Mediocre Pundit Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Apologies MP, I meant Firhillista!! No worries! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 GrantB, stolenscone, NS and WJ have all made some excellent and (pardon the pun) on the money posts in this thread. To those defending the board/shareholders or suggesting we just let the them get on with it. Sorry, but NO. Unless you don't want a club for your children and grandchildren to go see in decades to come, or if a PTFC did exist, it would be playing (at best) in 2nd or 3rd (or regional west) division, away from our current home, in a tinpot souless ground that the club doesn't own, and with no chance of ever returning to the 2nd top tier, let alone the top tier of Scottish football. Jaf's post sums it up well too, with particular regard to TH and JA. 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. 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 Completely agree, especially the emboldened part - if ever the Trust has to grow a pair and act on behalf of the interests of Thistle support and the club, it's now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 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.... Maybe the fans might end up with something to fear from this........ I agree with the sentiment and general thrust of Firhillista's posts, particulary regarding feeling there is no time to commit etc. Also agree it should be ok to enjoy just going to a game on a Saturday without feeling you should take on even more tasks to try and fit in. I don't think its that people don't care, its just there is only so much that it is physically possible to do in a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I remember at the Jags Trust public meeting at Glasgow University a few months back it was stated that one out of the three board members who had stepped aside (Cowan, Hughes and Prentice) had been taking money out the Club. Now a few weeks or months prior to that we found out Prentice was on a £35k salary. If this was common knowledge at the time maybe who stolenscone was referring to wasn't Prentice? Could it have been Hughes? Edited February 1, 2011 by northernsoul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 He is like the book keeper who never goes on holiday. Next we'll hear one of his staff is working in the office at firhill..... oh.. wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I remember at the Jags Trust public meeting at Glasgow University a few months back it was stated that one out of the three board members who had stepped aside (Cowan, Hughes and Prentice) had been taking money out the Club. Now a few weeks or months prior to that we found out Prentice was on a £35k salary. If this was common knowledge at the time maybe who stolenscone was referring to wasn't Prentice? Could it have been Hughes? I think the term used was "net taker" and I don't think he restricted it explicitly to one director. I must admit I was never privy to the actual numbers beyond the well-known Eddie Prentice salary. I took it as a given that he meant the obvious (Prentice) but was making a thinly veiled hint about Tom Hughes and the services provided by GLG. I would be very interested to see what fees have been associated with activities carried out by GLG on behalf of the Club for the past 4-5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 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. This. To me this is the biggest problem. When Tom Hughes met with the JT board and they were apparently offered some kind of deal on the board rep situation, the outcome of the vote had pretty much been decided. Who is to say that the other votes against (or those not voting at all) JA hadn't been bought by offering various incentives? We will never know of course, which i guess is what makes us speculate. Most of the votes lie outwith the boardroom so in a sense, the current board are just puppets, who cannot really pass anything at AGM without the 75% or so of votes currently held by those outwith the boardroom. I do think it is important to separate the board and shareholders. I personally believe that, despite Propco, the current board are doing the best they can in difficult circumstancies. For me it is the 75% of shareholders not currently on the board but who can effectivly control our club, that are the biggest problem. I have no solutions, but I do think that our anger at the current board is largly misdirected. I should probably add that I do not have a clue who JA is, and that my only dealings with him were via this forum when he was defending the board postition re: the JT board rep situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think the term used was "net taker" and I don't think he restricted it explicitly to one director. I must admit I was never privy to the actual numbers beyond the well-known Eddie Prentice salary. I took it as a given that he meant the obvious (Prentice) but was making a thinly veiled hint about Tom Hughes and the services provided by GLG. I would be very interested to see what fees have been associated with activities carried out by GLG on behalf of the Club for the past 4-5 years. Hmm, I can't remember that myself but it doesn't matter. What matters is that Club money was being taking out of the Club to whoever (Prentice) or whatever (possible) company when it should have remained in the Club, where it belonged. Disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) This. To me this is the biggest problem. When Tom Hughes met with the JT board and they were apparently offered some kind of deal on the board rep situation, the outcome of the vote had pretty much been decided. Who is to say that the other votes against (or those not voting at all) JA hadn't been bought by offering various incentives? We will never know of course, which i guess is what makes us speculate. Most of the votes lie outwith the boardroom so in a sense, the current board are just puppets, who cannot really pass anything at AGM without the 75% or so of votes currently held by those outwith the boardroom. I do think it is important to separate the board and shareholders. I personally believe that, despite Propco, the current board are doing the best they can in difficult circumstancies. For me it is the 75% of shareholders not currently on the board but who can effectivly control our club, that are the biggest problem. I have no solutions, but I do think that our anger at the current board is largly misdirected. I should probably add that I do not have a clue who JA is, and that my only dealings with him were via this forum when he was defending the board postition re: the JT board rep situation. That'll be the same 75% who only have these shares as they were divvied up to these 'custodians' to ensure there was always a Partick Thistle Football Club. I was at the meeting to disolve the shares all those years ago and it couldn't be trumpeted more how important this was to the future well being of the club to save us from another Ken Bates. Edited February 2, 2011 by Vom Itorium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carefulpuntgeorge Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Let's not lose sight of the fact that JA was a meglomaniac, took credit for the work of others and cannot use correct grammar. (Remember his manifesto for getting elected?!?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Obviously a matter of personal taste, but when it comes to being a custodian of the club's future, I'd always choose a guy with an ego and bad grammar over a backstabbing wee sh*t who can't get the numbers right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 2, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Obviously a matter of personal taste, but when it comes to being a custodian of the club's future, I'd always choose a guy with an ego and bad grammar over a backstabbing wee sh*t who can't get the numbers right. He shoots. He scores! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) 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? jaf, whilst I agree that it would be appropriate for the Trust to demand a full financial audit I'm not sure they'd have the abolity to require that to happen so that all that may be left is for us to ponder on the what the implications of a refusal would be. (Edited to add - also worth noting that the accounts are audited by Milne Craig who I don't think have any links with any of this weeks' events. To what extent would this be different from thee work they undertake in reviewing the accounts?) You've mentioned in another thread about some areas where you consider that there may be some ethical issues. What paths are open to shareholders (whether via the Trust or anyone else who holds shares) to pursue these with the relevant professional bodies. Edited February 2, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Obviously a matter of personal taste, but when it comes to being a custodian of the club's future, I'd always choose a guy with an ego and bad grammar over a backstabbing wee sh*t who can't get the numbers right. In other circles, the only response to that would be "Telt". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 In other circles, the only response to that would be "Telt". The poor man was unfortunate enough to be sitting 2 rows in front of me on Saturday. Back on topic, I totally agree with Double Ugly's point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 jaf, whilst I agree that it would be appropriate for the Trust to demand a full financial audit I'm not sure they'd have the abolity to require that to happen so that all that may be left is for us to ponder on the what the implications of a refusal would be. (Edited to add - also worth noting that the accounts are audited by Milne Craig who I don't think have any links with any of this weeks' events. To what extent would this be different from thee work they undertake in reviewing the accounts?) You've mentioned in another thread about some areas where you consider that there may be some ethical issues. What paths are open to shareholders (whether via the Trust or anyone else who holds shares) to pursue these with the relevant professional bodies. I agree they would not have the clout, but why would it be resisted? It needs to be a well run well argued campaign and dig in for a long haul. I think your point re Milne Craig is irrelevant. Whilst i would not like to underestimate the good work of any auditor(!), history is littered with things which auditors have missed. The audit process starts with an assessment of risk at the planning stage. This risk assessment looks at the financial internal controls of a business. How are ours? Robust? How have they changed over the years? Have they always been accepted as reliable by the auditors? Or only up until there was an alleged fraud by an employee at the club? See my point? It is not for me to decide whether there has been ethical issues. I simply posted what the rules are. I was not present at the meeting, but the language of the ethical guide is pretty clear, so for those who may feel wronged or those who were at the meeting, they may have an opinion as to whether that code has been breached. From the sidelines, I am sure we can all make our own judgements once the facts are known. Any pursuit under this would only be revenge motivated as there is only real remedy under law. Important though it is to Jim, it is not as serious, for example, if someone advised on two sides of a property deal or something. Other remedies exist however, and so if someone felt aggrieved, concerned, and motivated to do so further financial investigations could be made, particularly if that person(s) knew where the bodies were buried (assuming of course there are bodies). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Any pursuit under this would only be revenge motivated as there is only real remedy under law. Important though it is to Jim, it is not as serious, for example, if someone advised on two sides of a property deal or something. An entirely hypothetical point of comparsion, of course Thanks for the response - just looking to understand what some of the available options might be. As you say, if there is nothing to hide then why should such a request be refused. I also see the point being made about the differences between what would be sought in such a situation, and what would have been covered (or not uncovered) by Milne Craig. In summary, such independent scrutiny (and I use this to distinguish it from the audit word) would be looking to cast the net more widely than might otherwise be the case (and which is not to suggest any malfeasance on the part of Milne Craig). Indeed, albeit that it's probably a relatively standard inclusion Milne Craig's report has usually suggested that the club is unable to sustain itself as a going concern based on the information in the accounts. Edited February 2, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediocre Pundit Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Obviously a matter of personal taste, but when it comes to being a custodian of the club's future, I'd always choose a guy with an ego and bad grammar over a backstabbing wee sh*t who can't get the numbers right. Excellent post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think the term used was "net taker" and I don't think he restricted it explicitly to one director. I must admit I was never privy to the actual numbers You seem to be suggesting that something fishy is going on here. Any actual evidence of wrongdoing?.....or is all this innuendo just based on gossip, speculation and hearsay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas clark Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) It seems to me that we assume too much sense in a Board of Directors. Where was the 'sense' displayed by the banks that brought us to our knees? Just saying that that is a larger issue that kind of supports the idea that BoDs are not saints exactly. But they do, generally have an interest in keeping their business's going, it is after all a status or revenue stream for them. I seem to recall that, back in the 1920's, the entire idea of 'The Jags' was treated as an entertainment media, much like Barnums' Circus and 'The movies'. That was the competition for a working mans shilling. People made money out of it. Exploited it even. And here we are now, nearly a century on, still unable to accept that people that do put money into the club - pay off debts, try to keep it alive, are a tad worse than people like you and me that just pay money at the turnstile for entertainment? --------------------------------------- I think the assumed model that you are all working on is nothing to do with Dundee or Falkirk, it has to do with ES Clydebank. Where I do think a club was ruined. Perhaps deliberately. I do not think that that is happening at our club. Sorry guys. It has not been typical of the death of clubs in Scotland, generally it has been down to a lack of a person(s) of means. I think we should do two things: Firstly we should remind the Sultan of Brunei of some scottish and preferably Thistle connection. As we did, away back at the original Save the Jags mad and desperate times... Secondly, we should all buy enormous numbers of Euro Lottery tickets. Because, realistically, we do not otherwise have influence. _________________________________________ Or, you have to shout in the face of any Board member, or majority shareholder: "We are Thistle! We are! We are!" And see what reaction you get. I think that would solve it for us. It's in their eyes. Edited February 2, 2011 by douglas clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 You seem to be suggesting that something fishy is going on here. Any actual evidence of wrongdoing?.....or is all this innuendo just based on gossip, speculation and hearsay? Nothing fishy implied in net taker. I simply mean a net taker. Services rendered for Club vs Financial input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Nothing fishy implied in net taker. I simply mean a net taker. Services rendered for Club vs Financial input. My apologies for the poor quality of my fish pun. I thought you weren't privy to the actual numbers so how are you assessing whether services rendered were fair and reasonable? My question was do you have any evidence of actual wrongdoing or are you basing all of this on gossip, speculation and hearsay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 My apologies for the poor quality of my fish pun. Missed that first time round... I thought you weren't privy to the actual numbers so how are you assessing whether services rendered were fair and reasonable? I'm not assessing whether they wee fair and reasonable. I'm just saying what I took stolenscone's words to mean when he said what he said at the JT Open Meeting. My question was do you have any evidence of actual wrongdoing or are you basing all of this on gossip, speculation and hearsay? For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not inferring wrongdoing from the mere assertion that some (then) directors were net takers from the Club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Missed that first time round... I'm not assessing whether they wee fair and reasonable. I'm just saying what I took stolenscone's words to mean when he said what he said at the JT Open Meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not inferring wrongdoing from the mere assertion that some (then) directors were net takers from the Club. Not having a go at you here. I appreciate you are probably purely concerned about the future of the club. If no wrongdoing is being inferred then that's fair enough. However, I think its generally unwise in life for anyone to imply stuff about people without having the evidence to back it up. Edited February 3, 2011 by The Devil's Point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Not having a go at you here. I appreciate you are probably purely concerned about the future of the club. If no wrongdoing is being inferred then that's fair enough. However, I think its generally unwise in life for anyone to imply stuff about people without having the evidence to back it up. What someone has told you someone else has said is considered hearsay evidence and is generally inadmissable. I'd advise anyone who wants to make potentially defamatory allegations or even innuendo's to make damn sure they have the evidence to back their claims. Frankly, if I were a moderator I'd have taken this thread down way before now. But I do agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I certainly never want to fall out with any fellow Jags fan over anything basically. I have been wrong before :thumbsup2: I've tried to make it abundantly clear that I am only saying how I interpreted the (recorded) comments of the then JT Chair. I don't think I've imputed anything potentially defamatory (indeed it's not *that* unusual for directors to draw money from a football club for services rendered.) It is, I think a separate issue from the substantive points at hand. Edited February 2, 2011 by Woodstock Jag 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.