Mediocre Pundit Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 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! This is what I was getting at in my post in the other thread. Shareholders have done this, not the current BoD. And the only reason I can think of for this is a personal grudge. Is there any legal recourse that the club (or anyone) could use to reclaim the shares from TH and BMcM, given the documentary evidence suggested by FT above? (I'm refusing to use your new forum name, the old one was much better...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 This is what I was getting at in my post in the other thread. Shareholders have done this, not the current BoD. And the only reason I can think of for this is a personal grudge. Is there any legal recourse that the club (or anyone) could use to reclaim the shares from TH and BMcM, given the documentary evidence suggested by FT above? (I'm refusing to use your new forum name, the old one was much better...) To an extent i agree with you, but the current BOD are still employing Hughes's company to do the books run the ballot etc and using him and cowan at hospitality on a saturday.... his shares were for free, his company apparently took (or are taking) a wage out of the club. He is no longer one of the custodians of the club so hand your shares back and disappear, your financial mismanagement has taken us to the brink if not beyond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Is there any legal recourse that the club (or anyone) could use to reclaim the shares from TH and BMcM, given the documentary evidence suggested by FT above? (I'm refusing to use your new forum name, the old one was much better...) I think you're right about the grudge, although there's room to speculate on whether it was a grudge to do with Jim's social graces or his hard-headed attitude to unravelling the club's financial innards. You're right about the old name, of course. He'd never be so shallow as to direct you to his blog for a lengthy assault on the competence of Mr Hughes since 2005, whereas I am. Click the signature and feel free to disagree with the contents therein. It's all very mild stuff. We'll get to ethics later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 To an extent i agree with you, but the current BOD are still employing Hughes's company to do the books run the ballot etc and using him and cowan at hospitality on a saturday.... his shares were for free, his company apparently took (or are taking) a wage out of the club. He is no longer one of the custodians of the club so hand your shares back and disappear, your financial mismanagement has taken us to the brink if not beyond I'm not sure that's the case. It may have changed recently but in previous years I'm pretty sure there were no charges to the club from GL&G As for legal recourse, I don't believe there is any. If Tom Hughes or Brown McMaster want to return shares out of the goodness of their heart but there's no way that they can be, effectively, confiscated. The Club board, however, do have a veto over who they may wish to pass the shares onto outside of immediate family Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 We'll get to ethics later. He always was a right kent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 This is what I was getting at in my post in the other thread. Shareholders have done this, not the current BoD. And the only reason I can think of for this is a personal grudge. That as the case may be, the maths suggests that it unlikely that Tom Hughes abstained in the vote given the situation with proxies. Combine that with his role in the approach to the Jags Trust to which at least one current director was privy and involved and his ongoing role at the Club and it seems likely that there was at the very least collusion from one or more members of the Club board in Jim's removal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediocre Pundit Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 That as the case may be, the maths suggests that it unlikely that Tom Hughes abstained in the vote given the situation with proxies. Combine that with his role in the approach to the Jags Trust to which at least one current director was privy and involved and his ongoing role at the Club and it seems likely that there was at the very least collusion from one or more members of the Club board in Jim's removal. Awareness does not equal collusion. Tom Hughes' company does the accounts now but Tom Hughes is not on the BoD. Who was the current board member 'allegedly' involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 That as the case may be, the maths suggests that it unlikely that Tom Hughes abstained in the vote given the situation with proxies. Combine that with his role in the approach to the Jags Trust to which at least one current director was privy and involved and his ongoing role at the Club and it seems likely that there was at the very least collusion from one or more members of the Club board in Jim's removal. Very enlightening thread this (and the one in relation to the BoD), which is why Im up at this time of night when I have a 7:30am start tomorrow. However Im still no closer to understanding the role David Beattie has played in the horrible way in which Jim has been treated. If I remember rightly I read that he was with TH for the approach made to the JTB, is that what you're refering to in the part of the quote I've emboldened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Awareness does not equal collusion. Tom Hughes' company does the accounts now but Tom Hughes is not on the BoD. Who was the current board member 'allegedly' involved? So I go back to the point I have put to the Jags Trust Board: why did TH have access to proxy voting patterns 3 days before AGM, why did he tell the JTB that JJ was on his way out and did they not smell a rat? I would love to know where the north-west 3 really stand on this one. With Peden, with TH, with neither? They bemoaned the changing of the guard when TH/AC 'left'. So are they happy TH is still seemingly pulling the strings? As they said in Dallas, who shot JJ? It's a feckin mess and it needs sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 So I go back to the point I have put to the Jags Trust Board: why did TH have access to proxy voting patterns 3 days before AGM, why did he tell the JTB that JJ was on his way out and did they not smell a rat? Possibly becuase he held the proxy's in his own name and knew exaclty how many votes he had control of. It's also worth remembering that it's perfectly scceptable for shareholders to decide to vote in or our directors as they see fit. It's one of the few powers that they have to exert any influence. I also don't think that there's anything wrong per se that shareholders individually or collectively canvass other shareholders for suport on such an issue. The question here is a murkier one that involves how we got to this position. There are questions over a conflict of interest in Tom Hughes' position as a shareholder who also happens to be a partner in the company that acrs as club secretary. There are issues about the extent to which other members of the board effectively colluded with the removal of Jim (either actively or more passively by failing to support him - the figures certainly suggest the latter is the most likely option for most of the other board members, but there are significant question marks over David Beattie's involvement). But there is nothing wrong with the fundamental principle of shareholders voting to elect/re-elect their board of directors. Someone also mentioned Allan Cowan in an earlier post. Whilst I understand the grouping of him with the other parties involved in this, I think it is worth saying that I've seen or heard nothing to suggest that he was in any involved in what's happened here. Let's not try to further tarnish his name by association. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Possibly becuase he held the proxy's in his own name and knew exaclty how many votes he had control of. It's also worth remembering that it's perfectly scceptable for shareholders to decide to vote in or our directors as they see fit. It's one of the few powers that they have to exert any influence. I also don't think that there's anything wrong per se that shareholders individually or collectively canvass other shareholders for suport on such an issue. The question here is a murkier one that involves how we got to this position. There are questions over a conflict of interest in Tom Hughes' position as a shareholder who also happens to be a partner in the company that acrs as club secretary. There are issues about the extent to which other members of the board effectively colluded with the removal of Jim (either actively or more passively by failing to support him - the figures certainly suggest the latter is the most likely option for most of the other board members, but there are significant question marks over David Beattie's involvement). But there is nothing wrong with the fundamental principle of shareholders voting to elect/re-elect their board of directors. Someone also mentioned Allan Cowan in an earlier post. Whilst I understand the grouping of him with the other parties involved in this, I think it is worth saying that I've seen or heard nothing to suggest that he was in any involved in what's happened here. Let's not try to further tarnish his name by association. Some fair points about how TH might have got access to advance proxy info, thanks Allan; whether it was ethical to do anything with that knowledge is another matter altogether. Jaf has already picked up on the ethical/professionalism angle with regard to how accountants should behave and act. I suspect there is a rich and deep vein to be mined here. Where is Bert Mitchell these days ? I'm still very interested in what TH said to the JTB on the Friday. Was it just 'for info' or was it canvassing for/against JJ ? How did the JTB respond ? I agree re AC, no evidence yet on his involvement. I don't know enough yet to comment on DB. Edited February 2, 2011 by sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm still very interested in what TH said to the JTB on the Friday. Was it just 'for info' or was it canvassing for/against JJ ? How did the JTB respond ? Don't we already know that was precisely what the conversation was about, and that they decided not to support Jim's removal? Short of having line by line detail of the conversation I don't think there's any ambiguity about what happened here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Don't we already know that was precisely what the conversation was about, and that they decided not to support Jim's removal? Short of having line by line detail of the conversation I don't think there's any ambiguity about what happened here. I don't think there has been an official statement from the JTB on this. I gather they may be in a position to issue something after the Meet the Manager event on Thursday. It might confirm what you say, possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I don't think there has been an official statement from the JTB on this. I gather they may be in a position to issue something after the Meet the Manager event on Thursday. It might confirm what you say, possibly. Donald confirmed this in an earlier post iirc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Can anyone clear up the in's and out's of proxy voting? If you hold the proxy vote of a shareholder to vote on their behalf: Must you be aware of how they choose to vote? Can the shareholder give you their vote, on the advice: vote on my behalf, how you see fit? Must you follow their choice through... Do you have the option to vote how you see fit? Cheers PT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Donald confirmed this in an earlier post iirc Donald has also confirmed to me that he hopes to have an official JTB statement soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Can anyone clear up the in's and out's of proxy voting? If you hold the proxy vote of a shareholder to vote on their behalf: Must you be aware of how they choose to vote? Can the shareholder give you their vote, on the advice: vote on my behalf, how you see fit? Must you follow their choice through... Do you have the option to vote how you see fit? Cheers PT I think you can instruct your proxy on how they should vote and they would be expected to stick to that. Not sure how you'd be able to verify that they followed through on this. Not all votes will go to a count (usualy a show of hands is taken and it only goes to a polled vote if that is unclear or a polled vote is requested). Alternatively, you can let them vote as you see fit. On that basis, I'd think that you'd be choosing your proxy on the basis that you knew them and were reasonably familiar with their views. It's usually the case that you can ask the chair to cast your proxy vote as well but that's usually a way of supporting whatever is placed on the agenda by the board. That's all very general - there may be specific requirements in the Articles Of Association that vary practice as far as it applies to PTFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Donald has also confirmed to me that he hopes to have an official JTB statement soon. Real world soon or JT soon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Real world soon or JT soon? I suppose it depends what you told people when you were obtaining the proxies from them, how they would instruct you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I suppose it depends what you told people when you were obtaining the proxies from them, how they would instruct you. Que? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Real world soon or JT soon? Update now on Jags Trust website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 It took a whole week to type that up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trotter Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Rearrange the words: Duck, Deid!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Update now on Jags Trust website. When you see a dog cower before you when you are going to pat it or if it rolls on it back urinating, it is showing signs of submissive behavior or avoidance. Even ordinarily submissive dogs can become extremely submissive if its owner misunderstands and unintentionally forces it to increase its submissiveness. Mistreated dogs may also become excessively submissive. A harsh voice may turn the submissive animal into a quivering mess. Edited February 7, 2011 by yoda-jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 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. 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.