KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Anfield Road Expansion

Good point

No, directors are supposed to look after the interest of the company, not shareholders, as an accountant I expected you would know that. This is also one of the reasons the legal challenge made by H&G following the sale to FSG didn't go through

I think you need to update your knowledge a bit and revise your company laws, just putting a small extract below for your reference. I am aware of this because I am myself a board director.

Directors appointed by a shareholder may, in the performance of their
duties, have regard to the interest of that shareholder subject to the director’s overriding obligation to
act in good faith in what they consider to be the best interests of the company.

I remember them quite quickly saying that they would look into redeveloping Anfield (something they did in the US), which they did as soon as they made their study.

I said directors must look after the interests of shareholders see above they act on behalf of shareholders and are voted in by shareholders by implication they need to look after the companies assets which the shareholders own.

U

Which took about 5 years and they have rebuilt one stand they also said they would look at building a new ground but I don't believe that was ever the intention from day one

While we are on company law it was not moores that sold to Gillet and hicks it was the shareholders yes moores was the majority but there was a substantial minority interest and I don't remember a shareholders revolt at the time. Moores as chairman could only recommend the decision was the shareholders

But subject to the director’s overriding obligation to
act in good faith in what they consider to be the best interests of the company. I am sure you understand what is written in an extract from UK company laws.

I don't think they have said there won't be any extentions ever, and I never thought they were going to just invest as a gift to fans. I an sure they will invest if the demand at the right price is there. Why do you think they should just spend out of their pockets? Arsenal fans did pay much more at the Emirates, no? Same will happen at Spurs.

At the time selling to Gillet and hicks was in the best interests of the company in compliance with company law professional advisers were involved it's only now with the benefit of hindsight we know it was a bad decision but that's not the first time such events have occurred in business. As for gifting things to the club well moores did cities, Chelsea's owners do it's also about risk taking. With FSG everything has to be short term self financed which is great for them no so great for the future of the club in relation to competing at the very top. If you are saying Vish we are no longer a top club or will ever be one again that's fine I just find it hard to accept