Barneyboy Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Charlie's Dad said: How else can it be organised ? Even a meeting can be infiltrated by one of his friends/supporters/family. The problem is we have to let as many people know as possible. Agreed, who cares if he finds out as Charlie's dad says we need to let as many present,past and lapsed fans know of any plan/meeting. He has ruined the club and doesn't care about it.only himself. Edited September 22, 2016 by Barneyboy Spelling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffer Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 He knew fans were going to be at RP after KS departure. He still showed up and he absolutely loved it. He was the centre of attention the press were there and he got to play the pantomime villain. If he thinks there's half a chance of that happening again he will be on the phone asking when and where. He knows in this arena if someone goes too far it makes his position as the wronged stronger The most uncomfortable I've ever seen him was at the AGM. The boardroom and AGM have always been his ballpark. This year people who knew what they were talking about got into him. It did get chaotic but we were under his skin in his comfort zone and he didn't like it. Stories didn't match from one line to the next he was all over the place. I doubt he would agree to it now but a large scale open meeting would be a great platform. Especially if the other directors are on the fans side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lroy Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Everyone has their own ideas, most of which aren't bad, but we'll never decide on one as a group. The protest needs leader who will organise and make decisions for the group. Ideally a charismatic face that will say the right thing to any media interest and is good enough with words to rouse the fans who are passive on the issue. The rest of us need to be supportive and, for lack of a better word, obedient to the cause. So often we've been torn apart by internal bickering that we've got nowhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffer Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 When would an AGM be due. I know it's not long since we had one but that was delayed for a substantial period for whatever reason. Normally it should be November/December? Are shareholders in a position for this to be held on time and for a ballot to be included in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillkieBoab Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, daviefaekillie said: The board can outvote him on a one person one vote basis in operational matters. MJ can outvote them, or at least block them on a number of shares basis in constitutional matters. In the matter of voting him off the board, the current Articles intimate that you need 75% of the shareholding to do that unless you have a resolution at a general meeting, then over 50% of the shares represented on the day would suffice according to company law. If rb56 is right in what he thinks though and BB agreed never to vote against MJ when he purchased his shares then there is no chance of him ever getting voted off. Shareholders should seriously get this looked into, and the bank debt reduction deal, jail is too good for this man. For the benefit of doubt if any reporters are reading this, no one is seriously suggesting that we target his family, one fan has mentioned that if we did it wouldn't probably work anyway. We target him wherever and whenever we can, if his nearest and dearest get pissed off with that then I am sure they will soon let him know. Surely his position as club secretary is not a constitutional matter, nor the use of his firm as the club's solicitors. Stop his access to money from KFC and he'll reconsider accepting a fair offer for his shares. Alternatively, let him stay on the board, outvote him on every possible occasion, and give him heehaw for his shares. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killie billies pal Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 MJ will absolutely love the abuse, however I am not sure JM would enjoy a rough ride as much, he is the real prick, the one that put this twat in charge, knowing exactly what he is capable of. We need Radio, TV, Papers constantly onto these TWO responsible for the demise of Scotlands oldest professional club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviefaekillie Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 23 minutes ago, killie billies pal said: MJ will absolutely love the abuse, however I am not sure JM would enjoy a rough ride as much, he is the real prick, the one that put this twat in charge, knowing exactly what he is capable of. We need Radio, TV, Papers constantly onto these TWO responsible for the demise of Scotlands oldest professional club. Spot on. Jamie Moffat deserves the same treatment as his golf pal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Superscot Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 39 minutes ago, daviefaekillie said: If rb56 is right in what he thinks though and BB agreed never to vote against MJ when he purchased his shares then there is no chance of him ever getting voted off. Is this legal? Or maybe the correct question is how do we prove it if it is illegal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livvy Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 6 hours ago, baz said: The directors can't buy the unallocated shares, MJ will block that, believe me its been looked into and it is not a route that we can go. Then that's the solution. An investment on that scale into a business running as a going concern us unheard of. The rejection of it in ones self interest surely plays against his responsibilities as a director of the firm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefife Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 2 hours ago, daviefaekillie said: The board can outvote him on a one person one vote basis in operational matters. MJ can outvote them, or at least block them on a number of shares basis in constitutional matters. In the matter of voting him off the board, the current Articles intimate that you need 75% of the shareholding to do that unless you have a resolution at a general meeting, then over 50% of the shares represented on the day would suffice according to company law. If rb56 is right in what he thinks though and BB agreed never to vote against MJ when he purchased his shares then there is no chance of him ever getting voted off. Shareholders should seriously get this looked into, and the bank debt reduction deal, jail is too good for this man. For the benefit of doubt if any reporters are reading this, no one is seriously suggesting that we target his family, one fan has mentioned that if we did it wouldn't probably work anyway. We target him wherever and whenever we can, if his nearest and dearest get pissed off with that then I am sure they will soon let him know. I understood, again from info on this forum that the shareholding was;- MJ 39.28% BB 39.28% Other Shareholders 21.44% While all of the other Shareholders will not be the Board of Directors one assumes the other Directors do have shares. If so any vote would be carried provided BB and the other Directors vote against MJ. ( Excepting removal of him as a Director ). Again am I missing something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killiegh Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 I believe that there is more in tomorrows Daily Mail according to Stephen McGowan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefan27 Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 4 hours ago, piffer said: Out of interest I googled fans/ultras/supporters protest with some interesting results. It ranged from boycotts, turning your back, sitting in silence, walking out all the to kidnapping, shootings, blackmail and even murder in South America. Somewhere in there is something which would work for us. Please no one suggest the latter I've watched enough gangster films to know the less people you tell the better. Seriously though one I came across that I liked was AC Milan. Their Ultras formed into the word Basta. I have no clue what it means or why but it would look great if the East stand moved in MJ OUT during a game. It means "enough!", unless there's an R a D and I off camera in which case it means something different... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMark Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 I wonder if this deal includes selling the 50% of the hotel. If not I think the directors are crazy paying him that amount of money. I'd rather that the club went into administration and it emerged rebuilt with the £2.65 million. (£1.9 that MJ would have got and the £750,000 that others are willing to invest). Under this dealthe club are being deprived of £1.9 million that could have been invested. It's scandalous that MJ is getting £1.9 million for investing £1 and having taken so much money from the club throughout his tenure. We could go into administration and enter into a CVA and emerge quite quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flood Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Drastic action... but is administration not a possible solution? If money is around to pay the parasitic lawyer off then keep it, and use it to bring back a post admin event. Give him F all. The parasite would be unable to pay into a fund to buy the remains? I would be happy to take the point penalty to rid our club of that parasite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiehippo Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, MarkyMark said: I wonder if this deal includes selling the 50% of the hotel. If not I think the directors are crazy paying him that amount of money. I'd rather that the club went into administration and it emerged rebuilt with the £2.65 million. (£1.9 that MJ would have got and the £750,000 that others are willing to invest). Under this dealthe club are being deprived of £1.9 million that could have been invested. It's scandalous that MJ is getting £1.9 million for investing £1 and having taken so much money from the club throughout his tenure. We could go into administration and enter into a CVA and emerge quite quickly. Hotel nothing to do with this deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMark Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 1 minute ago, killiehippo said: Hotel nothing to do with this deal. Sandy. I think BB, JK and RS are mad giving the parasite that amount of money when it effectively deprives the club of that cash. I'd prefer the club to be starved of cash and enter administration rather than being held to ransom by MJ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiehippo Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 MM - I remember many years back (when MJ was a sole director) talking to a businessman who said the best thing for Killie's long term future was administration. It's not something you want but given the circumstances I fear that may still be the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
151rugby Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 3 hours ago, KillkieBoab said: Surely his position as club secretary is not a constitutional matter, nor the use of his firm as the club's solicitors. Stop his access to money from KFC and he'll reconsider accepting a fair offer for his shares. Alternatively, let him stay on the board, outvote him on every possible occasion, and give him heehaw for his shares. IMO this is where he should be challenged, there must be a definite conflict of interest now as the other directors (and fans) want him out yet his legal firm still advise the Club. Cut off his wage packet and engage a truly independent legal company. Not to mention his quoted Fiduciary responsibility to the Club. Rejecting investment to further his own personal position surely isn't right. Can the Bank not be used to increase pressure on him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich2003 Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 18 minutes ago, killiehippo said: MM - I remember many years back (when MJ was a sole director) talking to a businessman who said the best thing for Killie's long term future was administration. It's not something you want but given the circumstances I fear that may still be the case. 100% correct. that's why the trust need to keep a hold of their money for the right time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMark Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 14 minutes ago, 151rugby said: IMO this is where he should be challenged, there must be a definite conflict of interest now as the other directors (and fans) want him out yet his legal firm still advise the Club. Cut off his wage packet and engage a truly independent legal company. Not to mention his quoted Fiduciary responsibility to the Club. Rejecting investment to further his own personal position surely isn't right. Can the Bank not be used to increase pressure on him? The bank no longer have any involvement apart from the rumoured agreement stopping MJ from benefitting form a sale of shares. We lost the opportunity to get the bank to put pressure on MJ when BB backed him. If the loss last year was funded by a directors loan from BB surely he could call the loan in and get the club placed into administration, we could then enter into a CV and emerge quite quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMark Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 BB can presumably make MJ's life difficult with the hotel as well as he is his business partner. I cannot believe that the other directors are paying him off so easily rather than toughing it out with MJ. Makes me think there is something fishy going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casual observer Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 We are only aware of what one side of this struggle want us to know so far. The seed has been planted publicly that the boardroom is not only split, but one unwanted member is refusing to leave until his penalty clauses expire. There is bound to be far more we know nothing of yet, but hopefully the "Killie 3" have more cards to play and we can help them get everyone's desired outcome. A very visual and noisy protest at the Aberdeen game next Saturday will keep the story in the public domain, and as a byproduct probably help the team with a better atmosphere, but we need a wider strategy to convince our unwilling seller his time is up. This can't go on til 2019. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalSpin Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Just a question for any CA/Legals. How long must company financial documents (invoices/receipts etc) be retained legally? Is there a time limit, say 3, 5 or 7 years, after which they can be disposed of leaving only the company accounts (high level figures)? Just wondering, not implying anything 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historyman Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 44 minutes ago, MarkyMark said: BB can presumably make MJ's life difficult with the hotel as well as he is his business partner. I cannot believe that the other directors are paying him off so easily rather than toughing it out with MJ. Makes me think there is something fishy going on. I'm also finding this hard to believe. The idea of a group paying him nearly £2m to leave just doesn't make sense. Compare that with the payoff Stewart Gilmour got at St Mirren and they are in a far better financial position than us. Unpleasant as it sounds I would rather we went into administration and the money was invested as we rebuild. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flood Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, historyman said: I'm also finding this hard to believe. The idea of a group paying him nearly £2m to leave just doesn't make sense. Compare that with the payoff Stewart Gilmour got at St Mirren and they are in a far better financial position than us. Unpleasant as it sounds I would rather we went into administration and the money was invested as we rebuild. I think that Stewart Gilmour was a St Mirren fan and cared about the club. The parasite is not a Killie fan. He does not care about our club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.