A non-executive director of Agents’ Mutual has reaffirmed his support for OnTheMarket after stepping down last month in order to concentrate on his own business.
Clive Rook, managing director of north-east firm Rook Matthews Sayer, did not resign. However, he did not stand for re-election.
He firmly quashed speculation put around yesterday that he might have lost confidence in Agents’ Mutual and its portal. In a statement, Rook made it clear that this was absolutely not the case.
Rook said: “I have very much enjoyed being a part of the Agents’ Mutual board and my estate agency firm, Rook Matthews Sayer, remains one of its biggest supporters.
“I take great satisfaction in what has been achieved so far and remain firmly confident about the prospects for the business.
“From a standing start, OnTheMarket.com has, within its first four months, already become an essential destination for anyone searching for residential property.
“I have no doubt that its momentum will continue to grow as it challenges the established duopoly of Rightmove and Zoopla Property Group.”
Ian Springett, chief executive of OnTheMarket, said: “Having helped guide Agents’ Mutual through the critical development and launch phases of OnTheMarket.com, Clive stepped down from his role as non-executive director, as anticipated, at a recent AGM.
“He did not seek re-election because he wishes to be able to focus more time on his highly successful estate agency business in the north-east.
“The board is grateful to Clive for all of his hard work.
“Agents’ Mutual’s board will continue to develop in line with the needs of the business. We have no announcements to make in this regard at this time.”
Comments (15)
“EAT are bent in their attempts to kill off OTM. What an embarrassment this week has been for that publication. I think it’s quite clear how far they are willing to go.
I agree. I read some of those comments yesterday ” Its the end of OTM” ” We knew it, the rats are leaving the ship”. I had to stop reading it was so pathetic. If Clive Rook had left OTM saying there were problems within, well then possibly there’s an argument for those sorts of comments, but he hasn’t.
Exactly, I think it likely that his intention was to carry out the role for one year only. But it really is like a disaster movie at that place, with a twist on every story this week to make it sound like the end is neigh!
Eh?! A year ago he was being feted as the ‘alternative view’ bringing diversity to the board.
Today he has stepped aside leaving a bunch of top end London agents and Paul Smith. Hardly represents the membership does it.
The truth of this is that this story would not have run had EAT not discovered this from Companies House. All very back foot and unsurprisingly causing many to raise an eyebrow.
Surely, given the success of OTM since launch and its ‘rapidly moving into second place’, there are a queue of Northern independent representatives queuing to get involved with this barnstorming success?!
“The truth of this is that this story would not have run had EAT not discovered this from Companies House.”
You’re having a proper giggle, aren’t you? Since when did you think that EAT were investigative jounalists? They ARE bent on their attempts to kill off AM – that’s a given – but that is simply to meet the worst hidden agenda since Mr Hitler’s announcement he and a few mates were off on a sightseeing trip of Poland.
That being said – I am disappointed (as I said yesterday on another thread) that EYE did not cover this yesterday – or earlier for that matter, seeing as the “news” is not exactly new.
You clearly think that EAT have scored a body blow in this respect – but you are cheering on a punchy second-rate slugger who has lost the ability to fight their way out of a soap bubble.
I don’t normally get involved in tit-for-tat, but I am making no point about EAT whatsoever.
The only point I am making is that AM and PIE would not have made any comment on this unless it had been made public yesterday.
Given that Rook was the only northern (or non-Southern) representative on the AM board, it is highly significant that he has left. I am sure that he has good reasons for doing so but this now leaves the AM board without any regional balance.
“…this now leaves the AM board without any regional balance.”
HarryN – please tell me what “balance” was achieved by one bloke out of a small battalion happening to be a Northerner?
Admittedly, us Geordies can drink you Suvvern softees under any table; stand outside in November wearing only our string vests, AND win any fight just with a menacing glare – but we don’t need one of us sitting in a room once a month. Clive has already done ‘his bit’ for the AM/OTM cause. His assurance to stay true to the cause is well documented so the rumour-mongers in the EAT camp are flogging yet another dead horse… and there are THOUSANDS of AM Members who ALL have a vote if the board are perceived by them to be leading things in the wrong direction.
What’s the problem?
(outside of your head, that is…)
I’d be interested to know 18 months into AM….. How many votes have you been involved in?
What would/should we have been voting on? X-Factor? Big Brother? or Christmas Party Venue?
Sorry Danny, but I’ve got to ask ….Why are you interested to know how many votes AM members have been involved with?
Because Ric, I suspect it’s a massive sham to give the illusion of control, are you going to tell me you’ve been involved shaping the ad strategy or direction?
danny – two part answer to this.
Firstly, my company hasn’t been an AM member for 18 months. I don’t know how many “votes” there were before we signed up.
Secondly – we have “voted” in every Member ballot called since we became Members.
Hope this satisfies your rather unusual curiosity.
“Clive stepped down from his role AS ANTIPATED” . That raises a few questions …
“That raises a few questions …”
Only raises one for me, Danny.
Why did you mis-spell anticipated?
To be fair that reply would have been a candidate for comment of the week ….but its only Wednesday PB so it ain’t happening. I did laugh though.