mitre_mouldmaster 21,510 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Im sure most of you have seen the film Misery based on the Stephen King novel.For those that have not seen the movie or read the book, the story goes something like this :-One of the worlds most successful authors is driving through a remote part of the US. Along the way, there is a deteriation on the conditions on the road, with heavy snow. The author loses control of the car, crashes and seems to be heading for certain death as the snow begins to pile onto the wreckage. That is until the unlikely figure of Kathy Bates turns up to rescue the author and begins to nurse him back to health.The author is initially very thankful to Kathy for saving him from certain death, but soon things start to turn sinister with the rescuer telling lie after lie to deceive the author. The author is held captive and used purely to fulfil the demands of the rescuer. Things get to such a state, that the author finds himself being deliberately crippled by the rescuer because she values her own needs as being greater than his.It all ends very nastily with the author turning on the saviour and killing her.I see certain similarities with Green and the actions he has taken in saving our club.Yes, he dragged us from the car crash that we were left in. He nursed us back to health through the IPO and stabilisation of the club. His motivation the whole time however was selfish. The money he has extracted from the club is grotesque for the outlay he put in. He has in essence, crippled us in the short term with the huge bonuses and salaries paid out the board members. Malcolm Murray is also complicit in this by the sounds of things.Green did save us, but the motivation in doing so was selfish. I cannot view him as a hero for this very reason.I will always be thankful that we were saved, but surely it is now time to put an end to the relationship (in a more peaceful manner than happened in the movie!).The current board have inherited many problems from Green's tenure which I believe the Murray camp unfairly attribute to them. Im on the fence as to who the right party is to take the club forward, I dont have enough of the facts on future development. The party that has the best plan will get my backing, but until then, the current board are in possession and deserve a bit of slack. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Agree with much of what you say, but I wonder if you wrote it before reading Malcolm Murray's response to Mather's recent claims. If MM's version of events is correct, then it perhaps explains why Walter chose to use the word 'dysfunctional' when describing the present Board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,510 Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 Agree with much of what you say, but I wonder if you wrote it before reading Malcolm Murray's response to Mather's recent claims. If MM's version of events is correct, then it perhaps explains why Walter chose to use the word 'dysfunctional' when describing the present Board.Actually, hadnt read Malcolm M's response until you stated that.Certainly puts a new light on things, if it is true. Dont know who I trust at the minute. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Agree with much of what you say, but I wonder if you wrote it before reading Malcolm Murray's response to Mather's recent claims. If MM's version of events is correct, then it perhaps explains why Walter chose to use the word 'dysfunctional' when describing the present Board.What's dysfunctional about it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calio 688 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Norman Bates could be quite apt imo, the Dallas cowboy link was as believable as the old deary committing murder while rotting in her rocking chair up the stair.Saying that Charles Green saved the Club is showing huge disrespect to the only people to put money in for no return... Us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Norman Bates could be quite apt imo, the Dallas cowboy link was as believable as the old deary committing murder while rotting in her rocking chair up the stair.Saying that Charles Green saved the Club is showing huge disrespect to the only people to put money in for no return... Us.Not really, I think most people realise the implicit sentiment in that statement. If you think it detracts in any way from what the fans did last year then you perhaps have the problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rfc#1. 1,877 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 So CG and his investors saving our club is similar to the movie Misery? I was in misery before he came in and stabilised our club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 What's dysfunctional about it?Have a read of Malcolm Murray's response in the 'Malcolm Murray/Boardroom wages' thread. He reveals quite a lot about how the Board actually operated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Have a read of Malcolm Murray's response in the 'Malcolm Murray/Boardroom wages' thread. He reveals quite a lot about how the Board actually operated. But what is/was dysfunctional about the board? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calio 688 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Not really, I think most people realise the implicit sentiment in that statement. If you think it detracts in any way from what the fans did last year then you perhaps have the problem.I've maybe got a problem with the statement yes, do I need to fucking read between the lines in such a simple phrase?Get a grip Charles Green put 25k in as a loan which was repaid within 3 months. Fucking saved the club... Fuck me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I've maybe got a problem with the statement yes, do I need to fucking read between the lines in such a simple phrase?Get a grip Charles Green put 25k in as a loan which was repaid within 3 months. Fucking saved the club... Fuck me!You don't need to read between any lines, what you have to do is appreciate the true meaning of that phrase. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Have a read of Malcolm Murray's response in the 'Malcolm Murray/Boardroom wages' thread. He reveals quite a lot about how the Board actually operated."there was no remuneration committee""In fact, Phil Cartmell was chairman of the remuneration committee"Sorry but I don`t get it from MM ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimgers 565 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I can agree with most of the OP, Charlie made his crock of gold and bought his Chateau, but he's left his associate in charge all wanting their crock of gold imo. When does it end though, when we are skint again? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 didn`t cost much his Chateau. Only 400k euro`s ( £336k ).You couldn`t even buy a semi detached house down south with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
8Ace 49 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I've maybe got a problem with the statement yes, do I need to fucking read between the lines in such a simple phrase?Get a grip Charles Green put 25k in as a loan which was repaid within 3 months. Fucking saved the club... Fuck me!Saved the club?They fucking Wonga-d the club with their fantastic interest rates for loans.I was behind CG initially and his bluster was refreshing, but as time has gone on and information has come out, it appears that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,510 Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 "there was no remuneration committee""In fact, Phil Cartmell was chairman of the remuneration committee"Sorry but I don`t get it from MM ? Phil Cartmell was the nominated head of the remuneration committee, but despite of attempts, one was never held.Statement does work, just not very well worded. Not sure if it is true either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fantana 28,894 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 FFS had Green not saved us we wouldn't be here at all.people are happy believe TBK would have coughed up the cash - pish & bluster. they had the chance to buy in and then they could have made changes - they didn't.Fuck off with this pish, we are alive and the first year accounts show we have taken the hits and are still standing. Wage cuts are required but other than that our recovery is still very much on, it won't be instantaneous but we will get there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 "there was no remuneration committee""In fact, Phil Cartmell was chairman of the remuneration committee"Sorry but I don`t get it from MM ? MM is telling us that on paper at least there was a remuneration committee of which Phil Cartmell was the chairman, but that in reality there was no committee because it never actually met - despite the attempts of PC to convene meetings. He goes on to say that on a number of issues, he, Walter and PC were regularly outvoted by the other directors - in other words, that Green made all the decisions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fantana 28,894 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 "there was no remuneration committee""In fact, Phil Cartmell was chairman of the remuneration committee"Sorry but I don`t get it from MM ? talking pre -and post IPO? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,510 Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 So CG and his investors saving our club is similar to the movie Misery? I was in misery before he came in and stabilised our club. So was James Caan before Kathy dragged him from the wreckage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 MM is telling us that on paper at least there was a remuneration committee of which Phil Cartmell was the chairman, but that in reality there was no committee because it never actually met - despite the attempts of PC to convene meetings. He goes on to say that on a number of issues, he, Walter and PC were regularly outvoted by the other directors - in other words, that Green made all the decisions.so why didn`t he just say there was a remuneration committee and it never actually met ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 so why didn`t he just say there was a remuneration committee and it never actually met ?He did! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I was the only non-executive and, as a private company, there was no remuneration committee.In fact, Phil Cartmell was chairman of the remuneration committee which never met once, despite his attempts.Your trying to read into a statement what you think he meant. He has said 2 completely different things here.Yet again sounds like someone who doesn`t know what time of the day it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 There is some confusion here. Before the company was listed on AIM it was a private company and was not required to have a remuneration committee. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.