fnety's statement - a load of tosh

The statement reads:

Further to Mr Parker’s interview with Radio Humberside, I feel obliged to clarify a few points regarding the relationship and where there has been breakdown.

Mr Parker should not be surprised at my statement, it followed a succinct email exchange last week which clarified he had no intention of returning as a director in GTFC at this stage and it should not be assumed, that he would provide further funding to the Club.

It might be remembered that I held 51% shareholding in GTFC before Mr Parker joined the board. This position maintained control of the Club within the board room. It might also be remembered that, before my time there had been 25 years of board room shareholder acrimony. I am pleased this wasn’t the case on my shift; the job is hard enough without that.

[color=blue]debateable to say the least - i don't remember 25 years of constant warfare, the majority of which time we were championship/div 1 level, not non league![/color]

When Mr Parker joined the board it was publically announced that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with me, support the financing of the Club. Soon after joining Mr Parker wanted to hold a stake in the Club and to be fair, I never wanted control and was pleased this day had come.

so why are you moaning about it now? particularly as you have called repeatedly for new people and new money to come on board

I relinquished control by diluting my 51% holding in the Club, when other shareholders supported a whitewash resolution, less than 12 months ago. This allowed Mr Parker and myself to jointly increase our shareholding to 500,000 shares each.

Over the 20 months that Mr Parker and I worked together, I can say the relationship was excellent. This he confirmed publically when he left the board on March the 1st 2011.

During the interview, Mr Parker denies he left on a single issue and casts doubt. It might be worth remembering that Mr Parker was responsible for Commercial, Marketing, Media, and the youth set up, he also worked closely with Neil Woods to a point that he attended virtually every meeting and often saw him separately, this was difficult to manage on occasions. Furthermore there wasn’t a player transaction which did not receive his full support.

they've obviously missed some text out (amateurs!) and none of this now makes any sense.

This all came about as a result of my willingness to share control with Mr Parker and also the decisions.

but thats what you'd been asking for!

When Mr Parker left the board, I was really disappointed that he discredited the remaining directors with waffle over voting and such nonsense. He unquestionably left on a minor issue. It was because Peter Furneaux resisted his overtures for him to leave the board with immediate effect.

i wouldn't call the ability of 2 minor shareholders to block the wishes of the decisions of a majority shareholder a minor issue.

Those comments, Mr Parker made, had the potential to lead to volatility and public disorder, when a large gathering of fans were waiting to lynch the remaining directors after being branded ‘not forward thinking’.

To throw directors to the fans in such away is unforgivable.

a total load of nonsense  - anyone would think there were thousands camping out in the car park armed to the teeth and equipped with nooses and gibbets!

Mr Parker made reference to the fact he didn’t like the process of the board, how the board was conducted, how it reached its decisions and therefore how the Club was run and that’s the reason he gave for stepped away from the board.

and you call that waffle and a minor issue??

I don’t need to remind anyone that The Grimsby Town Football Club is a public limited company and it must be stressed, it operates under company law and no other. The law which gives directors, one man one vote, after saying that it is unequivocally the case that Mr Parker liked to have his own way and got his own way, during his 20 months reign.

so are we now trying to say that the demise of gtfc over the last 3 years is actually parker's fault and nowt to do with you?

During Mr Parkers 20 months involvement as a director of the Club and with all of the responsibility he held for the running of the business, he never once complained to me about how the Club was run. The board never went against anything he wanted including the managerial appointment.

but with the casting vote, if things were tied that means that in anumber of instances you will have agreed with parker, otherwise you'd have voted him down

Mr Parker and I were acting in concert right up until the time he left the board of directors on the 1st of March 2011.

for the benefit of the takeover panel i presume

We had agreed to provide a ‘potential’ of £350,000 of loans each to cover the forecasted losses for this season. At that stage there was no intention to provide this financial support in return for shares in the company and the money would only be provided when and if actually required? The Club currently forecasts a further funding requirement towards the end of January and that can change dependant on gates and football fortune etc.

When Mr Parker left the board several things fundamentally changed. The concert party, he, and I working together (in Concert) had been broken. Share holder control did not sit within the board room. This was before any further shares had been issued.

I relinquished my controlling shareholding to Mr Parker because I believed he was genuinely in it for the long run.

Control now sits outside the board room, i.e. Mr Parker’s holding, plus other shareholders, now significantly out weight, the board’s shareholding.

Mr Parker then publicly requested to increase his shareholding by 500,000 shares. This was not a matter of providing funds for the cash flow requirements of the business; it clearly provided him with just under 54% and control. Assuming I acquired the same number of shares which was never discussed, control would still remain outside of the board room. Mr Parker suggested in the interview that I could equate, this does not solve the problem.

no,it might not solve the problem , but it maintains the staus quo - you only have to have the support of the majority of the 250,000 other shres and you are in control

Mr Parker’s leaving the board in such a public way, clearly left an impression to some, that he had an ulterior motive and fuelled heightened speculation regarding him taking over the Club, this has made my job as Chairman untenable.

can't remember this heightened speculation, or maybe i've forgotten the demos in parkers favour, the banners, the leaflets ,the media campaign etc in support of himtaking over. oh sorry i forgot that a couple of paoters on the fishy have idly speculated whether we might be better off with prker at the helm- truly overwhelming speculation

When Mr Parker left the Board, I was extremely disappointed and thereafter, in respect for his significant financial support to the Club, I did everything in my power to seek his re-election to the board.

There was a time when Mr Parker was considering rejoining the board of directors, but this was conditional upon several things, one of them was becoming the Chairman. (Supported by correspondence)

and why shouldn't he when you've said on more than 1 occasion that you had no problem with passing the mantle of responsibility over to someone new?

Mr Parker’s current position is that the Club should no longer assume his financial support and that he has ruled himself out of becoming a director at this time.

Further communications with Mr Parker, left me further up a gum tree, so to speak, when he acknowledged the difficulty regarding future financial requirements of the Club and the fans continued speculation of him taking over and said he was not fuelling this nor could do anything about it.

i refer to my previous note - all this 'continued speculation' amounts to a few posts on aforum - big deal!

By this time it was clear my Chairmanship had become untenable and standing down was the only option, as Mr Parker held the aces and still does.

Any agreement Mr Parker and I had to jointly fund the Club has materially broken down by his current position.

I have purposely restricted myself from verbal interview to ensure that what is said is considered and defendable.

'kin Hell forza! Are you '80's glory in disguise?! That was a very thorough dissection!

It's catching

Quoted from siy2k5

It's catching

  

Its actually made me feel that Mike Parker will take over - eventually. Surely he wouldn't have ploughed over a million squid in AND said he would come back on the board if he could be chairman if he didn't want to take over.

It's clearly all about how much its going to take to pay Fenty off.

Good work Forza.

Although you don't have to go to the lengths you have to find out the statement is a load of tosh, all I have been doing is scrolling down to the bottom where it reads:

Ends

John Fenty

probably why I'm I clueless to the whole situation  

Quoted from Super Clive

Good work Forza.

Can't agree with that I'm afraid. It's an absurdly one-sided and subjective response. You dont really challenge any of the facts, you just dismiss his grievances as unimportant - to him they clearly are important.

You don't have to agree with JF but don't attempt to dress up your dislike of him as thoughtful or clinical analysis.

My take is Parker wanted Fernaux out, Fenty did not but knew the fans supported Parker on this.
Fenty continually made overtures for a takeover, was his heart in it? only to get his money out maybe!. Hence not buying shares as agreed and not happy when Parker said he agreed to match his buy but did not, with now being in aposition to take control Parker decided he would shove it up Fenty and get someone else onboard to be Chairman/Chief Exec because Fenty actually wanted to stay in control.

This could all go terribly wrong because clearly Fenty is a control freak, maybe.

Quoted from forza ivano

Further communications with Mr Parker, left me further up a gum tree, so to speak,

What is a gum tree?  And how far has JF been up one?  And would it be possible for him to return to the aforementioned gum tree, climb up, and remain there for the next hundred years or so.

I think itts been clear that Fenty wanted someone to share the burden. Is that such a bad thing?

Course not Chris, but he's now moaning because someone did and wanted more of a say! Bonkers!!