|
|
 rancido |
| September 23, 2011, 12:08pm |
|
|
Posts: 7,529
Posts Per Day: 1.26
Reputation: 80.3%
Rep Score: +41 / -10
Approval: +6,653
Gold Stars: 101
|
The big mistake you are making is that you believe the situation can be resolved and that both can play an active role in owning and running the club.
Consider this...
Parker doesn't like Fenty and how he ran the club as Chairman. Parker has absolutely no desire to work in tandem with Fenty. Fenty would like to have control of the football club back. But he can't do it in a way that is remotely satisfactory to himself- even if he bought another 630,000 shares Parker would still own 40% of the club and wouldn't offer any funding. Fenty would be left owning 50% v Parker 40% but funding 100%- NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
Parker holds all the aces. Also consider that Fenty has political ambitions- he will almost certainly stand as an MP at the next election. Would be viewed as very bad form if he was holding the club to ransom over his loans and endangering the local communities only professional Football Club.
If that was the case then why join the board in the first place and be Joint Chairman with JF ? |
| The Future is Black & White.
"The commonest thing on this planet is not water , as some people believe, but stupidity ". Frank Zappa |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quagmire |
| September 23, 2011, 12:28pm |
|
 Table Wine Drinker  Posts: 782
Posts Per Day: 0.13
Reputation: 93.41%
Rep Score: +19 / 0
Approval: +932
Gold Stars: 43
|
If that was the case then why join the board in the first place and be Joint Chairman with JF ?
I suppose only by working with someone do you get the true picture about how (badly) things are run. |
|
|
|
|
|
| GollyGTFC |
| September 23, 2011, 12:33pm |
|
 Whiskey Drinker  Posts: 3,974
Posts Per Day: 0.69
Reputation: 67.2%
Rep Score: +19 / -11
Approval: +6,057
Gold Stars: 358
|
If that was the case then why join the board in the first place and be Joint Chairman with JF ?
He was vice Chairman, not joint Chairman. And like Quagmire said, knowing someone and working with someone is a completely different proposition. Relationships breakdown irreversably in all walks of life. |
|
|
|
|
|
 ginnywings |
| September 23, 2011, 12:38pm |
|
 Recovering Alcoholic  Posts: 28,151
Posts Per Day: 5.02
Reputation: 73.79%
Rep Score: +88 / -32
Approval: +56,154
Gold Stars: 548
|
Surprised at this post.
Isnt it common knowledge that the boundary for the current great Grimsby constituency is to be moved into Cleethorpes, taking into account up to and including part of St Peters Ave.
It will leave Gy an even greater labour stronghold and strengthen the conservative hold over clee
That's the way i saw it.I live in Sidney Sussex ward and it is to be part of Grimsby at the next election,i'm led to believe.I would imagine there are more Labour voters in this area than Conservatives,so as you say,that strengthens the Tories in Cleethorpes and just makes Grimsby even more Labour. |
|
 Logged |
Online |
|
|
|
| grimsby pete |
| September 23, 2011, 12:38pm |
|
 Exile Posts: 55,762
Posts Per Day: 9.79
Reputation: 81.7%
Rep Score: +126 / -28
Location: Suffolk
Approval: +17,835
Gold Stars: 222
|
Question for John Fenty,
When you gave Grimsby Town FC. a loan or loans, you must have done a legal transfer from your bank,
What does it say on the documents ?
1. I do not want these loans to be payed back ever.
2. I can ask for my money back at any time,
OR
3. I will only ask for my money back if I am no longer on the board.
|
| Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner.
68 Years following the Town
Life member of Trust
First game April 1955
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 80sglory |
| September 23, 2011, 2:44pm |
|
Guest User |
The big mistake you are making is that you believe the situation can be resolved and that both can play an active role in owning and running the club.
Like you, I don't believe they can both play an active role in running the club. (well not in together !) Owning not sure... When I said resolved I meant get answers to try to move things along asap, not bring in ACAS to act as mediator.
Consider this...
Parker doesn't like Fenty and how he ran the club as Chairman. Parker has absolutely no desire to work in tandem with Fenty. Fenty would like to have control of the football club back. But he can't do it in a way that is remotely satisfactory to himself- even if he bought another 630,000 shares Parker would still own 40% of the club and wouldn't offer any funding. Fenty would be left owning 50% v Parker 40% but funding 100%- NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
Yes I already know !
Parker holds all the aces.
Not so sure about that - as it is, Parker is outside the boardroom. He may be holding the aces but someones just raised the stakes and it might cost him more than he'd like to call. Also will the investigation force him to acquire or relinquish shareolding ?
Also consider that Fenty has political ambitions- he will almost certainly stand as an MP at the next election.
Would be viewed as very bad form if he was holding the club to ransom over his loans and endangering the local communities only professional Football Club.
If that's true it's a cracking point... |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| DJ Mera |
| September 23, 2011, 3:05pm |
|
Exile
Posts: 635
Posts Per Day: 0.12
Reputation: 93.17%
Rep Score: +18 / 0
Location: Windermere
Approval: +1
|
To Both - The Takeover Board or whatever their called knew about this situation months ago so why as it come to an head now?
To MP Why if you have no interest in being Chairman did you invest so much in GTFC?
To JF Under what circumstances would or could you return as Chairman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 80sglory |
| September 23, 2011, 3:45pm |
|
Guest User |
To Both - The Takeover Board or whatever their called knew about this situation months ago so why as it come to an head now?
Why has it come to a head now is a valid question when majority control lied outside the boardroom when Parker resigned, but unless you can provide evidence there's no reason to think the TB knew about this situation months ago ?
To MP Why if you have no interest in being Chairman did you invest so much in GTFC?
To JF Under what circumstances would or could you return as Chairman?
Like those. Interesting to note when Parker was asked "Why then have you become the majority shareholder if you don't want to run the club ?" he came back with an answer specifically about how his "majority shareholding" had arisen. (tbf it was right he did) If you ask a question about the chairmanship he may do the same thing - talk about that and mention he was happy to share decisions with John until he left, then say his circumstances have changed. I presume what you're getting at is whether he wants the power to control the club ? Your question is a fair one but I would ask: "Why did you agree to put money into the club when you were no longer on the board and why won't you rule out putting future money into the club from outside the boardroom ?" ? If he says he wanted/wants to protect GTFC etc, then he's putting himself under a sense of obligation to do the same in the future ?  |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| tarka |
| September 23, 2011, 3:55pm |
|
Table Wine Drinker Posts: 727
Posts Per Day: 0.12
Reputation: 79.9%
Rep Score: +8 / -2
Location: Grimsby
Approval: +895
Gold Stars: 29
|
Quoted from 1600
Why has it come to a head now is a valid question when majority control lied outside the boardroom when Parker resigned, but unless you can provide evidence there's no reason to think the TB knew about this situation months ago ? [/b]As I understand it (and, believe me, I am no expert!) the TB are automatically alerted whenever a transfer of shares over the value of £100,000 takes place.[b]Like those. Interesting to note when Parker was asked "Why then have you become the majority shareholder if you don't want to run the club ?" he came back with an answer specifically about how his "majority shareholding" had arisen. (tbf it was right he did) If you ask a question about the chairmanship he may do the same thing - talk about that and mention he was happy to share decisions with John until he left, then say his circumstances have changed. I presume what you're getting at is whether he wants the power to control the club ? Your question is a fair one but I would ask: "Why did you agree to put money into the club when you were no longer on the board and why won't you rule out putting future money into the club from outside the boardroom ?" ? The question I would ask is a) why did he leave the board (with the hope of a specific answer rather than his previous answer) and b) Why did he agree to share the financial agreement with JF a year ago but now feels it necessary to limit that to the end of the season. That isn't what he said before!If he says he wanted/wants to protect GTFC etc, then he's putting himself under a sense of obligation to do the same in the future ? Fair point!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 80sglory |
| September 23, 2011, 4:08pm |
|
Guest User |
Urrrgghh !  (oh you've changed it now ! ) You say: "As I understand it (and, believe me, I am no expert!) the TB are automatically alerted whenever a transfer of shares over the value of £100,000 takes place." Presumably that happened months ago so they just have been slow to react ? Note Parker was asked: "How long have the take over panel been involved in looking at this and who got them involved in the first place?" MP: "Well I can't answer the second question because I just don't know, I have had conversations with them over the last few days, clearly John makes reference in his statement that he's had conversations as well." Tarka you ask: "b) Why did he agree to share the financial agreement with JF a year ago but now feels it necessary to limit that to the end of the season. That isn't what he said before!" What did he say then ? |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
rancido
ginnywings
Logged
(oh you've changed it now ! 