There has been much said written in recent months about the ‘meltdown’ at the GBGB with independent directors leaping like lemmings from the central London HQ.
The story, like Disney’s lemming tale, is a complete myth. The reality is, Sir Gordon Duff departed, apparently due to an ever expanding workload for Government. It was by all accounts, an amicable departure.
Former Morrisons boss Bob Stott has been suffering with severe ill health and his departure was inevitable.
Chairman Maurice Watkins contract had expired late last year and it was not renewed. It is up to the reader to determine whether the GBGB had thrived under his leadership and whether he should have been given another two years.
The departure of legal expert Tom Shields is a different story. He was considered as an interim chairman but apparently did not share the views of some of his fellow directors that the Board needed to be reconstituted to include two directors, one of whom would be a trainer.
His – might just be the only departure that could be interpreted as ‘in-fighting’. But was it a bad move?
So who would perpetuate the story that the promoters had taken over the board and a legion of poor defenseless independent directors had not so much leapt from GBGB Towers, as been thrown screaming through the windows?
Well here is a theory.
How about the idea that a group of individuals wanted to bring down the GBGB?
It wouldn’t have been difficult. Simply create a myth, spread it as thickly as possible. It was a receptive audience – blame the crooked promoters. Then call on disgruntled witnesses (with their own agendas) and then fly it under the noses of UKAS.
If UKAS had withdrawn its accreditation, the GBGB was no more.
If my conspiracy theory is correct, then some of those who had manufactured the whole debacle, would have appeared as instant saviours, prepared to take up jobs in a new uncorrupted organisation.
Thank God we were here!
There is another aspect that also appears to have been overlooked. One of the reasons that the industry would almost inevitably ended up in the do-do was because the Donoughue report necessitated it.
It dictated that the directors could serve a maximum of two terms before they were all effectively out of a job AT THE SAME TIME.
Indeed, had the chairman not been appointed a few months earlier than his fellow independent directors – to help set-up the organization, and had Tom Shields not arrived a year later to replace his predecessor who departed due to the ‘pool drug sampling’ fiasco – all the independent directors would have been leaving at the same time.
So I find Jim Cremin’s recent comment that ‘all the independent’ directors walked away in frustration’ just a little bizarre, particularly since he was a member of the team who spent £1m of industry cash creating the flawed report that allowed all of this to happen.
