-
****Join the YF Fantasy EFL League: HERE. ****
Administration
- Thread starter Yellows1
- Start date
Northstand grandad
Well-known member
No.. It wouldn't be fair
Thehorse777
Active member
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.
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?
Osei Yaw
Well-known member
How do you propose the fans 'step up'?
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
Active member
Yellows1
Well-known member
By putting the pressure on our so called owners to be more transparent and not mugging us off!
radicalox
Active member
Really? Can provide a link or source of this legislation.
bert
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Active member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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?
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
Active member
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
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
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
Because just maybe it has never been about the football club[emoji848]
yellowbow
Well-known member
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.