Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

Post about Leyton Orient or anything else

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Disoriented » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:38 pm

MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:


The laughs are on you.

Also, you never did answer why you ended your self-imposed exile. Another example of your disingenuity.
Disoriented
Elite Boarder
Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:34 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Adz » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:57 pm

Spen666

In your opinion would becchetti be in breach of section 174 of the companies act?

Directors must display the care, skill and competence that is reasonable for somebody carrying out the functions of the office
Adz
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:11 am

Adz wrote:Spen666

In your opinion would becchetti be in breach of section 174 of the companies act?

Directors must display the care, skill and competence that is reasonable for somebody carrying out the functions of the office


It is not for him to prove his competence, it would be for accuser to prove he is not competent.


What is the evidence of him not being competent?
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Adz » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:25 am

I will defer you as to how competence defined in the eyes of the law?

But a few off the top of my head would be:

The ongoing debts payment - ruining the company's debt rating
Winding up order - hurting the brand value with negative publicity
General waste of money loaned to the company:
- mis-hiring and firing of employees
- excessive wages for a business of this size and calibre of employees
- ill thought out employee contracts
Excesses in CEO's contract in relation to size and cashflow of the company
Lack of communication with employees as to direction of the company
Lack of planning with regards income streams in the next financial year

Obviously i'm not privy to the actual contracts signed, payments, etc, but I'm sure they would give a lot of evidence in terms of director competence
Adz
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:23 am

Adz wrote:I will defer you as to how competence defined in the eyes of the law?

But a few off the top of my head would be:

The ongoing debts payment - ruining the company's debt rating
Winding up order - hurting the brand value with negative publicity
General waste of money loaned to the company:
- mis-hiring and firing of employees
- excessive wages for a business of this size and calibre of employees
- ill thought out employee contracts
Excesses in CEO's contract in relation to size and cashflow of the company
Lack of communication with employees as to direction of the company
Lack of planning with regards income streams in the next financial year

Obviously i'm not privy to the actual contracts signed, payments, etc, but I'm sure they would give a lot of evidence in terms of director competence



None of those would seem to be any evidence of incompetence in the eyes of the law such as to make the Director's personally liable.

He came in and spent big to try to improve the club ( he make bad decisions- that is not sufficient to make him personally liable)

Every company hires and fires people.

Lack of communication with employees? That happens in many businesses. Employees are exactly that. They have no right to be kept informed




Reading your list it comes across as simply you do not like what FB has done ( Perhaps understandably). That is not evidence of incompetence that could in any way make FB personally liable

The directors can be fired by the shareholders if they do not agree with what they are doing. Here, the directors appear to have full faith of the shareholders ( not suprising really).


To have the directors liable for anything requires more than a business lost money
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Adz » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:37 am

Thanks for that as I said I'm not knowledgeable of what the law views as competent, it's definitely different to my understanding of the word.

Do you have any examples of directors incompetence captured by the law courts decisions?
Adz
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:46 am

Adz wrote:Thanks for that as I said I'm not knowledgeable of what the law views as competent, it's definitely different to my understanding of the word.

Do you have any examples of directors incompetence captured by the law courts decisions?



There are lots of cases. Terry Venerables was banned from being a company director for example. Prosecutions for this are not often reported


This BIS Document may assist you to understand about Director's disqualifications https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -companies

Its not clear to me we are talking the same issue. Directors being personally liable for the debts of a company is a slightly different issue, but related
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Adz » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:52 pm

I was asking for examples of breach of clause 174 of the companies act, so yes a different issue
Adz
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:13 am

Adz wrote:I was asking for examples of breach of clause 174 of the companies act, so yes a different issue

I am not sure s174 is of much help

The duty owed by the directors is a civil law issue and the duty is owed to the company. Who is the company? The company is effectively in this instances the shareholders. Who are the majority shareholders? Yes FB and his family.

So you are expecting FB to sue FB for breach of FB's duty to FB!


Hence why I referred to legislation that could be used against FB, rather than s174
Last edited by spen666 on Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Adz » Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:57 am

Thanks, goes back to my original question of whether minority shareholders have any powers over directors, which is I can see now is no.
Adz
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:22 pm

Adz wrote:Thanks, goes back to my original question of whether minority shareholders have any powers over directors, which is I can see now is no.



Very limited powers - otherwise what would be point in having a majority shareholding if someone with a tiny minority shareholding dictated what happens to the business
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:56 am

French polisher wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Exile Canberra Australia wrote:The system should insist he has to attend in person and not with a employee AA and sworn statement.


FB?

But FB is not involved in the proceedings it is a WUP against LOFC LIMITED.

The application is not against FB, he is neither a respondent, nor a party to the proceedings. FB is merely a shareholder in LOFC Holdings Ltd, the holding company who own the majority of the shares in LOFC Ltd



FB is Managing Director of LOFC.


And?

FB is no more a party o proceedings than the turnstile operator is.

LOFC TD is a separate legal entity and it is that entity that is ordinarily liable for the debts of LOFC ltd, not the shareholders or directors

The old point of a limited company is to limit the liability of the shareholders
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by WasSpike » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:55 am

spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Exile Canberra Australia wrote:The system should insist he has to attend in person and not with a employee AA and sworn statement.


FB?

But FB is not involved in the proceedings it is a WUP against LOFC LIMITED.

The application is not against FB, he is neither a respondent, nor a party to the proceedings. FB is merely a shareholder in LOFC Holdings Ltd, the holding company who own the majority of the shares in LOFC Ltd



FB is Managing Director of LOFC.


And?

FB is no more a party o proceedings than the turnstile operator is.

LOFC TD is a separate legal entity and it is that entity that is ordinarily liable for the debts of LOFC ltd, not the shareholders or directors

The old point of a limited company is to limit the liability of the shareholders


Now I'm a bit confused about your motivation here, Spenny.

You've gone all the way back to page 1 of this thread, and dragged up a posting from 4 days ago, to make exactly the same point as you've been making, both on this thread and others, YET AGAIN.

I quite get your oft-stated point about countering stupid posts as they arise, but here you've had to go back to find one. Were you just bored in the wee small hours and fancying another argument ?

For the record, I don't need any lessons in Limited Liability, I'm quite aware of the separation of shareholders and ltd companies, but it is starting to look like you're just trolling here.
User avatar
WasSpike
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:39 am

WasSpike wrote:
spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Exile Canberra Australia wrote:The system should insist he has to attend in person and not with a employee AA and sworn statement.


FB?

But FB is not involved in the proceedings it is a WUP against LOFC LIMITED.

The application is not against FB, he is neither a respondent, nor a party to the proceedings. FB is merely a shareholder in LOFC Holdings Ltd, the holding company who own the majority of the shares in LOFC Ltd



FB is Managing Director of LOFC.


And?

FB is no more a party o proceedings than the turnstile operator is.

LOFC TD is a separate legal entity and it is that entity that is ordinarily liable for the debts of LOFC ltd, not the shareholders or directors

The old point of a limited company is to limit the liability of the shareholders


Now I'm a bit confused about your motivation here, Spenny.

You've gone all the way back to page 1 of this thread, and dragged up a posting from 4 days ago, to make exactly the same point as you've been making, both on this thread and others, YET AGAIN.

I quite get your oft-stated point about countering stupid posts as they arise, but here you've had to go back to find one. Were you just bored in the wee small hours and fancying another argument ?

For the record, I don't need any lessons in Limited Liability, I'm quite aware of the separation of shareholders and ltd companies, but it is starting to look like you're just trolling here.


I was answering the comment that FB is managing director of LOFC Ltd.

So what if he is. That is irrelevant to the issue.

FB may be managing director but that doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law because it's LOFC Ltd who are the respondents not FB
spen666
Level Two Boarder
Level Two Boarder
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by WasSpike » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:43 am

Yes - I thought so.
User avatar
WasSpike
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:39 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by MafiosO » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:20 am

Disoriented wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:


The laughs are on you.

Also, you never did answer why you ended your self-imposed exile. Another example of your disingenuity.


Some on this forum only consider posts that agree with their ideas as relevant. Everybody else, even those who demonstrate genuine expertise, are considered bores or trolls if they offer alternative points. Speaks volumes.

My self imposed exile was a direct result of what was a very painful time for me as far as the club was concerned. Stopped going to games, stopped posting, stopped talking about the club and even binned much of my Orient memorabilia. Massive sulk. Life moves on, we are where we are and my toys-out-of-the-pram moment achieved nothing. It didn't even make me feel better. I still don't know if I will watch Orient again, though I wonder if I will be able to break a bad habit that has lasted 55 years. so once Id grown up about it, I came back.
User avatar
MafiosO
Boarding Hall of Fame
Boarding Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 10191
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Disoriented » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:34 pm

MafiosO wrote:
Disoriented wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:


The laughs are on you.

Also, you never did answer why you ended your self-imposed exile. Another example of your disingenuity.


Some on this forum only consider posts that agree with their ideas as relevant. Everybody else, even those who demonstrate genuine expertise, are considered bores or trolls if they offer alternative points. Speaks volumes.

My self imposed exile was a direct result of what was a very painful time for me as far as the club was concerned. Stopped going to games, stopped posting, stopped talking about the club and even binned much of my Orient memorabilia. Massive sulk. Life moves on, we are where we are and my toys-out-of-the-pram moment achieved nothing. It didn't even make me feel better. I still don't know if I will watch Orient again, though I wonder if I will be able to break a bad habit that has lasted 55 years. so once Id grown up about it, I came back.


I feel your pain.
Disoriented
Elite Boarder
Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:34 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by MafiosO » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:14 pm

Disoriented wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Disoriented wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:


The laughs are on you.

Also, you never did answer why you ended your self-imposed exile. Another example of your disingenuity.


Some on this forum only consider posts that agree with their ideas as relevant. Everybody else, even those who demonstrate genuine expertise, are considered bores or trolls if they offer alternative points. Speaks volumes.

My self imposed exile was a direct result of what was a very painful time for me as far as the club was concerned. Stopped going to games, stopped posting, stopped talking about the club and even binned much of my Orient memorabilia. Massive sulk. Life moves on, we are where we are and my toys-out-of-the-pram moment achieved nothing. It didn't even make me feel better. I still don't know if I will watch Orient again, though I wonder if I will be able to break a bad habit that has lasted 55 years. so once Id grown up about it, I came back.


I feel your pain.


Many real Orient fans do. I just handled it like a 10 year old for a while, but like I said, I've grown up a bit as far as our situation in concerned. Still don't like it, still hurts, but you got to move forwards.
User avatar
MafiosO
Boarding Hall of Fame
Boarding Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 10191
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Off The Hook » Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:21 pm

MafiosO wrote:
Disoriented wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:


The laughs are on you.

Also, you never did answer why you ended your self-imposed exile. Another example of your disingenuity.


Some on this forum only consider posts that agree with their ideas as relevant. Everybody else, even those who demonstrate genuine expertise, are considered bores or trolls if they offer alternative points. Speaks volumes.

My self imposed exile was a direct result of what was a very painful time for me as far as the club was concerned. Stopped going to games, stopped posting, stopped talking about the club and even binned much of my Orient memorabilia. Massive sulk. Life moves on, we are where we are and my toys-out-of-the-pram moment achieved nothing. It didn't even make me feel better. I still don't know if I will watch Orient again, though I wonder if I will be able to break a bad habit that has lasted 55 years. so once Id grown up about it, I came back.


Couldn't you get patches or gum or something from the doctors?
User avatar
Off The Hook
Boarding Hall of Fame
Boarding Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 14338
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:27 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by MafiosO » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:25 pm

Off The Hook wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Disoriented wrote:
MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:


The laughs are on you.

Also, you never did answer why you ended your self-imposed exile. Another example of your disingenuity.


Some on this forum only consider posts that agree with their ideas as relevant. Everybody else, even those who demonstrate genuine expertise, are considered bores or trolls if they offer alternative points. Speaks volumes.

My self imposed exile was a direct result of what was a very painful time for me as far as the club was concerned. Stopped going to games, stopped posting, stopped talking about the club and even binned much of my Orient memorabilia. Massive sulk. Life moves on, we are where we are and my toys-out-of-the-pram moment achieved nothing. It didn't even make me feel better. I still don't know if I will watch Orient again, though I wonder if I will be able to break a bad habit that has lasted 55 years. so once Id grown up about it, I came back.


Couldn't you get patches or gum or something from the doctors?


The doctor suggested a lobotomy but on realising I was a long standing Orient supporter he assumed I'd had one already.
User avatar
MafiosO
Boarding Hall of Fame
Boarding Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 10191
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:26 pm

Previous

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eagwgw, Google Adsense [Bot], MafiosO and 34 guests