Fan Director / Jt Board Rep Position

[jaf]

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.

 

The Jags Trust is a shareholder.

 

Shareholders own a club; the board run it for the shareholders.

 

There is a common misconception on here that the board can only be replaced by people with pots of gold. Untrue. The directors should be the best people for the job in the eyes of the shareholders. The board of BT are not the owners, they are people appointed to run the business.

 

Theoretically, the board can be held to account by the shareholders. Given the distribustion of shares it is pretty much the board who control the share voting too, but the Trust does have protections and whose to say that a credible well presented critique of the running of the club in recent times, say for example a call for a vote of no confidence in public by the Trust in certain individual directors they feel culpable or a demand for their resignation, would not resonate with the other board members??? It may be a longshot but guess you can never say never. It should not stop the case being made just because you think it will fail.

[Fearchar]

The fact the Jags Trust have a minority of fans as members is an issue that the BoD seem to be playing on here...

Whether the board wants to make a point of this or not isn't relevant: if you work in a place without a recognised trade union, trade union members are still the last to be laid off. The board, like an employer, is looking to take the path of least resistance.

 

In any case, any board of directors has a duty to represent the interests of all shareholders, including minorities. If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and the trust decides that the current board is selling out the club, who are the potential allies? It's unlikely that all other current shareholders will agree with the current board: after all, only a complete fool or somebody who's up to very shady practices would expect to profit from a football club, which means that many shareholders are investors for reasons other than money.

[Steven H]

I posted this on the hary wraggs forum a few eeks ago, for those who dont use it or havent seen it here is a breakdown of the main shareholders.

 

The Board collectively own 112,929 A shares (£1 per share) and 397,000 B shares (10p per share), each share = 1 vote (I think). Tom H (via an investment company) and Eddie P each hold the exact same number of shares as the Jags Trust (54,990 A and 1,000,000 and are the highest shareholders on the board by a long chalk and Billy Allan doesnt hold any shares in the Club (although this may have changed since the document was produced). However, IIRC Tom H was given 1,000,000 B shares at the time of STJs to be held as guardianship shares and they now appear to be in the name of an investment company,I assume Eddie P invested in order to get his 1,000,000.

 

Interestingly the Springfords collectively (2 of) own the same number of shares too, 27,495 A shares and 500,000 B shares each, I assume they too invested in order to accumulate these shares.

 

As we know, B. McMasters shares where divided up between 4 people in July 2008. Collectively these amount to 91,893 A shares and 1,040,000 B shares. Broken down 3 family members and one person who is not called McMaster recieved 22,973 A shares (1 actually recieved 22,974) and 260,000 B shares each.

 

Like Tom Hughes, B.McMaster was given 1,000,000 'guardianship shares' at the time of STJ and it is these shares that people have a major issue with. I too think these 1,000,000 B shares should be handed back but what also concerns me is the fact he was allowed to divide these shares between 4 people, his own 40,000 B shares and 91,893 A shares would be fair enough but not the others.

 

Jim Oliver owns 113,054 A shares and 500,000 B shares and as an individual shareholder, he is the one with the most (although not the most financially).

 

Of the others, I took the next 5 highest shareholders and collectively they own 162,430 A shares and 700,000 B shares

 

1 owns 27,495 A shares and 500,000 B shares.

1 owns 10,998 A shares and 200,000 B shares.

2 own 24,850 A shares each (same surname) = 49,700

Windex own 74,237 A shares (is this not Jim Olivers company?).

 

So what does all this mean? Exactly what people like Fellow Traveller were saying on the old forum, the McMasters and Springfords hold a major balance of power! None of them are on the Boards of PTFC or Propco but we must assume they voted in favour of it. Would they be of any help in forcing through boardroom changes? I doubt it, and if they would be prepared to help would we want it? Could we trust them?

 

Jim Oliver is on our BoD as an honourary VP or something is he not? Does this give him a say in what goes on at boardroom level? Is he likely to have backed the Propco thing too? Either way, it would appear the major players are aligned with the current BoD and hold all the aces.

 

This doesnt mean I don't think Jaf makes a very good case tho, it shows the Trust have just as much of a stake in the Club as the Board members who have the most shares.

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

This doesnt mean I don't think Jaf makes a very good case tho, it shows the Trust have just as much of a stake in the Club as the Board members who have the most shares.

I think that was one of Jaf's points, no?

Edited September 3, 2010 by The Incredible Adam Spark

[Steven H]

I think that was one of Jaf's points, no?

 

Yes, I was talking about the line "It should not stop the case being made just because you think it will fail" (Jaf 2010 ) and didnt want my post to seem like I was saying it would fail therefore we shouldn't bother.

[Sandy Gall]

After weeks of confusion, I think I'm starting to understand the situation.

 

There was a point last week where I nearly gave up in the face of too much (some of it conflicting) information.

 

Thanks.

[jaf]

Yes, I was talking about the line "It should not stop the case being made just because you think it will fail" (Jaf 2010 ) and didnt want my post to seem like I was saying it would fail therefore we shouldn't bother.

 

I lapsed from JT membership for reasons I won't bore you with, but very good ones in my own mind!!

 

IF the JTB are going to waste time arguing over the JTB representative, my renewal form will stay virgin clean for another year.

 

If I heard they were going to adopt the role of an interested scrutinising shareholder and at least attempt to hold people to account who if they worked for a plc board would have been out on their ear a long time ago....how many FDs are allowed to totally fail to come anywhere close delivering a budget year after year after year for example?, then I would put aside my personal reasons for non renewal and do everything I could to help such an organisation. Thats what I have always wanted and expected it to be. But I am one voice and one not too bothered whether the Trust flourishes or not, but bothered whether PTFC does.

 

The supporters and The Jags Trust are being set up to be fall guys in all this.

 

Hypothetically, the only way for propco to accelerate their return on investment and maximise it, is for the football club to die. And that is what was always wrong with propco. An FD who ran up debt which precipated the asset sale stood to benefit from continuing to be unable to balance the books. And I view each and every decision of this board and each and every pronouncement now as tainted for that reason. I refuse to give anyone the benefit of the doubt based on their ethics or being 'thistle minded' as I have been a student of human behaviour for too long. Some people say I am too cynical for my own good. Perhaps. Time will tell, but one things for sure even if everything is proper and everyone has the best interests of the club at heart which could well of course be the case, it certainly does not look good from the outside looking in.

[sandy]

it certainly does not look good from the outside looking in.

 

The current situation does not look good. The Trust have been trying to get clarity on a number of issues, yet the Club Board seem minded to hold them at arms length. The whole PropCo issue seems to have lots of possible implications for the future (or otherwise) of PTFC.

 

As others have said, what we now need is some honesty from the BoD - and a willingness to level with the fans about how things are; if the Trust can facilitate such a meeting urgently, then all the better.

 

Attendances are falling, it sounds like ST sales are down. It all points to a worsening cashflow. There is only one way this can go

[jaf]

The current situation does not look good. The Trust have been trying to get clarity on a number of issues, yet the Club Board seem minded to hold them at arms length. The whole PropCo issue seems to have lots of possible implications for the future (or otherwise) of PTFC.

 

As others have said, what we now need is some honesty from the BoD - and a willingness to level with the fans about how things are; if the Trust can facilitate such a meeting urgently, then all the better.

 

Attendances are falling, it sounds like ST sales are down. It all points to a worsening cashflow. There is only one way this can go

 

You won't get that Sandy...how long have you/the trust been trying to work with them and how successful has that been?

 

The trust board needs to understand what right a shareholder has and start using them for specific purposes rather than general chat. Who is going to take responsibility for the worsening cash flow...it is not the customers fault. Someone on that club board, or maybe more than one is responsible...THINK ABOUT IT.....is PTFC the only buisiness in the world where the customers are to blame for worsening cashflow and budgets that don't work and erm the next year don't work again and the next year don't work again...do the trust have the balls to call them out??

 

FFS, show some passion - we are talking about the future of the club here. Diplomacy and politics have got the Jags Trust f*ck all...fact or fiction??? I am so frustrated to hear about calls for meetings and discussion from the Jags Trust over several years now. IT DOESN'T WORK.

Edited September 3, 2010 by jaf

[sandy]

Jaf, I don't disagree with you. A much harder stance needs to be taken now IMO.

[McKennan]

 

So what does all this mean? Exactly what people like Fellow Traveller were saying on the old forum, the McMasters and Springfords hold a major balance of power! None of them are on the Boards of PTFC or Propco but we must assume they voted in favour of it. Would they be of any help in forcing through boardroom changes? I doubt it, and if they would be prepared to help would we want it? Could we trust them?

 

 

 

Must we really? Or maybe someone sounds them out about their feelings since their departures from the club. Maybe doing that instead of blasting them on this forum at every opportunity might bring some surprising responses. Ho hum, big dog's dick.

Edited September 3, 2010 by McKennan

[McKennan]

Attendances are falling, it sounds like ST sales are down. It all points to a worsening cashflow. There is only one way this can go

 

 

Okay, I haven't seen the word used so I'll break the taboo and use it: administration.

Edited September 3, 2010 by McKennan

[lady-isobel-barnett]

As others have said, what we now need is some honesty from the BoD -

Just out of interest how would you know when the BoD is being honest?

[Steven H]

Must we really? Or maybe someone sounds them out about their feelings since their departures from the club. Maybe doing that instead of blasting them on this forum at every opportunity might bring some surprising responses. Ho hum, big dog's dick.

 

Considering the shares they hold they certainly didnt vote against it...perhaps they abstained. Oh, and I am not blasting them either.

[McKennan]

Were the numbers on the propco deal made public? Were the minutes of the meetings made public? Just curious.

[jaf]

Jaf, I don't disagree with you. A much harder stance needs to be taken now IMO.

 

But on the right things Sandy

 

Why do we still have board members with a litany of failures behind them?

 

Its not just for the Jags Trust to call them out, its for their fellow directors/shareholders also, or they are in danger of being tarred with the same brush.

 

Heres some things people need to consider, feel free to disagree -

 

Cowan - often seems to turn off fans; he is our legal expertise on the board, what is our wins and losses ratio for all legal cases and appeals,etc during his time on the Board? Is his commercial performance acceptable??

 

TH - great insolvency expertise at times of STJ, unquestionable; since then, is failing to balance the books year after year acceptable? Is setting or accepting the setting of budgets which are pretty unachievable when you know you did exactly the same the year before acting with due care to protect the shareholders interests?? Is his commercial performance acceptable??

 

EP - has the CF given the impression of being run by professionals since he took over running it? Has the major stakeholder in the club (the supporters) been partially alienated by the words and deeds of EP?? Is that good for revenue generation?? How has he positively impacted on the club since his appointment, what successes are attributable to him?? Is his commercial performance acceptable??

 

If you were the employer of these guys and it was staff review time, would they be getting a whopper of a bonus or dismissed??? Guess what....the Jags Trust and each shareholder is sort of their employers.

 

I am retiring from this debate again now as I have been sucked in because I still care having successfully distanced myself from the shambles that is Partick Thistle for a long time. It is for others to provide the answers to the above questions. I just find all this so frustrating, I really do. I hope if teh JTB do manage to 'facilitate a meeting' someone might articulate some of the important questions. Good luck.

[honved]

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.

 

I don't think that's a good idea. Those running the club are far from my favourite people at the moment, but my advice to anyone thinking of stopping contributing to the club over the matter of the board rep position, is to think very hard before doing so. The club is in a perilous financial state and regardless of the reasons for that, it would be unfortunate if a dip in the cash flow due to a feeling that there is a need to lash out, was the cause of insolvency, given all that it would bring.

 

These views are personal, not the Trust's but it's what I will be saying at next week's Trust meeting.

[stolenscone]

Further update here: http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/

 

Without wishing to troll jaf into further debate on the subject, our intention is to ensure that the meeting with the Club is not confined to this single issue. There is much that is broken and real, tangible and measurable progress is needed from all sides ... quickly.

Edited September 3, 2010 by stolenscone

[Willjag]

Must we really? Or maybe someone sounds them out about their feelings since their departures from the club. Maybe doing that instead of blasting them on this forum at every opportunity might bring some surprising responses. Ho hum, big dog's dick. <_>

Exactly McK!

[Vom Itorium]

Further update here: http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/

 

Without wishing to troll jaf into further debate on the subject, our intention is to ensure that the meeting with the Club is not confined to this single issue. There is much that is broken and real, tangible and measurable progress is needed from all sides ... quickly.

So, the JT finally gets it meeting within the timescale the BoD dictates. Is there a reason for this date suddenly being dished out? Does it coincide with any planning issues having been decided.

 

Once again it seems that the JT has just been toyed with and has been slotted in at a time to suit the Club. When is the JT gonna realise that the time for nicey-nicey is well and truly over.