1 John Lambie Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 That was insightful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) I need to get a life but this football club and its convulsions really do my head in. This is like a giant game of Cluedo. It seems the major shareholders were all represented at the AGM but nobody wants to tell the supporters what went on there. Could not agree more, Honved. So it was Col Hughes that hit JJ with the lead piping in the study...but the JT did not smell a rat?! Edited February 7, 2011 by sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Update now on Jags Trust website. I will be accused of trust bashing, but that is not a statement that merits the title 'Annual General Meeting 31/01/2011'. It is a statement about the events surrounding Jim Alexanders departure from the board and contains only one paragraph concerning anything that actually hapened at the AGM. And that is only to say that the trust voted for the status quo. Is that honestly a summary of the whole AGM? Any plans on another statement to update the membership on any other issues that were raised such as the issue with shares, finances, or anything else deemed important? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Quack Quack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Small point of pedantry, but does a dead duck quack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Let's be clear: the Trust has much to be criticised for (and the "update" was a bit thin on information), but that isn't really the point here. If my understanding of the Trust's statement is correct then: 1. The Company Secretary, AGM meeting chairman & gatherer of proxy votes convened a meeting with a large shareholder just before the AGM in order to find out how that shareholder was planning to vote. The reason given was that it would be "only courteous" to warn that director if it looked as though he was going to be voted off the board - a strange turn of phrase when the person using it is the person seeking to vote off the director; 2. That same Company Secretary, AGM meeting chairman & gatherer of proxy votes then used his own shares (gifted to him as a custodian of the club) and the proxys gathered on behalf of the board of directors (and perhaps other shares) to vote that same director off the board? Is any of that ethical? Quite apart from the ethics that you and I would judge by, there is the ICAS code of conduct posted earlier in this thread (the said Company Secretary, AGM chairman & gatherer of proxy votes being subject to that code in his professional life). Quite apart from the consistent failue to set a budget that stacks up, the continued paddling of this person in our pool (and it is our pool) is damaging the football club beyond repair. If my understanding of events is not correct, then perhaps someone who was at this meeting could set the record straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunfermline Jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 2. That same Company Secretary, AGM meeting chairman & gatherer of proxy votes then used his own shares (gifted to him as a custodian of the club) and the proxys gathered on behalf of the board of directors (and perhaps other shares) to vote that same director off the board Quite apart from the consistent failue to set a budget that stacks up, the continued paddling of this person in our pool (and it is our pool) is damaging the football club beyond repair. This is just speculation based on a general dislike of TH and the, now obviously erroneous, view that he had actively canvassed the support of the JT to oust Jim Alexander. There is no evidence for it in anything the JT has said nor has there been any solid info as to how ANY of the individual shareholders, other than the JT, has voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I don't believe for a minute that Messrs Hughes or Beattie would have outright asked the Jags Trust to help them knife another director in the back. And it will have been purely a coincidence that the same urgently called meeting was used to discuss ways in which the door, previously slammed in the Trust's face, might reopen and let them get involved in the workings of the club. Might as well talk about these things while you're there, in a totally non-related sort of way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 This is just speculation based on a general dislike of TH and the, now obviously erroneous, view that he had actively canvassed the support of the JT to oust Jim Alexander. There is no evidence for it in anything the JT has said nor has there been any solid info as to how ANY of the individual shareholders, other than the JT, has voted. I'm not so sure that isn't stretching "the benefit of the doubt" to breaking point, DJ, although I'm open to be persuaded otherwise. Looking at the maths, we know that The Trust has c.1m shares and that it used those shares to vote for the status quo - the re-election of Jim Alexander. We know that Tom Hughes has 1m shares, and that he didn't vote in favour of Jim, so he either voted against, or abstained. I have heard anecdotally from a number of people that Hughes was tasked with gathering proxys, ostensibly to ensure that the board's desire to remove the cap on share capital was passed. I have no reason to doubt what I have heard, and so logically conclude that the proxys which were exercised by Hughes as chairman of the meeting were also gathered by him. This is lent credence by his prior knowledge of how those proxys would be exercised, which we must infer from the Trust's statement. From all of this, I can see no clear separation between the roles of meeting chairman, proxy gatherer, exerciser of proxys and counter of votes, which is problematic in any fair and open election. Given the number of votes said to be cast against the re-election of Jim Alexander, the decision must have been taken by the exercise of the votes of a handful of key shareholders: Tom Hughes, the McMasters, Ronnie Gilfillan; the Springfords; David Beattie and Grant Bannerman. That's c. 5m shares with 4m said to be voting against Jim. It's a pretty small pool to pick from, and they can't all know nothing about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I don't believe for a minute that Messrs Hughes or Beattie would have outright asked the Jags Trust to help them knife another director in the back. And it will have been purely a coincidence that the same urgently called meeting was used to discuss ways in which the door, previously slammed in the Trust's face, might reopen and let them get involved in the workings of the club. Might as well talk about these things while you're there, in a totally non-related sort of way. Things are stacking up a bit. Stolenscones reference to ICAS is an interesting one angle too. It's what is NOT in the JT statement that intrigues me; have things been taken out or not been said ? I wonder if the shadowy house of Firhill cards is about to fall ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 From all of this, I can see no clear separation between the roles of meeting chairman, proxy gatherer, exerciser of proxys and counter of votes, which is problematic in any fair and open election. Reading that makes me proud of how fair and above board the JTB elections were in 2008. Ironic that the Trust got that bit of the process right. It delivered a good result if I remember. RDR, Red Monkey and Fellow Traveller all in... (awaits Double Ugly blushing at his popularity!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Actually, things might be considerably more straightforward than the murk already described I don't know whether the Companies Act 2006 wouldn't apply to PTFC but there are very clear provisions in there for how you go about removing a director. A full copy of the legislation is available here for those of us suffering from insomnia. Specifically this section would appear to require "special notice" to be given of any plan to remove a director. This was certainly not supplied as part of the agenda which was indicated to re-elect the current board. In other words, shareholders may have chosen not to make the effort to attend a meeting that was arranged at what was an anti-social hour - had they know that a director might be removed as they should have been then they may have made that effort. Now it might be argued that Jim simply failed to be re-elected but the information from the JT shows quite clearly that this was done as a deliberate effort. As such, I fail to see how this section shouldn't have applied. This section shows that it's not simply a matter of courtesy to let a director know that this may be happening - it's a legislative requirement. This section also allows the director under threat of removal to be able to make representations directly to all shareholders. Again, this has clearly not been complied with. So unless someone can confirm the basis by which Partick Thistle FC don't have to comply with this legislation, then it strikes me that the process which has been followed is utterly flawed. Gets back to the usual question - who wanted rid of Jim, and who is responsible for ensuring that the club board meet their legislative requirements in the running of such meetings? Edited February 8, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Small point of pedantry, but does a dead duck quack? Eider rather thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Eider rather thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Eider rather thought not. A coot little pun, m'lady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Small point of pedantry, but does a dead duck quack? That was it's last quacks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Eider rather thought not. A coot little pun, m'lady (so bad I seem to have posted twice) Edited February 8, 2011 by sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Eider rather thought not. Good-job-son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 This is just speculation based on a general dislike of TH and the, now obviously erroneous, view that he had actively canvassed the support of the JT to oust Jim Alexander. There is no evidence for it in anything the JT has said nor has there been any solid info as to how ANY of the individual shareholders, other than the JT, has voted. The figures for the actual meeting were something like 5.07 million pledged against and 1.7 million pledged for Jim Alexander's reappointment. If Tom Hughes didn't vote against the reappointment it means that someone on the board must have (there are just shy of 2 million shares on the board and there are fewer than 9 million shares in circulation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Actually, things might be considerably more straightforward than the murk already described I don't know whether the Companies Act 2006 wouldn't apply to PTFC but there are very clear provisions in there for how you go about removing a director. A full copy of the legislation is available here for those of us suffering from insomnia. Specifically this section would appear to require "special notice" to be given of any plan to remove a director. This was certainly not supplied as part of the agenda which was indicated to re-elect the current board. In other words, shareholders may have chosen not to make the effort to attend a meeting that was arranged at what was an anti-social hour - had they know that a director might be removed as they should have been then they may have made that effort. Now it might be argued that Jim simply failed to be re-elected but the information from the JT shows quite clearly that this was done as a deliberate effort. As such, I fail to see how this section shouldn't have applied. This section shows that it's not simply a matter of courtesy to let a director know that this may be happening - it's a legislative requirement. This section also allows the director under threat of removal to be able to make representations directly to all shareholders. Again, this has clearly not been complied with. So unless someone can confirm the basis by which Partick Thistle FC don't have to comply with this legislation, then it strikes me that the process which has been followed is utterly flawed. Gets back to the usual question - who wanted rid of Jim, and who is responsible for ensuring that the club board meet their legislative requirements in the running of such meetings? I'm reasonably certain that the Companies Act 2006 applies to PTFC. It's largely a rehash of earlier provisions that have existed since well before the Articles of Association were formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunfermline Jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Given the number of votes said to be cast against the re-election of Jim Alexander, the decision must have been taken by the exercise of the votes of a handful of key shareholders: Tom Hughes, the McMasters, Ronnie Gilfillan; the Springfords; David Beattie and Grant Bannerman. That's c. 5m shares with 4m said to be voting against Jim. It's a pretty small pool to pick from, and they can't all know nothing about it. I agree, but my concern is that while the majority of fans on here are quick to lay the blame at Tom Hughes' door - for this and just about everything else that has happened at Firhill in the last 5 years - the role of David Beattie - who seems to me to be thick as thieves with Tom Hughes in this and other aspects of the running of the club - is being all but ignored while HE is the one in the Boardroom and therefor the one we should all be watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Putting aside the puns posts, recent posts from AH, SS and DU raise some serious points and issues, which I feel must be pursued further. TH. Oh what a tangled web he weaves. A cancer we cannot seem to get rid of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I agree, but my concern is that while the majority of fans on here are quick to lay the blame at Tom Hughes' door - for this and just about everything else that has happened at Firhill in the last 5 years - the role of David Beattie - who seems to me to be thick as thieves with Tom Hughes in this and other aspects of the running of the club - is being all but ignored while HE is the one in the Boardroom and therefor the one we should all be watching. Never been convinced about DB (or any other Propco 'investors' who have clear and direct conflict of interests), and agree with DJ, he should be watched closely and challenged at every given opportunity. Puppets; Thick as Thieves; Two-faced; are just a few words that spring to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Never been convinced about DB (or any other Propco 'investors' who have clear and direct conflict of interests), and agree with DJ, he should be watched closely and challenged at every given opportunity. Puppets; Thick as Thieves; Two-faced; are just a few words that spring to mind. It's a bit late for all of that now, as some folk have repeatedly pointed out. At least David Beattie condescends to meet and address the fans. It's the other 'half' of the Propco riddle who concerns me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) And while I'm on a roll, this section of the Companies Act requires that directors be voted on individually unless there has been a vote to allow them to be voted in total that has been passed without any dissent. This has never happened at any previous PTFC AGM that I've attended. The Board of Directors has always been voted en masse and without a prior vote to confirm Edited February 8, 2011 by Allan Heron 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.