Fan Director / Jt Board Rep Position

[The Countess of Wemyss]

There are some worrying issues in this thread, frightfully concerning.

 

On one specific point, I find it shocking that the Club have not met their agreement with regard to transfer of shares to the Trust under the Centenary Fund signup deal. What if the Trust gave them 4 weeks to rectify this, else the original agreement is deemed to have been breached and the Trust then seeks to offer it's remaining subscribers to transfer to an alternative 1876 scheme? Specific deadline, specific response.

 

As the good Count used to say, it's time to play hard ball.

 

Pip pip

[Woodstock Jag]

Update on attempts to hold meeting with Club Board

 

Clicky

[The Countess of Wemyss]

Update on attempts to hold meeting with Club Board

 

Clicky

 

Thanks young Woodstock chappy. But to borrow some vernacular from my gardener, "you lot are being pissed around with".

 

They are stalling the Trust, time for some direct action ?

[Woodstock Jag]

Thanks young Woodstock chappy. But to borrow some vernacular from my gardener, "you lot are being pissed around with".

 

They are stalling the Trust, time for some direct action ?

 

As per David's statement yesterday, the situation changes if no ground is made towards a resolution soon.

[B.C.G. JAG]

The BOD are a disgrace. They are actively trying to push the fans away. There is no room for half measures in a response to this. The have presided over financial calamity upon calamity and their only plan is to decimate our stadium at their own personal gain. When any business refuses to even listen to it's customers, it's customers should tell them where to stick it. I no longer care if this gets resolved before the AGM, the Trust should be demanding Cowan's head on a platter for this brazen offence/total incompetence.

[McKennan]

Question: how much of this is Allan and if it's not all Allan, who is hiding behind him? I don't think he's the flatulent boxer dog at the Thistle garden party.

[B.C.G. JAG]

Question: how much of this is Allan and if it's not all Allan, who is hiding behind him? I don't think he's the flatulent boxer dog at the Thistle garden party.

I'll take any or all scalps as a prize.

[Phoenix]

It’s time for the trust to take a stand and call for changes in the board room. Time for Allan Cowan and Tom Hughes to go. The club seems to be deliberately going out their way to discredit the trust.

 

You have got to wonder what the real reason is for all of this. This means no fan representative will be in on the proco deal and if we go into admin. Its shocking behavior and they can’t be allowed to go on.

 

Can't blame the board for that one. The Trust has managed to discredit itself in the eyes of a majority of fans.

The fact that the club happily renage on their deal about centenary fund shares just shows how little they think about the Trust as an organisation. And the fact that the Trust have allowed themselves to be treated like this just shows what the Trust is made of.

[McKennan]

I'll take any or all scalps as a prize.

 

Good for you. Maybe wait a bit and get the right one.

[Fearchar]

The fact that the club happily ren[e]ge on their deal about centenary fund shares just shows how little they think about the Trust as an organisation.

If the board has done so, then the Trust has to take action. Even if it's just a gentlemen's agreement rather than a formal written contract, there is more than enough documentary evidence to show that the board accepted the terms as a contract.

[alx]

I don't think he's the flatulent boxer dog at the Thistle garden party.

 

What grey squirrell, it is snowing in Leningrad tonight.

[McKennan]

More of a James Herriot reference, Alx.

 

 

Jean à de longue moustache.

 

Je répète: Jean à de longue moustache.

 

Blesse mon cœur d’une langueur monotone.

 

Je répète: Blesse mon cœur d’une langueur monotone.

 

Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne

 

Blessent mon cœur D'une langueur monotone.

[Ma Ba']

The Trust should, in my opinion, 'suggest' to the BoD that they will continue to fund raise on behalf of the club but that the cash will all be staying in the Trust's bank account until the various outstanding issues are resolved.

 

end of.

[twinny]

The Trust should, in my opinion, 'suggest' to the BoD that they will continue to fund raise on behalf of the club but that the cash will all be staying in the Trust's bank account until the various outstanding issues are resolved.

 

end of.

[stolenscone]

Question: how much of this is Allan and if it's not all Allan, who is hiding behind him? I don't think he's the flatulent boxer dog at the Thistle garden party.

 

 

The reality is that the Club chairman is the person with whom we are trying to communicate. I can't comment on what, if anything, is going on behind the scenes. It may simply be that he is trying to confirm the availability of his board colleagues to a meeting / he may want to respond, but a board colleague has advised him not to. I just don't know. An acknowledgement of the last few emails and an expected timescale for a substantive response would have been nice though, but again, there may very well be a good reason for not doing so.

 

When last we spoke, the Trust board were of a united mind not to allow this to be kicked into the long grass. So far as I know, nothing has changed. We are due to meet up again within the next couple of days -- we'll update you again following that meeting, whether or not a meeting with the Club has taken place.

[Blackpool Jags]

The Trust should, in my opinion, 'suggest' to the BoD that they will continue to fund raise on behalf of the club but that the cash will all be staying in the Trust's bank account until the various outstanding issues are resolved.

 

end of.

 

...including a caveat that if all of the following have not been enacted: 1) no meeting has taken place within, say, one month; 2) the agreed allocation of shares have not been remitted to the Trust; and 3) The nominated club board rep has not been formally invited to take her seat on the board - with full minutes supplied of both the meetings which she wasn't invited to - then the JT will begin to re-establish the 1876 club forthwith and encourage its members and other fans to withdraw their subscriptions from the Centenary fund.

 

This is the only language these characters are likely to understand.

[jaf]

This is of less consequence than propco given the limited upside in us having a board rep in any case.

 

At that time the JTB felt there was nowhere else to go and open warfare would damage the club and so acquiesced.

 

The club is in probably a more perilous position now than then.

 

So why can this be an issue for which the JTB feel so strongly not to be allowed to be "kicked into grass"??

 

The time for taking stands is past. Its time to roll over one more time. Pick your fights wisely....this is an inconsequential skirmish after the war has been lost.

 

I should add I also have a highly cynical view of board motivations and have expected this day to come from the moment propco was signed.

[Steven H]

This is of less consequence than propco given the limited upside in us having a board rep in any case.

 

At that time the JTB felt there was nowhere else to go and open warfare would damage the club and so acquiesced.

 

The club is in probably a more perilous position now than then.

 

So why can this be an issue for which the JTB feel so strongly not to be allowed to be "kicked into grass"??

 

The time for taking stands is past. Its time to roll over one more time. Pick your fights wisely....this is an inconsequential skirmish after the war has been lost.

 

I should add I also have a highly cynical view of board motivations and have expected this day to come from the moment propco was signed.

 

When Propco came about there were a lot of alarm bells, for my part I was hanging my hopes on this 'Thistle-minded investors' line ensuring it was a group of wealthyish fans who would do well for the Club while getting a small profit themselves. In the months that have ensued the Thistle-minded line has cut less and less ice with me and the actions of the BoD recently only serve to disprove what they are saying. How can any Thistle-minded person cut Thistle fan out in this way? Probably because they have done it for years! This current situation might make it easy for some (not you in particular Jaf) to call it a slap in the fan for the Jags Trust but in reality its a slap in the face of all Thistle fans AGAIN.

 

The Propco ship has sailed, there's nothing we can do about that now, but what happens next is just as crucial. We need to ensure this lot are accountable, we need to let them know that we have 'trusted' them for long enough and we need to ensure they know just how we feel about this Club. Propco is an issue but its not a front on which we can fight a battle, the rest of the shambles that is our backroom team at Firhill is.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Steven H

[alx]

It's all a bit murky to the insiders as well, but since you have put some short and simple questions, I'll try some short an simple answers in the same order.

 

- No

- No, the value reduces after year 1, but JT-labelled applications to the CF should return shares in perpetuity (10% of the value which is pretty appalling, given that the board got 100% for the cash they invested)

- The shares are worthless in any case, given that they are shares in a company that loses money, but in theory, the remainder of the ground belongs to the club so it counts as an asset.

- If the club goes bust, its propco shares are immediately offered to the other propco investors. We don't know if there is any other arrangement in relation to the remainder of the ground.

- The trust gets money from annual subs and any other fundraising that it does. About £1000 of this is spent annually on administration such as sending out formal notices to members. The remainder is theoretically available for donation to whatever the Trust board agree to. The trust accounts will be available at the agm and need to be discussed and adopted.

- Maybe. We haven't got to the bottom of all of this yet. That's why we want to meet the board and why it would be good to meet them before the agm.

- Maybe, but I personally think that folk would need to know what they were signing up to and why.

- The Trust has a small amount of money at the moment - a reserve is needed to operate within the guidelines of the Financial Services Authority who govern our activities. We also had a reserve that was being held to fund the installation of a disabled platform lift in the JH stand, but we understand that this is not now going ahead. Some of that cash went to fund the Jackie McNamara short term loan last season.

- Maybe. Until we meet with them and ask some pertinent questions (which the club might not want to answer) we don't really know.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply Honved (I just remembered my manners!).

[jaf]

When Propco came about there were a lot of alarm bells, for my part I was hanging my hopes on this 'Thistle-minded investors' line ensuring it was a group of wealthyish fans who would do well for the Club while getting a small profit themselves. In the months that have ensued the Thistle-minded line has cut less and less ice with me and the actions of the BoD recently only serve to disprove what they are saying. How can any Thistle-minded person cut Thistle fan out in this way? Probably because they have done it for years! This current situation might make it easy for some (not you in particular Jaf) to call it a slap in the fan for the Jags Trust but in reality its a slap in the face of all Thistle fans AGAIN.

 

The Propco ship has sailed, there's nothing we can do about that now, but what happens next is just as crucial. We need to ensure this lot are accountable, we need to let them know that we have 'trusted' them for long enough and we need to ensure they know just how we feel about this Club. Propco is an issue but its not a front on which we can fight a battle, the rest of the shambles that is our backroom team at Firhill is.

 

You gave propco the benefit of the doubt. I didn't.

 

You think this is a slap in face of all Jags fans and matters. I don't.

 

Different takes on different situations. Anyone that thinks a meaningless virtual observer position where the observer then cannot comment on anything he observes is more improtant than the a deal with concerning ethics, inadequate transparency and scrutiny and which threatens the very future of the football club clearly has a different set of priorities to me.

 

The Board Rep position is worth nothing given the rules surrounding it. The Trust's strength is that it is a major shareholder. It has fixated on the board rep position for too long. It would have been better fixating on being an oppressed minority shareholder without the conflict of interest the board rep position brings IMO.

 

Sure Kieron has done great things for the community projects and that is to be applauded. But he did not need to be co-opted onto the Thistle board to do that. What benefit have you and I as fans, memebers of the Jags Trust or not, had from having a Jags Trust Board rep in situ for all these years????

 

Shareholders have rights and the board have responsibility to all shareholders.....do you think the board are discharging those responsibilities right now????.......if I were on Jags Trust I would be suggesting going down that route than getting all worked up over the board rep position

[Steven H]

You gave propco the benefit of the doubt. I didn't.

 

You think this is a slap in face of all Jags fans and matters. I don't.

 

Different takes on different situations. Anyone that thinks a meaningless virtual observer position where the observer then cannot comment on anything he observes is more improtant than the a deal with concerning ethics, inadequate transparency and scrutiny and which threatens the very future of the football club clearly has a different set of priorities to me.

 

The Board Rep position is worth nothing given the rules surrounding it. The Trust's strength is that it is a major shareholder. It has fixated on the board rep position for too long. It would have been better fixating on being an oppressed minority shareholder without the conflict of interest the board rep position brings IMO.

 

Sure Kieron has done great things for the community projects and that is to be applauded. But he did not need to be co-opted onto the Thistle board to do that. What benefit have you and I as fans, memebers of the Jags Trust or not, had from having a Jags Trust Board rep in situ for all these years????

 

Shareholders have rights and the board have responsibility to all shareholders.....do you think the board are discharging those responsibilities right now????.......if I were on Jags Trust I would be suggesting going down that route than getting all worked up over the board rep position

 

I'm not just talking about the Fan Rep position, I agree with what you say about it and was saying the same myself regarding this position, its the general 'feck the fans' attitude Im more concerned about, particularly with Propco at a vital stage. Why they dont want a Fan Rep on the board (as it seems right now)rather than us needing one, is my concern. With the Club entering its most vital period since STJ its suspicious to say the least that the BoD seem to want to make this change.

 

No I dont think the Board are discharging those responsibilities and I feel there were lots of windows left open at the inception of The Jags Trust and its association with the PTFC Board that have allowed this situation to arise. Why do the Trust have a different agreement with regards to the 1 million B shares aquired to that of McMaster and Hughes? Why are the Jags Trust dismissed from the Boardroom with relative ease while other Directors cling to their blazers? Why should there be a confidentiality issue with the Fan Rep when individual Directors have no such problems? All historical points, but all stinkin of the same stuff.

 

Its the general stink that goes with the current situation that Im talking about.

[Ronaldinho]

The Trust should, in my opinion, 'suggest' to the BoD that they will continue to fund raise on behalf of the club but that the cash will all be staying in the Trust's bank account until the various outstanding issues are resolved.

 

end of.

I'm hoping that someone from the trust can help me here. I'm planning to pull out of the centenary fund, partly due to the shabby way the trust has been treated by the board - especially the fact that I voted in favour of transferring from the 1876 club to the CF - yet the trust hasn't recieved any of the shares promised in return for my, or other fans', contributions. Also because I'm a bit hard up for cash and don't want to piss my money against a wall when I have better things to spend my money on. If it is possible, since my direct debit is paid to the trust and forwarded on through them, I'd like to continue contributing by way of a donation** to the trust. Could you remove me from the CF and put this to good use some other way?

 

**As the contribution would be a donation and not part of a fundraiser, it should not contravene the agreement with the club regarding competing fundraising vehicles. I think.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Ronaldinho

[jaf]

I'm not just talking about the Fan Rep position, I agree with what you say about it and was saying the same myself regarding this position, its the general 'feck the fans' attitude Im more concerned about, particularly with Propco at a vital stage. Why they dont want a Fan Rep on the board (as it seems right now)rather than us needing one, is my concern. With the Club entering its most vital period since STJ its suspicious to say the least that the BoD seem to want to make this change.

 

No I dont think the Board are discharging those responsibilities and I feel there were lots of windows left open at the inception of The Jags Trust and its association with the PTFC Board that have allowed this situation to arise. Why do the Trust have a different agreement with regards to the 1 million B shares aquired to that of McMaster and Hughes? Why are the Jags Trust dismissed from the Boardroom with relative ease while other Directors cling to their blazers? Why should there be a confidentiality issue with the Fan Rep when individual Directors have no such problems? All historical points, but all stinkin of the same stuff.

 

Its the general stink that goes with the current situation that Im talking about.

 

So we are really saying the same thing Steven!!

 

I am just saying that if you want to tackle all those issues it can be done any time through being a shareholder.

 

Perhaps this is the catalyst, but I think that rather than create a fuss which looks about a matter of self interest and is of limited value, would it not be better using the Trusts power as a shareholder to review the performance of the board in a whole range of matters....CF draws, cost benefit analysis of DMcQ and EP appointments, etc, etc.......a robust challenging questioning shareholder is worth much more than a poodle on the Board, and there are much bigger issues than whether the poodle is getting out to play.

[Steven H]

So we are really saying the same thing Steven!!

 

I am just saying that if you want to tackle all those issues it can be done any time through being a shareholder.

 

Perhaps this is the catalyst, but I think that rather than create a fuss which looks about a matter of self interest and is of limited value, would it not be better using the Trusts power as a shareholder to review the performance of the board in a whole range of matters....CF draws, cost benefit analysis of DMcQ and EP appointments, etc, etc.......a robust challenging questioning shareholder is worth much more than a poodle on the Board, and there are much bigger issues than whether the poodle is getting out to play.

 

Yes, let me put it like this...the Boards stance here is the straw that breaks the camels back for me. I agree 100% with your post, that's one of the ways ahead but it might be more effectie if fans also make a stand. The fact the Jags Trust have a minority of fans as members is an issue that the BoD seem to be playing on here, but if the general fan base of 2000ish 'make a stand' in conjunction with the JT doing what you suggest then we should have maximum impact. Getting the word to press, sponsors etc should only increase the level of impact we can have.

[alx]

The Trust's strength is that it is a major shareholder. It has fixated on the board rep position for too long. It would have been better fixating on being an oppressed minority shareholder without the conflict of interest the board rep position brings IMO.

 

So jaf, it's all a bit complicated..... but you're saying that the shareholding is the key issue? Can you expand on the different types of shares, voting, A, B, propco, nonpropco? I've noted your point about the ship sailing, but this stuff is very confusing to people who don't know about corporate rules and regs.

 

Also, what about a newly rude trust raising a war chest? I thought that would be both sensible and useful for when the balloon goes up.