SPFL - Doncaster getting his p45?

[yorkshireclaret]

Anyone else heard the rumour that Doncaster is on his way out at the SPFL? 

Seems he did not address the board members over possible conflict of interest regarding the new SPFL chairman  Murdoch MacLennan and his connections with two Celtic directors in another company.

Looks like the press will run the story tomorrow as other clubs including our own at not happy.

 

 

 

 

[weeyin]

Should have received his jotters a long time ago - for general incompetence while continuously downplaying the merits of our league.

[dunkhayton]

Whilst I would love this to be true - I think its a bit of a non-story.

Acting as a non-executive director on the board of a company that a Celtic director owns shares in isn't really a conflict of interest. Other than a fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders, there is no real linkage or dialogue between the post and a shareholder.

Every time Dave King opens his gob, it shows how little he knows/cares about corporate governance, regulation and takeover law.

The guy is a moron who got rich from founding a company to provide services to the  South African Apartheid government, then selling off his shares in secret due to the laughable disclosure laws out there at the time. When it collapsed, the big pension firms and asset managers that lost money tried to get him for misleading financial statements, but they couldn't make it stick.

Other than actually having made some money at some point (allbeit dodgily)  - he makes Craig Whyte look credible. 

Sadly, I think cockwomble Doncaster will ride out this little storm of h*n petulance just fine....

 

[daver]

That explanation sounds very sensible but it might come down to how much King wants to shout about it and for how long. 

[Guest]

.

[yorkshireclaret]

He is not a non executive. He is the chairman of the company INM and the chairman of the SPFL. Clear conflict of interest. 

 

Both Celtic directors owned a combined 45% of INM

Past Chairman has suggested INM should be run to suit Dermott Desmond and Dennis Obrien (celtic directors). (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/inm-should-be-run-for-denis-o-brien-and-dermot-desmond-1.3463823

INM then employ its new chairman who just happens to be the chairman of the SPFL

 

If you dont think our club is right to think their is a conflict of interest then the game is a bogey.

 

Too make it a bit easier if you have a slight soft spot for the other arse cheek of the great unwashed, imagine Dave King and Douglas Park owning 45% of Media firm and the employing the SPFL Chairman where he is paid MASSIVELY more that his role at the SPFL.

Ok I changed the name of the  two celtic directors who own roughly 45% of celtic and INM to two Rangers directors, if you tend to swing 1 way. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by yorkshireclaret

[dunkhayton]

Chair of the board of directors is often a non-executive director. Being chair doesn't make him an executive director. It was reported earlier that he was a non-exec.

You've motivated me to  look it up on the company filings and Murdoch MacLennan is listed a non-executive director of INM.

I've got no prior knowledge of INM or their board makeup  other than what was reported on the radio.

I find your suggestion that I have Celtic leanings utterly laughable... If I don't agree with your view on a potential conflict -  I must support the other side of the old firm? 

My views on Dave King come mostly from the 5 years I spent as Head of Compliance at a large South African bank. I had a business interest in following South African regulatory actions so I've been listening to Dave Kings media outpourings for years. The man's a clown who can't even understand something as simple as takeover regulation.

I don't need you to make it easier for me to understand by subbing in Dave King and Douglas Park. I get paid  to assess potential conflicts situations like the one described above and understand it just fine.

If the past Charimen of INM suggested the company should be run to the benefit of two minority shareholders, I'm not surprised they were replaced.... I can see why the other 55% of the shareholders appointed 5 non exec directors to 1 exec director as they clearly had governance issues.

I don't mind/care if you choose to believe the ramblings of Dave King over me- your  choice - this is a forum for discussion, but I post under my own name for a reason.  It's so people know who I am. I don't have any leanings other than Motherwell and being a non-executive director on a board, doesn't link you to a shareholder other than in a fiduciary sense.

Unless something interesting comes out that's not been reported so far, the facts suggest this is a non-story and its just Dave King bumping his gums again.

 

[ONeils4oyarder]

Head of Compliance at a large South African Bank sounds grand...have you ever driven a taxi though?

[dunkhayton]

Sounds like it could be a nice earner. Any idea what sort of takings a taxi driver in Lanarkshire can expect?

 

[yorkshireclaret]

ha ha how can they be minority sharholders  as per your reply

"If the past Charimen of INM suggested the company should be run to the benefit of two minority shareholders"

if they are in fact the largest sharholders??? ;-)

Im might not be legally sound but you talk tosh.

If you and your friend own 45% of 1 company and 45% of another company. And own the largest shareholdings then you are not minority!

 

Stop using a comparison to sevco Dave King. He is a rogue. We are talking conflict of interest in the SPFL

Edited July 11, 2018 by yorkshireclaret

[weeyin]

Of course, you can be a non-executive director and still have a conflict of interest. Where I used to work we had to not only avoid conflicts of interest but "perceived conflicts of interest".

As Bill Shankly used to say about the offside rule - "if a player's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the field?"

[dunkhayton]

?!?

because they own less than 50% of the issued voting shares, therefore they own a minority stake. The company can't be "run to suit" a 45% stakeholder.

2 hours ago, yorkshireclaret said:

He is not a non executive.

Both Celtic directors owned a combined 45% of INM

Past Chairman has suggested INM should be run to suit Dermott Desmond and Dennis Obrien (celtic directors).

If both Celtic Directors own a combined 45% of INM (and I have no idea of ownership stake other than the info provided), this means that together (in the aggregate) they own 45% of the voting shares. One might own 20% and one might own 25%. It doesn't mean that they control 90% of INM.

Like I said above, I have no idea of the celtic directors ownership percentages, I've taken your post at face value as being correct, but controlling 45% of the voting shares of a company, puts you in a minority, as someone else owns 55%, and by voting together, can outvote you.

 

[yorkshireclaret]

omg so both celtic directors own 45% of INM but according to you are a minority as EVERYONE else can vote the other 55%

Jeez.

 

How cant you agree they are the biggest shareholders in INM and Celtic. If they want to sack our SPFL Chairman because he does something they dont like then they alone are only relying for 5% from 55% of the vote!!!

Our SPFL Chairman will do everything he can to hold onto a job at INM where he is paid very handsomely compared to his job in the SPFL

 

Get of your high horse. THERE is conflict of interest and our club is right to note it.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by yorkshireclaret

[dunkhayton]

1 hour ago, dunkhayton said:

 

Oh FFS..  there is no high horse here:

I've accessed the INM share register and Dermot F Desmond owns 15% of INM. I don't know who the other celtic director in question is - I'd presume it is Denis O'Brien? because he shows on the share register as owning 7.93%. There is another holder called Baycliffe Ltd owning 21.95% which is presumably a vehicle for one or both of the individuals mentioned above. 

In total, the combined %'s add up to just under 45%.

The rest of the company is owned by asset managers, banks, pension schemes and investment vehicles (combined 55%).

A non-executive director of a Plc is an individual who  who for a fee paid by the company, agrees to act as an independent director on the board representing the interests of all shareholders equally. A non-exec director isn't answerable to a shareholder or group of shareholders regardless of their ownership stake and is prohibited from favouring the interests of 1 investor over another in the discharge of his role.

The above isn't a conflict of interest. THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN A NON-EXEC DIRECTOR AND A SHAREHOLDER.

In looking for the name of the other celtic director, I found the SPFL statement:

“To be definitive, a non-executive position on a PLC does not constitute a business relationship between that individual and a minority shareholder in the company and therefore no investigation is warranted.”

wow - the SPFL agree with everything I've written above.....

The only people trying to make an issue of this are people who don't understand the role of a non executive director.

 

[steelboy]

Aye it's unpossible that shady practices could be going on in British business.

Especially with Desmond Paradise Papers Desmond.

[dunkhayton]

Agreed - anything "could" have happened.

But until evidence of collusion or something else comes out (which would be an entirely different conversation from MacLennan just being a non exec) , there is no conflict of interest in the SPFL chairman acting as a non exec director on a Plc board where a Celtic director has an investment.

Cockwomble Doncaster is in the clear and won't get the sack over this as he hasn't done anything wrong.

[steelboy]

I hope MacLennan gets binned anyway for the simple fact that he is on the board of the Telegraph Media Group and therefore a complete cock.  You obviously feel very strongly about defending tax dodging billionaires and their lackeys though so we will leave it at that.

It'll be interesting to see who gets the compliance officer job.

[Welldaft Mk1]

3 hours ago, ONeils4oyarder said:

Head of Compliance at a large South African Bank sounds grand...have you ever driven a taxi though?

He would need to find a reliable car first to make a success of it......

[dunkhayton]

Taxi drivers in Lanarkshire make so much money, their pension schemes collectively own the residual 55% shareholding in INM.

[yorkshireclaret]

You seem to not be able to get your head around this.

 

If two celtic shareholders own 45% of a company then to get things passed in a vote they would rely on 5% of the remaining 55% of the vote.

Simple answer YES or NO

If the answer is YES which any logical assumption would suggest.

Then our SPFL Chairman knows he could be out of a very handsomely paid job if he upset these shareholders in his SPFL decisions.

GRANTED. they would rely on 5% of the remaining 55%, but would you take that gamble?

So please stop with corporate governance and titles, its that simple.

There is a conflict of interest.

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by yorkshireclaret

[dunkhayton]

Its a No.

Shareholders only have a right to vote on a prescribed number of items.  These typically include major changes to company strategy,  structural changes to share capital and the re-appointment of auditors and directors. The Board of Directors themselves are the ones that make the everyday decisions. If every business decision for a Plc went to a shareholder vote, what would be the point in having an expensive independent board of directors?

Shareholders do get to vote on the re-appointment of directors, and in the UK a director typically serves a term of 3 years (the Irish code allows for even longer appointments),  but controlling a 45% shareholding on its own doesn't give you the power to oust a non-exec director, nor block their re-appointment when it comes up for approval.

There has to be a pretty big concern about an non-exec  independent director before a majority of shareholders vote not to reappointment them. Most institutional shareholders pass their vote to an independent body to vote with consensus to avoid conflicts.

I've got my head around the above just fine.

If you still think that there is a link or some influence between me and a non-exec board member of BP because I own some BP shares, fine - your clearly not for changing your mind. Your allowed an opinion that there is a conflict of interest here, but I don't agree with you.

All the noise about this outrageous "conflict of interest" is coming from Ibrox. Their fans lap it up because its their club and they love a bit of outrage without really understanding an issue - same bunch of morons who can't understand corporate liquidation and a new company being formed.

I don't buy into it as being a conflict and I think its just another PR smokescreen/deflection tactic away from Rangers own issues with the takeover panel and the questions their support might ask about why Dave King doesn't want to launch the mandatory offer to take full control.. Its "whataboutery" at its best. They know most of the Rangers support won't understand an will just buy into it and shout about it as a conflict of interest.

I'd prefer for Motherwell to have a full understanding of the issues before commenting, as making statements without understanding the claimed conflict will just make us look like morons.

If MacLennans found to be accepting payments from the Celtic directors, then that's another conversation, but for now, all that's up for discussion is MacLennan being a non-exec director on a Irish Plc board in which a Celtic director has an investment. That's not a conflict of interest in my opinion. I don't think I have ever agreed with anything Neil Doncaster has said/done, but on this one he seems to be on safe ground legally.

Public opinion can differ however.....

[yorkshireclaret]

shareholders can vote at an agm,  or call for an egm if they have enough of a vote,

 

45% and they can call for a chairman to be removed no problem .

And only need 5 % of the remaining 55% to be successful.

your deluded.

Edited July 13, 2018 by yorkshireclaret

[dunkhayton]

Shareholders need 51% to call for an EGM.

Removal of chair needs to be tabled as a motion at an EGM which is then voted on, same as it does for a director. 

A director is typically appointed for a 3 year term (it can be longer in Ireland). Unless you have enough votes to call for an EGM, you'd have to wait a couple of years to have your vote on the re-appointment of the director you don't like. Even then you don't have enough to remove him on your own with a minority shareholding.

Shareholder register says Dermot Desmond has 15% personally, with the other guy having less than 8%.

There are additional Irish Plc reporting thresholds that kick in at 15%, 25% and a takeover threshold of 30% . Depending on how that Baycliffe corporate vehicle is structured, you could perhaps argue both directors are concert parties and claim that their influence should be grouped together for assessment of the conflict, but its likely that the corporate vehicle is structured in such a way as to keep their voting share below 15% each.

I've offered info and opinion - up to you if you want to keep disagreeing, but I'm bored now.

 

 

 

 

[well_said]

I think to anyone who watches Scottish football can see that not only is there a conflict of interest , but everything is geared to suit one team and one team only.

 

1= 2 Celtic supporting compliance officers.  Can anyone tell me of any Celtic players being cited and punished for any misdemenours ie. Diving  or red cards .  The Scott Brown farce when his red card was rescinded was a joke.

2=  The prize money division ( I know the club's voted on this ) and our club shamelessly voted for this.

3 =  Stewart Regan

4= Refereeing decisions against all teams , but us in particular  3 times in one season .

5= Malky McKay a racist ex Celtic player appointed to one of the top jobs in Scottish football succeeding another ex celt in Brian mcclair..

I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

[Wellfan1984]

Our club agreed to go along with it all.