A couple of questions regarding our boardroom changes

If the other club directors were so unhappy with Paul Conway's behaviour and disagreed with what he was saying and doing could they not have spoken out against him? I'm sure I've seen company directors make statements that go against the chairman before.

If Conway and Lee had a 4 year term for representing the views of the investors and they took over in December 2017, why were they not ousted in December 2021 if the investors had been unhappy with their performance for as long as we are led to believe?

Andrew Clark was made a director earlier in the season yet when the club announced changes at board level they listed all the directors and he wasn't mentioned. The website currently has no mention of him as a director either. Does this mean he isn't a director?

Yes I know couple means two but I just thought of the Andrew Clark one after and included it.

 

Other than Parekh I believe all the other directors were employees of the club, meaning Conwy and Lee could sack them from their jobs. Kinda makes it hard to speak out. For all we know they did have a strong words in board meetings but hard to see what they could do beyond that. A public statement doesn’t change anything, would just be virtue signalling. They’ve taken action when they could

 

All good questions, and ones that unless the Directors mentioned are willing to share details (given how Parekh politely shut down anything delving too deep into shareholder/director relations I think is unlikely) we're probably not going to find out.

I would expect once Parekh and/or Cryne found out about the nominee status there was a period of time to get in touch with those people, cultivate a relationship, likely negotiate something to allow a transfer of allegiance and alter the board room dynamic. But yes, I'd very much like to know more about that too.

As for the Director point, you can be titled as a Director but not necessarily listed at Companies House as such, and it's down to an individual company who it gives board status to.

 

I think I read somewhere that the delay from Christmas was all about getting the new vote organised etc. Probably the reason why nobody's heard from Paul Conway as he realised he was about to be ousted

 

I think one of the biggest problems with the previous directors was their desire to wash their dirty laundry in public.

If the new directors aren’t doing the same, I’m afraid that’s an improvement in my book.

It’s a common misconception that greater transparency = greater trust. The old adage ‘you don’t want to know what they put in the sausage’ comes to mind.

Let’s judge them by their actions, it might even catch on as a catchphrase

 

They did..and they have, a couple of weeks ago now.

 

It was stated quite clearly. The decision wasn't made overnight and had been discussed over many months. It was kept behind closed doors until things were finalised. Nothing i wouldn't expect from any business with integrity.

 

Agree.

Whilst a little transparency is nice at times, we all have to understand that it’s not professional to reveal all details involved. Also as Directors, they still have a duty still to shareholders and can’t be seen to be slagging them off.

I suspect the biggest issue was Conway, and not Chien Lee. Which in the current setup works well - as Conway has only minimal shares.