Why We Should Support The Board.

[Firhillista]

A lot has been made of the voting off the board of Jim Alexander. There have been calls for demonstrations of the ‘sack the board’ variety and the boycotting of future income-generating exercises instigated by the board, many of these views apparently generated by concerns that the current board members are involved in steering the club towards eventual ruin through the ‘Propco’ scheme, either due to their incompetence or a desire to make financial gain from running down the club. It would appear that Jim Alexander is now being seen as a ‘white knight’ fans’ representative who was standing in the way of the controlling interests at the club from pursuing their incompetent/nefarious intentions. As far as I can see, the background to these concerns appears to be a view that the club needs to be run by ‘the fans’ and that if this could be achieved, all would be well.

 

It is my opinion that much of the vitriol directed at the current board is misplaced. Seen within the context of the wider world of Scottish football – Dundee, Queen of the South, Falkirk, Dunfermline, Rangers (!) – it is hardly surprising that Partick Thistle are experiencing financial concerns: we are hardly alone in this. The actions of the current board and the management team appear to me to have stabilised things to the point where we can look to the future with some degree of confidence. The £!00,000 shortfall is being addressed, we’re signing players on full-time contracts for the next two years and our youth policy is beginning to pay off. The current board and management team must be given credit for this. The view that the people currently in charge at the club are out to ‘do a Third Lanark’ seems to me ridiculous – there are much easier, and less risky, ways of making money. Why would anyone – not least self-proclaimed Thistle fans – put their funds and reputations at stake to make a profit out of the club’s demise? (And let’s not forget that the example of Third Lanark proved that as a means of making money it doesn’t work very well.)

 

Much of the ill-feeling directed towards the board seems to stem from a view that ‘the fans’ should be running things. Well, as a fan, can I say that I don’t want to be involved in running the club. I’ve got enough to get on with in the real world without getting caught up in the wacky world of professional football. I don’t want to attend meetings, I don’t want to sell stuff or come up with fund-raising ideas or any of the hundred-and-one other things involved in ‘running the club’. Sure, I’d do my bit if ‘Save the Jags 2’ came along, but as a natural part of being a Thistle fan? No thanks. And I’m not alone: the vast majority of Thistle fans don’t want to be involved in running the club either; witness the turn-out at the last ‘Meet the Board’ night. I’ll pay my money (season ticket, match programme, half time draw tickets, Centenary Fund and so on), watch the team and shout myself hoarse, but at the end of the game I’m back to real life and the problems there.

 

So I’m just glad there’s some folk with more money and more time than me to keep the club going. And as far as I can see the current board seem to be doing okay. I’ve never met Mr. Alexander, but from his posts on this forum and some of the things I’ve heard about his views, it doesn’t seem to me too difficult to imagine that his voting off the board is about the ‘chemistry with some of the other shareholders’ quoted by David Beattie in today’s Times.

 

I’ve never understood the fury that the composition of the Thistle board seems to create. For most of my time as a Thistle fan I have had no idea who’s on the board and often I’d have been pushed to identify the chairman. I accept these are difficult times and we have to be aware of what’s going on, but isn’t it possible that we’re maybe being a little paranoid? Just a thought.

[Martin]

A lot has been made of the voting off the board of Jim Alexander. There have been calls for demonstrations of the ‘sack the board’ variety and the boycotting of future income-generating exercises instigated by the board, many of these views apparently generated by concerns that the current board members are involved in steering the club towards eventual ruin through the ‘Propco’ scheme, either due to their incompetence or a desire to make financial gain from running down the club. It would appear that Jim Alexander is now being seen as a ‘white knight’ fans’ representative who was standing in the way of the controlling interests at the club from pursuing their incompetent/nefarious intentions. As far as I can see, the background to these concerns appears to be a view that the club needs to be run by ‘the fans’ and that if this could be achieved, all would be well.

 

It is my opinion that much of the vitriol directed at the current board is misplaced. Seen within the context of the wider world of Scottish football – Dundee, Queen of the South, Falkirk, Dunfermline, Rangers (!) – it is hardly surprising that Partick Thistle are experiencing financial concerns: we are hardly alone in this. The actions of the current board and the management team appear to me to have stabilised things to the point where we can look to the future with some degree of confidence. The £!00,000 shortfall is being addressed, we’re signing players on full-time contracts for the next two years and our youth policy is beginning to pay off. The current board and management team must be given credit for this. The view that the people currently in charge at the club are out to ‘do a Third Lanark’ seems to me ridiculous – there are much easier, and less risky, ways of making money. Why would anyone – not least self-proclaimed Thistle fans – put their funds and reputations at stake to make a profit out of the club’s demise? (And let’s not forget that the example of Third Lanark proved that as a means of making money it doesn’t work very well.)

 

Much of the ill-feeling directed towards the board seems to stem from a view that ‘the fans’ should be running things. Well, as a fan, can I say that I don’t want to be involved in running the club. I’ve got enough to get on with in the real world without getting caught up in the wacky world of professional football. I don’t want to attend meetings, I don’t want to sell stuff or come up with fund-raising ideas or any of the hundred-and-one other things involved in ‘running the club’. Sure, I’d do my bit if ‘Save the Jags 2’ came along, but as a natural part of being a Thistle fan? No thanks. And I’m not alone: the vast majority of Thistle fans don’t want to be involved in running the club either; witness the turn-out at the last ‘Meet the Board’ night. I’ll pay my money (season ticket, match programme, half time draw tickets, Centenary Fund and so on), watch the team and shout myself hoarse, but at the end of the game I’m back to real life and the problems there.

 

So I’m just glad there’s some folk with more money and more time than me to keep the club going. And as far as I can see the current board seem to be doing okay. I’ve never met Mr. Alexander, but from his posts on this forum and some of the things I’ve heard about his views, it doesn’t seem to me too difficult to imagine that his voting off the board is about the ‘chemistry with some of the other shareholders’ quoted by David Beattie in today’s Times.

 

I’ve never understood the fury that the composition of the Thistle board seems to create. For most of my time as a Thistle fan I have had no idea who’s on the board and often I’d have been pushed to identify the chairman. I accept these are difficult times and we have to be aware of what’s going on, but isn’t it possible that we’re maybe being a little paranoid? Just a thought.

 

I agree, "sack the board" is the easy and often the wrong answer.

 

Personally I was never impressed by Jordanhill Jags rants prior to getting on the board - he does seem to have done some good but I won't shed a tear now he is gone.

 

"Back the team" not "Sack the board"

[GrantB]

A lot has been made of the voting off the board of Jim Alexander. There have been calls for demonstrations of the ‘sack the board’ variety and the boycotting of future income-generating exercises instigated by the board, many of these views apparently generated by concerns that the current board members are involved in steering the club towards eventual ruin through the ‘Propco’ scheme, either due to their incompetence or a desire to make financial gain from running down the club. It would appear that Jim Alexander is now being seen as a ‘white knight’ fans’ representative who was standing in the way of the controlling interests at the club from pursuing their incompetent/nefarious intentions. As far as I can see, the background to these concerns appears to be a view that the club needs to be run by ‘the fans’ and that if this could be achieved, all would be well.

 

It is my opinion that much of the vitriol directed at the current board is misplaced. Seen within the context of the wider world of Scottish football – Dundee, Queen of the South, Falkirk, Dunfermline, Rangers (!) – it is hardly surprising that Partick Thistle are experiencing financial concerns: we are hardly alone in this. The actions of the current board and the management team appear to me to have stabilised things to the point where we can look to the future with some degree of confidence. The £!00,000 shortfall is being addressed, we’re signing players on full-time contracts for the next two years and our youth policy is beginning to pay off. The current board and management team must be given credit for this. The view that the people currently in charge at the club are out to ‘do a Third Lanark’ seems to me ridiculous – there are much easier, and less risky, ways of making money. Why would anyone – not least self-proclaimed Thistle fans – put their funds and reputations at stake to make a profit out of the club’s demise? (And let’s not forget that the example of Third Lanark proved that as a means of making money it doesn’t work very well.)

 

Much of the ill-feeling directed towards the board seems to stem from a view that ‘the fans’ should be running things. Well, as a fan, can I say that I don’t want to be involved in running the club. I’ve got enough to get on with in the real world without getting caught up in the wacky world of professional football. I don’t want to attend meetings, I don’t want to sell stuff or come up with fund-raising ideas or any of the hundred-and-one other things involved in ‘running the club’. Sure, I’d do my bit if ‘Save the Jags 2’ came along, but as a natural part of being a Thistle fan? No thanks. And I’m not alone: the vast majority of Thistle fans don’t want to be involved in running the club either; witness the turn-out at the last ‘Meet the Board’ night. I’ll pay my money (season ticket, match programme, half time draw tickets, Centenary Fund and so on), watch the team and shout myself hoarse, but at the end of the game I’m back to real life and the problems there.

 

So I’m just glad there’s some folk with more money and more time than me to keep the club going. And as far as I can see the current board seem to be doing okay. I’ve never met Mr. Alexander, but from his posts on this forum and some of the things I’ve heard about his views, it doesn’t seem to me too difficult to imagine that his voting off the board is about the ‘chemistry with some of the other shareholders’ quoted by David Beattie in today’s Times.

 

I’ve never understood the fury that the composition of the Thistle board seems to create. For most of my time as a Thistle fan I have had no idea who’s on the board and often I’d have been pushed to identify the chairman. I accept these are difficult times and we have to be aware of what’s going on, but isn’t it possible that we’re maybe being a little paranoid? Just a thought.

 

So we should just sit back and let Tom Hughes rip the out of the club and fans then?

 

If you want Partick Thistle to be here in the future, you should be worried. I'm not that fussed about us being 'fan owned' either but I do want people running the club in a way that will sustain it for the future.

 

Say what you like about Jim but he put in a power of work on matchdays and was the one visible member of the boardroom who could be approached by the supporters.

[stolenscone]

I'm not that fussed about us being 'fan owned' either but I do want people running the club in a way that will sustain it for the future.

/quote]

 

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Grant here. It's not about seeking to pick holes in every decision that the Board make. To a certain extent, directors of any football club put a lot of their own time, energy and money into their roles.

 

What is important, however, is to have confidence that the people who are tasked with running the club, whoever they may be, are up to the task and can demonstrate a willingness and an ability to balance budgets to ensure the safety of the club. If that results in full time football and a shot at the Champions League, then great. If it means part-time football at the foot of the 1st Division, then fine - it's up to the fans to provide more support to allow that to change.

 

What happens on the pitch is down to the manager and players. It is up to the board to work within budget and ensure that the business is run as efficiently as possible, to give the manager the best possible chance (and to ensure that they pick the best manager for the job). It's up to the supporters to lend their support to the team, both vocal and financial, to give the board and the team something to work with.

 

If folk are happy that they have the right people making the decisions at each step of the chain, then good. If they aren't, then they are entitled to question and seek to change that for the better.

[Woodstock Jag]

I don't think the source of the criticism has anything to do with Jim being projected as an infallible white knight or indeed a presumption that fan ownership is the only answer. The problem here is where the balance of power now lies and what the real intentions are of those who hold it.

 

The Club Board itself has two individuals who are balls deep in PropCo: David Beattie and Billy Allan. Asides that there's two guys who seem to put money in (in the form of sponsorship etc) but aren't as actively involved in the running of the Club. Even if Beattie and Allan have the best interest of the Club at heart, it is not healthy for them to be unchecked at board level. They have a clear conflict of interest.

 

Now ask yourself why Tom Hughes is even still involved AT ALL at the football club. He was supposed to have resigned his position on the Club Board alongside Cowan and Prentice, with a hand-over period of his responsibilities. This is the Finance Director who got the budgets wrong year on year for about 5 years minimum. Now look at who's handling the finances: Gerber Landa and Gee (the company in which he's a partner). I have heard that a full independent audit of the accounts was supposed to be about to take place, and that Jim was the one looking to push it through.

 

Suddenly we have an AGM and Tom Hughes (remember, NOT a director of the football club) contacts the Jags Trust and tells them that they've received proxy votes to remove Jim Alexander from the BOD. They ask them how they intend to vote. He's then also overheard before the AGM discussing his proxy votes with another individual. Does that not stick out like a sore thumb as something not right?

 

Bear in mind that proxy votes are supposed to be kept in the strictest of confidence unless the shareholder has specifically authorised that proxy be made public or it is required to be disclosed for legal reasons.

 

Then there's the small matter of Tom Hughes ALSO having a financial interest in the Property Company. It is in his interests that there is as little administrative obstacle to the PropCo doing what it likes with the land in question. Indeed, he would stand to benefit financially (as would other PropCo investors) if the Club encountered further financial difficulties. They have priority purchase right over the Club's share of PropCo and in a depressed market they could in theory buy the rest of the land dirt cheap. The whole of Firhill is worth a hell of a lot more to a developer than a couple of slithers.

 

But let's go back to the accounts. If a full audit was being fought for, why would anyone oppose such an audit unless there was something "unusual" in the accounts. Does it not strike you as odd that an ex-director should be so anxious to retain some sort of executive control over the Club's accounting?

 

You make reference to other Clubs in financial difficulty, but then bizarrely use that as an excuse for things being rotten at the core of the Partick Thistle power-game. The point is that Clubs like Dundee and Falkirk and Rangers and Queen of the South and Dunfermline are fighting for their financial survival BECAUSE of jiggery pokery with the finances, some more serious than others. The people at the top of the game have a vested interest, and in the Thistle situation it is even more acute.

 

Everyone just wants to be a fan. But the fact is everything that happens behind the scenes has a direct and lasting impact on what happens on the pitch. You can't be a fan if there's no stadium to sit in, no players to play and no Club in existence to support.

 

Full fan ownership doesn't have to be the answer; I don't think our fans have the time energy and desire to go down a proper sustainable model on that basis. What it does not do, though, is make it okay for the guys with lots of money to stack the cards in their favour so when the Club collapses, they walk away having lined their pockets.

 

We've seen these "new dawns" before but even the best case scenario is grim: even if these guys have the best interests of the Club at heart, it's being undermined by petty past factions who just don't have the integrity to let go when their time has passed. Tom Hughes should have absolutely nothing to do with the running of Partick Thistle, and it's actually worse if he's unaccountably pulling the strings of those who are on our current board.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Firhillista]

As I've already indicated, I have neither the energy nor the inclination to delve into the murky depths of boardroom politics. I accept that may be a failing on my part. However, I have read on this forum (and its predecessors) for some years now that the club is going to disappear unless 'something is done' about the board. Is it possible that this is an over-reaction? My main concern is with statements such as "The point is that Clubs like Dundee and Falkirk and Rangers and Queen of the South and Dunfermline are fighting for their financial survival BECAUSE of jiggery pokery with the finances, some more serious than others" which appears to suggest that the financial difficulties of Scottish football are due to nefarious behaviour by directors. This seems to me to be palpably ridiculous, ignoring the wider economic context altogether. All I'm suggesting is that might it be possible that board members - past and present - have been attempting to do their best for the club with varying degrees of success? Is it necessary to represent board members as either incompetents or charlatans?

[Mediocre Pundit]

I honestly believe that we're making far too much out of this.

 

DB and BA were integral in getting JA on the PTFC BoD at the same time as they "encouraged" AC, TH and EP to leave. I believe DB and BA would still like JA to serve on the BoD.

 

Unfortunately, the PTFC BoD owns around 2m shares in PTFC. There are many shareholders outwith the BoD who, combined, own a lot more shares than this. And if some of them bore a grudge against JA, or even DB/BA if they're REALLY narrow-minded, they could use this shareholding to get JA off the board. The rest of the PTFC BoD would be powerless to stop it.

 

The main concern that I have is that at a time when the BoD, team and fans appear to be uniting, some of our shareholders have chosen to take an action that impedes our BoD's vision of the club for their own petty reasons. TH, BMcM and NS should hand their free shares back now - they've proven to be anything but safe custodians of our club. And if the fans now turn on the BoD that would just make this little victory all the sweeter for some of our shareholders...

[Woodstock Jag]

As I've already indicated, I have neither the energy nor the inclination to delve into the murky depths of boardroom politics. I accept that may be a failing on my part. However, I have read on this forum (and its predecessors) for some years now that the club is going to disappear unless 'something is done' about the board. Is it possible that this is an over-reaction?

 

Okay, so you don't think that a Club that's losing more than £200kpa on a turnover in the region of £2 million and has sold half its stadium is in serious financial trouble when the guy with the calculator that caused that is still there?

 

My main concern is with statements such as "The point is that Clubs like Dundee and Falkirk and Rangers and Queen of the South and Dunfermline are fighting for their financial survival BECAUSE of jiggery pokery with the finances, some more serious than others" which appears to suggest that the financial difficulties of Scottish football are due to nefarious behaviour by directors. This seems to me to be palpably ridiculous, ignoring the wider economic context altogether.

 

Well it's not ridiculous. On the most part it's true. There are some directors with much better (though far from perfect) track records (Geoff Brown at St Johnstone; Rod McDonald at Hamilton) but then you have the Calum Melvilles and Masones who raise the fans' hopes with empty bluster and with a reckless disregard to treating their Clubs like a business leave them on the brink.

 

All I'm suggesting is that might it be possible that board members - past and present - have been attempting to do their best for the club with varying degrees of success? Is it necessary to represent board members as either incompetents or charlatans?

 

If essentially the same people fail over a 10 year period, they clearly are incompetents or charlatans.

[Firhillista]

Yes. But. We don't exist in a vacuum. The financial difficulties faced by Partick Thistle are shared by every club in the land, including our biggest and most successful. By over-focusing on Thistle it's possible to see what's happened as the incompetence/chicanery of a few individuals; if you take a step back, it looks more like the effect of a much wider malaise that's affected the whole of Scottish football. I accept that this doesn't excuse board members from being held accountable for their actions, but I also suggest that it's not necessarily as straightforward as some bad people being out to get us.

[Woodstock Jag]

Unfortunately, the PTFC BoD owns around 2m shares in PTFC. There are many shareholders outwith the BoD who, combined, own a lot more shares than this. And if some of them bore a grudge against JA, or even DB/BA if they're REALLY narrow-minded, they could use this shareholding to get JA off the board. The rest of the PTFC BoD would be powerless to stop it.

 

The thing is if you look at the arithmetic and the way that Tom Hughes and a current director conducted themselves prior to the vote, it would be completely irrational for them not to at least vote in favour of keeping Jim on the Board. My understanding is that of major shareholders the JT and Grant Bannerman voted for Jim (that's just shy of 1.5 million shares). If the rest of the Club Board voted in Jim's favour, that would have generated just shy of 3 million votes for Jim.

 

Now given that one of those shareholdings is held by the director who is understood to have been in consultation with Tom Hughes (who also owns 1million shares) when contacting the Trust, it surely follows that the reason they both sought that meeting must have been because they were of like mind. If that then means the current board endorse Jim, Tom Hughes ought to have followed suit: just shy of 4 million shares in Jim's favour. That would only leave McMaster (1040k), Springford (1m), Prentice (1m), Jim Oliver (500k), Duncan Stewart (500k) and Robert Smith (200k) with shareholdings of note. I have absolutely no doubt that at least 1million of those shares would have been inactive, possibly 2million. That would mean Jim's position was safe.

 

The only possible conclusion we can reach, therefore, is that Tom Hughes did not endorse Jim Alexander. We also know that he was overheard discussing several persons' proxies and that he appears to be advising and courting support of elements of the current board. Can we then or can we then not presume that he must have abstained or voted against Jim Alexander's re-election? If he, Beattie and Gillfilan abstained, that takes 2.5 million shares out of the equation. That means you would have needed a co-ordinated set of proxies from a combination of McMaster, Springford, Prentice Jim Oliver and Duncan Stewart, several of whom have absolutely no active involvement in the Club anymore, to reach a figure of 4 million votes against Jim's reappointment.

 

It stinks. It stinks to high heaven.

 

The main concern that I have is that at a time when the BoD, team and fans appear to be uniting, some of our shareholders have chosen to take an action that impedes our BoD's vision of the club for their own petty reasons. TH, BMcM and NS should hand their free shares back now - they've proven to be anything but safe custodians of our club. And if the fans now turn on the BoD that would just make this little victory all the sweeter for some of our shareholders...

 

Norman Springford's shares were bought, but you're right about McMaster's and Hughes.

[stolenscone]

I accept that this doesn't excuse board members from being held accountable for their actions, but I also suggest that it's not necessarily as straightforward as some bad people being out to get us.

 

 

We agree!

 

Over the past 10 years, the debt has been allowed to build up to what are now problematic proportions, with the business regularly losing close to £300,000 per year. By any reckoning, that cannot continue, and with tighter constraints on the availability of credit, we can all rest assured that the bank simply won't allow it to carry on. It seems from the previous accounts that the gap was plugged in 2008/2009 by running into difficulty with the tax man. What happened in 2009/2010 to make it any better, and what's the plan for next year and beyond? It will be the end of the club if it's not addressed.

 

Yes, we have probably become inured over the years to cries of impending financial meltdown, but any business in the country that has a turnover of our size, the debts that we have, and regular six figure holes in the budget, has every right to be worried. Like it or not, football is part of the real world, although I appreciate that people want to go to the game on a Saturday to get away from their worries.

 

The three options are (i) sustainable spending and a management who can keep a tight reign on the budget; (ii) relying on a sugar daddy or daddies to regularly plug the gap; or (iii) oblivion. There is no fourth option.

 

Given what has happened to Gretna, Livingston, Dundee and others who relied on wealthy individuals to keep afloat, it's little wonder that sugar daddies are no longer attractive to anyone. So, the question is really quite simple -- are you comfortable that the people who are setting the budgets are up to the task?

 

Many people will point to past failures to balance the budget and wonder if the involvement of the people who were tasked with that over the years sould be allowed to continue, if indeed they are involved. Partick Thistle belongs all of us, in the sense that we all have an emotional investment in ensuring that it continues to be there to provide us that that escape on a Saturday, that's irrespective of who owns the shares or makes the decisions.

 

Some people will find that they just haven't got the time or inclination to question whether the club is being run properly to ensure that it can exist for years to come. Others will feel differently.

 

Are other clubs in similar difficulty? I've no doubt that they are, but I don't care about other clubs; I care about this one. Will Falkirk going to the wall stop the same from happening to Thistle? No. So it's an irrelevance to point to other clubs and then sit back as though we don't have a problem - we do!

[Vom Itorium]

I honestly believe that we're making far too much out of this.

 

DB and BA were integral in getting JA on the PTFC BoD at the same time as they "encouraged" AC, TH and EP to leave. I believe DB and BA would still like JA to serve on the BoD.

 

Unfortunately, the PTFC BoD owns around 2m shares in PTFC. There are many shareholders outwith the BoD who, combined, own a lot more shares than this. And if some of them bore a grudge against JA, or even DB/BA if they're REALLY narrow-minded, they could use this shareholding to get JA off the board. The rest of the PTFC BoD would be powerless to stop it.

 

The main concern that I have is that at a time when the BoD, team and fans appear to be uniting, some of our shareholders have chosen to take an action that impedes our BoD's vision of the club for their own petty reasons. TH, BMcM and NS should hand their free shares back now - they've proven to be anything but safe custodians of our club. And if the fans now turn on the BoD that would just make this little victory all the sweeter for some of our shareholders...

They don't own them, they are custodians of them to protect the club from falling into the hands of unscrupulous folk that don't have the club at heart. At least that was the plan all those years ago during the Save the Jags campaign.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Vom Itorium

[Firhillista]

"Are other clubs in similar difficulty? I've no doubt that they are, but I don't care about other clubs; I care about this one. Will Falkirk going to the wall stop the same from happening to Thistle? No. So it's an irrelevance to point to other clubs and then sit back as though we don't have a problem - we do!"

 

At no point did I say that we didn't have a problem. I've repeatedly made reference to our financial difficulties. But it's not helpful to examine Thistle's position in total isolation to the wider world. The economic and social situation the club has been working within over the past ten years is absolutely relevant. We don't exist in some kind of Maryhill bubble. The directors have been dealing with the same economics that have adversely effected many - if not all - of the other clubs in Scotland. If this is acknowledged then any criticism of their performance - however justified - has to be to some extent mitigated. I believe they've probably doing their best in very difficult circumstances. And, yes, I wish they had done better!

[Woodstock Jag]

At no point did I say that we didn't have a problem. I've repeatedly made reference to our financial difficulties. But it's not helpful to examine Thistle's position in total isolation to the wider world. The economic and social situation the club has been working within over the past ten years is absolutely relevant. We don't exist in some kind of Maryhill bubble. The directors have been dealing with the same economics that have adversely effected many - if not all - of the other clubs in Scotland.

 

Oh absolutely, but the point is our financial situation has got considerably worse than many of those around us, and it's been the same folk holding the levers the whole time. Whether that is down to incompetence or malice isn't clear, but neither are satisfactory.

 

If Microsoft starts losing £10 billion a day because of a corrupt or incompetent director (let's say they'd have otherwise lost £2 billion a day), the fact that Apple might be losing £5 billion a day because of a similarly but less corrupt or incompetent director doesn't make it okay. That director should still have absolutely nothing more to do with that company and a more honest or more competent director should replace him, free from encumbrance of the old guard sticking their noses in again and again.

 

If this is acknowledged then any criticism of their performance - however justified - has to be to some extent mitigated.

 

Why?

 

I believe they've probably doing their best in very difficult circumstances. And, yes, I wish they had done better!

 

I'd love to believe they are. I really would. If they are though, their best isn't good enough.

[Mr Bunny]

"Are other clubs in similar difficulty? I've no doubt that they are, but I don't care about other clubs; I care about this one. Will Falkirk going to the wall stop the same from happening to Thistle? No. So it's an irrelevance to point to other clubs and then sit back as though we don't have a problem - we do!"

 

At no point did I say that we didn't have a problem. I've repeatedly made reference to our financial difficulties. But it's not helpful to examine Thistle's position in total isolation to the wider world. The economic and social situation the club has been working within over the past ten years is absolutely relevant. We don't exist in some kind of Maryhill bubble. The directors have been dealing with the same economics that have adversely effected many - if not all - of the other clubs in Scotland. If this is acknowledged then any criticism of their performance - however justified - has to be to some extent mitigated. I believe they've probably doing their best in very difficult circumstances. And, yes, I wish they had done better!

 

The economic problems the whole country's suffering only started to bite in the last couple of years. Our debt and the mismanagement that caused and/or exasperated it has been going on much longer. This isn't something that just came up in the last few months, it's been going on for the last ten years at least and that's something that worries a lot of us.

 

And it's not all down to the general conditions in Scottish football - some clubs are in a worse state than others and that is down to a great extent to the people in charge of them.

 

I think you'll find we all forget it for a few hours when we're at the game supporting the team - but at other times we might worry about whether there'll be a team in the future.

[stolenscone]

I believe they've probably doing their best in very difficult circumstances. And, yes, I wish they had done better!

 

 

It sounds from this as though you think that we've probably got the best folk that we could expect to have making these decisions. If that's the case, then you're probably right to disagree with any people who want to protest.

 

My own view - financally, the accounts tell a tail of a downward spiral over the last 10 years (stripping out extraneous events / luck / recessions). We're at crunch time because of the recession, but that's not why we've, by and large, had unsustainable losses over the last 10 years.

 

I think we can do better, but there, I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

 

For what it's worth, I think that your views are well put and I suspect that we agree on much of the substance. When it's all added up, we just happen to come to a different result. I can hardly criticise you for that, although we can certainly disagree.

[northernsoul]

Agree with Woodstock Jag.

 

It's not the current BoD I have a problem with. The people in charge now didn't get us into the financial shit we've been in for years now. They were not the ones running the Club at a loss.

 

It's the fact that previous Board members, who were handed millions of shares for free to "safeguard" the Club were the ones who did get us into the financial shit and did run the Club at a loss continuously still have influence in these votes.

 

The problem I have is with a good section of the shareholders. Hughes in particular, word is he used the Masters votes to his advantage.

 

Hughes and the McMasters can all get themselves to ****.

[Woodstock Jag]

Although, northernsoul, recent events suggest to me that those with shares still hold the cards in the boardroom even though most of them aren't there. I'm not comfortable at all with what seems to be a rather cosey mutual interest between some who remain on the Board and those who must have voted to remove Jim Alexander.

 

Edit: that mutual interest, of course being the Property Company.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[GrantB]

Agree with Woodstock Jag.

 

It's not the current BoD I have a problem with. The people in charge now didn't get us into the financial shit we've been in for years now. They were not the ones running the Club at a loss.

 

It's the fact that previous Board members, who were handed millions of shares for free to "safeguard" the Club were the ones who did get us into the financial shit and did run the Club at a loss continuously still have influence in these votes.

 

The problem I have is with a good section of the shareholders. Hughes in particular, word is he used the Masters votes to his advantage.

 

Hughes and the McMasters can all get themselves to ****.

 

This.

 

Our club will continue to stay in the dark ages as long as McMaster and Hughes have any input into the running of the club.

[northernsoul]

The fact that Cowan and Hughes are still around match day hospitality, on the mic (and terrible at that) speaks volumes. They act as if they are still in charge. Sad thing is, going by yesterdays events they still are to a certain degree.

[Ross]

The fact that Cowan and Hughes are still around match day hospitality, on the mic (and terrible at that) speaks volumes. They act as if they are still in charge. Sad thing is, going by yesterdays events they still are to a certain degree.

 

I think I've just came.

[jaf]

I think its quite simple.

 

Yes, there are general economic difficulties at the moment; our problems have existed longer and in many different guises.

 

The man at the helm of finances has REPEATEDLY overseen budgets prepared which have been proven to be nonsense with seriously flawed assumptions, financial internal controls have been weak allowing problems to occur also on his watch, and there are probably some other issues we dont know about. His regime as FD is one of repeated failure and under performance in recent years.

 

He has never been held to account.

 

He is like the book keeper who never goes on holiday. There are many examples floating round of his refusal to give up finacial controls of the club.

 

The Trust really should be demanding a full financial audit of the financial records for, lets say the last four years. As someone says further up the thread, what have they to fear from this.....it may show up that everything has been well managed and Tom Hughes perceived reputation may be restored.

 

Finally, for all those who think the treatment of Jim Alexander was fair. I think people should seek to live their lives the way that you yourself would like to be treated. I think the treatment of Jim has been shameful, and probably unethical.

 

MP, is there anything that Tom Hughes could have done during his time presiding over the club that would make you feel he should no longer be anywhere near the club? Or will you be an apolgist for him whatever he has done?

[Norgethistle]

 

The man at the helm of finances has REPEATEDLY overseen budgets prepared which have been proven to be nonsense with seriously flawed assumptions, financial internal controls have been weak allowing problems to occur also on his watch, and there are probably some other issues we dont know about. His regime as FD is one of repeated failure and under performance in recent years.

 

He has never been held to account.

He is like the book keeper who never goes on holiday. There are many examples floating round of his refusal to give up finacial controls of the club.

 

The Trust really should be demanding a full financial audit of the financial records for, lets say the last four years.

 

This on top of Jim about to start an internal audit of our finances when.... oh he's removed from office by the finance man rallying his pals (and propco buddys) round to vote him off.

 

I smell a rat.

 

The trust if it has any fight left must ask for a full audit (independant, not from Hughes's company) and let us all see what is really going on, this smells like the Hi-his all over again, decemation of a football club for personal gain through a property deal

[Mediocre Pundit]

I think its quite simple.

 

Yes, there are general economic difficulties at the moment; our problems have existed longer and in many different guises.

 

The man at the helm of finances has REPEATEDLY overseen budgets prepared which have been proven to be nonsense with seriously flawed assumptions, financial internal controls have been weak allowing problems to occur also on his watch, and there are probably some other issues we dont know about. His regime as FD is one of repeated failure and under performance in recent years.

 

He has never been held to account.

 

He is like the book keeper who never goes on holiday. There are many examples floating round of his refusal to give up finacial controls of the club.

 

The Trust really should be demanding a full financial audit of the financial records for, lets say the last four years. As someone says further up the thread, what have they to fear from this.....it may show up that everything has been well managed and Tom Hughes perceived reputation may be restored.

 

Finally, for all those who think the treatment of Jim Alexander was fair. I think people should seek to live their lives the way that you yourself would like to be treated. I think the treatment of Jim has been shameful, and probably unethical.

 

MP, is there anything that Tom Hughes could have done during his time presiding over the club that would make you feel he should no longer be anywhere near the club? Or will you be an apolgist for him whatever he has done?

What part of my post did you think was an apology for Tom Hughes? Read it again please.

[jaf]

Apologies MP, I meant Firhillista!!