Administration
- Thread starter Yellows1
- Start date
Scotchegg
Level: James Constable
(280 Apps, 106 Gls)
Unlikely to be fair!
No.. It wouldn't be fair
Thehorse777
Level: Mateo Corbo
(13 Apps, 8 Yellows, 1 Red)
How do the fans need to “step up”?
From what I can see this is entirely down to the way the club has been run and is nothing to do with the supporters.
From what I can see this is entirely down to the way the club has been run and is nothing to do with the supporters.
Piquet
Level: Billy Beechers
(7 Apps)
One of the tenures in Company law, is that the directors ensure that the club is run in a way that it benefits the community, which they are falling to do, there is a possibility that legal action could be brought against the club directors barring them from running the club, question is what happens next?
How do you propose the fans 'step up'?
Foley
Level: Colin Harrington
(260 Apps, 30 Gls)
Sorry but that's nonsense.
Legal action against the clubs directors?
On the basis that this hasn't happened at Charlton, Blackpool, and all of the appallingly run clubs why should it happen at Oxford?
dabigfella
Level: Callum O'Dowda
(106 Apps, 14 Gls)
Yellows1
Level: Callum O'Dowda
(106 Apps, 14 Gls)
By putting the pressure on our so called owners to be more transparent and not mugging us off!
radicalox
Level: Chris Maguire
(79 Apps, 22 Gls)
Really? Can provide a link or source of this legislation.
bert
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Yeah, I'm interested in this too. I'm a director of my own company, albeit not as large as OUFC, but all I know about director responsibilities is from this guide: https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company
I do remember reading stuff like you can't run a company in to the ground as you have responsibilities to staff etc and you must try to make it work properly but 'to ensure the club is run in a way that benefits the community' must be a specialist status, maybe for football clubs or community assets, surely. There are many companies that would fail on that one if not, I'm sure.
bert
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Here it is: Not sure how it's relevant to OUFC directors?:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172 - Companies Act 2006, section 172
A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
1(d): the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment
I don't think that means it has to benefit the community at all, just be mindful of the impact on the community?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172 - Companies Act 2006, section 172
A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
1(d): the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment
I don't think that means it has to benefit the community at all, just be mindful of the impact on the community?
radicalox
Level: Chris Maguire
(79 Apps, 22 Gls)
It doesn't really make any sense. How could you even measure whether a company is "benefiting" the community and legislation against a company not doing that doesn't seem plausible.
ZeroTheHero
Level: Phil Whitehead
(238 Apps)
Well it doesn't say it has to benefit the community, just that it has to 'have regard' for the community and environment. In other words, it means nothing that isn't covered in law (excessive noise, pollution, nuisance etc) - just 'don't be a pillock'. Which the directors of some companies I have worked for would actually find more than a bit taxing...
The idea of somehow using this to force the owner/directors of OUFC to do anything is 'optimistic' to say the least.
The idea of somehow using this to force the owner/directors of OUFC to do anything is 'optimistic' to say the least.
bert
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Well it doesn't say it has to benefit the community, just that it has to 'have regard' for the community and environment. In other words, it means nothing that isn't covered in law (excessive noise, pollution, nuisance etc) - just 'don't be a pillock'. Which the directors of some companies I have worked for would actually find more than a bit taxing...
The idea of somehow using this to force the owner/directors of OUFC to do anything is 'optimistic' to say the least.
My thoughts exactly. Tiger is benefiting the community by giving us something to do everyday i.e. moaning about what he's not telling us. If he was open and honest with us what'd we do with ourselves all day?
Piquet
Level: Billy Beechers
(7 Apps)
OK I concede its tenuous, but so is administration which we could be heading for, it appears apparent that either the directors cant afford the club or they are not willing to support the club financially, given these facts how will it change if the club is relegated? another relegation to NLF? we clambered out of the mire before only because we were fortunate to find two VG managers, KR is not in the same class.
Jerome'SAle
Level: Chris Maguire
(79 Apps, 22 Gls)
Why would someone buy a club get a load of wealthy backers on board then go into administration 12 months later?
Doesn't sound logical at all
Doesn't sound logical at all
Piquet
Level: Billy Beechers
(7 Apps)
Agreed, but then Tiger and his WOW factor manager was not logical, his statement on recruiting championship level players was not logical apparently the list of players given to him by KR wasn't logical changing the name of one of the limited companies from Oxford United FC Ltd to Oxford Investment Holdings PTE registered in Singapore was not logical his dealings at reading and reason for leaving lacked logic
Because just maybe it has never been about the football club[emoji848]
The fact that there seems to be a total lack of concern from the owners that a chasm is opening between the club and its fans seems to back up this line of thought.
Morris Oxford
Level: Dave Roberts
(176 Apps, 8 Gls)
Don’t forget that today is the day that ‘ Thanakarnjanasuth pens some not-to-be-missed programme notes’ 
I think you’re looking too deeply into his motivations. The fact of the matter is our owner is a chancer who has never had a plan from day 1. He can’t share what that plan is with us because he doesn’t know it. He makes it up as he goes along but is able to say to his big buddy mates that he is an owner of a football club. This is an ego trip plain and simple. The lack of organisation in the club is partly because of his absenteeism and that there is no-one capable or empowered to get things running on an even keel. Rudderless, drifting and without even the sense of a purpose - no wonder KR finds it difficult to attract players.
I can see merit in this argument, but it brings us back to that eternal question: Why on earth did DE choose to sell to him over Sartori? That’s if, as people insist on here, Sartori was indeed a serious player.
3 reasons.
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money
Tiger offered the best package. DE selling in the ‘best interests of the club’ was either a flat out lie or he too was drawn in by the snake oil Tiger was selling. I think the Sartori bid was real but it was a pragmatic offer and it is hard to put much value on a club that doesn’t own its own stadium and has few assets.
Scotchegg
Level: James Constable
(280 Apps, 106 Gls)
The Satori situation remains a strange one. If he really wanted to be involved in a football club and had the sort of money that was being spoken of, you would think that he would have a far greater role at Sunderland? I know he's put a few quid up, but nowhere near the money that was being claimed he would throw our way. I wonder if he was ever anymore than a link to SD and Charlie and maybe that's why DE pulled out.
Scotchegg
Level: James Constable
(280 Apps, 106 Gls)
But we know that DE was no fool, so why do a deal with someone who we are continually told is a potless chancer?
Because Slippery had already secured his dosh from the sale as part of outstanding transfer balances that would've come to the club if tigger had the money up front.
Last edited:
MarkG
Level: Steve Basham
(189 Apps, 51 Gls)
Oh and at the time there were valuable players in the squad. Sartori via his advisers thought they could get the club at a cut down price in a fire sale.
Or they just put a more realistic valuation on the club..looking at the club’s current status, you could argue Tiger overpaid. Let’s just say he hasn’t been willing or able to follow on his initial outlay to any great extent..
Scotchegg
Level: James Constable
(280 Apps, 106 Gls)
What budget do you think Satori et al would have had for each operating year, and what do you think Tiger's budget is? I think you'll be surprised that there would have been very little difference. The idea that we would have been swimming in cash under Satori is entirely unfounded.