jaf

Its a great point, and one that has been wrestled with long and hard by more than just me. The problem is they think they can do what they want because exactly of your post, the emotional bond we all have with the club means we wont hurt the club to make our point. And so we spend years is a state of doing nothing. When people do try to do something, TH 'always wins'. I am not asking others to do the same, I am simply another stay away disillusioned fan. I have a really busy life. Partick Thistle to me has been an emotional, a time and a financial commitment for many years. But its now emotional only and even that is waning. Don't think I have arrived here without trying to help out the club in many ways so I don't think I could do better or have tried harder. My conscience is clear. As for how is it helping the club? It helps the club because the more disengaged I am,the less likely I am to come on here and post the things that wind me up about Hughes and PTFC that have not yet been brought into the public domain, because I understand it is better for the club not to have division and distractions when we face a difficult summer and 2011/12 season.

Been there. Tried that. Got the scars. Like so many others. Good luck though. Love the club so obviously hope those who have not become disillusioned join together and make the club stronger and better and the rest of us are all wrong. But I'm gone til Hughes is gone. Simples!

Puppet.

I am one of the biggest critics of Tom Hughes so I guess you mean me? In just about every time I wade into a critique of his record, I always precede it by stating that his work for many years was sterling and he served the club well. Furthermore one of his other biggest critics (Double Ugly) does exactly the same. Therefore I think to suggest others have chosen to ignore them is wide of the mark. There are many issues that various people choose not to put in the public domain that make me (and others) loathe Hughes. That will never change. This is based on things I have heard second hand, things I have seen with my own eyes, communication i have had with him, and an analysis of his recent record. Some may call it the evidence for the prosecution. I hold an opinion, it is based upon a balanced and considered view. You can disagree with it, feel free, but please do not make out people who don't hold the same view of Hughes as he himself holds, are blinkered and give no credit to his successes; I have been saying on forums for years he was absolutely the right man for Save the Jags times. I am just much less convinced in the years since then.

There is lots of evidence he still fulfills duties similar to those you would expect a director to fulfill despite the 'resignation'. After all this is the man who 'always wins'.

What he did well - bring through some decent young players work on a tight budget in the aftermath of the confrontational supporter/mamager relationship of dickie, he was good at communicating with the fans he supported the directors in every unpopular decision they made and 'sold' it to the fans What he did badly - stick to the 3/5 year plan make loan signings failed to make signings that were obviously needed at times I think on the whole he did a pretty good job; he fronted up to us, the supporters, and it has been a difficult time to be at the club for sure. I think he was exactly what we needed post-dickie, and in that context, i would probably say he gets about 7/10. I think next year would have been tiring for him trying to keep players, move forward with a budget probably cut once again. But the next permanent appointment is absolutely critical. Remember McCall WANTED this job, so it was an easy appointment lasttime round. I think the question might be less, who do we want, and more who can tolerate being our next manager? Don't expect a long queue.

Agreed DU. I think Tom Hughes must be a contender. After all when you wear 47 hats, it must be almost negligible to add a 48th, and I am sure he has total self-belief that he would be very good at the job, might even lecture the other managers in Scotland about how much better than them he is in the national press.

I heard a Celtic fan on radio saying thats the difference having a referee with integrity makes. They are totally deluded. The ref made mistakes he admitted but said they were honest mistakes, ie mistakes sometimes in Celtics favour!

I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he does, and he may well do, we can truly welcome a director keen to make greater engagement with supporters more than simply rhetoric. If he doesn't, you can draw your own conclusions.

Thats a fair post and a perfectly reasonable opinion to take. As I believe is my contrary view based on things I have witnessed, been party to, been told, or documents seen. Without that catalogue of evidence, I may even reach the same conclusion as you. Jim Alexander is so not the issue. He may be a consequence of the issue, but he isn't the issue. Since you are not sure what they get out of it, and since you do not like innuendo, perhaps we could get some clarity on it...maybe you could join those asking questions...perhaps you may like to ask, as you are entitled to do as a shareholder, could you please document the total value of payments made to Tom Hughes' firm over, lets say the past 5 years and in the balance of fairness, a list of the payments he or his firm has made to the club? At the end of the day javeajag, whatever their motivations, there is much anecdotal evidence as to the contempt with which certain office holders view the supporters, their customers. Can they really expect anything but contempt in return?

Sandy, who cares? Do not divert off the key questions,which to my mind are..... 1. Whether DB is displaying hypocrisy by voting one way whilst typing up programme notes giving an entirely different opinion, if that happened? If he voted for Jim why doesnt he just confirm it? 2. Are the shareholders ready to stand by their axe weilding roles? Are they even aware of them? 3. Are the Board entirely satisfied that corporate governance and company law has properly been followed in the events leading up to the recent AGM and in the conduct of the AGM itself, and that no conflicts of interest manifested them selves in that process? 4. Have the Board any evidence that Tom Hughes ongoing presence around the club in official capacities is a barrier to the greater supporter engagement they claim to crave, and are choosing to ignore it? Or have they no evidence that he is such a barrier? 5. Do they feel that they have fulfilled their fiduciary duty at all times in the period beginning twelve months before propco transaction to date? Whether javeajag is 'someone' or not is irrelevant and dilutes the need to keep hammering home these questions IMO.

Great post David......the soul of the club has gone, what made us proud to be a Jags fan has been stolen, last seen being plundered by an arch capitalist and his puppets.

the list of shareholders is a matter of public record. You stated your shareholdings earlier. Therefore its fair to say a stab could be made to your identity if someone wanted to. In actual fact, i dont think even any member of our Board would be stupid enough to zzzzzzzzzzzzz a real fan on a public forum. I have noticed in the past quite often the substance of a thread gets derailed by your involvement. I have to be honest, I have zero interest in you, I only care about the conduct of Keith Harris, Orville and Cuddles and whether their conduct (past, present and future) is detrimental to the stakeholders of Partick Thistle, of which you and I javeajag are both members. You are welcome to keep trying to divert attention from the questions just as I am going to keep raising them in this forum and others until reasonable answers are given to reasonable questions.

Read my post again...I was defending your right to have an alternate view and to post that view, i said that very explicitly. You can apologise anytime you want to......

Oh go on then DU or Clueso or whoever you are,I'll subscribe to your theory. Thing is, its quite easily confirmed, with a conversation with Springford or McMasters. I have to say, if that is the case, and open proxies were sought with knowledge they would be used for that purpose (which the Trust meeting would bear out that it was preconceived) but with the fact they would be used for that purpose omitted from the reasons for getting the proxy from the shareholders, then Beattie is on a sticky wicket going on the record saying it was a shareholder matter. He is perpetuating the myth. I have always thought Beattie's judgement must be clouded if he is willing to invest his own reputation in Hughes. Does anyone remember that Blackadder episode with Pitt the Younger where Edmund Blackadder was the voter and the parliamentary agent? This AGM would seem to have been conducted a bit like that.

So to return to type for a moment!!!......I think this thread should not be about me or even javeajag, but about..... 1. Whether DB is displaying hypocrisy by voting one way whilst typing up programme notes giving an entirely different opinion, if that happened? If he voted for Jim why doesnt he just confirm it? 2. Are the shareholders ready to stand by their axe weilding roles? Are they even aware of them? 3. Are the Board entirely satisfied that corporate governance and company lawe has properly been followed in the events leading up to the recent AGM and in the conduct of the AGM itself, and that no conflicts of interest manifested them selves in that process? 4. Have the Board any evidence that Tom Hughes ongoing presence around the club in official capacities is a barrier to the greater supporter engagement they claimto crave, and are choosing to ignore it? Or have they no evidence that he is such a barrier? 5. Do they feel that they have fulfilled their fiduciary duty at all times in the period beginning twelve months before propco transaction to date? There will be no moving on, nothing to see here. The questions will continue to be asked, and the list will no doubt get longer.

Neither as old nor as...och I can't say that. No not Allan Heron....my tambourine playing talents do not come close to matching his!!

I used to post on those endless music threads, but I am old and boring now so do so no more!! Its a fair point....the difference i guess between javeajag and i apart from a fundamental diagreement as to the competencies and perceived conflicts of interest of Tom Hughes, is that anyone who really wants to know, can easily work out or find out who I am.....whilst javeajag wears a (very thin) cloak of anonymity...some of his posts (ie zzzzing a longstanding and respected fan of the club) would be most unbecoming of a club official IMO, but then I have a different moral and ethical code to some of those connected with the Board. The fans of Partick Thistle have been emotionally blackmailed, bullied, taken for granted long enough, and until that ends,I intend to keep posting my opinions on those who do not come up to conduct and performance levels we should be able to expect from them, both on this forum and offline, and I of course agree javeajag is entitled to continue to post his alternate views.

Interesting. Seriously flawed but interesting. I agree with Woodstock Jags analysis above given the fact JA hardly knew most of the directors...maybe we should start a campaign urging people not to go anywhere near Apex Hotels, not because we have any knowledge of them, just because we feel like it...would Norman Springford feel aggrieved in such a situation?? What we are being asked to believe by Beatties programme notes and your contribution is that Jim Alexander was doing a fine job and that a bunch of shareholders with little knowledge of Jim decided to remove him in a suddenly changed voting system. I tthink what it is fair to say is that Beattie is by implication setting up messrs Springford and McMaster to be the fall guys for an unpopular decision. Maybe since they are being put in the frame and you feel it is inappropriate for the board to comment and in your usual sycophantic manner think the Board have acted impeccably, someone may to care to write to Springford and McMaster and ask them why they took this bold step since it was a 'shareholder decision' contrary to board opinion of JA.

"I am not a hypocrite and every diplomatic word I have said on this subject is absolutely true and so therefore I can confirm that I voted for Jim Alexander and did everything in my power to keep him on the board." woudl be a very popular thing to say and could surely not do much harm, since it was 'a shareholder decision' rather than a board one, its not going to divide the board or anything? So why not come out and say that??? Unless..............

Yes, David, you want greater supporter engagement....well humour us, engage with us, and tell us how you voted. You may think its irrelevant, but we do not, it is a matter of ethics, judgement and these are fundamental as to whether you can carry the supporters with you as we go forward. And while you are at it, perhaps you could also put on the record that you agree that all corporate law procedures were followed properly in conduct of the AGM and the events leading up to the AGM, and the multiple hat wearer (Hughes) conduct was entirely proper and within corporate law and governance best practice?

Allan...any joy with whether a director with corporate experience (ie cannot use ignorance as an excuse) is in breach of his fiduciary duty, if they permit a transaction to happen where there is a clear perception among the stakeholders in the company that there is a serious risk of a conflict of interest occuring without building in suitable safeguards?? It is one of those curiosities that just keeps occurring to me time after time......

The soul of Partick Thistle has been sold. If that is not worth politicking about, then not sure what is? The club was never about players, a ground, league position, even board members to me; it was about being a Partick Thistle fan, the best fans there are, ones who could have pride in their players, in the gallows humour of their fellow fans, in their ground, and in their board. Now, I hold certain board members (present and past but still lurking around) in contempt (and that is the most polite interpretation). The soul has been ripped out of the club these last few years; many people would agree, some may disagree. If Beattie wants supporter engagement, he has to be prepared to hear things he doesn't like as well as things he does.

I love it when pragmatists turn evil........ Tom Hughes has done it to many, and I am guessing Beattie is about to start the same game Its a great question.......if you want supporter engagement, openess is required, therefore come on DB, tell us how you voted?

Was a pain to have to type the words "Tom Hughes" so often whilst completing this