Cranfield Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Think I might have been a bit too subtle for you
Oh the irony of my stupidity..... Bad day, sorry!
hoffman (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter quinn1971
- Start date
Oh the irony of my stupidity..... Bad day, sorry!
You see him at most away games with joe. They are fans who want to see this club doing good again.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Bluegloucester
New Member
No he wasn't, he was a non executive board member and vice chairman.
Sky Blues Millie
New Member
When Mr Hoffman resigned as Vice Chairman and Executive Board member, he was still an Associate Director which is an honourary position that allows you to sit in the Boardroom.
It is likely that the Sisu appointed Directors asked him not to sit in the Boardroom at this time.
Perhaps Mr Dulieu, Mr Igwe, and Mr Hoffman had some differences of opinion on how best to run the club.
It is likely that the Sisu appointed Directors asked him not to sit in the Boardroom at this time.
Perhaps Mr Dulieu, Mr Igwe, and Mr Hoffman had some differences of opinion on how best to run the club.
Bluegloucester
New Member
Gary was never an executive director.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Don't believe Sisu have any bridges left to cross only one direction for them(not the Band) Don't bother closing the door......:blue:
Correct. He was a Non Executive Director (NED). Should there be one or two who are not familiar with the work and responsibilities of a NED here is a short description from wiki:
Strategy: Non-executive directors should constructively challenge and contribute to the development of strategy.
Performance: Non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitoring and where necessary removing senior management, and in succession planning.
Risk: Non-executive directors should satisfy themselves that financial information is accurate and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible.
People: Non-executive directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors and have a prime role in appointing and where necessary removing senior management, and in succession planning.
NEDs should also provide independent views on:
- Resources
- Appointments
- Standards of conduct
Non-executive directors are the custodians of the governance process. They are not involved in the day-to-day running of business but monitor the executive activity and contribute to the development of strategy.
So Hoffman was directly responsible for the strategy, planning and overall economy of the club. He was also responsible for overseeing the executive officers - like the CEO, who was Ray Ranson!
How Hoffman can escape responsibility for the the first three years since takeover is really puzzling!
covboy1987
Well-Known Member
If Gary Hoffman was directly responsible for strategy, planning, of the club and the company concerned do not follow his advice which apparently was set out in a detailed plan then how can Gary Hoffman be anyway responsible as he cannot make them follow the advice he can only advise.
Everyone now see's what Gary was dealing with as these people who do not take a blind bit of notice of what anyone says and have their own agenda. Ray Ranson resigned because they did not follow the plan
We are unbelievably lucky to have someone of Gary Hoffman's pedigree anywhere near this situation as large banking institutes, the government, Richard Branson to name a few have all sort his advice and probably paid enormous sums and he now possibly has the top job in football 'Premier league chairman 'The Lionel messy of the financial and banking world' If i were Gary Hoffman summing up his dealings with SISU i would be saying 'You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Turning verbal cartwheels now in an attempt to justify your longstanding position.
You quote - "They are not involved in the day-to-day running of business but monitor the executive activity and contribute to the development of strategy." and then, somewhat amazingly, move from "monitor" and "contribute" to "So Hoffman was directly responsible for the strategy, planning and overall economy of the club". One is left to wonder why businesses bother to have executive directors when NEDs are "directly responsible" for everything that matters.
Why don't you just say "I don't like him and I'm going to throw mud at him" - it'd be a lot more honest.
The board (normally only populated by NED's, but in this case include the CEO, who was also a minority shareholder ... what a mess!!!) contribute to the developing and monitor the strategy.
In short all preparations and the main core of the strategy is presented to the board by the CEO. The board will consider if the strategy is the best way for the company and within the shareholders expectations. The board then 'suggests' adjustments if necessary and approve the strategy, the budgets and the overall goals and objectivities.
As the plan is executed the board oversee's that there are no deviations that put the goals or objectivities at risk. If they see signs of deviations (failing income for instance) it is their duty to make sure the CEO take actions to get back on track ... and if the CEO is incapable (or the board don't believe he is capable) of doing this it is their responsibility to have him replaced with someone who can.
Ranson said the goals and objectives were:
1: Stabilize the economy of the club - bring the losses under control
2: Get promoted to Premier League
3: Buy the Higgs shares in ACL.
He failed pretty early on his first objective as income declined and costs were not cut accordingly.
As the board never relieved Ranson from duty and failed to secure financial stability of the club ... the board failed their duties.
Hoffman dodges his responsibility blaming the shareholders. But did the shareholders back down on their initial funding commitment? I haven't seen any evidense so support this.
Sisu did cut off funding when the three year plan ran out with no goals or objectives achieved and by doing so effectively forced the board to resign or put the club in administration. They resigned, and the shareholders put in new funding and new board members.
(This is clearly happening again, only this time the board has chosen administration instead of resigning).
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
My first Board position was in 1989 (if you ignore the 4 years prior to that attending Board meetings as Company Secretary) so I have a reasonable idea of how corporate governance operates, both in theory and in practice.
In the world that I've lived in, strategy is prepared by Executive Directors, with input and comment invited from NEDs. Sometimes that input is listened to and sometimes it isn't. If it isn't, the NED has to decide how upset he/she is about it - if they're really upset the only real sanction is to resign (unless you're dealing with a regulated company of course). In the case of a PE owned company, the only vote that eventually counts is that of the majority shareholder - and nothing wrong with that, they'd be crazy not to retain that power.
Do you really think that the Board "chose" administration? Or to phrase the question slightly more directly, do you really think that administration would have happened if Joy hadn't agreed to it?
Set to be named today according to The Sun...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...fman-to-be-named-Premier-League-chairman.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...fman-to-be-named-Premier-League-chairman.html
J
