Woodstock Jag

What that man said!

I'd be surprised if Robbo and Archie were on especially high wages. Rowson also has another job on the go in finance (perhaps a more able replacement for the current board ). I don't think it follows that they're on a big wedge. The coaches are on pittance. Trying to replace them probably wouldn't be on more generous terms, put it that way. Now that WOULD finish them off! Silly me. Ask no questions get no bad answers, eh!

What a fuss... FWIW I think these events should be open to non-members as for reasons explained above they're willing to put a bit of cash in the coffers and with a friendly involving atmosphere (and a bit of inebriation) you might persuade people to join the Trust. Certainly the MTM at The Goat this time last season the Trust let non-members get a ticket (we had a more limited capacity...) for a pretty nominal sum of £2 and members got tickets free, keeping an incentive for members whilst not excluding those who just want to go along to the event. On much more important matters, I'd love to see BMMMH back. It's just a shame we won't have him tied up for the game on Saturday as that would really give the tie a bit more grit to it.

Who apart from Buchanan would have been on a big wage?

I just don't get how the Club can go from having directors step in on an emergency basis to plug a deficit, making noises about PT football suddenly to giving several players 2.5 year contracts. Buchanan must have been on an utterly obscene wage if these moves are anything like part of a sustainable budget.

And Scott Fox?

The point is, though, that at current salary rates we're losing money!

Don't want to be seen as a doom merchant, but where's the money coming from for these deals? Only a few months ago we were told that the directors had to personally plug a £100k deficit in the budget up to December and that they needed to raise another £100k by the end of the season. Suddenly that problem has been "fixed" by a sponsorship deal and "other corporate sponsorship" and they're throwing long-term contracts about with no apparent concern about how to pay for it. Don't get me wrong. From a purely footballing perspective it's good to have these guys tied up. I really don't want to see us end up with the same old financial problems as before, though. These players aren't going to be going for big transfer fees.

I happen to think it's the latter. I don't think there's any muddy water in describing the general administration of our club by its directors over the past 5 years minimum as incompetent. Like, say, budgeting for break-even at 3500 through the gate; or losing £200kpa minimum for 5 consecutive years? The great thing about defamation is the defence of veritas. My personal opinion is that there was a clear conflict of interest in the way it was handled given several parties were effectively on both sides of the fence. I don't think that's marginal territory as regards legality in the slightest. I am...

Yes I know he says that. If you look at what I was saying *in context* I was simply responding to northernsoul's recollection of events at the JT Open Meeting, and giving my own personal interpretation of those comments. As far as I can see I've not said anything defamatory and have merely said I would be interested to know the facts. When I said I believed the term used was "net taker" I was referring to David Stewart's comments. That seems to be backed up by the transcript. When I said I believed he didn't restrict it to one director I was again referring to David Stewart's comments. Again that seems to be backed up by the transcript. When I said I was never privy to the actual numbers, I mean I never read or was told the specific amounts directors were purportedly paid for services rendered. I don't think this infers anything. So what's the problem?

I've had a dig through the recording of the JT meeting and here are David's comment's verbatim (at 1 hour, 7 minutes, 40 seconds): Questioner: Do the board put a lot of money in the Club themselves, you know digging into their own pocket? DS: I think some people do, I think some people don't. Questioner: Cause you hear about a lot of other teams who are bankrolled by people with money on their board and our board don't seem to be doing that, you know what I mean? Not necessarily like Dundee but... Other Person (cutting across): I think a guy paid £250k for his shares, so I think that's a fair bit of money to me. DS: The reality is that two directors, and I could be wrong in this but my understanding is that two of the directors were a net taker of cash from the business by virtue of the services their companies were providing to the football club and those directors are no longer on the board

I've tried to make it abundantly clear that I am only saying how I interpreted the (recorded) comments of the then JT Chair. I don't think I've imputed anything potentially defamatory (indeed it's not *that* unusual for directors to draw money from a football club for services rendered.) It is, I think a separate issue from the substantive points at hand.

Missed that first time round... I'm not assessing whether they wee fair and reasonable. I'm just saying what I took stolenscone's words to mean when he said what he said at the JT Open Meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not inferring wrongdoing from the mere assertion that some (then) directors were net takers from the Club.

Cue announcement tomorrow that Eddie Prentice has been appointed Puppet Apprentice at £80kpa.

Nothing fishy implied in net taker. I simply mean a net taker. Services rendered for Club vs Financial input.

In other circles, the only response to that would be "Telt".

Say it isn't so.

That as the case may be, the maths suggests that it unlikely that Tom Hughes abstained in the vote given the situation with proxies. Combine that with his role in the approach to the Jags Trust to which at least one current director was privy and involved and his ongoing role at the Club and it seems likely that there was at the very least collusion from one or more members of the Club board in Jim's removal.

When I saw the thread title and subtitle I thought Grehan had been elected to the Club Board...

Which would be even more ridiculous. Laugh or cry. Which is it to be?

I presume you're referring to the way they did it in preceding years? If Directors weren't voted for individually at this meeting then how was Jim thrown off the board?

I'm not Brown McMaster's tax adviser. You'll probably find that Tom Hughes is...

I remember at the 2010 AGM he claimed that McMaster was given his shares as remuneration for his full-time work for the Club for 3 years. Does that mean that Tom Hughes should be expected to give back the shares alongside every penny he cost the Club?

I think the term used was "net taker" and I don't think he restricted it explicitly to one director. I must admit I was never privy to the actual numbers beyond the well-known Eddie Prentice salary. I took it as a given that he meant the obvious (Prentice) but was making a thinly veiled hint about Tom Hughes and the services provided by GLG. I would be very interested to see what fees have been associated with activities carried out by GLG on behalf of the Club for the past 4-5 years.

I haven't checked the Articles of Association, but I strongly suspect that divulging any information about a proxy (except with that proxy's express consent/direction or for a reason required by virtue of law) would be on very shakey legal territory.