[Jacqui Low]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Always - but there are also various protections that safegaurd the position of small shareholders and fortunately these options avoid them having to try and fund a costly legal process - the reason being is that most shareholdings in a Company are small and have to be protected otherwise no one would invest  and as stated it will  always protect the small shareholder and there rights 

So talk of defacto ownership etc by Majority Shareholding there are still 45% of the shares to be factored in - once you get to 75% ownership then small shareholders have no rights but 55% thats just a majority - yes direction etc etc  can be given but it ends there - its not Ownership- nd a Board has to take that into account 

 

And of course if Colin weir gives his shares to the PTFC trust they may well have 75%

[Jacqui Low]

2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

It is based purely on evidence against companies law, it’s not interpretation, there are AQOP’s and streams of case law covering every situation you could think of

Of course there are but is a dispute not often about interpretation of facts 

[Jacqui Low]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

It very much depends - small shareholders like myself made major sacrifices at the time  of Save The Jags and quite literally the Fans Bankrolled the Club - whilst my £2000 isnt anywhere near our Major Shareholders contribution-  it was money that could have been spent elsewhere in my Family Budget and I worked hard for it as most Small Shareholders did   - but as a Third Generation Fan - who wanted a Club that my Kids could support-  I gave willingly and without question 

Any Board who ignores that is wrong - and  in all my Years as a Fan-  even when Jim Oliver was Majority Shareholder - the rules and the Small Shareholders have always been paramount - we also have the Jags Trust - a not so small shareholder who seem to be out of the loop - but they hold 7% on behalf of the Fans

So complicated  - Yes - but Im sure the Board are going to run the Club as required  and make the correct decisions     

I’m sure they will too

[Jacqui Low]

2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

We’re not talking about a small shareholder taking on a multinational corporation who lawyer up via tiers and tiers of levels. On our level small shareholders are looked at very favorable by the authorities 

I never said we were nor was I implying the situation you outline 

[Jacqui Low]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Possibly - but given there are a lot of small Shareholders -who put there hard earned cash into the Club and have the same rights ( apart from not having the shares to have a Majority ) a responsible Board would ensure all Shareholders are taken into account - as they are Fans and the Lifeblood of the Club - ignoring them is ignoring the Fans and thats not a good idea  

 

I wouldnt disagree with that and you would hope any disagreement would be resolved internally 

[Jacqui Low]

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

Easier than you would think in this digital age of emails, WhatsApp groups and mobile phone pictures 

It won’t necessarily be about finding evidence  - the facts may not even be in dispute - but about the interpretation of a course of action as I said not necessarily black and white 

[Jacqui Low]

Just now, Norgethistle said:

Not if other shareholders can demonstrate evidence towards the authorities, this is why AGM’s , EGM’s and board meetings are minuted

I did say difficult to establish not impossible ....it’s a general rule that requires specific interpretation 

[Jacqui Low]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

But the one rule thats specific is that the Directors are responsible - below them employees who take directions from Directors and its Directors who are  accountable - so they have to take the decisions - and they represent all Shareholders 

Otherwise there is no point in having a Board of Directors     

Yes directors are responsible 

but in reality whilst directors have a responsibility to act in the interests of all shareholders proving they are not doing so is not black and white and can be difficult to establish 

[Fan Ownership Working Group]

Just now, Garscube Road End said:

If you so desire another yeah, you are welcome to it.

Cheers I so hate yeahs not being in threes 

[Fan Ownership Working Group]

2 minutes ago, Garscube Road End said:

Yeah, yeah!

Shouldn’t that be ...yeah, yeah yeah ? 

[Jacqui Low]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Fine - then you know the Rules ............

And I know some rules are general and some are specific and that there can be as a result different interpretations as to whether a particular decision or course of action is complaint with said rules(s) .....it’s not all black and white and for good reason 

[Pars V Jags]

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

That’s 6 or 7 more wages on top of the 3rd largest wage bill in the league. We may also need to replace loanees returning in January.

Ive no idea where we will find this cash as our attendances are nose diving

 Me neither....but as the board have indicated resources will be available ....maybe Colin weir 

[Fan Ownership Working Group]

21 minutes ago, Garscube Road End said:

Then Monday, then Tuesday, then March 2020 or December 2023.

No tomorrow 

[Jacqui Low]

4 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

This from the person who was asking how Many Directors go to Prison on H&S Compliance Failures 

I dont determine the concept of fiduciary responsibilities of directors - the Companies Act does that - thats the Law in which Companies operate under - now if your suggesting Directors should ignore it - or it doesnt really apply to Partick Thistle - go ahead - if your suggesting that  someone has to go to Court to enforce it - No you dont - so the Club as its always done way back to when Jim Oliver was "Majority Shareholder " operates within the Rules  - thats it - No Grey Areas - No "Shadows" within the Rules   

And you can argue until Hell Freezes over about "how it works in reality " well it doesn't - it operates within the Rules 

Because to not operate within them creates a scenario where no one knows who is running the place - that means a mess -that means things like H&S - Finances etc etc run the danger of No one quite knowing who is doing what - so you operate within the rules & all aspects of the Club - Trusts etc follow Corporate Governance  - if anyone is struggling as to what the rules are - we have a Lawyer CEO who can explain them in simple terms    

 

And you didn’t disappoint......

since I’m a company director and have been for many years I think I know how it works .....thanks 

[Pars V Jags]

1 minute ago, Garscube Road End said:

 It is easy enough to get 6/7 new players in, but the problem is the quality. Are we going to get that quality anchored at the bottom? I have my doubts.

 

That is they key question 

[Pars V Jags]

They key for me is to shore up the defense to reduce the goals against tally ....that’s 3/4

we then need an osman replacement in front of the back four ...that’s 1

we need creativity in midfield....that’s 1
we need a striker ....that’s 1

so around 6/7 new faces .....not  an easy ask in January 

[Pars V Jags]

4 minutes ago, jagfox said:

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/free-to-view-ian-mccall-reacts-to-dunfermline-defeat/

 

No self delusion here .....no positives from the game 

[Jacqui Low]

7 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

JJ , do me a favour and Google majority shareholder , we’ve got a majority shareholder who has a 55% stake in PTFC ,  his voting rights are I imagine roughly 55 times roughly your stake in PTFC .

Regardless of what you are telling us , Colin Weir will decide what direction we will be going in and I imagine the  BOD will help him implement his philosophies and ideas .

 

Correct.....cue lecture on fiduciary responsibilities of directors 

[Pars V Jags]

A draw is ok 

[Jacqui Low]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Doubt it - but it is slightly odd for someone with such strong views on who owns the Club - and who is obviously very anti consortium to suddenly appear having had no posts on pretty much anything for Years nor said anything during the potential takeover bid - to have such strong views on our former Chairman 

Conspiracy ?

Well its certainly very strange .............

   

People are strange 

but I’ll stop posting now and you can speak to yourself 

[Jacqui Low]

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Its funny that a person with such strong Views regards the Consortium didn't express an opinion before  despite being registered on the Forum since 2014 and pretty much  apart from the Academy Comments and the most recent matches has had nothing to say - yet here we are with multiple posts  on this thread defending the current set up and implying that there is misogyny if someone has anything to say about JLo  - must be just a coincidence ,,,,,,,,,,,

It’s a conspiracy .... I’m Jlow 

[Jacqui Low]

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

It was under there Q&A responses 

It stated "Jlo returns Yes or No " 

And the answer they gave is  "No" 

If its no longer there then thats interesting ?  

So where is she then ? Not a director and not an employee 

[Jacqui Low]

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Actually thats not true - they made it clear at the AGM they would stay if the Club needed them 

Also I dont see anyone discussing the involvement of Colin Weir - so stop deflecting things and trying to move the discussion away to the Consortium - thats not happened so we are where we are 

However I do think that Fans expect to see whats been pitched both by TFE and Press Breifing regards who is Running the Club - and by Running that excludes Owners Advisors - Pals - someone you met in Jaconnelis - the people who run the Club are the Directors - Colin Weir is one of them - there is no requirement for anyone beyond this to be involved  

They made it clear they would sell to your consortium if allowed to ... you know full well staying was not  what they wanted and that’s what’s happened 

you do ....personally I’m happy 

[Jacqui Low]

5 minutes ago, sandy said:

To be fair to GRE,  an option of the Board continuing under David Beattie could have been an outcome.

But it wasn’t as both Beattie and shareholders made clear ... they were going to sell .... there was never an option of Beattie and co staying 

[Jacqui Low]

5 minutes ago, Garscube Road End said:

Hahaha. What nonsense. You really are silly.

So what was the other choice ?