House Sales SURGE .....

Really2

bendix wrote: »

Im sorry Really, but you have got it wrong.

Having the title director does NOT get you a seat on the board. I'm afraid you don't understand corporate governance. A director of marketing or a director of HR or a director of a business unit, is not the same thing as a company director - one is an executive position with management responsibilities, the other is a shareholder representative position.

I am a Head of . . . it's just a title. For the record I have two director positions reporting to me.

I don't have a seat on the board, although in my case I work in a partnership structure and do sit as a non-voting member of the firm's Asia Executive Committee.

Well perhaps not being fom a large organisation I have, But being a director still carries a hell of a lot more responsibilities than being "head" of something.

Not a dig at you, but being a director I know there are a hell of a lot of things that can come back and bite me on the @ss than when I was not a director.
That is why director liability insurance is around.

Director does not mean mega bucks, I more than agree with that.
But it would be untrue to say it is not senior as you have a lot of duties under the companies act that you can be held liable for.
Not being a director means you do not have certain legal duties, being a director means you have legal duties to the company.

marlonthemagnificent

ok, nollag,

here's what i said the first time, which lots of people keep trying to embellish into something else
at no point did i say board director, chairman or ceo
the only reason i mentioned it was to correct sibleys usual pathetic, bigoted suggestion that all renters were lowlife, unemployed scum
i mentioned it once and only once, and morons like you continually bring it up and try to make it into something it was not
see post no 106

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3657433


here is where i explained the level, which you chose to ignore, and are trying to make out that i suggested i was richard branson or terry leahy. again, note how i am very clear about what my role is, and that it is UK only. make special note of how i clarify that it is not an executive role or board level role (which is how you choose to see it)
see post 124

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3657433


here is the comment i made to make it 100% clear......
see post 133

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3657433

"i think you are confusing a director with global chief executive....the two things are a world apart......i think some people have completely misinterpreted and misunderstood my comment as some fabricated self-aggrandisation....which it was not"

satisfied?

as for lies and exageration, neither of those apply to me....on any post i have made on this site, or any other site
you can choose not to believe me - that's your perogative
i offered mr ree hand delivered proof, and said i would bring whatever he wished as evidence. however, he will not do because it will expose him to be as much of a liar as sibley
the only people i have an issue with here are sibley and mr ree. both proven liars. both proven multiple ID's, both with truly terrible attitudes to people less fortunate than themselves

Aberdeenangarse

newDude wrote: »

Post proof, or go and tidy your room...mummy's boy

bendix wrote: »

Will this do as proof?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/39059022#Comment_39059022

An apology would be nice then you can go back to flipping burgers :rotfl:

noodle_doodle

My job title is Research Scum

sabretoothtigger

Im not one for the superted vs el toro arguments but this came up on google news with no prompting from me




http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/250000-house-sold-for-third-of-the-price-16089363.html


Seems more like it was overvalued beforehand imo

bendix

Really2 wrote: »

Well perhaps not being fom a large organisation I have, But being a director still carries a hell of a lot more responsibilities than being "head" of something.

Not a dig at you, but being a director I know there are a hell of a lot of things that can come back and bite me on the @ss than when I was not a director.
That is why director liability insurance is around.

Director does not mean mega bucks, I more than agree with that.
But it would be untrue to say it is not senior as you have a lot of duties under the companies act that you can be held liable for.
Not being a director means you do not have certain legal duties, being a director means you have legal duties to the company.

Again, I think you're confusing two things. Being a company director (with all the attendent legal and governance risks) is not the same as having a director title in a large organisation.

Yes, a company director has certain obligations under the Companies Act. But, similarly, people can hold director level titles in an organisation and have no liability at all.

The word Director is thrown around willy nilly these days. When marlon described himself as a director at a FTSE company, people immediately assumed he was claiming to be on the Board of Directors. He wasn't. He's clarified that he holds a job title which includes the word director within that company.

Two different things completely.

Really2

bendix wrote: »

Again, I think you're confusing two things. Being a company director (with all the attendent legal and governance risks) is not the same as having a director title in a large organisation.

Yes, a company director has certain obligations under the Companies Act. But, similarly, people can hold director level titles in an organisation and have no liability at all.

The word Director is thrown around willy nilly these days. When marlon described himself as a director at a FTSE company, people immediately assumed he was claiming to be on the Board of Directors. He wasn't. He's clarified that he holds a job title which includes the word director within that company.

Two different things completely.

I think you are wrong legally. Having the title even if not registered usually passes on the legally responsibilty also as it is the expected duties of the tittle EG. it is inferred you are a director.

I would suggest he looks at it properly as a director by name but not registered can still be treated as a director with all the legal duties that follow.
Not being registered with companies house (company director) does not mean you escape the legal responsibilities.

It's the old when is a director not a director debate, usually if you hold the title you are legally one, but a fair few do not realise that.
Some info you might find interesting.
http://www.contractoruk.com/limited_companies/when_a_director_is_not_a_director.html

The problem is that, as far as the law is concerned, your responsibilities are the same whether you have the title of director but not the actual role, have the role without the title, or have both the role and title.

Directors are not just those who are registered as directors at Companies House. They are anyone who acts as a director, whether they are called directors or not. They include directors who have been appointed by the company but never properly registered. They also comprise those whom the law calls 'shadow directors': those who give directions and whom the company generally follows. These might commonly be business advisors, senior managers, ex-directors, shareholders or investors.

If a company runs into financial difficulties, then in certain circumstances, the directors can be held responsible and sometimes have personally financial liability.

I would say in your position two named directors reporting to you and you reporting to the board would possibly make you a director without the name, but a director by law.

bendix

Really2 wrote: »

I think you are wrong legally. Having the title even if not registered usually passes on the legally responsibilty also as it is the expected duties of the tittle EG. it is inferred you are a director.

I would suggest he looks at it properly as a director by name but not registered can still be treated as a director with all the legal duties that follow.
Not being registered with companies house (company director) does not mean you escape the legal responsibilities.

It's the old when is a director not a director debate, usually if you hold the title you are legally one, but a fair few do not realise that.
Some info you might find interesting.
http://www.contractoruk.com/limited_companies/when_a_director_is_not_a_director.html


I would say in your position two named directors reporting to you and you reporting to the board would possibly make you a director without the name, but a director by law.

Nope. Sorry.

Totally wrong, and as I work for a law firm (where, incidentally, the only people legally liable are the partners), I'm pretty confident they have their structures totally in order.

Really2

bendix wrote: »

Nope. Sorry.

Totally wrong, and as I work for a law firm (where, incidentally, the only people legally liable are the partners), I'm pretty confident they have their structures totally in order.

Well seeing as you don't work in the UK it may be different for you?

But categorically in the UK if you carry you the duties of a director or are a director by name and do the duties (but not on companies house records) you carry the legal responsibilities of a director.

Not sure why you are looking for the company to guide you on it, it is up to the member of staff, director etc. to aquatint themselves with the responsibilities if the job involves the name director or the work involves steering the direction company.
From when I took on the role one of the first things I noticed was the amount of times "not knowing" or "complacency" was not an excuse for not being liable.

I would be happy for you to throw some evidence behind me being wrong, as I thought about not being a director. But it would be impossible to not be seen as one in the eyes of the law, so I agreed.

bendix

Really2 wrote: »

Well seeing as you don't work in the UK it may be different for you?

But categorically in the UK if you carry you the duties of a director or are a director by name and do the duties (but not on companies house records) you carry the legal responsibilities of a director.

Not sure why you are looking for the company to guide you on it, it is up to the member of staff, director etc. to aquatint themselves with the responsibilities if the job involves the name director or the work involves steering the direction company.
From when I took on the role one of the first things I noticed was the amount of times "not knowing" or "complacency" was not an excuse for not being liable.

I would be happy for you to throw some evidence behind me being wrong, as I thought about not being a director. But it would be impossible to not be seen as one in the eyes of the law, so I agreed.

This debate is going nowhere fast. It has nothing to do with me not being in the UK. My previous job title in the UK was Business Development Director - that similarly was a job title and had absolutely no implications that I was a company director or had the liabilities thereof under the Companies Act.

You don't seem to be able to get past the fact that simply having a job title with the word director in it, doesn't automatically mean you are a director with legal liability.

By your logic, does an Artistic Director of a Theatre bear legal liability for the fortunes of the theatre company? No, of course not. Does the Director of Football at a football club mean they are liable for the finance of the club or its correct corporate governance? No, of course not. Does the film director of a movie, carry directorial responsibilities of the movie company? No.

You might not be aware how common the word 'director' is in many people's job titles at a senior level.