Why We Should Support The Board.

[sandy]

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?

 

Yoda, I believe the JTB Secretary (Donald) aims to post an official JT response to last weeks events later this evening or tomorrow. I'd imagine it will be very interesting to see what they say about TH communication and their reaction and response. Just for the record, I don't know what happened nor what the JTB are prepared to say!

 

I'd hope we can discern the true influence of the NW3 in all of this....

Edited February 5, 2011 by sandy

[sandy]

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.

 

 

I'm actually thinking I'd rather have bad grammer (sic) and a brusque attitude in the Boardroom right now - infinitely preferable to shadowy financial and legal practices me thinks.

 

Oops, bad grammar there !

[jaf]

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?

 

Clearly a reversal of the transaction is not realistic, so whats to be gained?

 

1. IF, and I say IF, there were things wrong with the transaction that for example meant that the deal was at under value, I dare say that could be pursued (not against the club costing them money) but against individuals. Not that I am suggesting this happened for one minute, however who knows what might be found.

 

2. IF it were found the financial past was strewn with errors/mistakes/misjudgements/controls that dont work/etc etc might that embolden the current board to relieve TH of his duties and therefore provide peace of mind that the mistakes of the past will not therefore be repeated, and the expenses of those mistakes not recur?