Londonlisa2001 said:Uxy said:Out of interest, what did I hide behind in terms of confidentiality? I don't recall the members being quite this up in arms beforehand, but I'm sure you can enlighten me.
As for your mate, he can take it up with Lisa. One of them is wrong, and I'll back the latter. Not that his point is relevant anyway, which is a point you both seem to be missing.
I’ve just had a look at the tweets you are talking about.
Directors of the group are included in that disclosure note for work done at subsidiaries as well, but only, strictly, if they are directors of the holding company. Gareth is not. He’s a director of the subsidiary.
You can include people at the holding company if they are subsidiary directors if they have particular influence at holding company level. I’m not sure that would be the case here.
It’s always possible of course that a filing has been missed in which case he’d be listed as a director of the holding company on the next accounts and companies house should be updated.
The reality though, to be honest, is it makes no difference. As I’ve said before, I think the large part of the difference is the Birch payoff. The salary of a financial controller in Swansea is unlikely to make up a £350k difference…
Thanks Lisa. Always open to being educated
Pretty sure the balance won't be GD, not least as the highest earner was £130k and he'd have surely been covered within that maximum figure if he was included, and he's have been one of the "2" who would have been in receipt of pension contributions I'd expect.
Maybe it's a technicality of filing that it all could be a TB payoff, but doesn't have to be declared as the highest earning director because of the termination of his appointment. Not really my bag. It'd be good to get it clarified though, in case one of our overseas directors is earning some coin from our club.