jaf

Tom Hughes really is the one that got away isn't he? Anyway, I am sure Tom Hughes is quoted as saying that he cast the proxy votes in accordance with the board members voting; that being the case it is a bit disengenous for Beattie to claim this is a shareholder matter. If he wanted rid of Jim, why does he not just come out and let the ordinary fan know why? Why does TH comtinue to be invited to represent the club in various matters but JA does not seem to be? How can anyone believe in greater suporter engagement if there is not transparency, openess and honesty coming from the Board?

Will David Beattie be extending the same offers to Jim Alexander to continue to attend things as he obviously has to Tom Hughes? Or not? Will David Beattie also accept (as he has and will be told if he truly listens) that the ongoing omnipresence of Tom Hughes is a barrier to greater supporter engagement among many supporters of the club? Or has he never been told this?

Thats a different point. We started the season aware that it was a difficult economic climate and aware that our budgets had been hopelessly optimistic for years. Our budgets were proven woefully inaccurate by October and a cash hole had arisen. Why did the assumptions not take greater account of the points you mention? So yes this board may make welcome strides to move towards breakeven, but they still signed off budgets that were woefully inaccurate at the start of this season, budgets proven to be fundamentally flawed two months into the season. They were not budgeting for this cash crisis - it has been an emergency? Or are you saying they were budgeting for it, but just decided to wait two months before starting to think about doing someting about it? Either way, not encouraging.

Obviously. Since we have failed what five years running now? It is not difficult; it might not be popular but its not difficult. I would take part time and relegation over having no club, and if they hadn't scrambled round to fill the cash hole that would be a very real prospect.

Dumb & Dumber have had their chance...they are now fans of the Wily Coyote (actually thats unfair, the wily coyote is likeable) and as such lose my support. We are Partick Thistle. Not them.

Absolutely right Tom; the irony is that in response to a comment about how twisted things get on here, one of the most twisted pieces of logic is used...propco remains a good deal for the preferential investors

Absolutely right DU. If we stick to analysis of performance and facts, then people can form their opinions themselves....personally my own view is that there have been a series of failures in the financial management of the club over a number of recent years; the pride of when TH used to lecture the rest of Scottish football replaced by utter embarressment. As for propco, those who know me, know that I could talk forever on this subject but please lets not let javeajag try to persuade us this was some altruistic deed. With hindsight, it may not look such a good investment NOW for a few reasons, but this was not envisaged or intended when it was first dreamt up - 1 a sustained period of low interest rates which would have helped the club manage debt 2 a sustained period of property recession and shortage of capital in the markets 3 a continuing inability to balance the football clubs budgets - as I said at the time, propco was only half a plan, fundamental to it (from the football clubs point of view) was that we had to operate within a balanced budget; as I also predicted at the time, there was no chance of that happening with a repeat offender of FAILURE to balance the budgets of the football club holding the keys to the petty cash tin

I have been wondering how we are going to cover what Jim did...who will take over, doing what? But, I have heard we have put out feelers to headhunt a CEO?!! Could this be right?? Where is the money coming from?!! I think it a good thing in certain conditions - . the funding - it is new and ringfenced . they are not simply replacing what JA did for nothing with an overhead, and have a more wide reaching remit . they are not hamstrung by having a clause in their contract that they are not permitted to ask any (difficult) financial questions about the past, present or future of TH . and of course, that they make the right appointment!!!

It might do. It may have consequences. Who knows? Do you? Does our financial supremo?

The budgets were wrong again this year? Speculation, invention or reality? We have another cash flow gap to fill? Speculation, invention or reality? The internal controls have in the past failed to prevent financial loss to the club? Speculation, invention or reality? And there is so much more to come out and to take a leaf out of Kevin Keegans book, I am going to love it when it does - speculation, invention or reality? Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Hardly the most articulate and persuasive argument I have ever read on this forum.

I agree with everything in this post. I have been more than willing to give DB and BA the benfeit of the doubt, time, and my support; but I am afraid that is now eroded. Its a shame as deep down I honestly do believe BA has the clubs best interest at heart. My personal view however is that the best interest of the club is a future sans the multiple hat wearing TH, and since they take a contrary view, I can only assume that they endorse the recent financial regime of failure. Finally, some problems have surfaced for the club which are well known, some may say these were due to poor financial controls, some may say that is not the case, however DB and BA by not holding anyone accountible are transferring a share of future accountability for any financial problems, mistakes, etc onto themselves.

Allan, I too have a corporate law question that you can maybe help with??? It regards the concept of fiduciary duty which I assume still has application? If there is a perception of a conflict of interest in a transaction by pretty much every man and their dog, and you as a board member of the companies involved do not build in safeguards to remove the apparent conflict, are you in breach of your fiduciary duty as a company director?

Theres always open lines of communication between TH and the JTB though DU....after all why else would a JTB member (current and at that time) have been given the opportunity to invest in propco by Tom Hughes? Or maybe it was the Jags Trust being given the opportunity via that JTB member, those in the Trust at the time will remember? Either ways its another example of when they want something, they cosy up to the JTB.

Clearly a reversal of the transaction is not realistic, so whats to be gained? 1. IF, and I say IF, there were things wrong with the transaction that for example meant that the deal was at under value, I dare say that could be pursued (not against the club costing them money) but against individuals. Not that I am suggesting this happened for one minute, however who knows what might be found. 2. IF it were found the financial past was strewn with errors/mistakes/misjudgements/controls that dont work/etc etc might that embolden the current board to relieve TH of his duties and therefore provide peace of mind that the mistakes of the past will not therefore be repeated, and the expenses of those mistakes not recur?

OK,there are suggestions of someone acting in an AGM process outwith the ethical code of their professional organisation at the very least, and who knows perhaps even outwith company law. All the facts of this are not known, but they are all out there I guess for someone to collate. It is often commented that our finances are worse than comparable clubs. Over the past number of years that same person has kept a very tight control of financial information and in recent times acted a bit like the book keeper who wont go on holiday - despite resigning his directorship and theoretically giving up responsibility.This is fact. Over those years, the club has got their budgets wrong every year, a budgeting process he oversaw. This year the budgets were shown to be seriously flawed a mere two months into the season. Your point about crowds (a balme the fans diversion) is nonsense, the budgets need subjected to sensitivity and one sensitivity should have been the disengagement of fans because of the actions of certain board members and the present economic climate. 3000fans was ludicrously optimistic and you do not set budgets on what you need to survive , you set them and take difficult decisions based on what you think will happen. The financal internal controls of our club, again under that same individuals control, have been shown to be flawed in recent years. Again fact. Their must be doubts about the competency of his performance in a number of areas over a number of years. Within the last number of years the biggest single transaction the club has done for some time was completed - propco. It was a complex transaction. That transaction saw heavy involvement in the negotiation and liason with professional advisers from the person whose competencies are in doubt. When he was scrambling round looking for investors emails were circulating showing that to be the case, and that he was heavily involved in the transaction. He is an investor in propco but negotiated away the clubs position. Some might say that is a conflict of interest that his professional body would frown at. Some may also say that all those who let him take that role in knowledge of the conflict arein breach of their fiduciary duty to Partick Thistle. Propco was presented as something that needed to be done at the time. We only have the word of one person to that (interestingly the person whose flawed budgetary control had caused it to need to happen). When a group of fans in business and professions sought to meet with the bank at that time to see if alternate straegies could be pursued, the request to meet the bank was declined by this same individual so we only have his word for it. So we have a history of errors in his role. We have a major transaction where there is a perception of a conflict. We have an ethical guide which seems to be ignored.We have some known failures in financial internal controls. And we have this man still seemingly having pretty much unfettered access to run the financial aspects of the club. Do we trust someone with this track record to have concluded the propco deal correctly and should it not be scrutinised given the apparent conflicts? Should the internal controls not be inspected to see if other failures can be prevented? What is there to fear from all this? Is it driven by revenge? Yes, well a desire for accountability. Is it personal revenge? No. My personal view is that over the last five years the financial aspects of Partick thistle Football Club could have been run better; the evidence I think supports that view. Jim Alexander has been held accountible for something - who knows what. But the man responsible for this ongoing financial failure has not. I think there is knowledge of enough thinks having gone wrong to have a look at the past...see if all his firms fees were really worth it, and see whether there are any other skeletons in the closet. What is wrong with that? Your argument seems solely to be that it is in the past. The passing of time should not prevent people to be reassured on matters from the past. I did not know there was time-barring on someone having a view on matters of ethics and competence. I repeat, what is there to fear from this if everything has been done correctly other than the things we already know weren't? And have there not been enough failures in recent times to make one think that perhaps a bit of scrutiny over such matters (especially if they can prevent future failures) is worthwhile? Perhaps it would show everything has been conducted impeccably? Perhaps we two could have a wee wager on that?! Finally, in order to show some balance, I would say that I think he did a great job in the immediate aftermath of Save the Jags. I said that this week in an email. Reputations such as he enjoyed are so hard won, yet so easily lost. His, with me, is lost until it can be proven otherwise by a credible financial review.

and just when I think The Jags Trust deserve some credit for their ethical principled stand on Proxy-gate, they manage to clutch contempt from the jaws of respect with this statement straight from The Allan Cowan School of Diplomacy.

I agree they would not have the clout, but why would it be resisted? It needs to be a well run well argued campaign and dig in for a long haul. I think your point re Milne Craig is irrelevant. Whilst i would not like to underestimate the good work of any auditor(!), history is littered with things which auditors have missed. The audit process starts with an assessment of risk at the planning stage. This risk assessment looks at the financial internal controls of a business. How are ours? Robust? How have they changed over the years? Have they always been accepted as reliable by the auditors? Or only up until there was an alleged fraud by an employee at the club? See my point? It is not for me to decide whether there has been ethical issues. I simply posted what the rules are. I was not present at the meeting, but the language of the ethical guide is pretty clear, so for those who may feel wronged or those who were at the meeting, they may have an opinion as to whether that code has been breached. From the sidelines, I am sure we can all make our own judgements once the facts are known. Any pursuit under this would only be revenge motivated as there is only real remedy under law. Important though it is to Jim, it is not as serious, for example, if someone advised on two sides of a property deal or something. Other remedies exist however, and so if someone felt aggrieved, concerned, and motivated to do so further financial investigations could be made, particularly if that person(s) knew where the bodies were buried (assuming of course there are bodies).

I suppose it depends what you told people when you were obtaining the proxies from them, how they would instruct you.

Apologies MP, I meant Firhillista!!

I think its quite simple. Yes, there are general economic difficulties at the moment; our problems have existed longer and in many different guises. The man at the helm of finances has REPEATEDLY overseen budgets prepared which have been proven to be nonsense with seriously flawed assumptions, financial internal controls have been weak allowing problems to occur also on his watch, and there are probably some other issues we dont know about. His regime as FD is one of repeated failure and under performance in recent years. He has never been held to account. He is like the book keeper who never goes on holiday. There are many examples floating round of his refusal to give up finacial controls of the club. The Trust really should be demanding a full financial audit of the financial records for, lets say the last four years. As someone says further up the thread, what have they to fear from this.....it may show up that everything has been well managed and Tom Hughes perceived reputation may be restored. Finally, for all those who think the treatment of Jim Alexander was fair. I think people should seek to live their lives the way that you yourself would like to be treated. I think the treatment of Jim has been shameful, and probably unethical. MP, is there anything that Tom Hughes could have done during his time presiding over the club that would make you feel he should no longer be anywhere near the club? Or will you be an apolgist for him whatever he has done?

I would be interested on Jim's interpretation and the Trusts interpretation of these points - these are 4 of the 5 fundamentals in teh ICAS COde of Ethics •Integrity - a professional accountant should be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships; •Objectivity – a professional accountant should not allow bias, conflict of interest or undue influence of others to override professional or business judgements; •Confidentiality – a professional accountant should respect the confidentiality of information acquired as a result of professional and business relationships and should not disclose any such information to third parties without proper and specific authority unless there is a legal or professional right or duty to disclose. Confidential information acquired as a result of professional and business relationships should not be used for the personal advantage of the professional accountant or third parties; and •Professional behaviour – a professional accountant should comply with relevant laws and regulations and should avoid any action that discredits the profession. I was not there so cannot comment, but maybe someone who was could have views on this?? Personally I think Jim should do two things, not let the b*stards grind him down, and take the gloves off and go for this mob. If he does, I will be there standing beside him thats for sure.

Jim tried to make things better. Thank you. Just one correction to what has gone before. Clearly the ex-director is not an ex-director, he is a shadow director. And never has a phrase been more appropriate, lurking in the half-light. Shadow, half-light, shady deals, despite repeated failure in his area of responsibility - I could list them but they are all well known. Some people need to take long hard looks at themselves and hang their heads in shame. Well done to the Trust for having some backbone.

Lets ask the fans with a grand to help. We all need to pull together. Lets keep the guy who allegedly holds the fans in complete and utter contempt on board because that will help. Defies logic. My solution is that all monies should be witheld, the football playing side should be spun out, an entirely new board be created from those who fund the new football playing side, then the property speculators can be left with Propco, the failed board members and shareholders of the club of no value can be left with their interest in the rest of the stadium, and the new football co can begin afresh, no baggage, no agendas, with a lease of the ground from the old club. Some will say this makes us less secure....not really if the lease is robust enough. Something radical needs to happen to re-energise things. Or we will just fade away.

Aye, he's a wee bit like the book-keeper who never takes holidays. Thats something that auditors are taught to look out for. Auditors...those people that assess the internal controls that are overseen by FDs...internal controls...those things that should prevent theft, and that should prevent dubious items of expenditure goingt hrough accounts.