Woodstock Jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Which could explain possible abstentions from the vote... Perhaps someone who was at the actual meeting can confirm: how did the procedure actually run with respect to re-election of directors? Did any of the directors look especially surprised when Jim was voted off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Has anybody spoken to Jim? Brief e-mail contact, expect he will want to communicate himself in due course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Brief e-mail contact, expect he will want to communicate himself in due course. Given what may or may not be rumbling on behind the scenes, I suspect he'll be choosing his words carefully and give a quiet, pragmatic and dispassionate account of events. Oh wait, it's Jim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Given what may or may not be rumbling on behind the scenes, I suspect he'll be choosing his words carefully and give a quiet, pragmatic and dispassionate account of events. Oh wait, it's Jim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I hope Jim does enlighten us to the events that lead to his departure, if he knows the full story. Not to be nosy, but to actually have a rough idea what is going on in the boardroom. If Jim felt up to it & was able, he seems like the perfect person to spearhead & ignite a vibrant fans representative organisation. I know some people don't like him, but putting aside personal differences (something some of our ex directors cant do), it would surely be to the benefit of this great club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I would be interested on Jim's interpretation and the Trusts interpretation of these points - these are 4 of the 5 fundamentals in teh ICAS COde of Ethics •Integrity - a professional accountant should be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships; •Objectivity – a professional accountant should not allow bias, conflict of interest or undue influence of others to override professional or business judgements; •Confidentiality – a professional accountant should respect the confidentiality of information acquired as a result of professional and business relationships and should not disclose any such information to third parties without proper and specific authority unless there is a legal or professional right or duty to disclose. Confidential information acquired as a result of professional and business relationships should not be used for the personal advantage of the professional accountant or third parties; and •Professional behaviour – a professional accountant should comply with relevant laws and regulations and should avoid any action that discredits the profession. I was not there so cannot comment, but maybe someone who was could have views on this?? Personally I think Jim should do two things, not let the b*stards grind him down, and take the gloves off and go for this mob. If he does, I will be there standing beside him thats for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Good points Jaf. Gloves off, spearhead, uniting fans....interesting train of thought! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Funny you should have mentioned those points Jaf. I was just wondering my self if what was suggested about Tom Hughes contacting the Trust and telling them about the vote was fact, is that even legal never mind ethical? If I'm ever in a position where I need an Accountant, I know where I wont be going! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Tom Hughes is the Firhill Mubarak. He'll go when he's ready and not before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was just wondering my self if what was suggested about Tom Hughes contacting the Trust and telling them about the vote was fact, is that even legal never mind ethical? A man can be judged by his actions and morals. It is transparent what we are dealing with here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Tom Hughes is the Firhill Mubarak. He'll go when he's ready and not before. 30 years? No ta. Perhaps we need a egyptian-style uprising, to get TH and others to hand back their free shares and leave the club completely never to darken its doors or have any involvement with PTFC ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Funny you should have mentioned those points Jaf. I was just wondering my self if what was suggested about Tom Hughes contacting the Trust and telling them about the vote was fact, is that even legal never mind ethical? If I'm ever in a position where I need an Accountant, I know where I wont be going! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Partick Thistle Football Club really need to get the 1 million shares returned from this man and dispense with his services, free or otherwise, once and for all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Partick Thistle Football Club really need to get the 1 million shares returned from this man and dispense with his services, free or otherwise, once and for all! 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 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? It would mean the value of the shares should have been taxed as income. Was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 It would mean the value of the shares should have been taxed as income. Was it? I'm not Brown McMaster's tax adviser. You'll probably find that Tom Hughes is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 It would mean the value of the shares should have been taxed as income. Was it? I don't think that this is the case. Shares do not have to be paid for - they can be given in lieu of work done etc. They are not themselves subject to taxation, though any dividend or proceeds from sale of the shares is taxable. As I understand it anyway ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Fair enough, but as has been pointed out many times in the past, there is ZERO documentation to back up this claim from Hughes and the purpose of the shares being granted to him, McMaster and the Jags Trust is clearly stated on the registration forms filed at the time and was identical in each case. It was not in return for work done. And Tom Hughes will know that because he filled in the forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm not Brown McMaster's tax adviser. You'll probably find that Tom Hughes is... I doubt that. I don't think McMaster and Hughes are the best of friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Fair enough, but as has been pointed out many times in the past, there is ZERO documentation to back up this claim from Hughes and the purpose of the shares being granted to him, McMaster and the Jags Trust is clearly stated on the registration forms filed at the time and was identical in each case. It was not in return for work done. And Tom Hughes will know that because he filled in the forms. I've lost the point of your arguement here. I'm more than willing to admit that it might just be me though! I just used 'work done' as an example, I really just wanted to point out that you do not have to inject any capital into a company to receive shares in it. I assumed we were talking about BMcM or TH, though there seem to have been registration forms filed for both, but ZERO documentation? Anyway, i'm probably taking this topic off at a tangent so i'll stop now. Edited February 1, 2011 by MerryHell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I doubt that. I don't think McMaster and Hughes are the best of friends. But still congenial enough to join together for this vote, it would seem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I assumed we were talking about BMcM or TH, though there seem to have been registration forms filed for both, but ZERO documentation? There is documentation that shows that the shares were granted free of cost There is no documentation that shows that the shares were granted in exchange for services rendered or to be rendered. Edited February 1, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 But still congenial enough to join together for this vote, it would seem I too heard this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I've lost the point of your arguement here. I'm more than willing to admit that it might just be me though! I just used 'work done' as an example, I really just wanted to point out that you do not have to inject any capital into a company to receive shares in it. I assumed we were talking about BMcM or TH, though there seem to have been registration forms filed for both, but ZERO documentation? Anyway, i'm probably taking this topic off at a tangent so i'll stop now. My fault, I think. OK, when the shares were given to Brown, Tom and the Jags Trust, forms were registered recording this. You can get them from Companies House if you want. There is a form for each of them and one that covers all three together. There is a question on the form where if the shares aren't being bought for cash you have to explain why they are being given. In the section marked "Consideration for which the shares were allotted:" the answer has been written "To balance voting rights and to ensure in so far as possible the future of Partick Thistle as a football club." No mention is made of them being in payment for any work done, time volunteered or cash raised. And it was Tom Hughes who wrote that and signed it and if there is, as he later claimed, some other reason why he got the shares then that should have been stated on the form at the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 But still congenial enough to join together for this vote, it would seem Says more about what they think of Jim I would suggest then. Reeks to me of being personal rather than for the benefit of the Club. Jim does tread on toes and he seems to have tread in four lots too many in the wrong place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.