Re: By association

By VS (VS Boro)31/1 14:39Wed Jan 31 14:39:46 2024In response to Re: By association

Views: 498

My view of the actual meeting was that there was no specific "mud slinging", just generic one referencing the last 30 years or so.

Generally I thought those with connections to Boro Leisure were guarded what they said.

WRT Boro Leisure.
The buck stops at the top. If people were delegated to pay bills and didn't that should have been picked up (at least as soon as demand came in). In all business (particularly small) invoices can be "mislaid". If negligence then should be removed of that responsibility and those in control implement.

There is clearly very important costs to be met (Tax, energy, players and rent).
It's pretty clear that the weekly rent was no more than a squad players wages. Did the person in overall control make sure the playing budget was set to reflect other costs and this was adhered to?

The running of the club was unusual (even more so now).
As of may 2023 (before DA Capital and LockGate) there were
2 shareholder (JG-60% and SustainYourSport-40%)
1 Director.

Shareholders appoint directors to legally run the business.
Why was there only one director when others were clearly involved?
Jason Dean has been mentioned in this thread. I suspect his role was just "by name" rather than having any legal responsibly.

I believe the sponsors could (and did) offer recommendations to the directors. It's up to directors to list and act (or not).
The only "power" the sponsors had was to withdraw any financial help......but did they want that (in retrospect it made no difference).

>>>> Former Nuneaton Boro fan <<<<

Edited by VS Boro at 14:40:47 on 31st January 2024
Edited by VS Boro at 14:41:14 on 31st January 2024

reply to this article | return to the front page