jaf

The elephant in the room is not a baby. It is well aged. It has been there since propco was being set up. The way to make propco work without conflicts of interest was suggested by me to a board member before propco even happened.....unfortunately to avoid a conflict of interest some people cannot get the best of both worlds, the glamour of being a football club director and be prime movers in property companies. I guess that got in the way of us not having a conflict of interest inherent in the process and structure.

Ahhh, I am there on the Sat. Shame, we could have continued debate in the most civilised manner possible - over a pint!! Enjoy!

Exactly. Allan and David are great for legalities and rules and I would always want them on my side, but today was just not about that in the slightest really...it was about hypocrisy, past incompetence, and some people trying to get their ball back.

And lets play hypotheticals!! Just because its fun and its Friday! Lets say that people asked about conflict of interest at the time of propco, and were told it was definitely not a problem by suitably qualified people, they then find out it is a problem years later, they then try to (ham - fistedly perhaps) put it right , they then are plotted and voted against by the people who told them it was all ok in the first instance - might you be a little p*ssed off in the circumstances? PS YOu going to see Dylan?!!!

I agree re the football club point but this is being represented by some as a sleight of hand...its standard practice, just not wholly appropriate for a football club. I still think impractical is very generous. I also think there are vast protections in statute which are being ignored amidst the scaremongering. I am not saying they should have been adopted wholesale but I think there is much less wrong with them than people are making out in practical terms and I certainly think the spirit of them is being totally misrepresented. (I do completely agree they got the tactics wrong, but if I put myself in their position, i can understand how that happened) Do you and David concede our Articles as they stand are inappropriate and out of date? If so why did the previous incumbent never sort this out on his watch?

Step 1 - the people who caused the 'very real conflicts of interest' need to be accountible for the f*ck up they made. Which board members assured which other board members there was no conflict of interest? Which board members obtained the independent advice they were tasked to get, how was that obtained, and from whom? What safeguards were put in place to ensure no board member of PTFC was involved in the framing of the deal with Propco if they also had a beneficial interest in that company? And finally who negotiated for propco and who negotiated for the club?

A fair summary, although is Europa inspired administration really such a bad thing? Save the Jags (talking of conflicts of interest think about the prime movers in forming that and the outcome) f*cked the club because it gave the balance of power to people who have misused it and abused it. The only way to rid the club of them is to kill it...they have taken all the soul out of the club, all the joy out of being a Jags fan - what is left? They should not be spared having the death of the football club on their CV and as their legacy.

What you mean something that is standard practice in many Mem and Arts? And how exactly was that 75% ever going to be reached given all of the other provisions? Can you outline a scenario as to how the 75% trigger would ever be activated, and all those who would have to agree along the way to make that happen. Are articles not being loosened up and down the land because of greater minority shareholder protections in statute?

Allan, thats all fair enough, but the issue remains that there has been gross hypocrisy at work on the other side (as you well know). And whilst detail and presentation and approaches are all important - CONSEQUENCES are more important IMO. And if you voted against the motion today, if you did not reach out and try to reach an agreement that it would not be put to a vote, if you encouraged shareholders who didnt really care to give you proxies, if you are gleefully wandering around with a smile on your face like the witch that got a new cauldron, then the consequences of today are yours to be responsible for. And if BA and DB walk, are those consequences that improve the club or not?

I hope they do. The only way to save the club is to f*ck it.

No. And they are pragmatists, and their hearts may rule their heads.

I would not blame them if they are. Who needs the hassle?

Yep, the two most succesful business guys to be on our Board in recent times are at present sitting in a room with their heads in their hands.

Nope...I am saying I would but he is undoubtedly a more pragmatic and bigger man than me....plus his investment in propco would be unaffected in fact potentially enhanced by doing so.

I hope the puppet master and all the little inconsequential puppets have a good plan now - some of the hypocrisy shown by certain people is embarrassing and disgraceful Maybe BA is a more mature individual than me though and won't demand all his cash back immediately??

I think it is important to say that there is nothing factually incorrect in what JJ writes. I also think it is important to say that "the conflict of interest" was created the moment propco was devised and by the manner it was done, and by the protections which were not put in place at that time - feel free to yawn, i have said this over and over I know. We have lived with that conflict of interest created by those who now incredulously brief against these changes without one small hint of hypocrisy. There are many many ways that adequate protections can be gotten without there having to be a vote against these changes, and perhaps those who are putting forward the changes would at least listen to some suggestions of ways to effect that which would personally give me comfort; that is after all, all I have ever wanted, and the current board should not have to live with the ill-conceived set up that they have inherited. They may have gone about it in a way that was a touch insensitive and naive given the background to all of this (and perhaps having a company secretary who is not aware of all the history has not helped), but at least they are trying to sort it out....how did our previous company secretary allow this position to continue to exist? The JTB and all holders of guardian shares need to consider consequences. If you hold guardian shares, surely you require to safeguard the longetivity of the club? What are the consequences of a vote against these changes given the well-rehearsed financial support of Europa? Petty point scoring and plotting might be an interesting hobby to some, but its about time those who are addicted to it began to play with something else other than our Partick Thistle.

Might it have gone something like this...... oh we need to badge this to make it look independent one director, drafts something, and sends it to a professional 'independent' firm to put into their style it gets signed in the pursuit of investors that entire email chain gets forwarded to people outwith the inner circle Frankly, if board members permitted the 'independent advice' to be of dubious independent quality, or not adhered to, they are all at best guilty of breaches of their fiduciary duties either through being overly reliant and not scrutinising fully enough what they were being told, or more concerningly through knowing it was advantageous to them to obtain tame advice. To summarise, we have a shareholder and company officer of one company, framing the terms of the transaction with another company (which will transfer value), another company in which he is also an investor, and he is instructing those preparing the paperwork as to what the terms are. ICAS ethical guide has been posted here on many occasions by Greig and Allan I think. Finally, as I have been called out by Jim, I would like to clarify one thing. I did not run into the burning building. I was happy to run into the burning building on the basis of helping Jim and Billy, I even had a clear instruction to run into the burning building, but just as my mercy dash was about to start I was blocked at the door of the burning building. Why? Not sure. When? Just after I asked the incumbent FD to see all the books and records. On many occassions, I and others, have offerred help, have stood up and been counted, and have tried to help PTFC. I have however never shifted my position on propco and have been probably one of its most persistent (and tiresome and boring!!) critics due to one issue - the deal and the conflicts which existed in the framing of that deal and thereafter. Given the various emails flying around, it is nice to see that board members who presided over the deal where the conflict existed are now in agreement with me. So....was the 'independent' advice given at the time of propco erroneous? ie that conflicts were not an issue; or did the board get the advice and ignore it until now, ie permit conflicts to exist without gaining shareholder approval for them? If it is the former are the independent advisors being asked to clarify how they let this situation happen? Why have the people who presided over the transaction now got such a grasp of these legal issues but did not appear to have such a grasp at the time?

It should not be forgotten that if the rumour is true, those returned triumphantly to the scene of their previous crimes, would also (at least in one case) still have a conflict of interest.

Not enclosing the Mem and Arts before the meeting is another reason to be worried; that is unusual behaviour. I wonder what lurks in these changes, and why do I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that when the devil in the detail emerges, it would be the removal of some more protections of one type or another. What can we do?? Well i will gladly chuck money into a pot, speak to every press contact I have, and share the file I have on propco, if there are any other people who care, then lets go for A Disqualification of Directors court application on grounds of misfeance and breach of duty in respect of not ensuring that adequate safeguards were put in place during the propco transaction to avoid a significant conflict of interest arising. The problem is - and this is what they bank on every time - in the end we always turn out to be (with the odd notable exception) an apathetic lot.

For disapplying the directors conflict of interest rules, read disapplying the protection that Company Law gives stakeholders for a very good reason and admitting that conflicts of interest have existed all over this for too long now. Frankly, you are barking mad if you agree to this (unless you sit both sides of the fence) This might be the nudge I need to go nuclear on propco. The simple fact of the matter is that there are emails floating around which shows that conflicts of interest existed and were not in my opinion (and the opinion of professional ethics bodies on a no names basis) adequately safeguarded against. The individuals concerned who got the benefit of the doubt as to taking us in a new direction either knew or ought to have known that these conflicts existed and were not adequately safeguarded against and so are as guilty as the deed doers. People can protest their innocence all they like, we are now faced with a situation that they want to dismantle the protections that company law give on this very matter which to me suggests that they have never treated the conflict of interest issue with anything but contempt. Sorry, to get all ranty but you will see a million posts by me on this over several years. And an end to a proper audit process within 12 months of people clamouring for independent financial audit of the books. So in summary this is all about less independent scrutiny and less protection. Partick Thistle really has become the prostitute of Scottish football, its been f*cked by so many middle aged men in the last few years.

Thats the view of the man himself. We will see......

Aye thats right, it was the fault of the customers that Woolworths went bust. Oh and it was the fault of the customers that Setanta Sports went pop. Borders...again the customers fault. Sorry Lenny, a board have a responsibility to run the company in a way to try to retain and acquire customers - our Board do not pursue this basic business model instead driving countless people away by a variety of actions. It is a nonsense to blame people for staying away when you do not know what they have done in the past, or what their reasons for staying away truly are. "Some more than others"....I am happy to get into a p*ssing contest with you anytime mate about what I have contributed. And not just me thats really insulting to lots of true fans who dont go anymore.... Lianne MacDonald as one example. But I hate the good fan/bad fan/better fan debate...we are all just fans....I care so much about the club but I know of friends who have been bullied, shafted, I know of things that shouldnt have happened that did happen, I know of some competencies, and lots of incompetencies, I know that when you have someone whispering in board members ears that the fans are a bad lot then we have no future apart from one where GOOD FANS drift away and continue to drift away. Your approach is to keep giving those people that hold their customers in such contempt custom and ego-stroking, by saying the alternative is too bad to contemplate - who is to say there is anything wrong with that view except it perpetuates the problems. My view is the future of Partick Thsitle would be better without the stench others have spoken about and greater supporter engagement would happen and crowds would gradually improve. We have tried fingers crossed hope and continuing to hand over the cash long enough and nothing changes, in fact it gets worse, so all I am saying is lets try a different approach. The great thing about Patick Thistle was never the board nor rarely the players, nor even the ground...the great thing was the soul of the club and that came from people like you and me.....and that soul has gone in recent years. I used to be proud to be a Partick Thistle fan, proud of our board, proud of every player no matter how limited his ability and proud of fellow fans...now there are some people who just embarrass me - at a board level in the main.

There is one answer I would like from Mr Beattie - when he was 'selling' propco to people, he was bullishly predicting a sizeable haircut on the clubs bank debt as part of the transaction, ie the club would get more than a £ for £ reduction in the debt by doing the deal, which of course made it more attractive to 'Thistle minded people'. How much of a haircut did Messrs Beattie and Hughes actually achieve?

Surely the sleight of hand performed with the directors resignations and the complicity of Beattie and Allan in that mean they should not be excused the stocks?!! Anything goes wrong which the fingerprints of TH are on, and they will be guilty by association; its not as if they have not had enough warnings. I hope they do understand the reputational risk they are taking on because I actually think both of them do care about the club and want to do what is right. But they don't want to take on the man who 'always wins' - even when they try, they back down.........impressive stuff.

Incorrect. There is evidence to the contrary. You are a sensible poster Alan, but when people are in possession of evidence to the contrary, you will not get them to agree with you just by being sensible! PM me if you want to know why others hold a contrary view to yours.