Couple of questions

1) What was Parkers shareholding BEFORE he increased it to just under 54% ? Over 50% or not ?

2) Does Parker increasing his shareholding give him added voting rights ? If so when are they used ? At the AGM ?

If anyone knows the answers I'd be grateful....

The answer to 1) is less than 50%. It was the exact same as Fenty, but had to be less than 50 as there are other shareholders. Don't know about 2).

Can Mike Parker choose his own board members does this depend on if they were bought out?

Didn't it say in the GET that JF will remain in the boardroom but taking a back seat if so surely this would cause a conflict of interest being an ex Chairman?

Thanks bax

Meza, good questions !
All I know is the boardroom is "one member one vote" but I'd love to know those answers too !
How do you get the clingers on out of the boardroom if they don't want to go ?
I also don't understand how Fenty's offer to Parker to be chairman necessarily changes anything IF the board are "with Fenty" ?

IMO there is no chance Parker would work with Elsom and Chapman as board members - pls  correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't it them exerting their  voting 'rights', despite their alleged miniscule financial investments in the club compared to Parkers, and  also their rumoured  'ties' to JF, that made him cut and run from the board earlier this year?

Members of the Board who are up for re-election will put themselves forward at the next AGM on a show of hands.  I assume that if Mike Parker disapproves of any vote he can ask for a vote where shares are taken into account.

How many shares do you need to put your hand up/vote at the AGM ?

I don't think there is a minimum.

I could be wrong Tarka, because i freely admit i do not know the corporate way that Boards work, particularly GTFC's,
but my own take, rightly or wrongly from MP's departure  from the board was a grievance with the 1 man 1 vote of the board, irrespective of shareholdings and the  inference that Elsom and Chapman were there purely to support JF in such an arrangement.

Was Mike Parker, the Parker off Thunderbirds?

Quoted from petethemariner

I could be wrong Tarka, because i freely admit i do not know the corporate way that Boards work, particularly GTFC's,
but my own take, rightly or wrongly from MP's departure  from the board was a grievance with the 1 man 1 vote of the board, irrespective of shareholdings and the  inference that Elsom and Chapman were there purely to support JF in such an arrangement.

Well if that was the case Pete (and frankly I don't think it was anything like the whole story) MP now has a sufficient shareholding to change the voting process at Board level.  He effectively owns the Club.

The rule is one man one vote with the chairman having a casting vote if it is tied. But anyone can call for a poll and then it is shares versus shares which means the controlling shareholder wins. Easy as that.

If anyone gains 75% of the shares, the other shareholders are surplus, and he can do whatever he likes without consulting them, which was what I hoped the Trust could have avoided by gaining 26% of shares. They did not do that and so that remains a problem.

Fent should start buying shares again and get back in control.

Quoted from billo

The rule is one man one vote with the chairman having a casting vote if it is tied. But anyone can call for a poll and then it is shares versus shares which means the controlling shareholder wins. Easy as that.

If anyone gains 75% of the shares, the other shareholders are surplus, and he can do whatever he likes without consulting them, which was what I hoped the Trust could have avoided by gaining 26% of shares. They did notm do that and so that remains a problem.

Fent should start buying shares again and get back in control.

Oh god please don't do  that john, unless he appoints someone who knows what they are doing.....oh wait  

Which one is it ?
Controlling shareholder or 75% ?

Parker has a controlling interest. No one has complete control with 75%.

I do agree that JF cannot continue as it is and it was inevitable that MP would return, now if the boardroom is being shaking up let's atleast get these cling on's out because they do not offer anything towards GTFC except that they are JF vote buddies.  Doesn't the board need atleast a min of 3 directors in order to run?

Quoted from Meza

I do agree that JF cannot continue as it is and it was inevitable that MP would return, now if the boardroom is being shaking up let's atleast get these cling ons out because they do not offer anything towards GTFC except that they are JF vote buddies.  Doesn't the board need at least a min of 3 directors in order to run?

good post thease are very interesting times and I do believe that Mike Parker is the right man.UTMM.

I am not sure who is "forcing the hand" of who here. Fenty could be playing the "put up" or shut up card, saying I am not putting more money in while you are on the sidelines. Or, Parker could be forcing Fenty to step down as chairman now he has a majority shareholding. Cannot be good to be a major shareholder and not have a say in the board. Either way it is to be hoped that they both put a high value in maintaining GTFC as a football club, rather than their own private interests. It is to be hoped that MP can come up with funds to support the club, as I can forsee JF saying thats it from me as far as bankrolling the club is concerned. In a power struggle there are always casualties, lets hope it is not the club itself,

Quoted from oldun

I am not sure who is "forcing the hand" of who here. Fenty could be playing the "put up" or shut up card, saying I am not putting more money in while you are on the sidelines. Or, Parker could be forcing Fenty to step down as chairman now he has a majority shareholding. Cannot be good to be a major shareholder and not have a say in the board. Either way it is to be hoped that they both put a high value in maintaining GTFC as a football club, rather than their own private interests. It is to be hoped that MP can come up with funds to support the club, as I can forsee JF saying thats it from me as far as bankrolling the club is concerned. In a power struggle there are always casualties, lets hope it is not the club itself,

fenty made a personal choice rather than employ the best man at the time(slade) when he gave woods the job.lets face it though hes been edging to get away for yonks he s accepted he cant get the big decisions right but in true tory style twisted it in his official statement

Quoted from oldun

I am not sure who is "forcing the hand" of who here. Fenty could be playing the "put up" or shut up card, saying I am not putting more money in while you are on the sidelines. Or, Parker could be forcing Fenty to step down as chairman now he has a majority shareholding. Cannot be good to be a major shareholder and not have a say in the board. Either way it is to be hoped that they both put a high value in maintaining GTFC as a football club, rather than their own private interests. It is to be hoped that MP can come up with funds to support the club, as I can forsee JF saying thats it from me as far as bankrolling the club is concerned. In a power struggle there are always casualties, lets hope it is not the club itself,

I certainly wouldn't argue with that...as the two major shareholders (by a country mile) it would make sense that they work together on this...somehow I don't get the impression that this is going to happen though.

Quoted from dapperz fun pub

fenty made a personal choice rather than employ the best man at the time(slade) when he gave woods the job.lets face it though hes been edging to get away for yonks he s accepted he cant get the big decisions right but in true tory style twisted it in his official statement

Not true! John had no axe to grind regarding Slade and would of chose him over Neil. It was a board decision of which Mike had a say in.  UTM!

Quoted from sonik

Not true! John had no axe to grind regarding Slade and would of chose him over Neil. It was a board decision of which Mike had a say in.  UTM!

Interesting point and puts Slades original departure into perspective. If , as is frequently mentioned on here , Slade left because JF did the dirty on him as regards his contract then why would he apply to come back. If I was done the dirty by some firm over my contract then I would never consider returning there because I would never trust them.

Exactly, but it's all too easy to ignore that and just blame Fenty anyway.

I'm amazed he's put up with it for as long as he has, he is human and has a family all of wwom appear to be fair game to some people. Can't see that Id want to put myself or my family through that like he has.

Quoted from sonik

Not true! John had no axe to grind regarding Slade and would of chose him over Neil. It was a board decision of which Mike had a say in.  UTM!

Thanks Sonik - I think this might give an insight into the various goings-on last February (and maybe one of the reasons for the subsequent Board changes)

I think it also gives an insight into MP's ability to get things wrong as much as JF.  We are all human and make errors of misjudgement.

Quoted from sonik

Not true! John had no axe to grind regarding Slade and would of chose him over Neil. It was a board decision of which Mike had a say in.  UTM!

It's unusual for Marinette to get hold of the wrong end of the stick but I was just looking back at some old posts and found this post...

I'm not so sure about the Slade bit.  I remember Sonik being very clear and very forthright, saying no way was JF going to appoint Slade, after what had gone on last time.

http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1305533704/s-60/

Quoted from FishOutOfWater

It's unusual for Marinette to get hold of the wrong end of the stick but I was just looking back at some old posts and found this post...

I'm not so sure about the Slade bit.  I remember Sonik being very clear and very forthright, saying no way was JF going to appoint Slade, after what had gone on last time.

http://www.thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1305533704/s-60/

Which, as I understand it, was the reason why the rest of the Board didn't want Slade.  JF was prepared to put that to one side in the hope of keeping us in the league.

Quoted Text

Which, as I understand it, was the reason why the rest of the Board didn't want Slade.  JF was prepared to put that to one side in the hope of keeping us in the league.

Excuse me, but just because someone didn't want Slade back doesn't make the eventual appointment of Woods the right decision does it?

Quoted from thebigeasy

Excuse me, but just because someone didn't want Slade back doesn't make the eventual appointment of Woods the right decision does it?

And where did I say that?

Quoted Text

And where did I say that?

You didn't - it just seemd to me that is where the debate was headed.

Quoted from thebigeasy

Excuse me, but just because someone didn't want Slade back doesn't make the eventual appointment of Woods the right decision does it?

The Bigeasy is getting a littleuneasy I notice

Quoted from thebigeasy

You didn't - it just seemd to me that is where the debate was headed.

Not from me it wasn't.

Quoted from thebigeasy

You didn't - it just seemd to me that is where the debate was headed.

See into the future can you ?  In that case can I have Friday's Euro Lottery numbers please and then I can really help the club.