Quote: Herbert Splatt "Chairman Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth ps: just had a quick (free) look: Barnes was appointed in 2008. The first three - have they been on the board a while? for earlier appointments, you can't see the name without paying for a report/document, but the last board change before then was 2001. I would be almost certain that Elston, Stephenson and Kear are NOT Directors, and their positioning on the list suggests that. Venables ditto - and his title "Associate Director" is one regularly used to give someone's ego a fancy title that actually means bugger all. Again, his position on the list gives further support to the point re the other three. If I could be d with spending £1, and pratting about with the hard-work payment a d download process, I could tell you for sure. Surely one of you guys can download the latest Annual Return or the Current Appointments Report?

Quote: Herbert Splatt "Chairman Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth ps: just had a quick (free) look: Barnes was appointed in 2008. The first three - have they been on the board a while? for earlier appointments, you can't see the name without paying for a report/document, but the last board change before then was 2001. I would be almost certain that Elston, Stephenson and Kear are NOT Directors, and their positioning on the list suggests that. Venables ditto - and his title "Associate Director" is one regularly used to give someone's ego a fancy title that actually means bugger all. Again, his position on the list gives further support to the point re the other three. If I could be d with spending £1, and pratting about with the hard-work payment a d download process, I could tell you for sure. Surely one of you guys can download the latest Annual Return or the Current Appointments Report?

'Managing Director' is such an ironic title. And still, three people with titles which are very similar roles.

director of coaching i believe. Cant imagine he has contributed to the club financially

Hopefully going into admin will allow the employment of Ted's daughter to be terminated. If she is still at the club, it will be a joke

See my update to my post re director status - seems to accord with what RDM posted just above.

A non-executive director is still a director with full legal liabilities if they are registered as a Director. The law makes no distinction between and Executive and a Non-Executive Director. The key point is are they a "True" director?

And yes, only "True" directors are exposed to being banned, and that decision is taken elsewhere and after the report on the directors' conduct submitted (by law) by the Administrator and, if appointed, the Liquidator, and speculation is both futile and also potentially libelous, to be honest.

Agreed. Need a completely new start.

The "Non-Exec" directors were not formally named as directors on the 2010 annual return to Companies House. As per my previous post, Ted, Eric & Ray are named as directors while Diane Maskill was named as Company Secretary.

Usually the company secretary is a director , they are the one responsible legally , every limited co has to have a company secretary

Wrong pal.

They may be a director, but do not have to be. In quoted companies it is very unusual for the Secretary to be a director. Many many very small companies have the owner as the sole director, and his.her spouse as company secretary.

Every company does NOT now have to have a Secretary. My personal service company does not.

The secretary has certain legal responsibilities, and is usually the only real "Officer" of the company when the term "Directors and Officers" is used. But the Secretary's legal exposure is a fraction of that of a Director.

Been both, on various occasions and in various companies.;

I did say ' usually ' as in my experience ( wrongly it would seem ) it has been a director as ' secretary '