Jump to content

The Jags Foundation


Norgethistle
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, stolenscone said:

Jim - there are 2 points to note:

First: there is obviously a poor track record of holding elections. That needs to change.

Second: I don't know about you, but I currently have no visibility on what, if any, agreement the PTFC Trust trustees might have entered into with the Club Board viz exercise of shareholder rights.  If they have signed a shareholder agreement which essentially gives away any right they have to hold the Club Board to account, then what we are witnessing is a backdoor means to place the Club within the de facto ownership of the Club Board, not the fans.  But so far, the trustees haven't provided any information to explain what they have signed up to. You can't hold them to account for their actions if you don't know what they have done. That's a huge problem. 

Hi David 

Now you have pointed this out - we need to see whats been agreed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the protests about the share transfer, referral to the SFA,  etc, come to nothing what options are left ?

For example, as far as the PTFC Trust is concerned -

- what is required to call an EGM ?

- who can call it ?

- who is eligible to vote ?

- can the existing trustees be removed ?

- how long would that process take ?

- if new trustees are elected, what powers do they have to change the make-up of the club board ?

Apologies if that's been covered elsewhere - I may have missed it amongst the posts ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Buckstone said:

Assuming the protests about the share transfer, referral to the SFA,  etc, come to nothing what options are left ?

For example, as far as the PTFC Trust is concerned -

- what is required to call an EGM ?

- who can call it ?

- who is eligible to vote ?

- can the existing trustees be removed ?

- how long would that process take ?

- if new trustees are elected, what powers do they have to change the make-up of the club board ?

Apologies if that's been covered elsewhere - I may have missed it amongst the posts ...

A Trust structure does not permit beneficiaries to call an EGM.

The Trust Deed requires periodic elections, but the trustees have so far failed to comply with the rules of the Trust.

The powers that the trustees have as shareholders will depend upon any shareholder agreement that they might have entered into. But as they won't provide information or respond to the request of beneficiaries for information, it is not possible to say at present whether there is any such agreement or if there is, what it says.

Trustees can be replaced via the elections, but as they don't call elections when required to do so, that is understandably difficult to do in practice.

Beneficiaries are eligible to vote in any election, if one is ever called. At the moment, season ticket holders are automatically designed as beneficiaries. There is no way to opt out, nor is there any way for non season ticket holders to become a beneficiary, unless the Trust rules are changed.  There has been a history of unilaterally changing the Trust rules to suit the circumstances without seeking to consult with beneficiaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I honestly dont think that protest would have made any difference - they knew the decision would not go down well - yet chose to continue with it 

The Season Tickets - Sponsor Packages had already been sold by the time TJF were told they were not getting the Shares and the Thistle Trust were the reciepients

So whilst I agree with the fact that organisations like TJF move slowly due to the nature of how they are set up - I honestly dont believe anything they did would have changed the outcome one jot 

The current set up was the one that was preferred - TJF were never going to agree to it - so they were not getting the Shares - its as simple as that 

 

 

  

It is obvious that 3BC/PTFC were not going to change. If TJF members start protesting at every game home and away, it is going to start getting picked up by social media/news outlets. At the same time get in touch with SFA about how the process was carried out and the law society regarding this supposed client confidentiality stuff that 3BC were spouting. Use every possible avenue  to call into question the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to hope that there is a way of changing the PTFC Trust from within, by eventually voting on enough trustees in favour of genuine fan ownership and engagement to outnumber the Famous Five or the remnant of them, and then to plot a whole new course for the Trust. However stolenscone has already explained how the Trust may by that time be hamstrung and limited by irreversible concessions already made.

Another concern I would have is for the interim period when the "genuine fan-minded elected trustees" for want of a better expression were in the minority. They could argue and vote at trust meetings against all that the Famous Five were doing. However, once a decision is made, would these minority trustees who voted against it not be bound by collective responsibility? The choice they would have would be either to resign or to  be (or at least appear) complicit in the decision. If minority trustees felt obliged to resign to protect their integrity and/or reputation, it might take a long time, if ever at all, for that minority to grow to become a majority.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of trusts can confirm or allay my fears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the new majority shareholders decide to reach out to the trustees (ie, ST holders, most of whom like me never knew they were trustees in the first place), would be illegal to obtain a list of ST holders' e-mail addresses from the club under the current Data Protection laws?  If so, interested to know how they will" communicate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Jacqui Low was approached for comment by Herald and Times Sport but refused to add to Tuesday’s statement from the club as Thistle chairman, nor did she offer a response in her role as a director of 3BC.

The Great Communicator continues to hide and treat the support with utter contempt. 

Edited by JAG1970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never understood how the trustees could contact beneficiaries and comply with data protection laws, but I'm not an expert in that area.

I guess the Club could seek some kind of waiver or consent from season ticket holders when issuing season tickets,  but I'm unsure how that would work. 

It's just one of the many poorly thought out aspects of this mess.

Edited to add: Another option would be for all PTFC Trust communication to be issued to beneficiaries by the Club. But it's obvious to see the problem with that the moment the Trustees want to say anything that the Club Board might disagree with. 

Edited by stolenscone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that there is any point in pretending that it's something which it patently isn't. I'm sure that no one on either side of the fence, or anyone independent of this, thinks that it represents fan ownership. 

It's also clear from their behaviour that neither the Club Board nor the current PTFC Trust trustees have much respect for the wider support.  It seems obvious that their intention is to proceed without listening to their customers/beneficiaries and wait for the noise to die down.

It's a shabby way to treat people and a strange way to run any business.  For me, the only question is whether the noise will indeed die down, or whether those responsible will eventually be held to account. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I think we could ask it, but (like many politicians) I don’t think they’d give a straight answer! 

I think that is blatantly obvious. That isn't the point of asking the question. The point being an evasive answer (or if unanswered) will indicate the level of disregard they hold for individual supporters (customers). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This point has been raised before, but the transfer makes it relevant once again.  There must be laws governing the operation of trusts.  It is hard to imagine that a trust can be legally controlled by a single entity like 3BC to the extent that they do, and in the manner they have adopted.   Perhaps TJF should take further legal advice on this if they have not already done so.

An appeal to the SFA is obviously now needed, but I'm unsure what criteria they would apply in reaching a decision.

The Jags Trust I believe have 26% of the voting shares in PTFC.  From my own business experience I think that gives the power of veto over substantial changes to the operation of the Company - such as sales of assets like the stadium or a sale of the Club itself.  I know that the Jags Trust and TJF have held discussions, but perhaps a more binding arrangement/agreement can be negotiated.  This is obviously a second best option, but it may prevent unwanted major changes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

This point has been raised before, but the transfer makes it relevant once again.  There must be laws governing the operation of trusts.  It is hard to imagine that a trust can be legally controlled by a single entity like 3BC to the extent that they do, and in the manner they have adopted.   Perhaps TJF should take further legal advice on this if they have not already done so.

An appeal to the SFA is obviously now needed, but I'm unsure what criteria they would apply in reaching a decision.

The Jags Trust I believe have 26% of the voting shares in PTFC.  From my own business experience I think that gives the power of veto over substantial changes to the operation of the Company - such as sales of assets like the stadium or a sale of the Club itself.  I know that the Jags Trust and TJF have held discussions, but perhaps a more binding arrangement/agreement can be negotiated.  This is obviously a second best option, but it may prevent unwanted major changes.

 

Maybe there is also an option for TJF to consider purchasing shares held by individuals. I don't know what percentage of shares is in other hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

I think that is blatantly obvious. That isn't the point of asking the question. The point being an evasive answer (or if unanswered) will indicate the level of disregard they hold for individual supporters (customers). 

I think that because that question invites evasive answers, it’s not the right one.

”When will we get fan ownership?” seems more pertinent to me. Maybe less likely to be answered, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant to post this but I've got a blistering headache and have been trying to sleep it off this morning.

The Jags Foundation has made a statement about yesterday's events, and commented on some other important aspects of the PTFC Trust deal. You can read the short summary, and the full statement, at the link below.

https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/statement-following-the-transfer-of-shares/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

This point has been raised before, but the transfer makes it relevant once again.  There must be laws governing the operation of trusts.  It is hard to imagine that a trust can be legally controlled by a single entity like 3BC to the extent that they do, and in the manner they have adopted.   Perhaps TJF should take further legal advice on this if they have not already done so.

An appeal to the SFA is obviously now needed, but I'm unsure what criteria they would apply in reaching a decision.

The Jags Trust I believe have 26% of the voting shares in PTFC.  From my own business experience I think that gives the power of veto over substantial changes to the operation of the Company - such as sales of assets like the stadium or a sale of the Club itself.  I know that the Jags Trust and TJF have held discussions, but perhaps a more binding arrangement/agreement can be negotiated.  This is obviously a second best option, but it may prevent unwanted major changes.

 

To be clear:

PTFC Trust has 74% of the shares in PTFC

The Jags Trust has about 7.5% of the shares in PTFC

Colin Weir's estate has about 10% of the shares in PTFC

Minority shareholders, none having more than 1.5% individually, hold the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MarciaBlaine said:

I think that because that question invites evasive answers, it’s not the right one.

”When will we get fan ownership?” seems more pertinent to me. Maybe less likely to be answered, mind.

Fair enough. But in my way of thinking no answer or even an evasive reply will be deemed contemptuous to the individual asking the question. To be clear I'd be asking something along these lines not TJF or any other party. Somehow I feel that they can body swerve TJF as often as they want but when they do that to the individual it becomes a personal slight. A stupid action to take against the supporter, customer, or eh, stakeholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...