Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Your Options


  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

#181 saints10coach

saints10coach
  • Moderator
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 08:36 AM

Whilst it created a lot of feel good factor while BQ was here. It also demonstrated the chaos it can cause when a wealthy benefactor pulls the plug, and states his intention to recoup the directors loans he has made to the club. Therefore it is a no from me. The club is just about recovering from the last exiting episode.



#182 HARRYRUBY

HARRYRUBY
  • Coach
  • 188 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 01:31 PM

Whilst it created a lot of feel good factor while BQ was here. It also demonstrated the chaos it can cause when a wealthy benefactor pulls the plug, and states his intention to recoup the directors loans he has made to the club. Therefore it is a no from me. The club is just about recovering from the last exiting episode.

Ask the question.

Why did he leave?

Yes there was a feel good factor about the place and he put a lot of money into the club.

 

I doubt if he got all his money out and doubt whether he still as.

 

BQ did not want to leave the club and still wants the club to progress and be successful.

 

What do you mean by the club is just recovering from the last episode. He put more money into the club than any other person I can think off.

 

The problem was he could no longer get on with CH and was not shown the books when he asked for them when at the time he was the chairman and majority shareholder.

 

The club is not recovering its on a slow downward spiral.


  • Curly Wurly likes this

#183 saints10coach

saints10coach
  • Moderator
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

Ask the question.

Why did he leave?

Yes there was a feel good factor about the place and he put a lot of money into the club.

 

I doubt if he got all his money out and doubt whether he still as.

 

BQ did not want to leave the club and still wants the club to progress and be successful.

 

What do you mean by the club is just recovering from the last episode. He put more money into the club than any other person I can think off.

 

The problem was he could no longer get on with CH and was not shown the books when he asked for them when at the time he was the chairman and majority shareholder.

 

The club is not recovering its on a slow downward spiral.

Experience and life tells me. Rich people do not give money away. They will loan it to you, but will also expect a bigger return than they would get at an High Street Bank. If this was not the case with BQ, get him back now, that is just what any sports club is looking for.



#184 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 4,952 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:30 PM

The problem was he could no longer get on with CH and was not shown the books when he asked for them when at the time he was the chairman and majority shareholder.

 

If you was the chairman and majority shareholder of a company and an employee refused you access to the books and accounts, would you -

 

A) Quit the club and walk away from your investment?

 

B) Sack the employee, get a forensic accountant in and employ a new club manger?

 

Or as usual with most things at the club, the events around CH and BQ were likely to not be as black and white as portrayed at the time.


Edited by Bedford Roughyed, 07 June 2013 - 04:30 PM.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#185 HARRYRUBY

HARRYRUBY
  • Coach
  • 188 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 06:33 PM

Whatever was the why or wherefore in regard to BQ and what he put into the club either in sponsorship, shares or whatever the problem was that he left because he did not want to or could not continue under the situation as it was. 

 

It not just BQ that has been in that position, the points that Bedford Roughyed made were valid for each of the directors that have been involved with the club from its formation in 1997 with the exception of SW who left then returned.

 

Ask them all why they left and you will find the common denominator. Its not rocket science to work it out.



#186 TOSH1960

TOSH1960
  • Coach
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:24 PM

Whatever was the why or wherefore in regard to BQ and what he put into the club either in sponsorship, shares or whatever the problem was that he left because he did not want to or could not continue under the situation as it was. 

 

It not just BQ that has been in that position, the points that Bedford Roughyed made were valid for each of the directors that have been involved with the club from its formation in 1997 with the exception of SW who left then returned.

 

Ask them all why they left and you will find the common denominator. Its not rocket science to work it out.

And what's that Harry? 



#187 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 4,952 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:46 PM

Whatever was the why or wherefore in regard to BQ and what he put into the club either in sponsorship, shares or whatever the problem was that he left because he did not want to or could not continue under the situation as it was. 

 

It not just BQ that has been in that position, the points that Bedford Roughyed made were valid for each of the directors that have been involved with the club from its formation in 1997 with the exception of SW who left then returned.

 

Ask them all why they left and you will find the common denominator. Its not rocket science to work it out.

 

Have any of the other directors ever taken over the club and become majority shareholders? 


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#188 Robthegardener.

Robthegardener.
  • Coach
  • 1,416 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 08:37 PM

Quinn, who was installed as Oldham chairman in March, 2007, became embroiled in an ugly on-field shouting match with then-captain Robert Roberts after a Challenge Cup defeat at Gateshead two days after originally tendering his resignation from the board.

The result of that game meant the Roughyeds failed to land a potentially lucrative tie against a Super League club in the next round - a big miss for the Co-operative Championship One club in troubled economic times.

The Manchester businessman, of excavation and demolition firm The William Quinn Group, recently made a plea for an increased level of support from fans in order that his ambitions for the club be matched.
 


Posted ImageVelcome to ze forum...You must obay ze rules

#189 HARRYRUBY

HARRYRUBY
  • Coach
  • 188 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:31 PM

Have any of the other directors ever taken over the club and become majority shareholders? 

When the club re formed in 1997 there were four directors who I believe had all equal shareholding. Two left and their share were bought by CH and SW who presumably were equal shareholders. BQ bought into the club and  purchased over 50% of the shares making him the majority shareholder. When he resigned he sold his shares so either CH and SW the two directors are again equal shareholders or one holds the majority of the shares. 

 

The common denominator can only be one thing that his CH himself who seems to  fall out with directors , sponsors and fans which is not good for the club. 



#190 Ex-scrumhalf

Ex-scrumhalf
  • Coach
  • 103 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 05:22 PM

Can I point out this thread that was started in May last year on the self same subject that is being discussed in the more recent thread. A meeting was proposed that a number of people were willing to attend, including myself, but it died a death. Are we yet again going to talk this to death or is someone with the know how going to pick up the baton and set up the meeting. If so we might get somewhere but re-raising the subject every few months and letting it die away will get us nowhere. We need information from CH including what it would take for him to walk away. He is never going to come on here and tell you that but if enough people were to meet and discuss the future and then arrange a meeting with CH he will be forced to say something, even if it's clear off and mind your own business. At least that way we know where we stand. Like I said somewhere in this thread, does anyone have a friend or family member who works in the legal profession who could advise us on what the legal options are with regard to getting shut of CH?


  • Curly Wurly likes this

#191 roughyed34

roughyed34
  • Coach
  • 185 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:28 AM

Id shut this thread down tbh and just use the recent one. Saves confusion and people double posting pal



#192 Ex-scrumhalf

Ex-scrumhalf
  • Coach
  • 103 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:31 PM

Id shut this thread down tbh and just use the recent one. Saves confusion and people double posting pal

Yes you're probably right and I would advise anyone else to keep to the other thread but have to say that it was just my way of pointing out that what is being discussed at the present time is not new and that if we want to do things we need to meet up and get things moving or we'll just end up like it did on here.

Sorry if I've messed anything up.


Edited by Ex-scrumhalf, 27 February 2014 - 01:32 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users