General Meeting reminder

[Guest Deleted member]

Or, you've not understood mine.

 

(Or are wilfully neglecting to understand).

 

No, but after that, wilfully ignoring

 

thrower

[Guest Deleted member]

 

So, in my mind, all the questions about the continuation of trading and the possible wider issues around it, including non-communication to members and potentially misleading people, for c.18 months, are still valid and can (and should) be properly investigated and answered.

 

For clarity I was stating that I would imagine that all of the above will be investigated in order to provide a definitive response to 'what happens to the cash?'

[Guest Steve French]

(genuinely), I can trace back my male side of the family right the way back, directly, grandfather to grandfather, all the way to Robert the Bruce.

You should be much more respectful

That's a boast post and a half.

The best I can do is:

Former professional footballer, manager, record holder, Fantasy Football star great uncle (sadly no longer with us).

Third cousin who is on the Times rich list and personal friends with Prince Charles. Former owner of various household name companies and brands as well as chairman/owner (at various points) of a professional rugby club.

Great aunt who was in important artist and passed away a few years ago and was the illegitimate child of a British artist who was featured on the cover of Time and whose mother was herself a celebrated musician.

Far back there is some evidence to suggest that my ancestor in this family line was a teacher who taught William Shakespeare.

No kings, rulers or leaders tho.

[DeeJayOne]

Thanks for answering the questions you have done though Nigel, it is appreciated.

 

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the situation from start (FCA) to finish (Non communication to members, continuation of trading, etc). At the very least I think there has been a lack of clarity and people have been misled (albeit not necessarily on purpose).

 

Just one more question; Nigel (and any other current/former directors throughout history involved who may wish to answer any of the questions throughout the thread), are you totally comfortable with it all and confident the right things have been done since the FCA situation came to light?

[Guest Deleted member]

Thanks for answering the questions you have done though Nigel, it is appreciated.

 

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the situation from start (FCA) to finish (Non communication to members, continuation of trading, etc). At the very least I think there has been a lack of clarity and people have been misled (albeit not necessarily on purpose).

 

Just one more question; Nigel (and any other current/former directors throughout history involved who may wish to answer any of the questions throughout the thread), are you totally comfortable with it all and confident the right things have been done since the FCA situation came to light?

 

Youre welcome. 

 

Just regards the current directors, I would imagine the reason they haven't posted is that if they are taking legal advice they will have been advised not to discuss the matter until such time as they have been advised correctly.

 

They won't be deliberately ignoring many of the very sensible and pertinent questions raised. 

AAAAAARGH

 

I said I was wilfully ignoring you.... bloody hell

 

Trapped

[DeeJayOne]

Youre welcome.

Just regards the current directors, I would imagine the reason they haven't posted is that if they are taking legal advice they will have been advised not to discuss the matter until such time as they have been advised correctly.

They won't be deliberately ignoring many of the very sensible and pertinent questions raised.

AAAAAARGH

I said I was wilfully ignoring you.... bloody hell

Trapped

So you're comfortable and confident with it all then?

[Guest Deleted member]

You wont get me twice

[DeeJayOne]

So you're NOT comfortable and confident with it then?

[Guest Deleted member]

dum de dum de dum.... *taps fingers*

[Guest mkowl]

Whether people think I am stirring or not, the point is that by not dealing with "minor administrative paperwork" there is a real risk that the money in the pot at the date of dissolution could be lost. There is a presumption that everything will be fine and for everyone's sake I hope that is the case, but what if not.

 

The blase attitude in some recent posts on this thread by some of the people in situ at the time of the problems is somewhat disconcerting. It smacks of brushing under the carpet rather than facing up to your collective responsibilities. If you take the position of director in whatever guise its called and then seek to finger point then you shouldn't take the position in the first instance

[vulva]

The worrying bit is that this lot once owned 10% of the football club. Similar to putting my 3 year old in the drivers seat of a Formula 1 car.

[Guest mkowl]

Good point, hypothetical of course but if the club was still a PLC and on the verge of a takeover the now owner of 10% of the shares would be Prince Charles

[DeeJayOne]

The blase attitude in some recent posts on this thread by some of the people in situ at the time of the problems is somewhat disconcerting. It smacks of brushing under the carpet rather than facing up to your collective responsibilities. If you take the position of director in whatever guise its called and then seek to finger point then you shouldn't take the position in the first instance

MOVE ALONG NOW. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

[Guest BirdonaMaguire]

The silence from serving directors is comical.

DAZ..... where are you, you slimy ****, you cosying up to club9?

Edited September 7, 2014 by BirdonaMaguire

[Guest Deleted member]

Whether people think I am stirring or not, the point is that by not dealing with "minor administrative paperwork" there is a real risk that the money in the pot at the date of dissolution could be lost. There is a presumption that everything will be fine and for everyone's sake I hope that is the case, but what if not.

 

The blase attitude in some recent posts on this thread by some of the people in situ at the time of the problems is somewhat disconcerting. It smacks of brushing under the carpet rather than facing up to your collective responsibilities. If you take the position of director in whatever guise its called and then seek to finger point then you shouldn't take the position in the first instance

 

I hope thats not a reference to me.

 

Yes Ive had a bit of fun with Deejayone - but only because I've said I'm happy to wait for the legal advice - and for more information from the current board.

[DeeJayOne]

I've said I'm happy to wait for the legal advice - and for more information from the current board.

...about whether they can appropriate the c.£30k for the newco.

?

[Guest mkowl]

I hope thats not a reference to me.

 

Yes Ive had a bit of fun with Deejayone - but only because I've said I'm happy to wait for the legal advice - and for more information from the current board.

Nope its not - the other 2

[Guest mkowl]

...about whether they can appropriate the c.£30k for the newco.

?

Having done a bit of research albeit getting a definitive answer is tricky

 

1) Sheffield Wednesday Supporters Club Limited was de-registered by the FSA now FCA. Unfortunately the name does not appear on the current FCA mutuals register to check dates and the like, but from this thread around January 2013

 

2) De-registration seems to be different to dissolution - although the point I an struggling to verify is if a society is de-registered does that also mean it is dissolved. There does seem scope within the guidance that permits a society to continue but without the protection of the corporate status. However that is not 100% certain

 

3) It then says if a society is dissolved then it must either pass its assets to charity or to a society with similar objectives

 

So Wednesdayite was possibly permitted to continue as a society but with no legal structure around it to protect members or the board members. Anything had gone wrong then folk potentially would have been personally liable.

 

Therefore if de-registration does not equal dissolution then Wednesdayite could continue to operate as before albeit the change of status should probably have been flagged up.

 

If Wednesdayite now wants to convert to Wednesdayite Limited then that is a dissolution of the society, there would be a new constitution. This requires the society to deal with the distribution of assets on dissolution as set out in its rules, which I believe Nigel has posted. The good news for us republicans is that Prince Charles does not have any rights to the money as it only applies to companies regulated under the Companies Act

 

Now I am no lawyer and I have expressed reservations about one aspect of this, but hopefully the good news is that Wednesdayite could retain control of funds post the de-registration but I see no automatic right for Wednesdayite Limited to benefit from a dissolution of assets on its dissolution because of what is said in its own rules

[Utah Owl]

The silence from serving directors is comical.

DAZ..... where are you, you slimy ****, you cosying up to club9?

No agenda here is there? Not much!

 

Ever occurred to you that the majority of the board might be as Nigel has said waiting on legal advice before commenting?

 

Also why do you want to hang Daz and nobody else out to dry, you are always the first to single him out?

 

Seems to me all you are interested in is finding a scapegoat rather than finding out the answers to some very pertinent questions.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Big Malc

[Utah Owl]

Recently both of you have offered to step down from your roles on the board if I put myself forward to replace you well how's this for a scenario.

I will stand, along with eDDie, Grandad and Rich Davies, will you step down?

Well did you?