northernsoul Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) You have information to that effect? Please share it. In the meantime, join the small but growing band of Jags fans who are a little concerned about the concentration of power at the club and property company in the hands of two individuals. In black and white on a nice shiny A4 sheet of paper for you? No. Sorry. I'm not bothered if you or no one else takes my word for it. It's fact. Edited January 31, 2011 by northernsoul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 You have information to that effect? Please share it. In the meantime, join the small but growing band of Jags fans who are a little concerned about the concentration of power at the club and property company in the hands of two individuals. I think it was Jim who managed to persuade Billy Allan to come on board. I could be wrong. This really does stink to high heaven, though. Quite what objection someone could have to Jim on the board I do not know. It's high time Hughes and McMaster handed their shares back and put people who actually have a meaningful and lasting desire to give the Club a future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Can you post the content ? cant get to it from work Afraid not, tried to copy & paste but is just a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Custodians of the club my ****** arse. We are being taken to the brink by the ones who were supposed to be there to protect the club, and are now systematically destroying what little there is left to ensure their egos remain inflated. Anyone involved in this should never be allowed to darken the doors of Firhill again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I could not make it to the AGM, but I understand that Jim was voted off the board today. I also understand that the Trust did not vote to support Jim's removal, but perhaps someone who attended could confirm. I am personally very sorry to see Jim go. He is certainly a firey character and not to everyone's taste as a result, but few could question that he has spent his money and time in support of the football club over the past few years. In my opinion, his passion for the club is also unquestionable. I hope that you enjoy your enforced retirement from the board, Jim, and thanks again for your efforts on our behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I hope that you enjoy your enforced retirement from the board, Jim, and thanks again for your efforts on our behalf. You're right when you say the Trust voted for 'no change'. Rumours on the linked thread suggest it was even offered the coveted board spot in exchange for doing so. It seems it still has principles, even if it's largely ineffetive. Edited January 31, 2011 by The Incredible Adam Spark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Did they change the name to Propco Thistle while they were at it? Maybe those who buried their heads in the sand about the fact that the Hughes/Cowan resignations were a total sham will wake up and smell the stench now...too late as always. Hilarious if Hughes used his free shares which were given out to stop the club falling into the hands of property developers to vote Jim A off the board and tighten the grip of his co-investors in Propco. What an ethical swamp these toerags crawl around in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediocre Pundit Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Did they change the name to Propco Thistle while they were at it? Maybe those who buried their heads in the sand about the fact that the Hughes/Cowan resignations were a total sham will wake up and smell the stench now...too late as always. Hilarious if Hughes used his free shares which were given out to stop the club falling into the hands of property developers to vote Jim A off the board and tighten the grip of his co-investors in Propco. What an ethical swamp these toerags crawl around in. Can anyone elighten me as to who raised whatever motion was required to not vote JA back on? I'm not au fait with AGM protocol. Who started the "vote of no confidence" and who supported it? And who backed JA? Any abstentions? (with all due respect I only really care about those with significant shareholdings...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collins Out! Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 The "St Francis of the High Flats" comments he made before getting on the board always stuck in my craw , but at least the guy seemed active around the stadium on match-days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Can anyone elighten me as to who raised whatever motion was required to not vote JA back on? I'm not au fait with AGM protocol. Who started the "vote of no confidence" and who supported it? And who backed JA? Any abstentions? (with all due respect I only really care about those with significant shareholdings...) The only significant purpose of the AGM is to vote for the board of directors to continue or otherwise. I understand that the rough voting figures were 4 million against to 1 million for. That four million is awfully close to being the total holding of McMaster, Hughes, Prentice and Springford. Can't be certain that this is the case though as it was a secret ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I'm not bothered if you or no one else takes my word for it. Yet you felt compelled to share it with everyone. Edited January 31, 2011 by McKennan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think it was Jim who managed to persuade Billy Allan to come on board. I could be wrong. So, it's a stretch of imagination to say that Billy Allan would play a part in his ouster? Will we ever find out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 So, it's a stretch of imagination to say that Billy Allan would play a part in his ouster? Will we ever find out? As it's a closed vote, the answer to that may be no. But I don't believe this came from within the boardroom. In any event, I still don't think that Billy Allan owns any shares in the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie Of The Month Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 It seems any time we get to feel good about the club that someone has to ruin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 You're right when you say the Trust voted for 'no change'. Rumours on the linked thread suggest it was even offered the coveted board spot in exchange for doing so. It seems it still has principles, even if it's largely ineffetive. That's interesting if true. Talk about not a pot to piss in or a window to chuck it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 But I don't believe this came from within the boardroom. HW thread suggesting Beattie voted against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 As it's a closed vote, the answer to that may be no. But I don't believe this came from within the boardroom. In any event, I still don't think that Billy Allan owns any shares in the club. Yet he seems to be a leading power broker at the club and property company. What a web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Sh*t, that seems to have shut pusses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alx Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I understand that the rough voting figures were 4 million against to 1 million for. That four million is awfully close to being the total holding of McMaster, Hughes, Prentice and Springford. Can't be certain that this is the case though as it was a secret ballot. That's the 2+2=4 obvious revenge reason that a lot of people will jump to. What a shower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 As it's a closed vote, the answer to that may be no. But I don't believe this came from within the boardroom. In any event, I still don't think that Billy Allan owns any shares in the club. If this never came from within the boardroom then who is responsible for offering the Jags Trust their place on the BoD in exchange for their votes (if this is indeed true)? If this is true and the JT rejected the offer then they should be commended imo. However, if it is true then did they have any clue at the time of the offer that JA would be forced out with or without the votes from the JT? What a sorry state of affairs, a handful of people not on the BoD having enough shares to rule the roost from afar...and these shares were given to them in order to safeguard the Club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Sh*t, that seems to have shut pusses. Is this our Zapruder footage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Come on JJ, let's hear from you. There's a lot of questions to be answered and goodwill to be had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCjag Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is this our Zapruder footage? Well we already have the grassy mound! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 If this never came from within the boardroom then who is responsible for offering the Jags Trust their place on the BoD in exchange for their votes (if this is indeed true)? The answer is probably the same people who deprived the Jags Trust of its position on the board in the first place, or leastways those whose purpose would be served by not having the trust's voting power on the board. I see the beginnings of fingerpointing at the McMasters and Norman Springford. Fingers pointed everywhere but at the folk who now determine the direction of the club. The folk who are bankrolling the club because it's a bust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 If this never came from within the boardroom then who is responsible for offering the Jags Trust their place on the BoD in exchange for their votes (if this is indeed true)? If this is true and the JT rejected the offer then they should be commended imo. However, if it is true then did they have any clue at the time of the offer that JA would be forced out with or without the votes from the JT? What a sorry state of affairs, a handful of people not on the BoD having enough shares to rule the roost from afar...and these shares were given to them in order to safeguard the Club Now this is all conjecture........ If the Trust had provided their support, there would have been enough votes their to guarantee them a place on the board regardless of the views of the current board of directors..... .... but moreso, there would very probably have been enough votes for the old guard to get themselves back whether that's with or without the current board of directors. I do believe that there was sufficient knowledge of the votes being in the bag (including proxies) that the outcome might have been assured. Whether this was made clear to the Trust or not remains to be seen, but you don't canvass support for something on the basis that you're not going to be succesful. Anyway, nothing to beat a good conspiracy theory!! 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.