dunkhayton

Our league form last year from November on was relegation form. If it wasn't for a decent start and a dismal county/thistle pairing, we'd have been in real trouble. We need to be honest and say that despite cup finals, we were not a good side last year, and summer recruitment has made us worse. Let's not even start on tactics. There is next to no football in this side - just poor quality journeymen.

Shareholders need 51% to call for an EGM. Removal of chair needs to be tabled as a motion at an EGM which is then voted on, same as it does for a director. A director is typically appointed for a 3 year term (it can be longer in Ireland). Unless you have enough votes to call for an EGM, you'd have to wait a couple of years to have your vote on the re-appointment of the director you don't like. Even then you don't have enough to remove him on your own with a minority shareholding. Shareholder register says Dermot Desmond has 15% personally, with the other guy having less than 8%. There are additional Irish Plc reporting thresholds that kick in at 15%, 25% and a takeover threshold of 30% . Depending on how that Baycliffe corporate vehicle is structured, you could perhaps argue both directors are concert parties and claim that their influence should be grouped together for assessment of the conflict, but its likely that the corporate vehicle is structured in such a way as to keep their voting share below 15% each. I've offered info and opinion - up to you if you want to keep disagreeing, but I'm bored now.

Its a No. Shareholders only have a right to vote on a prescribed number of items. These typically include major changes to company strategy, structural changes to share capital and the re-appointment of auditors and directors. The Board of Directors themselves are the ones that make the everyday decisions. If every business decision for a Plc went to a shareholder vote, what would be the point in having an expensive independent board of directors? Shareholders do get to vote on the re-appointment of directors, and in the UK a director typically serves a term of 3 years (the Irish code allows for even longer appointments), but controlling a 45% shareholding on its own doesn't give you the power to oust a non-exec director, nor block their re-appointment when it comes up for approval. There has to be a pretty big concern about an non-exec independent director before a majority of shareholders vote not to reappointment them. Most institutional shareholders pass their vote to an independent body to vote with consensus to avoid conflicts. I've got my head around the above just fine. If you still think that there is a link or some influence between me and a non-exec board member of BP because I own some BP shares, fine - your clearly not for changing your mind. Your allowed an opinion that there is a conflict of interest here, but I don't agree with you. All the noise about this outrageous "conflict of interest" is coming from Ibrox. Their fans lap it up because its their club and they love a bit of outrage without really understanding an issue - same bunch of morons who can't understand corporate liquidation and a new company being formed. I don't buy into it as being a conflict and I think its just another PR smokescreen/deflection tactic away from Rangers own issues with the takeover panel and the questions their support might ask about why Dave King doesn't want to launch the mandatory offer to take full control.. Its "whataboutery" at its best. They know most of the Rangers support won't understand an will just buy into it and shout about it as a conflict of interest. I'd prefer for Motherwell to have a full understanding of the issues before commenting, as making statements without understanding the claimed conflict will just make us look like morons. If MacLennans found to be accepting payments from the Celtic directors, then that's another conversation, but for now, all that's up for discussion is MacLennan being a non-exec director on a Irish Plc board in which a Celtic director has an investment. That's not a conflict of interest in my opinion. I don't think I have ever agreed with anything Neil Doncaster has said/done, but on this one he seems to be on safe ground legally. Public opinion can differ however.....

Taxi drivers in Lanarkshire make so much money, their pension schemes collectively own the residual 55% shareholding in INM.

Agreed - anything "could" have happened. But until evidence of collusion or something else comes out (which would be an entirely different conversation from MacLennan just being a non exec) , there is no conflict of interest in the SPFL chairman acting as a non exec director on a Plc board where a Celtic director has an investment. Cockwomble Doncaster is in the clear and won't get the sack over this as he hasn't done anything wrong.

Oh FFS.. there is no high horse here: I've accessed the INM share register and Dermot F Desmond owns 15% of INM. I don't know who the other celtic director in question is - I'd presume it is Denis O'Brien? because he shows on the share register as owning 7.93%. There is another holder called Baycliffe Ltd owning 21.95% which is presumably a vehicle for one or both of the individuals mentioned above. In total, the combined %'s add up to just under 45%. The rest of the company is owned by asset managers, banks, pension schemes and investment vehicles (combined 55%). A non-executive director of a Plc is an individual who who for a fee paid by the company, agrees to act as an independent director on the board representing the interests of all shareholders equally. A non-exec director isn't answerable to a shareholder or group of shareholders regardless of their ownership stake and is prohibited from favouring the interests of 1 investor over another in the discharge of his role. The above isn't a conflict of interest. THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN A NON-EXEC DIRECTOR AND A SHAREHOLDER. In looking for the name of the other celtic director, I found the SPFL statement: “To be definitive, a non-executive position on a PLC does not constitute a business relationship between that individual and a minority shareholder in the company and therefore no investigation is warranted.” wow - the SPFL agree with everything I've written above..... The only people trying to make an issue of this are people who don't understand the role of a non executive director.

?!? because they own less than 50% of the issued voting shares, therefore they own a minority stake. The company can't be "run to suit" a 45% stakeholder. If both Celtic Directors own a combined 45% of INM (and I have no idea of ownership stake other than the info provided), this means that together (in the aggregate) they own 45% of the voting shares. One might own 20% and one might own 25%. It doesn't mean that they control 90% of INM. Like I said above, I have no idea of the celtic directors ownership percentages, I've taken your post at face value as being correct, but controlling 45% of the voting shares of a company, puts you in a minority, as someone else owns 55%, and by voting together, can outvote you.

Sounds like it could be a nice earner. Any idea what sort of takings a taxi driver in Lanarkshire can expect?

Chair of the board of directors is often a non-executive director. Being chair doesn't make him an executive director. It was reported earlier that he was a non-exec. You've motivated me to look it up on the company filings and Murdoch MacLennan is listed a non-executive director of INM. I've got no prior knowledge of INM or their board makeup other than what was reported on the radio. I find your suggestion that I have Celtic leanings utterly laughable... If I don't agree with your view on a potential conflict - I must support the other side of the old firm? My views on Dave King come mostly from the 5 years I spent as Head of Compliance at a large South African bank. I had a business interest in following South African regulatory actions so I've been listening to Dave Kings media outpourings for years. The man's a clown who can't even understand something as simple as takeover regulation. I don't need you to make it easier for me to understand by subbing in Dave King and Douglas Park. I get paid to assess potential conflicts situations like the one described above and understand it just fine. If the past Charimen of INM suggested the company should be run to the benefit of two minority shareholders, I'm not surprised they were replaced.... I can see why the other 55% of the shareholders appointed 5 non exec directors to 1 exec director as they clearly had governance issues. I don't mind/care if you choose to believe the ramblings of Dave King over me- your choice - this is a forum for discussion, but I post under my own name for a reason. It's so people know who I am. I don't have any leanings other than Motherwell and being a non-executive director on a board, doesn't link you to a shareholder other than in a fiduciary sense. Unless something interesting comes out that's not been reported so far, the facts suggest this is a non-story and its just Dave King bumping his gums again.

I thought he was really poor in possession and wasn't really tested defensively. It's only one game, but of the new lads on show, he looked the most out of touch. Hopefully just a slow start for the boy, but he didn't have a good game imho...

Whilst I would love this to be true - I think its a bit of a non-story. Acting as a non-executive director on the board of a company that a Celtic director owns shares in isn't really a conflict of interest. Other than a fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders, there is no real linkage or dialogue between the post and a shareholder. Every time Dave King opens his gob, it shows how little he knows/cares about corporate governance, regulation and takeover law. The guy is a moron who got rich from founding a company to provide services to the South African Apartheid government, then selling off his shares in secret due to the laughable disclosure laws out there at the time. When it collapsed, the big pension firms and asset managers that lost money tried to get him for misleading financial statements, but they couldn't make it stick. Other than actually having made some money at some point (allbeit dodgily) - he makes Craig Whyte look credible. Sadly, I think cockwomble Doncaster will ride out this little storm of h*n petulance just fine....

Got to be room for Zombie Nation - Kernkraft 400.

I think you've missed the point. I don't mind being "called on it" if people disagree with me. I was accused of trolling by someone whose only contribution to these boards over the past four years is to annoy the shit out of anyone reading them looking for news, insight and intelligent discussion. Anyway - back on topic: Our current predicament is that we are skint with a shapeless midfield. If other clubs want players we wont be signing them as it seems we have spent our cash. He is a 30 year old who has played for Scotland and has an affinity for the club. He plays (played?) in a style/role we are crying out for. My suggestion was we could sign him for buttons and hope that he can reach a level he was seen playing at 10 months ago. Its not that crazy a shout is it? Done at 29/30? Does that really happen these days - Bob Malco apart?

I wasn't aware Hughes had hit the drink and had off-field issues. If Hughes is now a jakey, then it's unlikely that we will be signing him, but we are crying out for a player in his mould/style who can do the job he did for us 5-6 years ago. Our midfield is full of workmanlike defenders and I think last seasons mantra of finding width and looking down the inside right/left channel encouraged our midfielders to always go sideways and look for balls into the flanks. We now have no width, and a central midfield of a style that is incapable of creating anything, resulting in our defenders aiming hopeful route 1 punts up to Sutton from the back. I actually wish we had signed Harkins - wasn't that bothered at the time, but we have overloaded with defensive mids. (I'm reminded why I remain a long time lurker rather than poster on here when the suggestion of an out of contract 30 yr old passing midfielder who looked good as recently as 10 months ago leaves me labelled as a troll or a glue sniffer...)

aye, but that one can pass the ball forward. Still only 30/31? I saw him less than a year ago playing in a bad dons team and thought he looked good.