Are Otium Directors breaking the law? (1 Viewer)

[Noggin]

More shit. Best interests at heart is by your own interpretation illegal as revenue is key. Attracting an alternative tenant would be the only thing they could do as they would have to maximise revenue. Free rent deals would, by your own assumption, be illegal. I assume you believe ACL were acting illegally by offering a free rent deal?

I have no idea what you are on about? I assume you are saying that because directors have to act in the best interests of their company that offering a free rent deal is breaking that? that is clearly not the case as ACL benefit from the football club being their even without any rent being paid and you know that.

Otium (CCFC) have purposefully chosen a course of action that dramatically cuts their revenue, I'm asking how this can be in the best interests of the company, you just like Fisher seem unable to answer that, just like Fisher you prefer to try and swift the topic elsewhere.

 

---

[Grendel]

I have no idea what you are on about? I assume you are saying that because directors have to act in the best interests of their company that offering a free rent deal is breaking that? that is clearly not the case as ACL benefit from the football club being their even without any rent being paid and you know that.

Otium (CCFC) have purposefully chosen a course of action that dramatically cuts their revenue, I'm asking how this can be in the best interests of the company, you just like Fisher seem unable to answer that, just like Fisher you prefer to try and swift the topic elsewhere.

Ok let's entertain this argument for a second. Ill ask you this

If a business has been in business for 130 years and sold its premises 10 years ago and has been renting premises since and has suffered two near bankruptcies whole renting what's in the best interest for the next 130 years?

Owning premises
Renting premises

 

[The Gentleman]

Ok let's entertain this argument for a second. Ill ask you this

If a business has been in business for 130 years and sold its premises 10 years ago and has been renting premises since and has suffered two near bankruptcies whole renting what's in the best interest for the next 130 years?

Owning premises
Renting premises

With Sisu/Otium as owners, what exactly will CCFC own, or will we in fact still be renting?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes but what if that company was near bankruptcy when it did own its own ground? and then sold it to build a new one, but never had the money due to being 40 million in debt and had to go to a charity to ask for help? and then screwed that charity and even took it to court to get their assists for free?

Ok let's entertain this argument for a second. Ill ask you this

If a business has been in business for 130 years and sold its premises 10 years ago and has been renting premises since and has suffered two near bankruptcies whole renting what's in the best interest for the next 130 years?

Owning premises
Renting premises

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

I don't accept they can argue that successfully, they can only argue it when unchallenged, there is no way they can demonstrate that their actions are in the long term best interests of the club because they simply aren't. There is absolutely no legitimate argument against taking the free rent at the ricoh for this year and next.

Id suggest that whether you or I think it's a valid argument is largely irrelevant.

Would expensive, articulate and educated lawyers be able to convince the relevant authorities that the long term argument was valid?

Who would be in a position to bring about any such enquiry in any event? Shareholders. Investors. Most definitely. Bodies that have outstanding loans or mortgages. Likely. Anyone else? Not that I'm aware.

 

[The Reverend Skyblue]

We all know surely that the club will not own the new stadium,fisher has said this. it will have to pay rent , or whatever Sisu will call it

 

[letsallsingtogether]

If Sisu build it what right have CCFC to own it? well they won't give them the lease will they? they will have a rent rising deal keeping money generated from ticket sales...
After all someone has to pay for AEG to run the Arena and conference and hotel facilities built in and around the ground, investors have to get their cut...

We all know surely that the club will not own the new stadium,fisher has said this. it will have to pay rent , or whatever Sisu will call it

 

[Noggin]

Ok let's entertain this argument for a second. Ill ask you this

If a business has been in business for 130 years and sold its premises 10 years ago and has been renting premises since and has suffered two near bankruptcies whole renting what's in the best interest for the next 130 years?

Owning premises
Renting premises

like I said you like fisher can't answer the question and so try to deflect.

The stadium plan is not even in the interest of Coventry city even over the next 130 years and it's certainly not in the interest over the next 1, 10 and 25 years and even if it was, spending the period of time building it in northampton rather than in Coventry certainly isn't.

 

[Noggin]

Id suggest that whether you or I think it's a valid argument is largely irrelevant.

Would expensive, articulate and educated lawyers be able to convince the relevant authorities that the long term argument was valid?

Who would be in a position to bring about any such enquiry in any event? Shareholders. Investors. Most definitely. Bodies that have outstanding loans or mortgages. Likely. Anyone else? Not that I'm aware.

Sure and it's quite possible the authorities would fall for it, we've certainly seen the football league fall for arguments even a child could see through.

But I wasn't asking weather we can bring sisu to account, I was just asking if Otium directors are fulfilling their duties?

 

[Grendel]

Sure and it's quite possible the authorities would fall for it, we've certainly seen the football league fall for arguments even a child could see through.

But I wasn't asking weather we can bring sisu to account, I was just asking if Otium directors are fulfilling their duties?

Yes as their duties are to otium investors.

This thread should be closed.

 

[cloughie]

Yes but what if that company was near bankruptcy when it did own its own ground? and then sold it to build a new one, but never had the money due to being 40 million in debt and had to go to a charity to ask for help? and then screwed that charity and even took it to court to get their assists for free?

Yep but that okay by some idiots who believe a hedgefund should benefit( GET THE RICOH on the cheap) and the the club will still rent
All is good in some simpletons world

 

[Noggin]

Yes as their duties are to otium investors.

This thread should be closed.

No, their first duty is to the success of the company
1. To promote the success of the company

This is one of the most significant changes brought about by the Act in terms of a director's duties. It is now the duty of a director to act in a way that s/he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company and consequently for the benefit of its members as a whole.
Whilst "success" is not defined in the Act, directors should consider a number of factors, among which are:

• the interests of the company's employees
• the likely long-term consequences of their decisions
• the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
• the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment
• the desirability of maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct
• the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

This list, which is not exhaustive, is subject to any relevant existing law. So, for example, if a company faces potential insolvency, the directors must not only act in a way that promotes the success of the company but also in a way that is in the best interests of its creditors.
Directors would be well advised to document that they have paid proper regard to the factors which constitute the promotion of a company's success.

They also have to


3. To exercise independent judgment

Although directors will still be able to consult experts on various matters, the responsibility for decisions taken vests with the directors and they must exercise their own judgment in deciding whether to follow the advice of a third party.

and


5. To avoid conflicts of interest

A director must actively avoid situations in which s/he has, or could have, an interest (whether direct or indirect) that conflicts, or may conflict, with the interests of the company. For private companies formed on or after 1 October 2008, the Act does, however, allow an independent quorum of directors to authorise such conflicts as long as the company's constitution does not expressly prevent them from doing so. For private companies formed before 1 October 2008, there is an additional requirement that their members have passed a resolution authorising the directors to approve such conflicts. Public companies must have express authority in their articles for directors to approve conflicts.

Of course doing what is best for the company is often what is best for the investors, but it doesn't so in this case. Investors are not mentioned in any of their 7 main dutys.

 

[cloughie]

Yes as their duties are to otium investors.

This thread should be closed.

Why because you have been shown to be factually wrong Morally wrong and a complete anti Coventry City Fan

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Why because you don't have the answer as usual.
Shown you up for what you really are?

.

This thread should be closed.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

No, their first duty is to the success of the company
1. To promote the success of the company

This is one of the most significant changes brought about by the Act in terms of a director's duties. It is now the duty of a director to act in a way that s/he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company and consequently for the benefit of its members as a whole.
Whilst "success" is not defined in the Act, directors should consider a number of factors, among which are:

• the interests of the company's employees
• the likely long-term consequences of their decisions
• the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
• the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment
• the desirability of maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct
• the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

This list, which is not exhaustive, is subject to any relevant existing law. So, for example, if a company faces potential insolvency, the directors must not only act in a way that promotes the success of the company but also in a way that is in the best interests of its creditors.
Directors would be well advised to document that they have paid proper regard to the factors which constitute the promotion of a company's success.

They also have to


3. To exercise independent judgment

Although directors will still be able to consult experts on various matters, the responsibility for decisions taken vests with the directors and they must exercise their own judgment in deciding whether to follow the advice of a third party.

and


5. To avoid conflicts of interest

A director must actively avoid situations in which s/he has, or could have, an interest (whether direct or indirect) that conflicts, or may conflict, with the interests of the company. For private companies formed on or after 1 October 2008, the Act does, however, allow an independent quorum of directors to authorise such conflicts as long as the company's constitution does not expressly prevent them from doing so. For private companies formed before 1 October 2008, there is an additional requirement that their members have passed a resolution authorising the directors to approve such conflicts. Public companies must have express authority in their articles for directors to approve conflicts.

Of course doing what is best for the company is often what is best for the investors, but it doesn't so in this case. Investors are not mentioned in any of their 7 main dutys.

Seems they've got most of that right then:facepalm: