TOPIC: Fao our fan representative

Claire

As our newly elected fans representative, do you not feel that instead of waiting for an email regarding the flag incident that you should of been straight on the blower asking for answers.

Until the owners go this will be a regular occurrence. I have my corrupt united flag ready for Saturday along with my Winder out one joking.

Also regarding the fit and proper persons test. You don't need to go through this to sit on the board. Only owners and shareholders need to do this and as you aren't one of those then it's further nonsense from the club.

Let it go mullen ffs !

Did Winder turn Mullen down or something?

Mullen103 wrote:
Someone better tell the Football League that Mullen knows best?!

From their rules on their website...

3.3 If any person proposes to become a Relevant Person of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):
(a) the Club shall no later than 10 Normal Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such person shall become a Relevant Person submit to The League a duly completed Declaration in respect of that person;
(b) within 5 Normal Working Days of receipt thereof The League shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person under the provisions of Rule 2.1, and if he is so liable The League will take the steps set out in Rule 2.2; and
(c) he shall not become a Relevant Person until the Club has received confirmation from The League pursuant to Rule 3.3(b) above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person under the provisions of Rule 2.1.



‘Relevant Person’ means in respect of any Club any individual Person (and not any Entity) operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the 2006 Act (as a Company limited by shares or by guarantee). Further, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person Relevant Person:
(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;
(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;
(c) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;
(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;
(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;
(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;
(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;
(h) any Authorised Signatory;
(i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 44.1);
(j) any ‘chief executive’ officer, ‘general manager’, ‘chief operating officer’ or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;
(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and
(l) a person who exercises or is able, legally or beneficially, to exercise Control over the affairs of the Club,
but the definition of ‘Relevant Person’ expressly excludes any external legal, financial or other professional advisers where they are acting in a capacity regulated by a professional regulatory body and do not hold any interest (in excess of a 5% shareholding) in the Club.

I would guess 'F' covers it?!

I think Mullen is well within his rights to poke fun and point fingers at this sham of an appointment at every opportunity. I am looking forward to the first big 'scoop' that Nixon gives her to keep her fans on here onside.

Pathetic really, the only way that this position is in any way credible is if the current lot are out of the door.

Crangon_Crangon wrote:
I agree to a certain extent but the lad has completely pissed the bed ever since he wasnt selected for the final 4 and for the record i thought he would have made an excellent fans representative .
Im begining to fear for his sanity

Pissed? More like piss, shit, spunk and spew!

In having a go at Claire, you are giving the BOD EXACTLY what they want. Thats why they made the position, to take some of the pressure off themselves and make us turn on eachother.

I agree to a point Mike, but the 'Boards' choice?

One thing I have noticed is that there seems to be a lot of 'Little Nixons' chomping at the bit for a taste of power, more than those who are calling for his head it seems on here - all of you longing to dance with the devil.....

Mike is exactly right, and that was my main reason for not voting. The poor lass has the most thankless position at the club. She can't please everybody, and there'll be all sorts of people who have different agendas. This is exactly what Nixon will want.

If we start moaning at Claire, we're taking our eye off the ball and letting him get away with it. Claire can't make them tell the truth about the billionaire, she'll be presented with the same crap Mike got off Pattison.

Give the lass a chance to get her feet under the table, send her suggestions and details of your concerns and let her try to get a grip on what needs doing.

Whether we like it or not the position exists, and whether we like it or not Claire has it. We need to use her, and try to get something done, even if the powers that be want nothing to change.

Unfortunately she will do what she is told to do.

Agree totally with what moorlad is saying. The poor lass has been in the job a day. If she had rung any of the directors last night she would have been told to wait til monday. As long as she has raised the flag issue by next home game she can do no more.

People need to realise this whole position is a stunt to appease the fans. With the start we have had to the season they have got the result they wanted with most fans happy as long as they get a liverpool ticket

Alan wrote:
My sanitys gone Alan it really has

Honestly not bothered about the final 4 if you read my posts it repeatedly says I wasn't and I championed Mouldy out of the 4 candidates, infact no issues with Bruce or Stuart either.

I wouldn't of accepted the position anyway just so it's on record but I wouldn't of complained with the final 4 just to get the truth out to more people re what's really going on, never going to happen.

I didn't just shit and piss the bed I completely bricked it once I found out it was fixed.

I will proove it was fixed. I'm just for truth and honesty. I've found out something interesting re this position and I'm biding time for an almighty reveal

Re the fit and proper persons test CCU it's different for an non executive director without financial liability.

The football league will be notified of the appointment and the appointment will be waived through.

Mullen103 wrote:
Article says they need to pass it:
mobile.carlisleunited.co.uk/news/article...ntative-2607835.aspx

cufcdeano wrote:
Yes I know that but in reality she doesn't have to in order to sit as a non exec director/board member.

Even it seems Nixon doing something with the FA doesn't know the rules.

All shareholders have too all with a financial obligation have too. Non execs are free from it and waived due to non of the above. Again makes a mockery of the position as non exec directors are refused votes on certain financial matters that directors and shareholders can vote on.

Mullen103 wrote:
Not according to Section 250 of the Companies Act 2006!

Section 250 defines a director as including any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called. This is the same as the definition contained in section 741(1) of the 1985 Act. The Act does not attempt a more detailed definition of a director because it is important to ensure that the term is applied to anybody who exercises real power within the company, particularly in relation to decision taking. The term “director” therefore includes:

an executive director who has been properly appointed by the company;

a non-executive director who has been properly appointed by the company;

a de facto director (that is, a person who has assumed the status and functions of a company director even though he has not been properly appointed).

As already posted by myself earlier, anybody this relates to - "If any person proposes to become a Relevant Person of a Club" - has to then satisfy - "(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act" / (f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club

Email the FA they will tell you the answer

For football league they aren't bothered by non execs with no financial liability. The club have to tell the FA of the position and all persons have to undergo a DBS check and financial check as standard.

Fit and proper persons test is different and accounts to holding 2 positions at different clubs, whether she's bankrupt or been a director at an insolvent company.

Anyway back to Our fans rep who will no doubt pass the test anyway.

Do you believe there's a billionaire?

Can you tell me the difference between the two boards and what each title means?

Mullen

if the vote/appointment was fixed and you can prove it, why not just reveal it now rather than waiting for Clare to take up the role.

Mullen103 wrote:
Why would you email the FA over a Football League matter?!

If the FL aren't bothered, why do they have a full appendix specifically for the subject - parts of which I've already copied and pasted? Given the uproar over the likes of Leeds and Coventry in recent seasons, they're getting a lot more stringent on these very subjects!

The Fit and Proper Persons Test is what is says on the lid, you're merely mentioning some of the aspects that will see a person fail the test!

Mullen103 wrote:
Now, you see, that last is a very interesting question indeed. I'd also like to know what the full roles and responsibilities of each director on each board, and how those might overlap in the decision making process.

northeastblue wrote:
I'll let someone with more authority and respect do it

Email votes from the same IP address but different email addresses you really couldn't make it up. Lovely piece of software that I ran which shows 133 email packets from the same IP address were sent to media@ now I presume that's a 133 votes for the same person.

Now I haven't a clue if these were for Claire or not there's no legal way of knowing and I'm not even going to start but seen as Claire won it's not rocket science hence the lack of trust in the process.

A private adjudicator Would of been able to sift these votes out. Not having one brings fuel to the fire.

It needs re ran with all 11 candidates again with an idepemdant adjudicator. To be honest the whole thing although a good idea needs hacked off.

Mullen103 wrote:
Unless you've hacked into their emails, how do you even know those emails were to do with the fan vote? In fact how on earth do you even know such info about a private email address? You're getting into pretty dodgy ground here I reckon.

so there isnt any proof that it was fixed, it just appears to be something dodgy

Freely available legal software.

All it does is show email traffic being sent to that address. There's no access to the email account, no way of knowing if those 133 packets are from one email address or 133 different what the content is or anything. all is known is that one IP address sent 133 packets which were during the voting period.

For validity the software is from Google web tools yes Google freely available and it's main use is to check whether an email address your sending too is failing due to spam etc.

As a webmaster I simply went into the web tools of one of the sites email accounts I look after put in the email address and the dates. It wouldn't take the date range so did it day by day done some analyses and hey one IP address had sent 133 packets. No hacking nothing illegal easily available if you've got the tools.

I'll repeat it will need hacking which I'm not stupid enough to do to find the email addresses and content as obviously being a google product won't allow you to do

northeastblue wrote:
My main reason was to get proof of the invalidity of the result. I didn't expect a result like that it's not like 30-40 which you can get if someone's trying it on this is 133.

Seriously Mullen, is that true?

Moorlad wrote:
Yep, but there was one more thing I wanted.

Sadly I did a IP check and came back unknown I was wanting to speak to one of my mates if there was another way legally of course to trace the root of the IP address to try to get its destination.

I've sent this to Suzanne Kidd so expect a response.

It's really laughable really is - it's not saying Claire's cheated but the vote is illegible and needs re done with an adjudicator.

Maybe scrap email votes the next time :/)

You could have checked out Steve Patt's IP when you swiped his phone the other day.

Mullen103 wrote:
Probably 133 emails from you while at work!

CCU wrote:
I reckon there's a simple explanation of someone trying to beat my weekly email target, they failed it was 172.

Serious matter I'll await Suzanne's response. There'll have to re run or discount email votes I think as it's too dodgy.

If Claire wins without email votes and text only then it wasn't Claire and I'll be more confident on the result. Surely they can't leave as is can they.

Is the most likely reason that emails were spam unrelated to the vote offering viagra, porn etc giblven the email address is freely available i would say it gets some decent amount of spam

I do hope my sending, uploading, downloading loads of match/ fans pics to media doesn't add into this cos I would feel very stalked.

It may be spam but I wouldn't expect 133. It's why I wanted to wait to get the IP address checked.

If bumble sent 133 separate emails in that week then there's a simple explanation. However I doubt that very much.

A private adjudicator Would of stopped all speculation.

Bumble wrote:
Spoke to one of your aquaintances outside B stand on saturday. He asked where the voting forms were for the fan rep as he like others arent on any form of social media.

Put the IP address on here Mullen. There may be other computer whizzes that can trace it back to an area for you. It's unlikely that you'll find the exact location, but even an area can raise more questions.

Brilliant Mike

I still maintain that the main issue here is not Claire, or the vote, or who was on the selection panel. We are all being caught up in the smaller stuff which was bound to happen, and is why the post was created in the first place. The real trouble we have is the custodians, the people who are systematically ruining the club on a day to day basis. We aren't challenging them if all we're doing is kicking up a fuss about a pointless and toothless position they've invented to further distance themselves from the problem. To me the key issues remain the rubbish over the billionaire and the attempts to sideline the Lapping deal, the treatment of the fans who are keeping the club afloat, the lies they keep coming up with which some fans swallow and the disgraceful behaviour and attitude of some of the owners towards the fans.

It's those 3 we need to be taking to task, not Claire.

Mullen, you know as well as I do that there will be no rerun of the vote, whether it has been a stitch up or not does not matter. I assume they have the right person anyway, because most applicants would have lasted about a month before having a stand up argument with Nixon and resigning. Unless you're preparedto some extent to knuckle under, you're never going to be able to do that job.

What we need to be doing is directing all of our frustrations towards those 3 liars, we have a focal point now, and that is Claire (whether you like it or not), so we must direct our frustrations with the club through Claire and let her take them forward and report back to us.

Moorlad I agree, but this farce has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

I have 7 friends/family that will be cancelling their direct debits today. Its just further turmoil and lack of trust. A simple private adjudicator would of stopped this.

But yes Claire's getting the brunt of my frustrations probably wrongly yes, however look at the other post on the other thread from Wellington as to more evidence and concerns.

If this is true then its even more of a fix than I originally thought.

Looking forward to seeing the response you get Mullen. The vote won't be rerun but these kind of stitch ups need to be exposed.

I'd like to hear Claires opinion on this. Like many others, I didn't like her from her radio appearance. Now she'll be even worse because she thinks she's in power when in reality she'll have to do what she's told to do.

Mullen103 wrote:
You don't say!

On a serious note, Mullen, can you post some screenshots as proof? Not sure I buy that someone would make 133 different email accounts. No harm in putting the IP address up either.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Could it be notifications from Twitter or Facebook

So what you're saying is Mullen, over a ten day period, 133 emails were sent from the same IP address to the media@ account. That's an account that isn't just specifically for the vote, but also for any of the work the media team do. An account that likely receives a lot of repetitive emails from the Football League or other sources - social media notifications, as LufbraBlue rightly pointed out. Take a step back and you'll see you have very little evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

As other have said, you're doing a terrific job of making yourself look like a dick with this borderline witch hunt. That said, you're not the only one - at least one account on here seems to have been setup with the sole purpose of calling out Claire on this.

No where did I have a go at Claire and say she cheated.

Its highly suspicious to me, I just thought id share my findings its up to others how they interpret them.

Everything's coincidental isn't it

Its amazing that any info from the club the same posters are quick to believe it but any rumours or knowledge I share then the same posters criticise it and wish to disbelieve despite being proved right.

I'll be glad after the Liverpool game as I said I don't want to go back, loves gone and too many things have happened that ive fallen out of love for the club and lost caring. On Saturday I just wanted out the ground as soon as possible. With that no doubt the posts on here will likely stop due to stop caring, ive said on another thread that 7 season tickets are being cancelled due to recent events, really sad.

Response from club

Richard,



Regarding your query about the season tickets, cancelling the direct debit will not be sufficient to cancel the season tickets.

If you wish to cancel your season ticket you must write to the ticket office giving reasons for the cancellation.



Cancellation of the direct debit without first contacting the ticket office is classed as a default on the payments you owe as part of the purchase of the season ticket.



The IP address issues is a little beyond my technical knowledge but I have spoken to our IT support regarding this and part of the issue with the repeated IP addresses is due to the amount of spam mail we receive into the club and many of these are from the same IP address.

We had James Phillips and Jon Coleman in to verify the votes on Saturday before any applicant was contacted. Once again, I can assure you that nothing was hidden from them, I would not put my name as a link to anything that wasn’t as it was meant to be. There were some multiple votes for some applicants and any repeated vote was discounted from the final count.



I hope this helps to alleviate your concerns.



Many thanks

I disagree but I would wouldn't I I'm at work and don't have the details just yet then I am volunteering tonight.

But once I get back home I will upload here, can I upload documents here? also @Deano I know theres been issues with others getting legal action due to the posting of the IP address which is why I never did it. Balls in your court wheher I can or cannot.

Personally not sure what benefit there is in posting the IP address. You'll know as well as I do from your line of work, how easy your public IP address can be changed, or whether or not a proxy server is being used.