SACK The boARD
Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:34 pm
Earlier today I was looking at the board as feel their all as bad as each other. We have several non-exec directors including Paul Guy and Mike Hall, not really understanding the terminology here is a definition from wikipedia regarding the general role of a non-executive director.
A non-executive director (NED, also NXD) or outside director is a member of the board of directors of a company who does not form part of the executive management team. He or she is not an employee of the company or affiliated with it in any other way. They are differentiated from inside directors, who are members of the board who also serve or previously served as executive managers of the company (most often as corporate officers).
Non-executive directors have responsibilities in the following areas, according to the Higgs Report, commissioned by the British Government and published in 2003:[1][2]
* Strategy: Non-executive directors should constructively challenge and contribute to the development of strategy.
* Performance: Non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitoring, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
* Risk: Non-executive directors should satisfy themselves that financial information is accurate and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible.
* People: Non-executive directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
NEDs should also provide independent views on:
* Resources
* Appointments
* Standards of conduct
Non-executive directors are the custodians of the governance process. They are not involved in the day-to-day running of business but monitor the executive activity and contribute to the development of strategy.
Now then looking at some of the above points its clear to me that their all as bad as each other. They should provide views independtly on resources, appointments and standards of conduct. We dont seem to hear any of their view on any of these and they remained silent at the EGM. The remuneration of executive directors is also interesting and leads me to believe despite knowing the clubs finances they must have been fine for ridders to take the alledged bonuses and no dount line their own pockets also. The more you look into it Im convinced the board seem as bad as each other. my banner for saturday now has SACK THE BOARD ,
A non-executive director (NED, also NXD) or outside director is a member of the board of directors of a company who does not form part of the executive management team. He or she is not an employee of the company or affiliated with it in any other way. They are differentiated from inside directors, who are members of the board who also serve or previously served as executive managers of the company (most often as corporate officers).
Non-executive directors have responsibilities in the following areas, according to the Higgs Report, commissioned by the British Government and published in 2003:[1][2]
* Strategy: Non-executive directors should constructively challenge and contribute to the development of strategy.
* Performance: Non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitoring, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
* Risk: Non-executive directors should satisfy themselves that financial information is accurate and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible.
* People: Non-executive directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
NEDs should also provide independent views on:
* Resources
* Appointments
* Standards of conduct
Non-executive directors are the custodians of the governance process. They are not involved in the day-to-day running of business but monitor the executive activity and contribute to the development of strategy.
Now then looking at some of the above points its clear to me that their all as bad as each other. They should provide views independtly on resources, appointments and standards of conduct. We dont seem to hear any of their view on any of these and they remained silent at the EGM. The remuneration of executive directors is also interesting and leads me to believe despite knowing the clubs finances they must have been fine for ridders to take the alledged bonuses and no dount line their own pockets also. The more you look into it Im convinced the board seem as bad as each other. my banner for saturday now has SACK THE BOARD ,
Re: SACK The boARD
Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:38 pm
Cefnfforestbluebird wrote:Earlier today I was looking at the board as feel their all as bad as each other. We have several non-exec directors including Paul Guy and Mike Hall, not really understanding the terminology here is a definition from wikipedia regarding the general role of a non-executive director.
A non-executive director (NED, also NXD) or outside director is a member of the board of directors of a company who does not form part of the executive management team. He or she is not an employee of the company or affiliated with it in any other way. They are differentiated from inside directors, who are members of the board who also serve or previously served as executive managers of the company (most often as corporate officers).
Non-executive directors have responsibilities in the following areas, according to the Higgs Report, commissioned by the British Government and published in 2003:[1][2]
* Strategy: Non-executive directors should constructively challenge and contribute to the development of strategy.
* Performance: Non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitoring, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
* Risk: Non-executive directors should satisfy themselves that financial information is accurate and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible.
* People: Non-executive directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
NEDs should also provide independent views on:
* Resources
* Appointments
* Standards of conduct
Non-executive directors are the custodians of the governance process. They are not involved in the day-to-day running of business but monitor the executive activity and contribute to the development of strategy.
Now then looking at some of the above points its clear to me that their all as bad as each other. They should provide views independtly on resources, appointments and standards of conduct. We dont seem to hear any of their view on any of these and they remained silent at the EGM. The remuneration of executive directors is also interesting and leads me to believe despite knowing the clubs finances they must have been fine for ridders to take the alledged bonuses and no dount line their own pockets also. The more you look into it Im convinced the board seem as bad as each other. my banner for saturday now has SACK THE BOARD ,
Hall and Guy are major shareholders, but aren't on the board. They're on the board of Cardiff City Stadium Ltd, but not the football club.
Harris is a non exec, and I'm guessing is just there to provide advice and guidance with regards to selling the club/takeovers etc, and I wouldn't have thought he's at the club very often.
TG is also a non exec I think, but he doesn't really count!
Re: SACK The boARD
Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Your right there Its slightly confusing their on the Stadium not the club so to speak I just found a link to PMGhttp://www.pmg-plc.com/Directors_paulguy.html