Jump to content

RC_Bairn

Gold Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

12 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't think anyone was 'removed' - Sounds a bit sinister I've personally not seen any statements but others ITK may have. Doubt they'd release a statement to say "we're doing nothing".
  2. I think it's been made pretty clear that the Rawlins are not, and are unlikely to be, playing any sort of role going forward. Who can blame them to be honest. As for protecting their investment, if reports of their estimated net wealth are accurate then the £300-odd grand they have pumped (and probably lost) into FFC won't be causing them too many sleepless nights I'd imagine.
  3. McGivern was a replacement for Totten not Koszary.
  4. couldn't slide a fag paper between the two of them!
  5. Greaves deal extended by THIS regime according to the Chief Exec
  6. I'm sure your pals on the board won't take too kindly to you saying their effort is lacking.
  7. Saw McGlynn exchanging some words with a fan behind the dugout in the first half yesterday. Anyone know what was said?
  8. Ah the old 'It's all Nesbitt and McGuffie's fault" line. Do you keep these in a file somewhere ready to roll out when we lose? I certainly didn't see you giving them any credit for our recent good run of form. Anyone watching yesterday's game will know there were several who were worse than those two - Henderson, Oliver and Alegria (although the latter redeemed himself slightly with the goal). Clearly M&S felt the same when they chose to keep them both on and our fortunes improved massively in the second period.
  9. They might be taking a day off given they had travelled all day yesterday to watch the team? A bit more tiring than sitting at home
  10. Best that you do. Most good book stores will have 'how a business functions' textbook that you can buy.
  11. Dancing on the head of a pin here. There was a democratic vote put to the shareholders and they chose to put those individuals onto the board. Whether you want to call that an election or a ratification matters little. The outcome is the same - if the shareholders did not want them then they wouldn't be there.
  12. Are you actually being serious? This is like standard grade business studies all over again. The Directors you are talking about were ratified by a vote of all FFC shareholders at an AGM. I can't tell you which one exactly but I'd imagine it'd be the 2019 or 2020 AGM.
  13. They were representing the existing shareholders who voted them onto the board at an AGM.
  14. Thanks for posting this. 'Avoid conflicts of interest' - perfectly describes those on the BOD who have a foot in both the PG and the FSS camp. These directors will be in a difficult position when FSS and PG disagree (Goodwillie being a good example). My view is that directors should be either members of the FSS or members of the PG - not both. People will disagree but that's my view.
  15. Believe what I say or don't - it matters little to me. This is a place for debate and the sharing of views. We clearly have differing viewpoints and that's fine with me.
×
×
  • Create New...