Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:I understand that NLS but the point that I was making is that the board won't be able to discuss his possible dismissal without him being present and listening to who has the knives out.
It just seems a strange set up to me.
It all depends on what's been agreed, but I don't think that's correct Sedgwick.
The quote doesn't say that he's going to be a director on the board: "He will also acquire shares in the club and will commit to attending full board meetings." That seems carefully worded to me - if he was going to be appointed a director then maybe they would just have said so? Just because he's committed to attend meetings doesn't mean he has the right to do so.
2. In any case you don't necessarily need a full board meeting of all of the directors to remove him as a director. The majority shareholder can probably remove him as a director by passing a shareholder resolution.
3. Even if you did need a full board meeting he could probably be required to leave the meeting when they discussed his position, under the Articles of Association.
4. And on top of that the right to fire him as an employee (ie manager) might lie solely with the CEO or the Chairman (and not the board) - that depends on how their corporate governance is set up. Most boards would discuss it but they don't necessarily need to.