Club AGM

[Fawlty Towers]

Not being a shareholder I won't have anything sent to me but I seem to recall from the back and forth recently when Mr Creevy left the board that the AGM was due to be this Thursday - is that still the case?

[Woodstock Jag]

8 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Not being a shareholder I won't have anything sent to me but I seem to recall from the back and forth recently when Mr Creevy left the board that the AGM was due to be this Thursday - is that still the case?

I believe that shareholders have been informed the AGM will take place in early January.

[QXBoy]

Wonder if our new 10% shareholder will attend?

[Fawlty Towers]

Update ahead of the AGM:

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/ptfc-board-pre-agm-update-18-12-23/

[javeajag]

The most detailed summary of the finances and review of the club I can remember prior to an age. Good to see. 

[Auld Jag]

48 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Update ahead of the AGM:

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/ptfc-board-pre-agm-update-18-12-23/

What a mess we were left in by the previous board. Good to see we are now on the right road thanks to the hard work now being done by the current board.

[Fawlty Towers]

Interview with Donald McClymont.

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/donald-mcclymont-interview-20th-december-2023/

[MarciaBlaine]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Interview with Donald McClymont.

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/donald-mcclymont-interview-20th-december-2023/

He comes across well here. A genuineness about his fandom and seems to have an achievable, long-term vision.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Donald McClymont.. I like the cut of his jib.  A good person to be on the board and to put money into the club.   

[Fawlty Towers]

Posted this update from TJF here as the final section of it relates to contacting them with questions you would like raised at next week's AGM.

https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/new-year-new-look-tjf/

[Fawlty Towers]

Update from the PTFC Trust and if you wish them to raise any questions at the AGM how to contact them:

UPDATE FROM THE PTFC TRUST

Richard Beastall has resigned as a trustee of the PTFC Trust and will leave his position on Friday 5th January 2024 ahead of the club's AGM on Thursday 11th January 2024. On stepping down, Richard said:

“It has been an honour to play a part in delivering fan ownership to the supporters of Partick Thistle. I firmly believe that the structure announced in the summer will ensure responsibility rests with the most appropriate group of people – Jags fans. I have no doubt that with the fan organisations overseeing the guardianship of our club, they will ensure the stability and security of Partick Thistle for future generations to enjoy.”

Richard will stand for re-election as a director of the Football Club at the forthcoming AGM.

CLUB AGM

As the majority shareholder, the PTFC Trust is entitled to be represented at the AGM by the Trustees. Ultimately, however, we serve on your behalf as beneficiaries of the PTFC Trust.

If you would like the Trustees to raise any matters at the Club's Annual General Meeting on Thursday 11th January, please email [email protected].

[Jordanhill Jag]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:54 PM, Fawlty Towers said:

Posted this update from TJF here as the final section of it relates to contacting them with questions you would like raised at next week's AGM.

https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/new-year-new-look-tjf/

So this poses a number of Questions regards Separation of Powers 

The New TJF Chairman is currently a Club Board Director - he is part of the decision making process on New Directors - Finances etc etc which he signed off as a Director -before the AGM and before he steps down   

To get these Proposals through at the AGM - then the Board require the various Trusts Support as the Major Shareholder  - of which TJF are a key player 

The Agreement on getting the Trusts Support will have been done prior to the AGM - and various discussions taken place 

So the Question is - What Hat is TJF Chair Wearing ? How can you be a Club Director making Club Decisions to be agreed at the AGM   - yet be the Chairman of a Shareholder Group - whose very job it is to hold the Board to Account and ask awkward Questions about the proposals at the AGM ?    - TJF had No issue at the last AGM asking lots of awkward questions - and writing detailed reports on the responses - Yet here we are a Year Later where we have a defacto merger of the Board & Shareholders Group into one ? 

Now it could be that the New TJF Chair recluses himself from TJF discussions on the AGM  - however its highly unlikely that TJF are going to go against the wishes of there Chair - otherwise it makes it very awkward going forwards   

There should be a 12 Month period before any Trust Directors appointed to the Club Board can rejoin any of the Trust Boards - perception is everything 

The Trusts are there to hold the Club Board to Account - its there job as Shareholders - its as simple as that - backroom deals before the AGM are not OK - as it makes a mockery of the AGM - there cannot be a set of standards for the previous Board - and a different one for the current & future Boards 

If every Club Board proposal goes through on the Nod at the AGM-  then it becomes clear that the AGM is a tick box exercise for Company Compliance 

There should be robust Questioning led by the Major Shareholder - which is the Trusts - without it -we have no proper Corporate Governance as the Major Shareholder has not done there job in Holding the Board to Account at the AGM 

 

[Lenziejag]

5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So this poses a number of Questions regards Separation of Powers 

The New TJF Chairman is currently a Club Board Director - he is part of the decision making process on New Directors - Finances etc etc which he signed off as a Director -before the AGM and before he steps down   

To get these Proposals through at the AGM - then the Board require the various Trusts Support as the Major Shareholder  - of which TJF are a key player 

The Agreement on getting the Trusts Support will have been done prior to the AGM - and various discussions taken place 

So the Question is - What Hat is TJF Chair Wearing ? How can you be a Club Director making Club Decisions to be agreed at the AGM   - yet be the Chairman of a Shareholder Group - whose very job it is to hold the Board to Account and ask awkward Questions about the proposals at the AGM ?    - TJF had No issue at the last AGM asking lots of awkward questions - and writing detailed reports on the responses - Yet here we are a Year Later where we have a defacto merger of the Board & Shareholders Group into one ? 

Now it could be that the New TJF Chair recluses himself from TJF discussions on the AGM  - however its highly unlikely that TJF are going to go against the wishes of there Chair - otherwise it makes it very awkward going forwards   

There should be a 12 Month period before any Trust Directors appointed to the Club Board can rejoin any of the Trust Boards - perception is everything 

The Trusts are there to hold the Club Board to Account - its there job as Shareholders - its as simple as that - backroom deals before the AGM are not OK - as it makes a mockery of the AGM - there cannot be a set of standards for the previous Board - and a different one for the current & future Boards 

If every Club Board proposal goes through on the Nod at the AGM-  then it becomes clear that the AGM is a tick box exercise for Company Compliance 

There should be robust Questioning led by the Major Shareholder - which is the Trusts - without it -we have no proper Corporate Governance as the Major Shareholder has not done there job in Holding the Board to Account at the AGM 

 

It’s not unusual for major shareholders to have seats on boards. In any case the appointment isn’t permanent. If it isn’t working, it will change. There have been plenty already.

[Jordanhill Jag]

On 1/4/2024 at 3:45 PM, Fawlty Towers said:

Update from the PTFC Trust and if you wish them to raise any questions at the AGM how to contact them:

UPDATE FROM THE PTFC TRUST

Richard Beastall has resigned as a trustee of the PTFC Trust and will leave his position on Friday 5th January 2024 ahead of the club's AGM on Thursday 11th January 2024. On stepping down, Richard said:

“It has been an honour to play a part in delivering fan ownership to the supporters of Partick Thistle. I firmly believe that the structure announced in the summer will ensure responsibility rests with the most appropriate group of people – Jags fans. I have no doubt that with the fan organisations overseeing the guardianship of our club, they will ensure the stability and security of Partick Thistle for future generations to enjoy.”

Richard will stand for re-election as a director of the Football Club at the forthcoming AGM.

CLUB AGM

As the majority shareholder, the PTFC Trust is entitled to be represented at the AGM by the Trustees. Ultimately, however, we serve on your behalf as beneficiaries of the PTFC Trust.

If you would like the Trustees to raise any matters at the Club's Annual General Meeting on Thursday 11th January, please email [email protected].

So we were advised that this was a Temporary Board - that those "nominated by the various Trusts   " post the resignation of the last Board were simply to have a functioning Board - now they are " Directors in there own right " with no links to the Trusts or limited tenure on the Board as defined by the Trusts - the Trust "Nominees" are simply Directors in there "own right" 

If we are looking for Directors surely it should be a case of going out to "The Market" to match Skill Sets Required - rather than "Trust Nominees" simply moving over to be Full Time Directors without Limit of Tenure ?

Its all just a bit too cosy in my opinion  

Where are the various Trusts ? Where is the proposals or advertising that the Club are Looking for Directors with Specific Skill Sets ? 

If the "nominated Directors" are now simply "Directors " not linked to the Trusts - why are these Directorships ( or any other Directorship for that matter) - not being advertised - or are we back to "Who you know" - is this the New Openess Under Fan Ownership ? 

It would seem that the Temporary Board is looking more and more permanent 

Yes - All Directors have to be Voted in at the AGM each Year - but the idea was that there was fixed tenures and open options to get Directors applying with relevant Skillsets  

     

 

    

Edited January 5 by Jordanhill Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, Lenziejag said:

It’s not unusual for major shareholders to have seats on boards. In any case the appointment isn’t permanent. If it isn’t working, it will change. There have been plenty already.

No its not - however thats the Case for Companies - its not "usual" if you have Fan Ownership - as for the "Appointment not being Permanent " how do you know ?     

Its standard practice in the Civil Service that you cannot take on a Directorship of a Company you worked with as a Senior Civil Servant - we are not a a "Normal " Company - or are you Happy with the Bowling Club Model ?  

[Woodstock Jag]

It is probably helpful to explain the process by which Club Board appointments will be taken.

First, it was for the Club Board to recommend the reappointment of any existing directors and the appointment of any new ones.

A short CV for all proposed new directors was presented to the Trustees. They were invited to express a collective view on these.

Richard Beastall was recused from any Trustee response, as he had a conflict of interest as one of the directors on the Club Board. Similarly, Stuart Callison and Andrew Holloway were recused from TJF’s discussions about its view as one of the trustees, because they were one of the nominees/a current Club Board member.

The Trust provided feedback ahead of the notice formally being issued for the AGM. The shareholder votes of the Trust will be exercised on the basis of the agreed position of Neil Drain, TJF and The Jags Trust.

Next week we hope to circulate the draft Club Trust Agreement, a legally binding document that, among other things, formalises this existing process around Club Director appointments. But rest assured we aren’t idiots and are acutely aware of the need to recuse certain individuals from certain types of decision.

One of the welcome developments, with Richard Beastall stepping down as a Trustee, is a phasing out of these roles of people wearing multiple hats. But these things take time to get right and we are only one year on from an emergency club board having had to be assembled, in very challenging circumstances. It’s better to take a bit longer to get things right than to rush them and screw them up.

[Woodstock Jag]

I should also add that TJF recused itself entirely from the Trust’s deliberations on the proposed appointment of Stuart Callison, as this was an appointment we had unanimously suggested when Andrew took the decision not to seek reappointment to the Club Board.

Any TJF Board member past or present can testify that deliberations on many matters have seen those in senior leadership roles abiding by collective responsibility even when they’ve disagreed with a particular course of action. Thankfully, significant disagreements have almost always been rare, but major decisions are always robustly tested internally before being adopted. We don’t do things by fait accompli and the role of Chair is not that of a dictator: we set strategy democratically.

[Jordanhill Jag]

18 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It is probably helpful to explain the process by which Club Board appointments will be taken.

First, it was for the Club Board to recommend the reappointment of any existing directors and the appointment of any new ones.

A short CV for all proposed new directors was presented to the Trustees. They were invited to express a collective view on these.

Richard Beastall was recused from any Trustee response, as he had a conflict of interest as one of the directors on the Club Board. Similarly, Stuart Callison and Andrew Holloway were recused from TJF’s discussions about its view as one of the trustees, because they were one of the nominees/a current Club Board member.

The Trust provided feedback ahead of the notice formally being issued for the AGM. The shareholder votes of the Trust will be exercised on the basis of the agreed position of Neil Drain, TJF and The Jags Trust.

Next week we hope to circulate the draft Club Trust Agreement, a legally binding document that, among other things, formalises this existing process around Club Director appointments. But rest assured we aren’t idiots and are acutely aware of the need to recuse certain individuals from certain types of decision.

One of the welcome developments, with Richard Beastall stepping down as a Trustee, is a phasing out of these roles of people wearing multiple hats. But these things take time to get right and we are only one year on from an emergency club board having had to be assembled, in very challenging circumstances. It’s better to take a bit longer to get things right than to rush them and screw them up.

So whats the Chances of TJF going against the recommendations of the Club Board - when its Chairman is also a Director of the Club Board - why put yourself in the position where you have to be recused in the first place ? The Simple solution is that if your a Director of the Cub either "nominated " or appointed by the Trust - you don't go back onto the Trust Board for at least 12 Months       

If the "Nominated " Directors from the Trust are now to be "permanent Directors" not associated with the Trusts - I'm assuming its due to a unique Skillset - so why were the posts not advertised - in addition why were none of the New Directors Posts not advertised ( with the exception of TJF replacement for Andrew Holloway ) - the excuse that we are still living with an "emergency club board" is no longer valid - the Club Board sought New Directors - yet No one Knew anything about it ? Surely any organisation goes to the Market to Seek the best out there - surely you advertise and get the best available 

There is No Need for waiting for a New "Draft Trust Agreement" the Trust could simply instruct the Board that it wants posts advertised & people to submit there CVs - or are we still operating on a "who you know" basis ?    

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

25 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I should also add that TJF recused itself entirely from the Trust’s deliberations on the proposed appointment of Stuart Callison, as this was an appointment we had unanimously suggested when Andrew took the decision not to seek reappointment to the Club Board.

Any TJF Board member past or present can testify that deliberations on many matters have seen those in senior leadership roles abiding by collective responsibility even when they’ve disagreed with a particular course of action. Thankfully, significant disagreements have almost always been rare, but major decisions are always robustly tested internally before being adopted. We don’t do things by fait accompli and the role of Chair is not that of a dictator: we set strategy democratically.

As you have pointed out - the Trusts have already agreed to the Board Proposals - which I'm assuming is across varies aspects of the AGM 

So the Clubs Major Shareholder will not be asking robust Questions at the AGM - the discussions wont be in the Public Domain - its all been discussed and agreed in advance - the AGM is simply a Tick Box Exercise for Compliance - may as well issue the minutes in advance 

This is from the same organisation who held the previous Board over the Coals at the last AGM ?   

Is it that our New Board are so Wonderful that they are not to be questioned at the AGM by the Major Shareholder ? 

Welcome to the PTFC Bowling Club Annual General Meeting  

So what happens if Questions are asked that show things are not Rosy in the Garden - the decision is already made - the discussions on getting Shareholder Support was done in Secret  

  

 

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

So whats the Chances of TJF going against the recommendations of the Club Board - when its Chairman is also a Director of the Club Board

Andrew wasn’t the Chair of TJF when the Trust was invited to comment on the proposed AGM appointments. Sandy was. Your premise is false.

Not that it matters because if the rest of the TJF board disagreed with Andrew about something he would be overruled in a vote. I’m not breaking any confidences when I say that both he and Sandy have been in the minority position on decisions taken by the TJF Board. As have I.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

- why put yourself in the position where you have to be recused in the first place ? The Simple solution is that if your a Director of the Cub either "nominated " or appointed by the Trust - you don't go back onto the Trust Board for at least 12 Months

In case you hadn’t noticed, Richard Beastall has literally resigned effective today, ending the only remaining instance of a Trustee being on the Club Board. He has been totally recused from all Trust decisions during his three month notice period.

I didn’t see you condemning Andrew’s appointment to the Club Board in June, or calling for him to step down as an elected TJF Board member. Indeed, that appointment was widely welcomed, as people saw it as ensuring a TJF presence in the room during the transitional phase and in the absence of the formal fan ownership apparatus that is, imminently, to be put in place.

For what it’s worth, we had a robust internal discussion about whether TJF should accept a position on the Club Board. I am betraying no confidences when I say I was originally the most sceptical (because I wanted clearer lines of accountability). I think the ensuing six months entirely justified that presence, because it meant we were able to influence and become aware of things at the right time.

 

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

 If the “Nominated " Directors from the Trust are now to be "permanent Directors" not associated with the Trusts - I'm assuming its due to a unique Skillset - so why were the posts not advertised - in addition why were none of the New Directors Posts not advertised (with the exception of TJF replacement for Andrew Holloway) - the excuse that we are still living with an "emergency club board" is no longer valid - the Club Board sought New Directors - yet No one Knew anything about it ? Surely any organisation goes to the Market to Seek the best out there - surely you advertise and get the best available

Very simple answer Jim. Continuity and stability until the structure is in place.

The Club Trust Agreement, on which fans will be consulted next week, provides the legal framework for future Club Board appointments, and for a Corporate Governance Manual to regulate Club Board appointments and subcommittees.

Until that structure is in place, there is no formal mechanism for advertising skills-based roles.

Given that the Club Board presently consists of 4 people, and one of them chose not to seek reappointment for personal reasons, it would be complete and utter insanity to insist that, just because it’s the AGM, all of the others have to enter an open competition process for their jobs, when there isn’t a structure or arbiter in place to judge their performance against other candidates.

We do this right, not simply to suit our own prejudices or agendas.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

There is No Need for waiting for a New "Draft Trust Agreement" the Trust could simply instruct the Board that it wants posts advertised & people to submit there CVs - or are we still operating on a "who you know" basis ?    

The responsibility for recommending appointments to the Club Board is a matter for the Club Board, not the Trust. The role of the Trust is in the approval of appointments recommended to them as the majority shareholder.

We are a fan owned, not a fan run, football club.

[Woodstock Jag]

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As you have pointed out - the Trusts have already agreed to the Board Proposals - which I'm assuming is across varies aspects of the AGM 

I said nothing of the sort.

I said that the Trust was consulted before the AGM materials were sent out.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So the Clubs Major Shareholder will not be asking robust Questions at the AGM

Both TJF and the PTFC Trust have actively invited questions from both TJF members and PTFC Trust beneficiaries in advance of the AGM.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- the discussions wont be in the Public Domain - its all been discussed and agreed in advance - the AGM is simply a Tick Box Exercise for Compliance - may as well issue the minutes in advance

The Club literally provided a detailed written update to the fans on the Club Board’s proposals, and TJF emailed an update to all of its members on 18th December explaining the process.

The only formal decisions to be taken at the AGM, as you will have seen from the Agenda circulated to shareholders, is to receive and approve the report and accounts (an essentially technical exercise), to reappoint existing directors, and to appoint new ones.

If you believe that any of those things should be voted against it is entirely open to you, as a season ticket holder, to email the PTFC Trust setting out your concerns and recommending a specific course of action.

And as a shareholder it is entirely open to you to vote against one or more proposals at the AGM or to raise questions pertinent to them.

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held. It is a formal forum to discharge statutory obligations of the company. Directors can be appointed and removed at any time. By announcing intentions in advance, this year has actually provided shareholders with more opportunity to scrutinise appointments than in previous years.

So just come out and say it, Jim: which motions on the paper for the AGM should the PTFC Trust vote against. No bluff, no spin. State your case.

There are seven motions on the paper. Which ones are you suggesting the Trustees should not support?

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

This is from the same organisation who held the previous Board over the Coals at the last AGM ?

TJF had specific concerns about the directors statement, the annual accounts, and the proposals to reappoint several of the directors.

We set out those concerns at the time, while not being in any position to influence the outcome of any shareholder vote.

If we had concerns about the proposed appointments at this AGM, or about the accuracy of the report or accounts, we would raise them. And any concerns of TJF members or PTFC Trust beneficiaries would also be raised.

So far, the PTFC Trust has received no correspondence from beneficiaries about the AGM. TJF has received emails from several members, asking about a range of issues. I am betraying no confidences when I say that, so far, none of these concerned the formal business of the meeting and the proposed resolutions.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Is it that our New Board are so Wonderful that they are not to be questioned at the AGM by the Major Shareholder ?

Questions will be put by the majority shareholder to the Club Board at the AGM. You are invited to suggest questions to us.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Welcome to the PTFC Bowling Club Annual General Meeting

Let’s be honest Jim, you just don’t like some of the people involved and want them removed but you won’t name them publicly.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So what happens if Questions are asked that show things are not Rosy in the Garden - the decision is already made - the discussions on getting Shareholder Support was done in Secret

Feel free to raise any concerns with the PTFC Trust if you believe the trustees should vote against any of the motions. Please specify in any correspondence which motions you want us to vote against.

[Jordanhill Jag]

35 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Andrew wasn’t the Chair of TJF when the Trust was invited to comment on the proposed AGM appointments. Sandy was. Your premise is false.

Not that it matters because if the rest of the TJF board disagreed with Andrew about something he would be overruled in a vote. I’m not breaking any confidences when I say that both he and Sandy have been in the minority position on decisions taken by the TJF Board. As have I.

In case you hadn’t noticed, Richard Beastall has literally resigned effective today, ending the only remaining instance of a Trustee being on the Club Board. He has been totally recused from all Trust decisions during his three month notice period.

I didn’t see you condemning Andrew’s appointment to the Club Board in June, or calling for him to step down as an elected TJF Board member. Indeed, that appointment was widely welcomed, as people saw it as ensuring a TJF presence in the room during the transitional phase and in the absence of the formal fan ownership apparatus that is, imminently, to be put in place.

For what it’s worth, we had a robust internal discussion about whether TJF should accept a position on the Club Board. I am betraying no confidences when I say I was originally the most sceptical (because I wanted clearer lines of accountability). I think the ensuing six months entirely justified that presence, because it meant we were able to influence and become aware of things at the right time.

 

Very simple answer Jim. Continuity and stability until the structure is in place.

The Club Trust Agreement, on which fans will be consulted next week, provides the legal framework for future Club Board appointments, and for a Corporate Governance Manual to regulate Club Board appointments and subcommittees.

Until that structure is in place, there is no formal mechanism for advertising skills-based roles.

Given that the Club Board presently consists of 4 people, and one of them chose not to seek reappointment for personal reasons, it would be complete and utter insanity to insist that, just because it’s the AGM, all of the others have to enter an open competition process for their jobs, when there isn’t a structure or arbiter in place to judge their performance against other candidates.

We do this right, not simply to suit our own prejudices or agendas.

The responsibility for recommending appointments to the Club Board is a matter for the Club Board, not the Trust. The role of the Trust is in the approval of appointments recommended to them as the majority shareholder.

We are a fan owned, not a fan run, football club.

No I didn't condemn Andrews Appointments onto the Board - its perfectly normal practise for a Trust to appoint a Director onto the Club Board - what is not normal is that a former Club Board Director goes straight from the Board back onto the Trust - its simply far too cosy and Human Nature is that you are not going to put people under pressure that you previously sat on a Board with - you should not leave the Club Board and rejoin the Trust Board without at least 12 Months of a Gap - that's simply good Corporate Governance - No idea why your defending it - its simply wrong 

I never said that the existing Directors had to enter an open Competition for there jobs - however there are two New Directors - there was zero to stop those posts being advertised - The Trust is the Major Shareholder it can instruct the Board to advertise New Directors - there was No Good reason why not to - instead its "Who you Know" 

As you have confirmed - the Trust & the Board have already agreed on various aspects - the AGM is a tick box exercise - No matter what is questioned - the Trusts have already agreed it will back the Board - changed days for TJF from the last AGM 

A Major Shareholder holds Boards to Account - it does it openly at the AGM - not in Wee Secret Meetings   

Otherwise whats the point in having a Trust as a Major Shareholder     

[Jordanhill Jag]

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I said nothing of the sort.

I said that the Trust was consulted before the AGM materials were sent out.

Both TJF and the PTFC Trust have actively invited questions from both TJF members and PTFC Trust beneficiaries in advance of the AGM.

The Club literally provided a detailed written update to the fans on the Club Board’s proposals, and TJF emailed an update to all of its members on 18th December explaining the process.

The only formal decisions to be taken at the AGM, as you will have seen from the Agenda circulated to shareholders, is to receive and approve the report and accounts (an essentially technical exercise), to reappoint existing directors, and to appoint new ones.

If you believe that any of those things should be voted against it is entirely open to you, as a season ticket holder, to email the PTFC Trust setting out your concerns and recommending a specific course of action.

And as a shareholder it is entirely open to you to vote against one or more proposals at the AGM or to raise questions pertinent to them.

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held. It is a formal forum to discharge statutory obligations of the company. Directors can be appointed and removed at any time. By announcing intentions in advance, this year has actually provided shareholders with more opportunity to scrutinise appointments than in previous years.

So just come out and say it, Jim: which motions on the paper for the AGM should the PTFC Trust vote against. No bluff, no spin. State your case.

There are seven motions on the paper. Which ones are you suggesting the Trustees should not support?

TJF had specific concerns about the directors statement, the annual accounts, and the proposals to reappoint several of the directors.

We set out those concerns at the time, while not being in any position to influence the outcome of any shareholder vote.

If we had concerns about the proposed appointments at this AGM, or about the accuracy of the report or accounts, we would raise them. And any concerns of TJF members or PTFC Trust beneficiaries would also be raised.

So far, the PTFC Trust has received no correspondence from beneficiaries about the AGM. TJF has received emails from several members, asking about a range of issues. I am betraying no confidences when I say that, so far, none of these concerned the formal business of the meeting and the proposed resolutions.

Questions will be put by the majority shareholder to the Club Board at the AGM. You are invited to suggest questions to us.

Let’s be honest Jim, you just don’t like some of the people involved and want them removed but you won’t name them publicly.

Feel free to raise any concerns with the PTFC Trust if you believe the trustees should vote against any of the motions. Please specify in any correspondence which motions you want us to vote against.

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held

Are you being serious - that's exactly what happened at the last AGM with TJF leading the Charge & shortly after the Club Board stepped down  

 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No I didn't condemn Andrews Appointments onto the Board - its perfectly normal practise for a Trust to appoint a Director onto the Club Board - what is not normal is that a former Club Board Director goes straight from the Board back onto the Trust

1. TJF is not a Trust

2. Andrew never left the TJF Board

3. When The Jags Trust had a Club Board Rep they simultaneously sat on both boards. This is completely normal with appropriate recusal mechanisms.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- its simply far too cosy and Human Nature is that you are not going to put people under pressure that you previously sat on a Board with - you should not leave the Club Board and rejoin the Trust Board without at least 12 Months of a Gap - that's simply good Corporate Governance - No idea why your defending it - its simply wrong

TJF’s members unanimously approved its Articles of Association at first an EGM and then an AGM inside the last 18 months. Zero members requested that a clause be included prohibiting an elected TJF Board member from being a Club Board member. Zero members requested that, on leaving the Club Board, an elected TJF Board member cannot continue as a TJF Board member.

You are quite simply inventing an issue.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I never said that the existing Directors had to enter an open Competition for there jobs - however there are two New Directors - there was zero to stop those posts being advertised - The Trust is the Major Shareholder it can instruct the Board to advertise New Directors - there was No Good reason why not to - instead its "Who you Know" 

Once again, there is currently no process by which the Club Board can be required to advertise Club Board positions. Under the current governance arrangements it is for the Club Board to recommend people for appointment, doing their own due diligence and process, and for the majority shareholder to scrutinise those proposals and give a view.

Under future governance arrangements, there will also be the need for explicit Trust approval. That change in circumstances creates the conditions for a more formal process of board appointments.

But it doesn’t exist yet.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As you have confirmed - the Trust & the Board have already agreed on various aspects - the AGM is a tick box exercise - No matter what is questioned - the Trusts have already agreed it will back the Board - changed days for TJF from the last AGM 

Not correct.

The Trust provided feedback to the Club Board on certain proposals. The Club Board then decided how to proceed with the AGM papers.

You are jumping the gun.

If you want the Trust to vote against one or more of the motions, email us. Name the motions. Give your reasons.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

A Major Shareholder holds Boards to Account - it does it openly at the AGM - not in Wee Secret Meetings

And we will do so.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Otherwise whats the point in having a Trust as a Major Shareholder     

Control of the football club by the fans organisation, representing the interests of those fans through democratic structures. End.

[Woodstock Jag]

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held

Are you being serious - that's exactly what happened at the last AGM with TJF leading the Charge & shortly after the Club Board stepped down  

It wasn’t a grand debate. A lot of very good points were made by minority shareholders then the majority shareholder and another minority shareholder proceeded to vote to approve all the resolutions.

Proving that the voting process at an AGM is completely inconsequential even when the AGM itself becomes a pressure point for the Club Board.

This, if anything, reinforces my point. The big decisions didn’t happen in the room that time either. They happened in the days following.

As a matter of formal business, an AGM is a tick-box exercise, unless you are proposing that the majority shareholder should consider voting against one of the resolutions.

If that is your proposal please name that resolution and state your reasons.

Just like TJF did before the 2022 AGM.