is not a conflict of interest.

But when the take over took place he was placed on the board by McAlpines with the controlling 1% stake (Knight and Pinnock held had 49.5% and Archer the same). Events mean he is no longer a McAlpine employee, but if McAlpine win the contact it is as likely that conflict of interests will be used against them and Perry as it will be if Adenstar get some of the work, as the links are there.

 

[London Irish]

you really ought to calm down a little bit.

"aggressive idiot" is a tag that would sit very comfortably with you at the moment.

The double standards of people on here are amazing. You thought Rougvie's SHIT AND LIES post was calm then?

 

[blockhseagull]

I do agree that BG should name the investor or shut up....... if he does actually know it isn't going to make a big deal of difference if he is so well known, posting it on here isn't going to effect anything

 

[Barrel of Fun]

If there is a race for control of the club, unless McAlpine signed an agreement, it looks as if it will be a fight to the death for that crucial 1%.

 

[Les Biehn]

If Martin Perry was a director of the Albion and the owner of McAlpines, that would indeed also be something to worry about once the tendering process took place.

But he isn't, so that's a complete red herring. Being a former employee is not a conflict of interest.

I am not passing judgement on MP in any way but that last statement is class. Are you trying to get a job working for Dick Cheney?

 

[Uncle Buck]

If there is a race for control of the club, unless McAlpine signed an agreement, it looks as if it will be a fight to the death for that crucial 1%.

That 1% was partly to ensure no overall control of the club to any one individual.

 

[aftershavedave]

The double standards of people on here are amazing. You thought Rougvie's SHIT AND LIES post was calm then?

well actually yes.

i can't picture him frothing at the mouth as he typed it anyhow....

 

[CHAPPERS]

What SHIT OR LIES have I made up you aggressive idiot?

IT IS TOTALLLY WRONG for a director of the Albion to get involved in the contracting work of the club - that is what I object to about Chapman.

IT IS AGAINST EVERY SINGLE MODERN BUSINESS PRINCIPLE of CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.

The CONFLICT OF INTEREST problems are HUGE.

We are having to go cap in hand to get PUBLIC MONEY to fund the Falmer stadium. They HATE this kind of conflict of interests and could have serious potential to disrupt our ability to attract grant money.

I haven't a clue if he is the guy behind getting rid of McGhee - you'll note he didn't have the guts to tell the Argus and level with the fans what he is up to at the moment!

But if Chapman is now going to become the real owner of the club - and that's what he'll be if he proceeds to humiliate Dick Knight by opposing him on a decision relating to the major strategic future of the club - the bottom line is he must completely withdraw from all commercial contracts that arise out of Falmer because I DON'T WANT OUR CLUB TO BE MADE A LAUGHING STOCK IN THE LIKES OF PRIVATE EYE, THE BUSINESS PRESS, OR BY ANY OF OUR ENEMIES, LEWES OR BAKER!

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU, ROUGVIE.

Now explain to me how any of that is shit and lies!

HAHAHAHA !

Finally he's gone BONKERS.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Too me it sounds like this investor doesn't want to take complete control of the club, just want's to see his well earned cash spent wisely by a new manager in charge.
I think boardroom reprecussions like this are very healthy indeed, if we had alot of men in the boardroom saying yes then we wouldn't be living in a democracy.

BG saying withdean can be our permanent home for 15,000. Are you that ridicoulous taxi driver?

 

[Les Biehn]

The double standards of people on here are amazing. You thought Rougvie's SHIT AND LIES post was calm then?

Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that you try to tell other people how to behave and then totally contradict yourself by behaving in the same manner? Rougvie was being aggressive he always is. Doesn't mean you have to be.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

That 1% was partly to ensure no overall control of the club to any one individual.

But surely, that was just a gentleman's agreement and they didn't forsee the 'fallout'.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

HAHAHAHA !

Finally he's gone BONKERS.

LI went BONKERS ago.

 

[London Irish]

But when the take over took place he was placed on the board by McAlpines with the controlling 1% stake (Knight and Pinnock held had 49.5% and Archer the same). Events mean he is no longer a McAlpine employee, but if McAlpine win the contact it is as likely that conflict of interests will be used against them and Perry as it will be if Adenstar get some of the work, as the links are there.

Wrong - being a former employee of a company is not regarded as a conflict of interest by the standards of coprorate governance formulated in recent years by the Financial Services Authority.

You know, there is lot of fine words talked about on this thread about "scrutiny" of the board.

Here we have a potentially very embarassing conflict of interest situation that our enemies could make hay of after the judicial process is over and when we are making applications for grants to public bodies. You think the likes of Lewes and Baker are too stupid to do this?

Forgive me. It looks as though the limit of "board scrutiny" allowable on this thread is "Magoo out, great, let's all have a beer"

 

[Uncle Buck]

But surely, that was just a gentleman's agreement and they didn't forsee the 'fallout'.

At the time I am pretty sure Perry was meant to side with the chairman if things went to a vote, as Archer was still involved to an extent.

 

[The Large One]

If there is a race for control of the club, unless McAlpine signed an agreement, it looks as if it will be a fight to the death for that crucial 1%.

The proportions of shareholding in the club changed long ago. I don't even think DK is the largest shareholder. So that '1%' is a irrelevant today.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I've read the article and its almost certainly Fat Boy Slim as the "major investor". If it was someone from outside, then Naylors story would even be more sensational.

To me the story of McGee is a non story. So what if the board are split. This board is split. Remember Naylor has a story to sell.

Whats important is that the future direction of this club continues. That must be Falmer. I would prefer DK to continue to take us forward and I suspect that will continue to be the case.

As Chapman says "I'm sure something will be worked out this week". Maybe a compromise of say a October deadline of massive improvement? I mean its not as if McGee will have lots of dosh to spend/waste in the pre-season. Whoever is the manager will be working with what we have.

Chapman/Knight as Chairman? I would love to see DK walk out onto Falmer as Chairman, but If not as long as somebody does.

Chapman Chairman/Dick Knight life President anybody.


As for Withdean, its a dead issue

 

[Uncle Buck]

Wrong - being a former employee of a company is not regarded as a conflict of interest by the standards of coprorate governance formulated in recent years by the Financial Services Authority.

You know, there is lot of fine words talked about on this thread about "scrunity" of the board.

Here we have a potentially very embarassing conflict of interest situation that our enemies could make hay of after the judicial process is over and when we are making applications for grants to public bodies. You think the likes of Lewes and Baker are too stupid to do this?

Forgive me. It looks as though the limit of "board scrutiny" allowable on this thread is "Magoo out, great, let's all have a beer"

But it could still be chucked at them as being an element of old boys network if McApline (which they will) win the tender.

The fact that Adenstar are going to get the ground work contract is something that has been assumed for a while, part of the reason for investing way back when he did.

The fact is Steve, you seem to think sinister parties are trying to oust Knight, when from that article that does not seem to be the case.

Now if you so strongly disagree with what is going on, you can campaign against it, boycott the club, ask difficult questions at the next forum, that is your right. But there is nothing to suggest that a Coup is taking place.

 

[London Irish]

I am not passing judgement on MP in any way but that last statement is class. Are you trying to get a job working for Dick Cheney?

What are you on about? Is making a series of pointless jibes at me the limit of your scrutiny of the board then?

 

[blockhseagull]

The other question is... what is considered a 'major' investment ?

 

[The Large One]

Here we have a potentially very embarassing conflict of interest situation that our enemies could make hay of after the judicial process is over and when we are making applications for grants to public bodies. You think the likes of Lewes and Baker are too stupid to do this?

After the judicial process is over, our enemies' concerns will be largely irrelevant.

Adenstar (Chapman's company) will almost certainly not be the main contractor - they don't have the expertise or history in stadium construction that McAlpine does. However, it's highly possible the Adenstar will be a sub-contractor, and answerable to McAlpine. McAlpine, in turn, will be answerable to the Stadium Company Ltd.

Assuming McAlpine wins the contract, that is.