Redemption
One less gobshite...
Have you noticed how pally with Sunak Em was the other week? Makes you wonder who is pulling who's strings.
-
All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.
Tom Cartledge (Chairman)
- Thread starter Flaggers
- Start date
So rather than "poacher turned gamekeeper", Cartledge is "gamekeeper turns poacher"..he was appointed by the owner over-riding any possible conflict of interests and placing trust in him to solve Forest's future home.
Consequently, he can be unappointed at any moment.
Do you think that the owners are naive to let him define this without their attention
Grass
Geoff Thomas
I've been going on and off for over 40 years.
Never had a season ticket but when living in Notts I would get to about 10 games a season.
When living away I would get to about 5 but would always get to away games in or near the city I was living in.
2 of my uncles have been going since the late 60's.
My brother and sister have been season ticket holders for over 2 decades
My nephew and 2 of my nieces have been season ticket holders for over 10 year now.
I'm 50 and have just had my first child - she is 9 months old.
She will be going to The City Ground with me and her uncle, her auntie and her cousins and if the council and Forest somehow conspire to take that away from me I will be angry and gutted.
The ground is so unique and for those who have to cross over Trent Bridge it is a great feeling on match days and that goes for opposition fans too.
Wes' Organ
Biggles
I prefer Snake grows legs.
Captain Sinister
Senior doom Monger
Has he walked?
TC is either a paid employee or paid consultant of NFFC in his role as Club Chairman. He is an owner of a company likely to benefit from either development of WFCG or another stadium.
No conflict of interest?
Of course it’s our owners decision but the conflict of interest is self-evident.
Gyros Peter
Sauce salad?
Yeah but you used the right job title.
eyupmeduck
Geoff Thomas
We're serious about legionnaires disease, are you?
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Redemption
One less gobshite...
Why would Marinakis make him the Chairman and keep him in place?
Forest is £150m turnover business owned by Marinakis, who runs a groups of business with more than $4bn and you think the chairman is having him over the barrell.
It's a ridiculous proposition.
I think he either doesn’t want to go ahead with the new stand anymore and wants someone to blame.
Or, more likely, he wants the freehold, which would probably be the best solution.
Wanting to move for the sake of £20k a week just doesn’t make sense. They are paying £5k a week now now. They are getting more than £3m pounds extra from next years’ season card sales alone.
I’m aware of the Forest turnover, and likewise the Marinakis business empire.
Your response is a good answer to a different question.
Do you believe the move to another location was the idea of owner or chairman?
Any thoughts on why we had a sudden change of Chairman a few months ago?
Mr. Blonde
Jack Burkitt
I think your and my definition of "conflict of interest" differhe was appointed by the owner over-riding any possible conflict of interests and placing trust in him to solve Forest's future home.
Consequently, he can be unappointed at any moment.
Do you think that the owners are naive to let him define this without their attention
As a solicitor I constantly have to work within a framework of conflict of interest and I could literally be struck off if I fall foul of it. So naturally it's something I take quite seriously
I've asked you twice now why appointing Cartledge (in your own words) "cancels out" any conflict of interest, and on both occasions you've failed to do so
Anyone can be "unappointed" from any role, but that's totally irrelevant because any potential conflict of interest arises from someone being appointed in the first place, not whether they could be stood down
Redemption
One less gobshite...
In the first instance, I should have used balanced out, as i did in the second answer.
This a corporate governance issue. He was appointed to do the role of chairman to bring his specific vested interest to the table.
In appointing him the owner has to put to oneside the potential conflicts and trust his due diligence and his instinct. Marinakis and his other board members - specifically co-owner Kominakis and acting CEO Vrentsoz - will have a closer view of whether Cartledge is advancing his own interest and self-dealing. If they see that, Marinakis can act.
You don't even know if Cartledge is part of the negotiations with council. If he isn't, there isn't even scope for this alleged conflict.
This is another conspiracy based on no-evidence only potential. And the person who has responsibility for that is Marinakis.
Redemption
One less gobshite...
I don't believe either because I have no facts.
The problem with this whole issue is that fans are commiting speculation into acts of faith.
With the season ticket price hikes and now this, let's remember something else:
Tom Cartledge refused to talk to the local radio station.
To the best of my knowledge he's not spoken with the local newspaper.
He has, however, had an in-depth chat with a publication that sits behind a paywall, so if you want to know what the Chairman thinks, you have to dip your hand in your pocket again.
There's a word for this.
The word is "contempt".
The chairman is treating the supporters with contempt.
Tom Cartledge refused to talk to the local radio station.
To the best of my knowledge he's not spoken with the local newspaper.
He has, however, had an in-depth chat with a publication that sits behind a paywall, so if you want to know what the Chairman thinks, you have to dip your hand in your pocket again.
There's a word for this.
The word is "contempt".
The chairman is treating the supporters with contempt.
YellowBelly Red
Viv Anderson
A good Chairman is in the background when things are going good, but should always be front and centre, when things are going badly.
IvorThirst
Youth Team
Captain Tom-- you need to grow a pair and give BBC Nottingham the interview they have requested. You are a complete disgrace in hiding away from the fans. If this continues there will be a coordinated protect requesting you step away.
You'll be waiting a long time for an interview off him.
valspoodle
Steve Chettle
I can understand why an expert is appointed as a consultant, but fail to understand why he is appointed to the board as chairman.
His advice will surely be just the same, but the role of chairman is a whole other ball game.
His advice will surely be just the same, but the role of chairman is a whole other ball game.
Lefkasman
Ian Bowyer
Conspiracy? Come on comrade, I see a capitalist bastard who likes money who sees an opportunity to make more money.
Sent from my 23124RA7EO using Tapatalk
Redemption
One less gobshite...
Picking one capitalist over another?Conspiracy? Come on comrade, I see a capitalist bastard who likes money who sees an opportunity to make more money.
Sent from my 23124RA7EO using Tapatalk
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
I am. One potentially stands to gain for another company outside of Forest.
It might or might not be the case that he has any sway for this decision but the optics aren't very good and if it were me in my professional capacity I would be stepping away from the role as there is a clear case of conflict of interest, whether he chooses to do anything to be of actual conflict is beside the point.
As an insolvency practitioner, I constantly work with and alongside, other practitioners, accountants solicitors and barristers and as Mr Blonde said conflicts of interest are something that have to be avoided at all costs. There was no need for Tom Cartledge to be appointed as anything above a consultancy role, there was certainly no requirement for him to become our Chairman.