javeajag

Absolutely correct.

The model of fan ownership proposed by TJF was not elect a board for two years and they can make every decision…. in fact it was quite the opposite. whether you agree with it or not these changes are significant and should have been consulted on….if not this then basically nothing. the board statement today acknowledges a failure to consult.

This agreement means 1. diluting the fan shareholding below 75% which means basically you can do what you want 2. as a result the new investors can basically block certain things from happening 3. The new investors get seats on the board 4.we have indicated we are moving towards the German model where the fans own 51% of the club and others 49% whether you think this is good or bad it is unacceptable that such significant changes have been agreed in a fan owned club with no consultation with the ultimate owners … the fans

I think the main point here is that we have changed the strategic direction of the club and the fans in a fan owned club were not consulted . the board statement today acknowledges this. the current board are thistle fans and are suing each other ….

As the fans shareholding goes below 75% then the 3 guys with 10% of the shares can block any resolution that requires a 75% threshold ( there may also some thing more specific in the agreement that’s not been disclosed ) the statement yesterday explicitly referenced their veto

It’s always the same reply …. You want to know everything ….No I don’t I would simply like to know why the chairman was sacked which I get is really really weird for football fan. i will never be on any board in connection with the club particularly as I would never sign a non disclosure agreement

Why was the chairman sacked ? We can’t tell you. what a wonderful situation for a fan owned club.

That’s nice ……but doesn’t explain why you thought it appropriate to accept the conditions of an investment which means three individuals have more power over decision making that the 1600 members of TJF without consulting the fans base. Which is in direct contradiction of how TJF said it would work. in your reply please don’t mention legal or time …..

Aren’t you a little curious as to why everything to do with the club is always apparently tied up in legal issues so no one knows anything ( except those who do and that’s not you or me …..)

Yes I read that funnily enough ….that doesn’t me much except the club is addicted to non disclosure agreements and legalities which handily prevent the ultimate owners either knowing very much or being involved in actual decision making. if the dispute was let’s over accepting a cash injection in return for a veto on certain decisions that could put a different perspective on things. what was the dispute about ?

Great …..so explain to me why the chairman was sacked ?

Not really…..my main point is the lack of fan involvement in strategic decisions affecting the club ……we have given three guys a veto over key decisions in the club so some fans are more equal than others and why was the chairman sacked exactly ?

from TJF today……. You will have seen yesterday’s statements from the PTFC Trust and the Football Club concerning the removal of Alistair Creevy as a Director of the Club. This has been a difficult episode for all involved, and I wanted to explain both what TJF’s role was in this process, and to put in context why this decision was arrived at. Corporate trusteeship TJF is one of four trustees of the PTFC Trust (the majority shareholder of the Football Club). This means we are jointly responsible for exercising the powers and responsibilities of fan ownership. The powers of the majority shareholder include a power to appoint and remove directors of the Football Club. These decisions have to be taken exercising our best judgment as to what is in the best interests of the Football Club. This includes ensuring that it has an effective and united leadership group, which can work together with one another constructively in the long term. This is particularly important in the early stages of the fan ownership journey. The dispute We, the TJF Board, in our capacity as a trustee, were alerted to a dispute between Mr Creevy and the other Directors of the Football Club. For legal reasons we are not in a position, as a trustee of the PTFC Trust, to set out what those are. That is ultimately a matter between the Club Board and Alistair Creevy. TJF, and the other trustees, only exercised the power of removal as a last resort, following several weeks of attempting to facilitate a solution to the dispute. What TJF did Prior to this decision, TJF: Firstly took legal advice on the core of the dispute itself Thereafter, ensured that Alistair Creevy’s perspective was heard, both through direct correspondence and at a meeting with the PTFC Trust trustees Took into account representations made by the Football Club’s other directors Took into account further representations made by Alistair Creevy and his solicitors Repeatedly encouraged pragmatic ways by which the dispute could be resolved Took further legal advice on several occasions during the process Why the decision was taken It became clear to us, in recent days, that an agreed solution was not possible. There was no credible prospect of Alistair continuing to work with the remaining Club Directors. Our number one priority is to cause minimum disruption to the Club’s senior leadership group. Whatever the reasons that they could no longer work together, the fact is that they could not. Given the legal advice received, and the matters we have been able to investigate, your TJF Board voted unanimously for our single trustee vote to be exercised to remove Alistair Creevy under article 22.1.2. There is nothing novel about this power, which has been exercised in the recent past by a majority of the shareholders to remove other Directors. This was not a matter we, as TJF, wished to become involved in. Nor was it one that we relish having been involved in. However, fan ownership sometimes involves difficult decisions like these. We have taken this one in what we believe to be the best interests of the Football Club. As the trustees made clear yesterday, we remain grateful for the temporary financial support provided by Alistair, alleviating the Club’s cashflow problems towards the end of last season. The Chair-to-Chair relationship between Alistair and myself has always been mutually respectful and productive. Therefore, much effort has been put in to try to find a way through. It is personally disappointing that a resolution could not be found. For the avoidance of doubt, the dispute and the decision taken in relation to Alistair Creevy had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the investment process or outcome. As we indicated yesterday, we always welcome challenge and feedback from our members. If you want to get in touch about this, or anything else, please email [email protected]. We hope to say more in the coming days about the investment process and why it was that the fans were not, on this occasion, consulted. Please bear with us on this. The last few weeks have taken a significant toll on me and my fellow TJF directors, both in terms of having to engage with Alistair Creevy and others in relation to the boardroom dispute and in seeking to protect vital fans’ interests in the investment process. Thank you again for your support of the Foundation.

Alister Creevy on Facebook Stevie Hollinsworth Steve the truth will come out and happy to answer any questions The board and trustees are culpable and need to be held to account

They get 10% of the clubs shares as preference shares, they seats on the board, the get a veto in some some decisions and if we have £2m in the bank they can start to get their money back.

He is right to say the fans as ultimate owners of the club should be presented with the facts. what a shambles.

I have sent this email to the TJF, if fan ownership means anything in reality this proposal should have been consulted on. Ok guys…..I’m just registering my disapproval at today’s announcement. This has nothing to do with the ‘what’ but the ‘ how’. To reduce the overall fan shareholding, to accept a veto on certain decisions from 3 people, to signal fan ownership may go down to 51% and to say we are now in favour of the German Model are significant changes of strategy and approach. And news to me and probably everybody else. If they are not issues fans should be engaged and canvassed on then pretty much nothing is, and maybe that’s where we are heading. It has now become a pattern of behaviour that there is always a reason ( or excuse ) why fans can’t be consulted or involved about issues. This is extremely concerning. Personally as a shareholder, Trust member and TJF member I don’t feel any more involved in the running of the club than under Jacqui Lowe and that should be a red light for everyone !

Apparently rumour goes he was against the proposal

My main point would be this general approach, the dilution of fan ownership below 75% and potentially reducing the fan shareholding to 51% and adopting the German model has never actually been discussed with the fans who apparently own the club……yes I know it’s never possible to do so …..funny that

As long as you’re happy they get a veto on certain decisions ….

There is always an excuse though isn’t there and it sets the precedent and tone. they could have consulted their members on the principle without naming the individuals involved but choose not to.

And you should add in: get seats on the board get a veto on certain decisions get their money back first

So the rumours on this have been circulating for some time and it’s just not good enough to leave it hanging. Poor stuff.

Again maybe ….i would like to understand why the chairman was sacked which I don’t think is unreasonable We could said for example ….. ‘there was a disagreement over stategy, or an appointment or finances ‘ the statement today could have been put out by any previous thistle board and lots of people would be critical. Being fan owned isn’t a free pass for poor management or communication.

Maybe… but you can actually say that’s what it is which would at least be something .