Why We Should Support The Board.

[Woodstock Jag]

I've had a dig through the recording of the JT meeting and here are David's comment's verbatim (at 1 hour, 7 minutes, 40 seconds):

 

Questioner: Do the board put a lot of money in the Club themselves, you know digging into their own pocket?

 

DS: I think some people do, I think some people don't.

 

Questioner: Cause you hear about a lot of other teams who are bankrolled by people with money on their board and our board don't seem to be doing that, you know what I mean? Not necessarily like Dundee but...

 

Other Person (cutting across): I think a guy paid £250k for his shares, so I think that's a fair bit of money to me.

 

DS: The reality is that two directors, and I could be wrong in this but my understanding is that two of the directors were a net taker of cash from the business by virtue of the services their companies were providing to the football club and those directors are no longer on the board

[The Devil's Point]

I've had a dig through the recording of the JT meeting and here are David's comment's verbatim (at 1 hour, 7 minutes, 40 seconds):

 

Questioner: Do the board put a lot of money in the Club themselves, you know digging into their own pocket?

 

DS: I think some people do, I think some people don't.

 

Questioner: Cause you hear about a lot of other teams who are bankrolled by people with money on their board and our board don't seem to be doing that, you know what I mean? Not necessarily like Dundee but...

 

Other Person (cutting across): I think a guy paid £250k for his shares, so I think that's a fair bit of money to me.

 

DS: The reality is that two directors, and I could be wrong in this but my understanding is that two of the directors were a net taker of cash from the business by virtue of the services their companies were providing to the football club and those directors are no longer on the board

 

Er, he says he could be wrong?

 

Do you actually know if he is or not?

[Woodstock Jag]

Er, he says he could be wrong?

 

Do you actually know if he is or not?

 

Yes I know he says that. If you look at what I was saying *in context* I was simply responding to northernsoul's recollection of events at the JT Open Meeting, and giving my own personal interpretation of those comments. As far as I can see I've not said anything defamatory and have merely said I would be interested to know the facts.

 

When I said I believed the term used was "net taker" I was referring to David Stewart's comments. That seems to be backed up by the transcript.

 

When I said I believed he didn't restrict it to one director I was again referring to David Stewart's comments. Again that seems to be backed up by the transcript.

 

When I said I was never privy to the actual numbers, I mean I never read or was told the specific amounts directors were purportedly paid for services rendered. I don't think this infers anything.

 

So what's the problem?

Edited February 3, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[potty trained]

Er, he says he could be wrong?

 

Do you actually know if he is or not?

 

 

Hey dog... Leave that bone alone!

 

[The Devil's Point]

Yes I know he says that. If you look at what I was saying *in context* I was simply responding to northernsoul's recollection of events at the JT Open Meeting, and giving my own personal interpretation of those comments. As far as I can see I've not said anything defamatory and have merely said I would be interested to know the facts.

 

When I said I believed the term used was "net taker" I was referring to David Stewart's comments. That seems to be backed up by the transcript.

 

When I said I believed he didn't restrict it to one director I was again referring to David Stewart's comments. Again that seems to be backed up by the transcript.

 

When I said I was never privy to the actual numbers, I mean I never read or was told the specific amounts directors were purportedly paid for services rendered. I don't think this infers anything.

 

So what's the problem?

 

No problem with you, but if I were a registered accountant I wouldn't be happy at being described as a "charlatan" for a start, let alone an incompetent. I also wouldn't like it to be implied that I had drawn up irresponsible budgets or that it be inferred I had entered an improper property transaction.

 

I'd imagine you could get struck off as an accountant over stuff like that so all I am saying is that it might be best to tread carefully.

[Woodstock Jag]

No problem with you, but if I were a registered accountant I wouldn't be happy at being described as a "charlatan" for a start, let alone an incompetent.

 

I happen to think it's the latter. I don't think there's any muddy water in describing the general administration of our club by its directors over the past 5 years minimum as incompetent.

 

I also wouldn't like it to be implied that I had drawn up irresponsible budgets

 

Like, say, budgeting for break-even at 3500 through the gate; or losing £200kpa minimum for 5 consecutive years? The great thing about defamation is the defence of veritas.

 

or that it be inferred I had entered an improper property transaction.

 

My personal opinion is that there was a clear conflict of interest in the way it was handled given several parties were effectively on both sides of the fence. I don't think that's marginal territory as regards legality in the slightest.

 

I'd imagine you could get struck off as an accountant over stuff like that so all I am saying is that it might be best to tread carefully.

 

I am...

[The Devil's Point]

 

Hey dog... Leave that bone alone!

 

 

Yeah you're right.

 

Goodnight all

[Fellow Traveller]

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.

 

Wise words and well meant, I'm sure. But facts are inconvenient things at times.

 

Tom Hughes was, I believe, the financial director of the club at the time of the Propco deal. He was certainly a director of the club.

He was also a private investor in Propco.

He stands to make a personal profit from Propco's success. (As does David Beattie, Eddie Prentice and Billy Allan.)

 

You can say it's damaging to suggest he was on both sides of a property deal, but as a director of one party and an investor in another, how exactly could you argue that this wasn't the case?

 

Jim Alexander was, I understand, involved in an audit being carried out of the club's finances over the recent past.

Tom Hughes was the man in ultimate charge of the finances during that period.

He was instrumental in removing Jim Alexander from the board of the club this week.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no previous example of this happening to a director at Firhill.

 

None of these things are necessarily connected and no wrongdoing is being suggested. But this is the landscape on which events are unfolding and people will look at it, in so far as information is available, and they will draw their own conclusions. Last I heard, that was still legal.

 

I also personally think Tom Hughes did a really fine job at the club up to around 2005 and a godawful one ever since. If that was a widely held view I'm sure it would be bad for his reputation and professional standing, but that would be no one's fault but his own.

[sandy]

Jim Alexander was, I understand, involved in an audit being carried out of the club's finances over the recent past.

Tom Hughes was the man in ultimate charge of the finances during that period.

He was instrumental in removing Jim Alexander from the board of the club this week.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no previous example of this happening to a director at Firhill.

 

 

Does make stark reading, Double Ugly...when the all the facts emerge, this could be messy.

[Fellow Traveller]

Does make stark reading, Double Ugly...when the all the facts emerge, this could be messy.

 

In the interests of absolute fairness and context, you could have quoted the next line as well!

[sandy]

In the interests of absolute fairness and context, you could have quoted the next line as well!

 

Yes, the jury will have to take a balanced view until proven otherwise. Like they had to do with Tommy Sheridan (and we know how messy that one became when the facts emerged...)

[The Devil's Point]

Wise words and well meant, I'm sure. But facts are inconvenient things at times.

 

Tom Hughes was, I believe, the financial director of the club at the time of the Propco deal. He was certainly a director of the club.

He was also a private investor in Propco.

He stands to make a personal profit from Propco's success. (As does David Beattie, Eddie Prentice and Billy Allan.)

 

You can say it's damaging to suggest he was on both sides of a property deal, but as a director of one party and an investor in another, how exactly could you argue that this wasn't the case?

 

Jim Alexander was, I understand, involved in an audit being carried out of the club's finances over the recent past.

Tom Hughes was the man in ultimate charge of the finances during that period.

He was instrumental in removing Jim Alexander from the board of the club this week.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no previous example of this happening to a director at Firhill.

 

None of these things are necessarily connected and no wrongdoing is being suggested. But this is the landscape on which events are unfolding and people will look at it, in so far as information is available, and they will draw their own conclusions. Last I heard, that was still legal.

 

I also personally think Tom Hughes did a really fine job at the club up to around 2005 and a godawful one ever since. If that was a widely held view I'm sure it would be bad for his reputation and professional standing, but that would be no one's fault but his own.

 

I really don't see the point of digging up past things. I think there was a consultation about Propco (I could be wrong, but I thought when I went up to the ground to look at the Architects plans one night that was something to do with the Propco proposals). Anyway, its a done deal now so why on earth dig it up? If you wanted to object you are now surely too late?

 

As for calling in auditors to go over historic accounts, well what is the point of that? Partick Thistle is essentially a struggling small business and needs the pressure and costs involved in digging up accounts like a hole in the head.

 

What are people trying to achieve here? Jim Alexander may well have received poor treatment, I don't know. However, demanding an unnecessary audit strikes me as something only someone with a personal grudge would do as, in the absence of any allegations of wrongdoing there should be no need for it at all.

[honved]

I really don't see the point of digging up past things. I think there was a consultation about Propco (I could be wrong, but I thought when I went up to the ground to look at the Architects plans one night that was something to do with the Propco proposals). Anyway, its a done deal now so why on earth dig it up? If you wanted to object you are now surely too late?

 

As for calling in auditors to go over historic accounts, well what is the point of that? Partick Thistle is essentially a struggling small business and needs the pressure and costs involved in digging up accounts like a hole in the head.

 

What are people trying to achieve here? Jim Alexander may well have received poor treatment, I don't know. However, demanding an unnecessary audit strikes me as something only someone with a personal grudge would do as, in the absence of any allegations of wrongdoing there should be no need for it at all.

 

From what I heard from David Beattie's programme notes I don't think anyone was calling in auditors. I did hear him say that after a review of the club's finances, there was a £100,000 hole in this season's cash flow projection.

[The Devil's Point]

From what I heard from David Beattie's programme notes I don't think anyone was calling in auditors. I did hear him say that after a review of the club's finances, there was a £100,000 hole in this season's cash flow projection.

A lot of that is surely due to the terrible home crowds we've had this season though. I was responding to posts further up the thread where people were talking about demanding audits.

 

I really do think a lot of it is just due to low crowds. I mean I really enjoyed us put six past Stirling and thought we might get at least three thousand through the gate for the Dunfermline game given they were second in the league. Pretty sure we didn't make that, think it was 2850 or so. I think the board have long talked about needing three thousand for every home game so maybe its not that surprising the projections are wrong when folk aren't coming through the gate. I think loads of folk just can't afford to go to Firhill at the moment although hopefully things will pick up if we can keep playing like last Saturday.

[honved]

A lot of that is surely due to the terrible home crowds we've had this season though. I was responding to posts further up the thread where people were talking about demanding audits.

 

I really do think a lot of it is just due to low crowds. I mean I really enjoyed us put six past Stirling and thought we might get at least three thousand through the gate for the Dunfermline game given they were second in the league. Pretty sure we didn't make that, think it was 2850 or so. I think the board have long talked about needing three thousand for every home game so maybe its not that surprising the projections are wrong when folk aren't coming through the gate. I think loads of folk just can't afford to go to Firhill at the moment although hopefully things will pick up if we can keep playing like last Saturday.

 

Bingo. You've nailed it. The projections were wrong. Who's projections I wonder? Where's the plan to adjust the projections? What will those projections be next season? Why am I asking rhetorical questions?

 

Edited to add

 

I'm away to my bed - there's a big game tomorrow and I need to get ready to try to blag my way into the director's box by telling the St Johnstone staff that I'm a club director when I'm not really.

Edited February 5, 2011 by honved

[The Devil's Point]

Bingo. You've nailed it. The projections were wrong. Who's projections I wonder? Where's the plan to adjust the projections? What will those projections be next season? Why am I asking rhetorical questions?

 

Edited to add

 

I'm away to my bed - there's a big game tomorrow and I need to get ready to try to blag my way into the director's box by telling the St Johnstone staff that I'm a club director when I'm not really.

 

Sure, but its hardly wildly unreasonable to suggest that a full time club like Thistle should be able to average three thousand through the gate. If we'd started the season strongly we'd probably have met that target and the board can't tell how well the team is going to do before making their projections. If we continue our current form three thousand plus may quickly become the norm again (we're only a couple of hundred out on last Saturdays figure).

 

Anyway, good luck with getting into the Directors Box!

Edited February 5, 2011 by The Devil's Point

[Vom Itorium]

Yes, the jury will have to take a balanced view until proven otherwise. Like they had to do with Tommy Sheridan (and we know how messy that one became when the facts emerged...)

So messy Billy Davies was alleged to have been involved.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Vom Itorium

[stolenscone]

I really do think a lot of it is just due to low crowds. I mean I really enjoyed us put six past Stirling and thought we might get at least three thousand through the gate for the Dunfermline game given they were second in the league. Pretty sure we didn't make that, think it was 2850 or so. I think the board have long talked about needing three thousand for every home game so maybe its not that surprising the projections are wrong when folk aren't coming through the gate. I think loads of folk just can't afford to go to Firhill at the moment although hopefully things will pick up if we can keep playing like last Saturday.

 

 

If the budgets are regularly out by £300k against revenue of c.£1.5m (that's 20%!), then there is a serious problem with the budget setting and the assumptions that have gone into it. You don't make financial projections on what you hope might happen - at least not if you want to have a business to run for very long - and these guys have been in the game long enough to know what to expect from the business.

 

Once can only hope that after years of repeated failure on this front, the same folk can somehow find a way to get it right next year. I'm not sure what to base such blind optimism on, though, but if I squeeze my eyes tight shut and click my ruby red slippers together three times, maybe I'll end up in Kansas. Maybe...

[jaf]

I really don't see the point of digging up past things. I think there was a consultation about Propco (I could be wrong, but I thought when I went up to the ground to look at the Architects plans one night that was something to do with the Propco proposals). Anyway, its a done deal now so why on earth dig it up? If you wanted to object you are now surely too late?

 

As for calling in auditors to go over historic accounts, well what is the point of that? Partick Thistle is essentially a struggling small business and needs the pressure and costs involved in digging up accounts like a hole in the head.

 

What are people trying to achieve here? Jim Alexander may well have received poor treatment, I don't know. However, demanding an unnecessary audit strikes me as something only someone with a personal grudge would do as, in the absence of any allegations of wrongdoing there should be no need for it at all.

 

OK,there are suggestions of someone acting in an AGM process outwith the ethical code of their professional organisation at the very least, and who knows perhaps even outwith company law. All the facts of this are not known, but they are all out there I guess for someone to collate.

 

It is often commented that our finances are worse than comparable clubs.

 

Over the past number of years that same person has kept a very tight control of financial information and in recent times acted a bit like the book keeper who wont go on holiday - despite resigning his directorship and theoretically giving up responsibility.This is fact.

 

Over those years, the club has got their budgets wrong every year, a budgeting process he oversaw.

 

This year the budgets were shown to be seriously flawed a mere two months into the season. Your point about crowds (a balme the fans diversion) is nonsense, the budgets need subjected to sensitivity and one sensitivity should have been the disengagement of fans because of the actions of certain board members and the present economic climate. 3000fans was ludicrously optimistic and you do not set budgets on what you need to survive , you set them and take difficult decisions based on what you think will happen.

 

The financal internal controls of our club, again under that same individuals control, have been shown to be flawed in recent years. Again fact.

 

Their must be doubts about the competency of his performance in a number of areas over a number of years.

 

Within the last number of years the biggest single transaction the club has done for some time was completed - propco. It was a complex transaction.

 

That transaction saw heavy involvement in the negotiation and liason with professional advisers from the person whose competencies are in doubt. When he was scrambling round looking for investors emails were circulating showing that to be the case, and that he was heavily involved in the transaction. He is an investor in propco but negotiated away the clubs position. Some might say that is a conflict of interest that his professional body would frown at. Some may also say that all those who let him take that role in knowledge of the conflict arein breach of their fiduciary duty to Partick Thistle. Propco was presented as something that needed to be done at the time. We only have the word of one person to that (interestingly the person whose flawed budgetary control had caused it to need to happen). When a group of fans in business and professions sought to meet with the bank at that time to see if alternate straegies could be pursued, the request to meet the bank was declined by this same individual so we only have his word for it.

 

So we have a history of errors in his role. We have a major transaction where there is a perception of a conflict. We have an ethical guide which seems to be ignored.We have some known failures in financial internal controls. And we have this man still seemingly having pretty much unfettered access to run the financial aspects of the club. Do we trust someone with this track record to have concluded the propco deal correctly and should it not be scrutinised given the apparent conflicts? Should the internal controls not be inspected to see if other failures can be prevented?

 

What is there to fear from all this?

 

Is it driven by revenge? Yes, well a desire for accountability. Is it personal revenge? No. My personal view is that over the last five years the financial aspects of Partick thistle Football Club could have been run better; the evidence I think supports that view. Jim Alexander has been held accountible for something - who knows what. But the man responsible for this ongoing financial failure has not.

 

I think there is knowledge of enough thinks having gone wrong to have a look at the past...see if all his firms fees were really worth it, and see whether there are any other skeletons in the closet. What is wrong with that? Your argument seems solely to be that it is in the past. The passing of time should not prevent people to be reassured on matters from the past. I did not know there was time-barring on someone having a view on matters of ethics and competence.

 

I repeat, what is there to fear from this if everything has been done correctly other than the things we already know weren't? And have there not been enough failures in recent times to make one think that perhaps a bit of scrutiny over such matters (especially if they can prevent future failures) is worthwhile? Perhaps it would show everything has been conducted impeccably? Perhaps we two could have a wee wager on that?!

 

Finally, in order to show some balance, I would say that I think he did a great job in the immediate aftermath of Save the Jags. I said that this week in an email. Reputations such as he enjoyed are so hard won, yet so easily lost. His, with me, is lost until it can be proven otherwise by a credible financial review.

[honved]

Sometimes my head reels with all of this, especially when I try to remember to sort out in my head what is actual fact, what is a "secret" that has been shared with me from the Firhill corridors of power (and both sides are good at that one, myself included) and what is conjecture.

 

However the one thing that smells to high heaven is Tom Hughes motivation in plotting to have Jim Alexander voted off as a director. Even if it is just vengeance and not a more sinister reason, is it really something that anyone finds defensible? Unless there's a story about Jim's performance and motivation in relation to PTFC that I haven't yet heard. So far we have his bad grammar, brusque attitude and ability to take credit for other's efforts in the "demerit" column.

 

In Tom's case we have an inability to produce reliable forecasts which impact on the viability of the business and acting on both sides of a transaction where the demise of one party benefits the other.

[yoda-jag]

Very good post Jaf. Sums it all up for me.

 

This HAS to be properly and fully investigated - talking of which, we were told on here a few days ago, the JT were preparing a statement over JA's removal - whatever happened to that?

 

Are the JT going to act in the best interests of the Thistle support and step up to the plate and push for a full audit and investigation here, about the seemingly murky goings-on in the firhill corridors of power and the conflicts of interest, and take it as far and as high in legal system as they can, or are they going to continue to sit on their hands playing the deaf dumb blind toothless body that we have come to know and love so much?

[Third Lanark]

Generally there is a JT summary of the shareholders meeting, but I cant seem to find it has anyone got a link to it?

[Woodstock Jag]

Generally there is a JT summary of the shareholders meeting, but I cant seem to find it has anyone got a link to it?

 

There doesn't appear to be one (yet). By the looks of things the library items on the JT website haven't been updated for a wee while.

[The Devil's Point]

Very good post Jaf. Sums it all up for me.

 

This HAS to be properly and fully investigated - talking of which, we were told on here a few days ago, the JT were preparing a statement over JA's removal - whatever happened to that?

 

Are the JT going to act in the best interests of the Thistle support and step up to the plate and push for a full audit and investigation here, about the seemingly murky goings-on in the firhill corridors of power and the conflicts of interest, and take it as far and as high in legal system as they can, or are they going to continue to sit on their hands playing the deaf dumb blind toothless body that we have come to know and love so much?

 

I agree that Jaf's post is very good and I do see why people are concerned.

 

However, say we revisit all these things and find that there have been improper deals or whatever; what are we realistically going to do about it? There would be no guarantee of success if you took a case to the courts and you could end up costing the club a fortune in expenses. As I keep droning on about, there really doesn't seem to be a lot of actual evidence at present although I suppose you may find something if you do bring in auditors.

 

You could try and prove the Propco deal was improper and challenge it but would that really be sensible now? What would the balance sheet look like if you suddenly tried to reverse all that. Where would that money come from instead?

 

I don't think any small business is run perfectly and you could raise these sorts of complaints in an awful lot of organisations. So far as I can see a lot of financial directors sail pretty close to the wind just to find ways of keeping their business looking like a going concern. With a club like Thistle there will also be the need to try and justify staying full time so I suppose they are going to assume that a full time team will bring fans in. Maybe we should be more prudent and base projections on crowds of 2000, but I suspect that would mean accepting part time football.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I remember saying at the time that the 3000 average gate was way too optimistic. My argument being to achieve that we'd have to average something like 3500 on a normal Saturday to compensate for postponements, rearranged fixtures (cup involvement for us or our our scheduled opponents) or Saturday home games just before Xmas or during a holiday weekend.

I also don't think enough consideration is/was given to why support has been dropping off. I sense the Club/Board/Tom Hughes (take your pick) felt that an upturn in our fortunes on the field was all that was needed to bring the fans back in enough numbers to meet their/his budget projections. They/he overlooked, or rather were/was ignorant, of the other reasons fans were drifting away. I don't need to go into those other reasons, they've been mentioned repeatedly for years, but boredom with the repetitiveness of the SFL divisions (as can be seen from the drop off of visiting support) would be high on my list.