He is one of the best c.e.o's in the legaue with a proven record and has made a tough descsion (sheedy) in regards to the best interest of the club, BUT....
But why was jackson given voting rights on the board, as even Peter admits the role of the board is to govern and the role of the C.E.O is to manage and whilst they need to have a close r/ship (previosuly had this) it is conflicting for Jackson to be on the board as he is therefore having a say in his own agennda, goals objectives, and to involved in the review of the club which he as C.E.O is responsible for.
Actually watched a video where jackson outlines how important it is for a seperation of the board and c.e.o and how good governance was the previous set up. Why change this successful structure to one that is generally warned against?
So why was the mistake made of giving peter a role on the board,he's never going to fire himself is he?
(in No way saying jackson should be kicked out, as he is a great c.e.o just saying i dont understand the reasoning behind giving him power on the board when this is not good governance, what was the need for this change)
But why was jackson given voting rights on the board, as even Peter admits the role of the board is to govern and the role of the C.E.O is to manage and whilst they need to have a close r/ship (previosuly had this) it is conflicting for Jackson to be on the board as he is therefore having a say in his own agennda, goals objectives, and to involved in the review of the club which he as C.E.O is responsible for.
Actually watched a video where jackson outlines how important it is for a seperation of the board and c.e.o and how good governance was the previous set up. Why change this successful structure to one that is generally warned against?
So why was the mistake made of giving peter a role on the board,he's never going to fire himself is he?
(in No way saying jackson should be kicked out, as he is a great c.e.o just saying i dont understand the reasoning behind giving him power on the board when this is not good governance, what was the need for this change)
