killiehippo Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 That sounds about right auldyin, but if BB sticks with MJ he will get as much stick as MJ. BB is the key to the whole thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 The ball does indeed seem very much in BBs court now right enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygod Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: ......but as Company Secretary can he not still simply refuse to hold an EGM,saying that there are 'insufficient grounds' (in his view obviously) for one? Company Secretary is quite a lowly position in board terms, being responsible for the club complying with regulations, tax and, in the absence of a company lawyer, legal issues. Every shareholder, from smallest to largest, has the right to have their voice heard. It would be thoroughly undemocratic for anyone to deny a vote of no confidence (especially the person against whom the vote is wanted!). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Very true,but....perhaps depends just how badly he wants to hold on.Will be interesting to see how the media spin (if at all),todays call for a vote of no confidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theauldyin Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 so its in BB best interests to keep the club going as he has himself has put money in, if it goes down then he will have lost it. He surely must see that's its in his best interests to remove MJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus1869 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 If Billy Bowie doesn't see that MJ is poison then we have a huge problem imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygod Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 John Barnes reporting now on Sportsound: "AGM hostile against MJ..... vote of no confidence proposed and seconded.... BB would need to support it for it to succeed.... shareholders may need to make an offer for MJ's shares..... JM interviewed - 'Issues raised which will need to be taken away and dealt with.... board hasn't considered implications of relegation....confident in Lee Clark'.... generally sounded very downbeat..... LC warmly received.... lot for board to consider re MJ's position....MJ declined to be interviewed". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefan27 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Looking at the ownership (https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC006219/THE-KILMARNOCK-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/group-structure ) it would appear the BB's shareholding is divided between himself personally and his company. Could it be that having his company own a stake in a money-losing enterprise lowers the tax liability of his truck business, thus providing him with a reason to invest? I'm no expert, just wondering. For legal reasons, I would like to make it clear that I am in no way accusing Mr Billy Bowie, Billy Bowie Special Projects LTD or Kilmarnock Football Club of avoiding owed tax. In a completely hypothetical situation, could one put £300,000 into a failing company which another of ones companies has a stake in, in order to save on, for the sake of argument, £500k? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killie71 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 This is getting way to complicated 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffer Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Another thing that was mentioned. The value BB payed for the hotel was based on a certain amount of trade from the club. MJ stated the bank determined the value of the hotel. If BB payed whatever for the hotel based on ongoing trading with the club will he be quick to act out with the clubs best interests if it's brings down the value of his hotel. To me it seems at the moment Bowie would lose a hell of a lot if club went bust. It's probably in his best interests for there to be a healthy Kilmarnock Football Club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygod Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 (edited) I wonder how many players we have staying and eating in the hotel. Around five - Faubert, Henshall, Dicker, Hodson, Addison? Edited April 26, 2016 by skygod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldo Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 27 minutes ago, skygod said: John Barnes reporting now on Sportsound: JM interviewed - ... board hasn't considered implications of relegation.... wtf? what kind of utter cretins have we got on that board? oh, I forgot, the kind that keeps gary locke as manager 3/4 of the season 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theauldyin Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 10 minutes ago, piffer said: Another thing that was mentioned. The value BB payed for the hotel was based on a certain amount of trade from the club. MJ stated the bank determined the value of the hotel. If BB payed whatever for the hotel based on ongoing trading with the club will he be quick to act out with the clubs best interests if it's brings down the value of his hotel. To me it seems at the moment Bowie would lose a hell of a lot if club went bust. It's probably in his best interests for there to be a healthy Kilmarnock Football Club my thoughts as well, so find myself at a loss as to why he sticks with MJ, he must surely know people out there will put money in if MJ is removed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baz Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 1 hour ago, skygod said: MJ declined to be interviewed". Apart from half an hour in the hotel lobby after the AGM? More like MJ refused to be quoted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygod Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Michael Johnston survived calls for a vote of no confidence after the director and company secretary endured an uncomfortable annual meeting. On top of that request by one shareholder, another urged Johnston to resign, suggesting he was a barrier to improving the club's position. The requests were noted but deemed not permissible at the AGM. Shareholders were told they would have to call an extraordinary general meeting to have them considered. Kilmarnock lie second bottom of the Scottish Premiership and are favourites to face a play-off to avoid relegation. They have also announced a £725,000 loss for the financial year to June 2015. The meeting marked the end of Jim Mann's reign as chairman, the businessman having succeeded Johnston in the role. Mann, who had previously cited health, travel and business reasons for his decision, had not been expecting his last duty to be presiding over such a hostile affair. "In some ways, I'm pleased I won't be repeating what was a bumpy AGM in a number of different ways," he told BBC Scotland. "But there were a number of issues that were raised from the floor that the club's going to have to take away and deal with." When asked if he expected the disgruntled shareholders to pursue the matter, Mann added: "Who can tell? That's down to someone to raise a grievance and send in a document asking for an EGM to discuss it. "So I'll leave that to the people who were here and whoever is on the board in the future to deal with." The meeting, which lasted more than two hours in the Park Hotel, was attended by 500 shareholders. (BBC) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tight End #79 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 for what it's worth and I'm no expert. I think that MJ's just can't get out till 2019 for genuine legal stuff to do with the debt deal. I probably involves him making money from selling when the bank took losses to let it happen. The exact legal stuff is probably perfectly legitimate, but has a certain element of WTF? how can they do that ? which is what most of think. However he can simply be a silent partner and have nothing to do with running the club, decision making and generally keep out of the club's affairs. He as others have stated seemed genuinely rattled and Bowie when he spoke seemed shocked at the depth of feeling and breadth of anti - Johnson stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al j Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Looking through a copy of Articles of Association there is no mention of the procedure to call an EGM. In part 2 section 22.8 of Articles - Termination of Director's appointment - "the company receives a written notice to such effect from a member or members holding such number of shares in the capital of the company as carry 75% of the voting rights in the company" , which would mean that even if BB sided with other shareholders, MJ owns 40% and therefore cannot be removed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffer Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 I don't see how he is obliged to stay. If a group of six put a consortium together and say each pledged for talking sake £250k.That's £1.5million investment in the club. Their stipulation is he has to leave. Then there's a few scenarios. 1: He goes and hands the stake he has in the club over. 2: He wants money for his shares. It's then negotiations to see if a deal can be done. 3: The bank are involved. Why would they stand in the way of potential investment in the company. Do they have rights to do such things? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 1 hour ago, killiefan27 said: Looking at the ownership (https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC006219/THE-KILMARNOCK-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/group-structure ) it would appear the BB's shareholding is divided between himself personally and his company. Could it be that having his company own a stake in a money-losing enterprise lowers the tax liability of his truck business, thus providing him with a reason to invest? I'm no expert, just wondering. For legal reasons, I would like to make it clear that I am in no way accusing Mr Billy Bowie, Billy Bowie Special Projects LTD or Kilmarnock Football Club of avoiding owed tax. In a completely hypothetical situation, could one put £300,000 into a failing company which another of ones companies has a stake in, in order to save on, for the sake of argument, £500k? The company would need to own at least 75% of the club for loss relief to apply so won't be the case here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Looks like we are stuck with him till 2019. But a vote of no confidence MIGHT get him at arms length away from the club. Chants and red cards and abuse do not work with this individual. He laps it up. F#c#n. TEFLON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye the Gnu Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 What an arrogant, condescending and downright rude pr**k of a man he is. His replies to shareholders were further proof he has no self awareness, i.e his response to the guy who told him he couldn't make the last AGM because he was on a cruise. I am struggling to remember when I last felt so angry and disgusted. I thought he let himself down badly today and displayed his true colours in a public forum for all to see. He would make a brilliant politician tho! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theauldyin Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 club in its present form will not be here in 2019, not with losing that amount for the next few years. either he goes or we are f@@ked 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalSpin Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 If he hands over his shares for no cash gain then there should be no problem re embarrassment clause with the bank. He has already transferred shares to Bowie and proposed to hand shares to community board (another supposed bank deal condition), so it can be done. hes got half a hotel, is that not enough? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casual observer Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 No word or proposals regarding a new Chairman, or have I missed that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffer Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Taking time to consider things announcement probably in June or July 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.