eljaggo

MBM Board Nominees Ltd is a dormant company and has been since 1995.

Could it be that there is an incentive for TBC to run down PTFC, wind up the business, and sell the stadium. That seems to me to be the only logical reason for TBC's continuing interest in the club, and the reason behind non-dislosure of financial data to prospective new owners. Is there legislation that enforces disclosure?

I think the appetite for fan ownership sprang from the fact that the fans owned a huge proportion of the shares but had no one at all on the board of directors. If there had been even 2 or 3 fan chosen directors, that would have settled things. Fan ownership demands are possibly therefore an over-reaction. From Low's perspective, and that of her appointees, even a single independently appoined fan director has the votes to control the Board. Low has therefore tried to manipulate the fan apppointments to the Board to retain control. The big problem associated with fan ownership is the raising of capital to fund stadium maintenance and other large investments. The situation is complicated by dual ownership of the ground, but perhaps the owners of the main stand and the bing might make better partners for a fan owned club than Three Black Cats. It might make raising funds a bit easier.

My concern is that with the focus on Club ownership (fan owned or not), the key issues of financial stewardship and investment have been under-reported. Do we really want to keep repairing an increasingly decrepit Firhill, or should we step back and consider something more radical? That might include groundsharing or a new, modern and easily maintained stadium at Firhill or elsewhere. These need to be discussed openly and honestly so that the best form of ownership is chosen to address the long term plans for the Club, and to attract the neccessary investment. That means much more transparency that has been evident in the past few years. Everything about the Club is third rate, and it needs a complete clear-out. That will not happen with fan ownership where sentiment is likely to trump business nous. Perhaps the best option would be a new owner willing to invest and with a strong (but not controlling) fan presence on the Board. I had hoped that Colin Weir might have set up a Firhill Trust, retained family ownership, had it professionally managed to retain its value, and the income given to the Club. Unfortunately Weir chose Low to manage his PTFC affairs. There has to be a big discussion. Now.

Only the old hippies. Things have moved on man!

Given the quality of posts in this thread, presumably any due diligence would consider the risks of fan ownership.

I posted a few weeks ago about how impressed I was with Milne after seeing him on tele. Good to know that the management is heeding wise counsel.

Good point, Jaggy, I'd forgotten about that. Bad arrangement if thereis no decent maintenance clause in the lease.

The smaller clubs were shafted by the Old Firm by their demands for a minimum 10,000 seated stadium. This forced clubs to reduce player budgets and not only pay for extended stadia, but also to increase long term maintenance costs on these bigger stadia. Neat. That said, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Weir involvement could have been better managed, and for that we have to thank Ms Low. The old saying that you fix the roof when it is sunny is apposite. The Board should have taken a long term view about the stadium, and perhaps reduced the size of the main stand with a small stand at the bing with view to reducing mainteance costs. Perhaps too, they could have held fruitful discussions with Queens Park about a joint stadium - two small central Glasgow clubs with their own stadiums is bizarre.

Watched the Hibs v Cove Rangers match the other night and was mightily impressed by Cove's left back Harry Milne. He was the standout player on the pitch - fast, good tackler, good crosser and good positional sense. His details are not shown on the Cove R website, and I suspect he may be there on loan. I know we are probably not in the market at the moment for someone in that position, but he is well worth watching for the future.

The Gabba (the Bisbane cricket ground) has an outdoor swimming pool from where you can watch the cricket. Over the course of each match day the colour of the water changes, and for some reason the change is accompanied by a reduction in pool users. Anyone considering a similar plan at the Bing end, would do well to remember Glasgow daytime winter temperatures and the pre-match social habits of football fans.

Because of the share distribution, it would need just one or two directors with guts appointed from the TJF to determine who sits on the Board. Low would not allow anyone like that to join the Board, hence the vetting clause. This is not fan ownership

Why then do these would be directors need to be vetted by Low et al?

This does not seem to me to be a healthy arrangement for a fan run club. If the fans have a majority shareholding, they should decide who sits on the Board, and certainly not be conditional on an invitation and vetting by the TBC dominated Board. This is window dressing plain and simple, and the Club will still be run by Jacqui Low and her appointees.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if one arse cheek was allowed to join and the other was rejected.

With 12 teams signed up as of last night and a further three expected to join the European Super League, what will the ugly sisters do? Will any application from them to join be accepted or not? Could the recent decision to allow their seconds to join the leagues in Scotland be linked to this?

This thread sums up the reason we are a third rate club - fixated on 2 dates 50 and 100 years ago. We should change our name to Kongradieff FC. Look it up!

I understand the risks of concealment and the penaties set out by WJ, but who, apart from the (two?) parties involved is to know the full extent of the material that exists? Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

How does the Panel ensure that it has all of the relevant documents? What sanctions/penalties can the court impose if attempts are made to conceal documents? The decision to force the documents' revelation is of course welcome, but I would be surprised if it reveals a smoking gun. More likely that telephone discussions were used to reach an understanding, and that these were not minuted or noted. The whole truth is unlikely to emerge from the documents, unless the Panel are able to cross examine the parties involved in the Dundee vote.

What happens if the two arbiters appointed by the SPFL and Hearts/Thistle fail to agree on who to appoint as chair of the tribunal? How long can that process take before arbitration is deemed to have failed?

The whole country do with some sparkling Beveridge.

What you have described is partial - it contains no suggestion to do nothing and wait, and to my reading encourages active involvement by dint of a lack of stated options. As for independent legal advice - the clubs were going to the SPFL for that independent advice. The advice was therefore unbalanced.

It might apply as I suggested if a strong pattern is evident on other matters. As for the court documents disclosure issue, the SPFL advice should have contained a clear(er) warning of the implications of their advice, along with the obvious alternative of remaining (legally?) neutral and biding their time. Again the SPFL has taken the precipitous and partial route as they did on the season ending matter.

Not being versed in the law, the fine points of the debate on here have been difficult for me to judge. However what does strike me is that Doncaster in his choice of options given to members in both ending the season early and accessing court documents has been partial. That may breach the duty of care that must surely attach to his responsibilities, especially if a strong pattern of this behaviour can be demonstrated. The counter argument I guess is that members should be sufficiently sentient to arrive at different options themselves. However there is almost certainly difficulties in achieving this - time constraints imposed by the SPFL for decision making, and an effective forum outside the SPFL structure that can influence SPFL Board decisions. Doncaster has been manipulative in dealing with the Board and SPFL members. His actions may not be illegal, but they shine a strong light on the deficiencies of Scottish football that I hope will have fundamental consequences. Doncaster's days are probably numbered. For a sport that survives on sectarianism (compulsory 4 old firm games per season to bolster TV rights), the court ruling may not result in a change in the league results, but may give a bigger victory in the longer term.

Been on the sherry for 10 years methinks.