Was there an agm Tuesday?

[usacas]

If he did, then that's twice Jack saved our club.

[Frankas]

He still hows Cas money for the sponsorship he took out, Every club the fake shake went too, he promised them the world, Halifax where glad to get shut of him, for his false promises, he left Cas owing naming rights for the ground, and left Fev right in the brown stuff. This feud has been going on for years,between a certain poster and Cas, and it's about time it was stopped or at least, stop airing his grievances on a fans forum page

[Robbo]

Quick point - an AGM is only a legal requirement of Public Limited Company - Not a Limited company.

If Castleford tigers did not want to even invite shareholders it would not be in breach of companies law 2006

Once again you are wrong. A company can opt out following the changes to the act in 2006.
However we voted to keep one and the key document is the AOA.
I have the up to date version should you wish to have them.
Of course now we are under control by one family that may change and nothing could be done.

[chesterfieldtiger]

Quick point - an AGM is only a legal requirement of Public Limited Company - Not a Limited company.

If Castleford tigers did not want to even invite shareholders it would not be in breach of companies law 2006

Once again you are wrong. A company can opt out following the changes to the act in 2006.
However we voted to keep one and the key document is the AOA.
I have the up to date version should you wish to have them.
Of course now we are under control by one family that may change and nothing could be done.

It's about time you crawled back under the stone you came from Robbo, sick of hearing you now. Bet you think your really professional don't you? Like as has already been said. The washing machine is for dirty laundry not Cas forum. Can't the moderators block him for the sanity of the rest of us please.

[TheSheriff]

Quick point - an AGM is only a legal requirement of Public Limited Company - Not a Limited company.

If Castleford tigers did not want to even invite shareholders it would not be in breach of companies law 2006

Once again you are wrong. A company can opt out following the changes to the act in 2006.
However we voted to keep one and the key document is the AOA.
I have the up to date version should you wish to have them.
Of course now we are under control by one family that may change and nothing could be done.

It's about time you crawled back under the stone you came from Robbo, sick of hearing you now. Bet you think your really professional don't you? Like as has already been said. The washing machine is for dirty laundry not Cas forum. Can't the moderators block him for the sanity of the rest of us please.

Sounds like someone would either prefer to live in North Korea or stick their head back in he sand!

"Wah wah I don't like what you're saying...plz ban!!!!" Pathetic.

[chesterfieldtiger]

Yawn yawn yawn

[St Albans tiger]

Firstly let me remark that the way Robbo replies to people on this forum is quite frankly appalling - they way in which you tell people they are wrong without ever providing proper evidence is probably the reason why people dismiss your views as quickly as you dismiss theirs.

On the subject of fact (and apologies ahead of this its not a thrilling read):

All companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 - which covers the articles of association.

Articles of association are a document which can be altered by shareholders of a company at any point in time - so long as they abide by the legislation laid down in the aforementioned companies act. The companies act can only be altered by a passing of law by the Government.

Ultimately the Companies Act is the top piece of legislation that governs companies within the UK

Under the Companies Act a limited company does not have to hold an AGM unless the companies opt to a passing of an amendment to the Articles of Association. IT IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT under the companies act. It is an option afforded to directors of a business.

This was introduced under part 13 (sec281 - sec 361) which came into being when the Companies act 2006 was approved by Parliament on 1st October 2007

There are only two specific instances under which a limited company is legally required to hold an General Meeting (of which an AGM is considered to be a general meeting) - and I will refer to the specific paragraphs under the companies act to provide evidence of this.

s168 - where a director is dismissed from office before their term has finished

s510 - where an auditor is dismissed before their term has finished.

Furthermore there is no requirement to present the accounts at an AGM - so long as accounts have been provided to shareholders in advance - sec423 - sec425 of the companies act 2006

Although I concur that the company is required to hold an AGM under its articles this is not a legal requirement, and could be removed from the articles by a majority of shareholders with immediate affect.

All of the above is quite easy to find on the large accountancy and legal firms websites - so on that basis I will refer to them if that's ok

[Jack2]

Jack2
Firstly my degree was in Accountancy. I also studied law until I was 21.
You should not assume that as you put it a "greengrocer" does not have an Education. I think if you look Mr Fulton senior and Mr Wright both ran similar business.
I by no means intend to upset anyone or darken some ones name. I have been careful not to make this situation worse.

You maybe "almost" certain but I am looking at the bigger picture here.
Whilst the timeline appears confusing there are some questions that need answering.

Who signed a document in September that in effect could have ended the Tigers?
At that stage the loan was repayable upon demand. We clearly could not meet that demand.
So unless the BOD KNEW in advance that Ian Fulton and family would convert debit for equity, they were gambling with the survival of the club.
If the deal was done in advance why delay the AGM? To allow us to pay interest?

Finally you say .......clearly demonstrates your arrogance and ignorance to the corporate governance system.
I sit on two companies ,one as Chairman the other as a non-exc director so you can be assured I do understand corporate governance systems.
Regards
Robbo

I just don't feel the BOD have been open about this and the running of the AGM was a disgrace.
The banning of a shareholder from a AGM is unprecedented and one has to question why?

Robbo,

Having a degree in accountancy does not make you an accountant and doing a course in Law does not make you a solicitor, virtually all business people can navigate a balance sheet and know the basics of business law, anything more than that you get the professionals in, plus I did home economics at school for a term and I would hardly call myself a chef!

I would not put Jack Fulton quite in the greengrocer league if I am honest, he was a bit, no a lot more than that. RW well what can I say, the damage is there to see (he is more your league)

With regards to the document, I find it difficult to believe that any BOD would sign a document to in effect make the club trade insolvent, which is what would happen in this instant as the club would not have the means to repay the debt.

Regarding your claims to be on the 'board of two independent companies, that is not true or it is not lodged with companies house, perhaps you are the chairman of the local darts league or Neighbourhood watch program.

With regards to this banned director/shareholder, as I understand it they were banned from the club premises for reasons I couldn't careless about and since the meeting took place at the club, obviously they were not able to attend, hence the proxy vote. Should the meeting have taken place elsewhere off site then there would have been no problem in attendance, all of which was of his own doing. It is ironic that you seem to have found such an allegiance with each other when a couple of years earlier they would not have given you and others the time of day

[Jack2]

Firstly let me remark that the way Robbo replies to people on this forum is quite frankly appalling - they way in which you tell people they are wrong without ever providing proper evidence is probably the reason why people dismiss your views as quickly as you dismiss theirs.

On the subject of fact (and apologies ahead of this its not a thrilling read):

All companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 - which covers the articles of association.

Articles of association are a document which can be altered by shareholders of a company at any point in time - so long as they abide by the legislation laid down in the aforementioned companies act. The companies act can only be altered by a passing of law by the Government.

Ultimately the Companies Act is the top piece of legislation that governs companies within the UK

Under the Companies Act a limited company does not have to hold an AGM unless the companies opt to a passing of an amendment to the Articles of Association. IT IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT under the companies act. It is an option afforded to directors of a business.

This was introduced under part 13 (sec281 - sec 361) which came into being when the Companies act 2006 was approved by Parliament on 1st October 2007

There are only two specific instances under which a limited company is legally required to hold an General Meeting (of which an AGM is considered to be a general meeting) - and I will refer to the specific paragraphs under the companies act to provide evidence of this.

s168 - where a director is dismissed from office before their term has finished

s510 - where an auditor is dismissed before their term has finished.

Furthermore there is no requirement to present the accounts at an AGM - so long as accounts have been provided to shareholders in advance - sec423 - sec425 of the companies act 2006

Although I concur that the company is required to hold an AGM under its articles this is not a legal requirement, and could be removed from the articles by a majority of shareholders with immediate affect.

All of the above is quite easy to find on the large accountancy and legal firms websites - so on that basis I will refer to them if that's ok

You do understand that whatever you put will be wrong, since this guy did a law course 30 odd years ago! he should just admit defeat gracefully and say thank you

[Robbo]

Firstly let me remark that the way Robbo replies to people on this forum is quite frankly appalling - they way in which you tell people they are wrong without ever providing proper evidence is probably the reason why people dismiss your views as quickly as you dismiss theirs.

On the subject of fact (and apologies ahead of this its not a thrilling read):

All companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006 - which covers the articles of association.

Articles of association are a document which can be altered by shareholders of a company at any point in time - so long as they abide by the legislation laid down in the aforementioned companies act. The companies act can only be altered by a passing of law by the Government.

Ultimately the Companies Act is the top piece of legislation that governs companies within the UK

Under the Companies Act a limited company does not have to hold an AGM unless the companies opt to a passing of an amendment to the Articles of Association. IT IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT under the companies act. It is an option afforded to directors of a business.

This was introduced under part 13 (sec281 - sec 361) which came into being when the Companies act 2006 was approved by Parliament on 1st October 2007

There are only two specific instances under which a limited company is legally required to hold an General Meeting (of which an AGM is considered to be a general meeting) - and I will refer to the specific paragraphs under the companies act to provide evidence of this.

s168 - where a director is dismissed from office before their term has finished

s510 - where an auditor is dismissed before their term has finished.

Furthermore there is no requirement to present the accounts at an AGM - so long as accounts have been provided to shareholders in advance - sec423 - sec425 of the companies act 2006

Although I concur that the company is required to hold an AGM under its articles this is not a legal requirement, and could be removed from the articles by a majority of shareholders with immediate affect.

All of the above is quite easy to find on the large accountancy and legal firms websites - so on that basis I will refer to them if that's ok

This is what I said
Once again you are wrong. A company can opt out following the changes to the act in 2006.
However we voted to keep one and the key document is the AOA.
I have the up to date version should you wish to have them.

That's fairly clear under company law we decided to maintain the AGM.
I even mention the AOA.

SECOND POINT...........you mention

Furthermore there is no requirement to present the accounts at an AGM - so long as accounts have been provided to shareholders in advance - sec423 - sec425 of the companies act 2006

Accounts were not provided to Shareholders in advance of the meeting. A point I had mention via my solicitors to SG. They attempted to correct this by handing out copies of the "filed " accounts at the meeting.
Except they forgot !!
They did so when it was pointed out.

I have not really discussed in detail the meeting but to start any meeting you follow procedure.
Apologise and mins of the last meeting before taking any unresolved items from that meeting not on the Agenda.

We can go on for days about breaches of the 2006 act.
They failed to call the meeting in the 21 days allowed under my request for an EGM.
Don't forget they DID NOT CALL THIS MEETING.......it was forced upon them following a request for a EGM.

I however apologise if my style is sometimes abrupt and a bit quick but I am busy and frankly I wonder why I waste my time.

[tigerfeat]

Your making the same point over and over again don't you care about the damage its doing to the club having these arguments on here?

[Robbo]

I am answering questions raised. I have agreed to move on just let it drop.

[gateman]

I don't understand the legal maters that as been posted on here , all I see is the club being better run in better shape and in the future moving to a new ground , I myself are happy the way things are going, and I don't see any yardage trying to stir up trouble and back biting , on this note I think we should close this subject and move on

[HuddsTigers]

I am answering questions raised. I have agreed to move on just let it drop.

You should have agreed to move on when all the criticisms you have raised had been answered privately with the club and Steve Gill, some of which I believe you actually understood from the club's point of view and agreed on.

For someone who professes to have the club and its best interests at heart, you do a pretty shoddy job at showing it. You seem intent to try and damage the club at every opportunity with no forethought for outside perceptions, how it looks to people within the game, players agents and not least the damage it can do from a PR perspective to suppliers, banks, lenders and also the fans, who you try and scaremonger into thinking the end of the world is nigh.

It makes me wonder whether you would let the same happen to your own businesses, if we started trashing your companies in public domains. Me thinks not.

Every business decision made by the club wouldn't have universal acceptance or agreement. That's the nature of a business where it has a large group of shareholders. But I repeat again, if you really wanted to make a difference - you or anyone else - there was a pool of unsold shares that the club could agree to sell. You didn't or haven't. If there was an investor there wanting to buy the club, they could have stumped up the cash to buy the shares and/or repay the Fulton's loans. It's that simple.

I think you need to start looking long and hard in the mirror and start playing ball with the club. The only way we'll ever move forward is if we are on the same page and keep things behind closed doors. We have had a really good few years, we are building towards something pretty special. We can ALWAYS do better. And we should never stop striving for that. But we can do it by working together than working in different directions.

[yorky]

I am answering questions raised. I have agreed to move on just let it drop.

You should have agreed to move on when all the criticisms you have raised had been answered privately with the club and Steve Gill, some of which I believe you actually understood from the club's point of view and agreed on.

For someone who professes to have the club and its best interests at heart, you do a pretty shoddy job at showing it. You seem intent to try and damage the club at every opportunity with no forethought for outside perceptions, how it looks to people within the game, players agents and not least the damage it can do from a PR perspective to suppliers, banks, lenders and also the fans, who you try and scaremonger into thinking the end of the world is nigh.

It makes me wonder whether you would let the same happen to your own businesses, if we started trashing your companies in public domains. Me thinks not.

Every business decision made by the club wouldn't have universal acceptance or agreement. That's the nature of a business where it has a large group of shareholders. But I repeat again, if you really wanted to make a difference - you or anyone else - there was a pool of unsold shares that the club could agree to sell. You didn't or haven't. If there was an investor there wanting to buy the club, they could have stumped up the cash to buy the shares and/or repay the Fulton's loans. It's that simple.

I think you need to start looking long and hard in the mirror and start playing ball with the club. The only way we'll ever move forward is if we are on the same page and keep things behind closed doors. We have had a really good few years, we are building towards something pretty special. We can ALWAYS do better. And we should never stop striving for that. But we can do it by working together than working in different directions.

here here :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Robbo]

Let's close the door.thats a great idea. You have defended the club Hudd as long as I can remember. You should be a good fit.
I cannot be bothered with this. There are plenty out there who understand.
Let's move on. Maybe they need some help?
Robbo
Ps that's an offer SG

[mart0042]

Locked now as it's not serving a purpose.