comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
Should pick the phone up and talk to each other-it’s became a bit unedifying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's akin to the Sun running the Sterling gun story without bothering to do any research or speak to him first.
Amateur hour.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by P0intyBird5 (U8853)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Miller Going for 5-5 (U9310)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
Well, there’s a connection to Celtic somewhere, so I think that’s what the COI is based on.
It’s a bit like that six degrees of Kevin Bacon for some though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it. I'm cancelling my EE contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Orange?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish.
Ra bears will be raging loooolz
Oor spfl really dis get them pure beeling aboot ra davester!
Aww man its just miller on
comment by JFK - Trebles for the Rebels (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
Aww man its just miller on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think I’m a popular poster amongst the bear side on here. Comment count will be low.
comment by Just Another Ber-Rsed Rodgersing (U5683)
posted 10 minutes ago
Hmmm... interstign.
Personally, I don't accept there was no conflict. It's pretty plain to me there was, and that folks should have been properly informed.
Wether they were and King is misnfoirmed or at it, or the wernt and either trht Chiaeman or those charged with disseminating the information are guilty of cover-up. Shouldn't be to oahrd to find out hwo knew what and when and compare that with what propriety demands.
The SPFL do have a point though - if concerns, which is all they could initially be without evidence, were raised, then this should have been raised with them via proper channels and discussed at board - maybe it was, but I doubt it form what we've seen, and then it is Dave King we are talking about here and you have to be a fool or a ber (hard to spot the difference these days!) to take him at face-value
SPFL Vs Dave King == Incompetence Vs dishonesty.
messy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your spelling?
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 10 seconds ago
The SPFL probably couldn’t win out this one. Don’t reply publicly and they’d be accused of scheidting it. Reply publicly and you’re as bad as the person your lambasting for issuing public statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly 👍 so don’t do it. But they did. Shambles 🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that any organisation that communicates though the media is a shambles.
You might find this hard to believe, but I actually agree with you there. The SPFL are a for reacting like this. Far better to have sent King Jong Un a private letter or email.
On the other hand, Rangers are shambles for exactly the same reason.
You have to see that Escy, surely.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Whit's the Chairman dayin' Tom, whit's the Chairman dayin'?
Priceless.
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
Whe you make an accusation, any accusation against any individual or corporate body it is beholding on the accuser to substantiate his/her accusations. There are three recognised ways of doing this and in order or prioity they are:-
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
If there is any evidence then King should present it.
If he cannot or will not present anything to back up his accusations then he should be charged for bringing the game into disrpute.
However, if he has evidence, brings it forward and it is found to be correct then questions need to be answered.
But first things first - where's the evidence ?
"If he cannot or will not present anything to back up his accusations then he should be charged for bringing the game into disrepute.".
Given that this was in actual fact a Club statement then the Club should also be charged.
‘The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.‘
The previous chairman?
"Given that this was in actual fact a Club statement then the Club should also be charged".
Again.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 10 minutes ago
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a pile of pash. The overwhelming majority of all shareholders in all companies think that the business should be run to maximise return to the shareholders. FFS This is basic capitalist economic theory and this extract is a half-ersed red-herring of a deflection and has nothing to do with the SPFL.
Let King bring forward his evidence if he has any!
FFS it's like Trump shouting 'fake news' and there is always gonna be some clown(s) who'll believe him.
Get the evidence out.
comment by Tully Original (U20686)
posted 8 minutes ago
Whe you make an accusation, any accusation against any individual or corporate body it is beholding on the accuser to substantiate his/her accusations. There are three recognised ways of doing this and in order or prioity they are:-
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
If there is any evidence then King should present it.
If he cannot or will not present anything to back up his accusations then he should be charged for bringing the game into disrpute.
However, if he has evidence, brings it forward and it is found to be correct then questions need to be answered.
But first things first - where's the evidence ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you don’t realize that’s WHY HES ASKING FOR A REVIEW !!
Ffs he’s asking for transparency to see who nknew what and when. It’s insufficient to say there’s no COI. Case closed. INM are currently under investigation for impropriety from a chairmsn who is allegeded to want the INM business strategy to be one for the sole gain of OBrien and Desmond.
So the question should not only be one of COI for MacLennan but is he fit and proper flto be SPFL Chairman - when he is also chairman of a company currently under investigation for impropriety!
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 34 minutes ago
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok caller, what's your point.
One minute it's a complaint about who's who. Next it's about how things are communicated.
Make your mind up son, before you explode.
comment by theresgonnaebeashow (U5686)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 34 minutes ago
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok caller, what's your point.
One minute it's a complaint about who's who. Next it's about how things are communicated.
Make your mind up son, before you explode.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on...have I missed something. Are businesses not meant to be run for the benefit of the shareholders? I'm sure I read somewhere that's it's even a legal requirement in some cases
Escy
It's your ire about the people involved, our is out about the way these things are communicated by the parties involved? You have me all confused. Easy,I know.
Source: Herald.ie
“Mr MacLennan was one of four new directors elected to the INM board last Thursday.
The other three directors are Fionnuala Duggan, a media executive; John Bateson, MD of INM shareholder Dermot Desmond's IIU; and Seamus Taaffe, a retired KPMG partner.”
Both MacLennan and Desmond are directors of INM. But “no business relationship@ according to the SPFL
Having a business relationship is not in itself a conflict of interest, unlike when Campbell Ogilvie was SFL treasurer and receiving EBTs from Renders. Now that was a conflict of interest.
comment by theresgonnaebeashow (U5686)
posted 1 minute ago
Having a business relationship is not in itself a conflict of interest, unlike when Campbell Ogilvie was SFL treasurer and receiving EBTs from Renders. Now that was a conflict of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s a COI. And it’s contradictory to the SPFLs reply who stated there’s “no business relationship”
Sign in if you want to comment
SPFL reply
Page 2 of 4
posted on 31/5/18
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
Should pick the phone up and talk to each other-it’s became a bit unedifying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's akin to the Sun running the Sterling gun story without bothering to do any research or speak to him first.
Amateur hour.
posted on 31/5/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/5/18
comment by P0intyBird5 (U8853)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Miller Going for 5-5 (U9310)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
Well, there’s a connection to Celtic somewhere, so I think that’s what the COI is based on.
It’s a bit like that six degrees of Kevin Bacon for some though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it. I'm cancelling my EE contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Orange?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish.
posted on 31/5/18
Ra bears will be raging loooolz
Oor spfl really dis get them pure beeling aboot ra davester!
posted on 31/5/18
Aww man its just miller on
posted on 31/5/18
comment by JFK - Trebles for the Rebels (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
Aww man its just miller on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think I’m a popular poster amongst the bear side on here. Comment count will be low.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by Just Another Ber-Rsed Rodgersing (U5683)
posted 10 minutes ago
Hmmm... interstign.
Personally, I don't accept there was no conflict. It's pretty plain to me there was, and that folks should have been properly informed.
Wether they were and King is misnfoirmed or at it, or the wernt and either trht Chiaeman or those charged with disseminating the information are guilty of cover-up. Shouldn't be to oahrd to find out hwo knew what and when and compare that with what propriety demands.
The SPFL do have a point though - if concerns, which is all they could initially be without evidence, were raised, then this should have been raised with them via proper channels and discussed at board - maybe it was, but I doubt it form what we've seen, and then it is Dave King we are talking about here and you have to be a fool or a ber (hard to spot the difference these days!) to take him at face-value
SPFL Vs Dave King == Incompetence Vs dishonesty.
messy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your spelling?
posted on 31/5/18
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 10 seconds ago
The SPFL probably couldn’t win out this one. Don’t reply publicly and they’d be accused of scheidting it. Reply publicly and you’re as bad as the person your lambasting for issuing public statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly 👍 so don’t do it. But they did. Shambles 🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that any organisation that communicates though the media is a shambles.
You might find this hard to believe, but I actually agree with you there. The SPFL are a for reacting like this. Far better to have sent King Jong Un a private letter or email.
On the other hand, Rangers are shambles for exactly the same reason.
You have to see that Escy, surely.
posted on 31/5/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/5/18
Whit's the Chairman dayin' Tom, whit's the Chairman dayin'?
Priceless.
posted on 31/5/18
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
posted on 31/5/18
Whe you make an accusation, any accusation against any individual or corporate body it is beholding on the accuser to substantiate his/her accusations. There are three recognised ways of doing this and in order or prioity they are:-
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
If there is any evidence then King should present it.
If he cannot or will not present anything to back up his accusations then he should be charged for bringing the game into disrpute.
However, if he has evidence, brings it forward and it is found to be correct then questions need to be answered.
But first things first - where's the evidence ?
posted on 31/5/18
"If he cannot or will not present anything to back up his accusations then he should be charged for bringing the game into disrepute.".
Given that this was in actual fact a Club statement then the Club should also be charged.
posted on 31/5/18
‘The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.‘
The previous chairman?
posted on 31/5/18
"Given that this was in actual fact a Club statement then the Club should also be charged".
Again.
posted on 31/5/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/5/18
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 10 minutes ago
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a pile of pash. The overwhelming majority of all shareholders in all companies think that the business should be run to maximise return to the shareholders. FFS This is basic capitalist economic theory and this extract is a half-ersed red-herring of a deflection and has nothing to do with the SPFL.
Let King bring forward his evidence if he has any!
FFS it's like Trump shouting 'fake news' and there is always gonna be some clown(s) who'll believe him.
Get the evidence out.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by Tully Original (U20686)
posted 8 minutes ago
Whe you make an accusation, any accusation against any individual or corporate body it is beholding on the accuser to substantiate his/her accusations. There are three recognised ways of doing this and in order or prioity they are:-
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
If there is any evidence then King should present it.
If he cannot or will not present anything to back up his accusations then he should be charged for bringing the game into disrpute.
However, if he has evidence, brings it forward and it is found to be correct then questions need to be answered.
But first things first - where's the evidence ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you don’t realize that’s WHY HES ASKING FOR A REVIEW !!
Ffs he’s asking for transparency to see who nknew what and when. It’s insufficient to say there’s no COI. Case closed. INM are currently under investigation for impropriety from a chairmsn who is allegeded to want the INM business strategy to be one for the sole gain of OBrien and Desmond.
posted on 31/5/18
So the question should not only be one of COI for MacLennan but is he fit and proper flto be SPFL Chairman - when he is also chairman of a company currently under investigation for impropriety!
posted on 31/5/18
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 34 minutes ago
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok caller, what's your point.
One minute it's a complaint about who's who. Next it's about how things are communicated.
Make your mind up son, before you explode.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by theresgonnaebeashow (U5686)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Esctosh - back to saying it like it is 😎 (U8215)
posted 34 minutes ago
you do realize that INM are under investigation for allegations of impropriety that it should be run solely for the benefit of Desmond and O’Brien ? So clsims of they have no business influence over the chairmsn are ridiculous. Particularly when that Chairman is MacLennan who is also the SPFL Chairman. It’s a clear COI
Source: Irish Times 17.April.2018
“..The then chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) suggested in 2016 that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond, according to a court document...
...Mr Buckley is a long-time business associate of Mr O’Brien’s and was his nominee on the board. Mr O’Brien is the largest shareholder in the company, with 29.9 per cent of the group’s shares. Mr Desmond is the second largest, with 15 per cent.
The claim about Mr Buckley was made by Mr Pitt in a protected disclosure to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in 2016. It is cited in an affidavit from Director of Corporate Enforcement Ian Drennan who is seeking the appointment of High Court inspectors to INM.
When the application came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he adjourned the matter to allow for judicial review proceedings being taken by the company, which is seeking to prevent Mr Drennan’s application proceeding.
In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board.
“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.
“According to Mr Pitt, the chairman stated that he had not discussed this approach with the major shareholder [Mr O’Brien]. Mr Pitt objected to this position, noting that the board had an equal responsibility to all shareholders.”
An independent review was established by INM to look into concerns expressed by Mr Pitt about several matters, including the alleged comments by Mr Buckley...”
The chairmam ffs is accused of saying the business strategy should be that INM is run for the sole purpose and gain of the 2 major shareholders O’Brien and Desmond.
Aye “no business relationship”. Righty oh 👍
Crooked as fook. And now MacLennan is the Chairmsn and we should also believe there’s no business relationship there
We await DKs response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok caller, what's your point.
One minute it's a complaint about who's who. Next it's about how things are communicated.
Make your mind up son, before you explode.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on...have I missed something. Are businesses not meant to be run for the benefit of the shareholders? I'm sure I read somewhere that's it's even a legal requirement in some cases
posted on 31/5/18
Escy
It's your ire about the people involved, our is out about the way these things are communicated by the parties involved? You have me all confused. Easy,I know.
posted on 31/5/18
Source: Herald.ie
“Mr MacLennan was one of four new directors elected to the INM board last Thursday.
The other three directors are Fionnuala Duggan, a media executive; John Bateson, MD of INM shareholder Dermot Desmond's IIU; and Seamus Taaffe, a retired KPMG partner.”
Both MacLennan and Desmond are directors of INM. But “no business relationship@ according to the SPFL
posted on 31/5/18
Having a business relationship is not in itself a conflict of interest, unlike when Campbell Ogilvie was SFL treasurer and receiving EBTs from Renders. Now that was a conflict of interest.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by theresgonnaebeashow (U5686)
posted 1 minute ago
Having a business relationship is not in itself a conflict of interest, unlike when Campbell Ogilvie was SFL treasurer and receiving EBTs from Renders. Now that was a conflict of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s a COI. And it’s contradictory to the SPFLs reply who stated there’s “no business relationship”
Page 2 of 4