Members Willjag Posted February 24, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 But as you know it's not as simple as that. A lot of the shareholders are hardly ever in any sort of contact with Jim Alexander whatsoever. I recall a poster elsewhere saying at the time that Brown McMaster had said he never voted for Jim's removal. That could be true if he gave Tom Hughes his (and Norman Springford's) proxy vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebridean jag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 well in my opinion the speculation assumptions and conclusions on this topic are off the mark....a director was voted off the board by most of the shareholders because he rubs them up the wrong way.....happens all the time move on and that merits `who cares zzzzzzz` stupid thoughtless post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I recall a poster elsewhere saying at the time that Brown McMaster had said he never voted for Jim's removal. That could be true if he gave Tom Hughes his (and Norman Springford's) proxy vote. From what I've heard the McMaster family shares were used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I recall a poster elsewhere saying at the time that Brown McMaster had said he never voted for Jim's removal. That could be true if he gave Tom Hughes his (and Norman Springford's) proxy vote. One of the (very much unconfirmed) rumours I heard was that there were over 2 million "open proxies" (that is proxies with no specific desired intention attached) held and exercised by an individual at the AGM. If they had been exercised the opposite way Jim would have been re-elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 It's really hard to know what's going on when people in control at the club insist on playing things so close to their chests, but here's a theory... The real important item of business on the agenda at the AGM was item 5: To remove Share Capital limit and extend authority of the Board of Directors to issue shares. I'd guess that's an essential first step to let them unveil whatever membership scheme they've got in the pipeline. This was the significant long-term change made at the AGM and it's not hard to imagine that they contacted some major shareholders to secure their proxies in order to make sure this item was passed without any problem. Because every other change they make to the structure of the club will stem from the removal of that limit. It wouldn't be at all surprising if the fate of Jim Alexander wasn't even discussed with the shareholders when those proxies were gathered in from them. But when the moment came along and someone's sitting there with a few million votes in his mitts and a chip on his shoulder - and no express instructions not to vote in this way - then it's just too good an opportunity to pass up. Like I say, just a theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Neither as old nor as...och I can't say that. No not Allan Heron....my tambourine playing talents do not come close to matching his!! This is what it's come to then. Poor old jaf being mistaken for me!! And I can't match jaf's taste in shirts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) It's also worth pointing out that for all that Tom Hughes is no longer a member of the Club Board per se, he IS an office holder. Given there are circa 9 million shares in circulation, 1.92 million on the board, 1 million in his possession that means 2.92 million shares are held by people who have some sort of official office-bearing capacity at Firhill. 6.7 million share-votes were cast in the re-election vote. Crude maths says that leaves a shade over 2 million shares not exercised. Even if one (and it only could be one: GB or DB) of the board members voted in Jim's favour, that still leaves 2.42 or 2.5 million shares belonging to office holders. So at least one office holder must have voted against Jim's re-appointment. That means it's not just a shareholder's revolt with Club officials looking-on passively and neutrally. As fans, I think we have a right to know what reason that minimum of one Club official had for DEFINITELY exercising their vote against Jim's reappointment. Edited February 25, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 From someone who attended the last open meeting the only thing I can say to folk on here, who raise very good points is to attend the next one, planned before the end of the season. The turn out for the last meeting was poor and Beattie encouraged those who were there to double the turn out for the next one. It will be your best opportunity to question Beattie, face to face on all the issues. It really is time for us as the fans to step it up a gear and attend these meetings (if you can) instead of not bothering to go and coming on the forum where the discussion is wasted if we won't receive any answers. Time to take this discussion and all the points raised into the Aitken Suite for the next meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) It's really hard to know what's going on when people in control at the club insist on playing things so close to their chests, but here's a theory... The real important item of business on the agenda at the AGM was item 5: To remove Share Capital limit and extend authority of the Board of Directors to issue shares. I'd guess that's an essential first step to let them unveil whatever membership scheme they've got in the pipeline. This was the significant long-term change made at the AGM and it's not hard to imagine that they contacted some major shareholders to secure their proxies in order to make sure this item was passed without any problem. Because every other change they make to the structure of the club will stem from the removal of that limit. It wouldn't be at all surprising if the fate of Jim Alexander wasn't even discussed with the shareholders when those proxies were gathered in from them. But when the moment came along and someone's sitting there with a few million votes in his mitts and a chip on his shoulder - and no express instructions not to vote in this way - then it's just too good an opportunity to pass up. Like I say, just a theory. Of course, the whole question of who was actually holding the proxy is somewhat unknown. However, if they were being held by the Chair of the meeting rather than by AN Other shareholder it is more than customary in such situation that is being done with the express intention of supporting the position on any issue held by the board. Going by the questionnaire, I don't think the membership club being mooted is in any way linked to shares. I'd have given a different response to the question had that been explicit. Edited February 25, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 That means it's not just a shareholder's revolt with Club officials looking-on passively and neutrally. Which is the crux of the matter. You usually go into AGM's of this nature and the policy of the board is to seek the re-election of all its' members. You would expect that shares either held by board members or proxied to the chairman to be voted in this manner. Collective responsibility and all that. Any deviation from that seems to me to reflect both a break in that collective responsibility (which is, after all, the legal position) and tantamount to a desire to remove a director which is subject to explicit provisions under the Companies Act 2006 which have not been followed (as I've detailed elsewhere) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Of course, the whole question of who was actually holding the proxy is somewhat unknown. However, if they were being held by the Chair of the meeting rather than by AN Other shareholder it is more than customary in such situation that is being done with the express intention of supporting the position on any issue held by the board. Going by the questionnaire, I don't think the membership club being mooted is in any way linked to shares. I'd have given a different response to the question had that been explicit. I'm sure it didn't go down exactly as I've stated, Allan. That's just my personal best guess based on what seems to have taken place, filtered through my low opinion of some of the individuals concerned. Quite where the membership scheme comes into it, I don't exactly know - it'll be interesting to see what emerges. But with plenty of shares still unallocated and no sign of any other investors beating a path to our door, I'm not sure what other purpose could lie behind that move. Perhaps it was explained with crystal clarity at the AGM and one day the Trust might get around to reporting on that to the lowly membership. It's just confusing to see the share capital featuring in a motion like that when Billy Allan's example shows that you don't even need to purchase a single share to be a major player at the club these days. More questions than answers, as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Oh go on then DU or Clueso or whoever you are,I'll subscribe to your theory. Thing is, its quite easily confirmed, with a conversation with Springford or McMasters. I have to say, if that is the case, and open proxies were sought with knowledge they would be used for that purpose (which the Trust meeting would bear out that it was preconceived) but with the fact they would be used for that purpose omitted from the reasons for getting the proxy from the shareholders, then Beattie is on a sticky wicket going on the record saying it was a shareholder matter. He is perpetuating the myth. I have always thought Beattie's judgement must be clouded if he is willing to invest his own reputation in Hughes. Does anyone remember that Blackadder episode with Pitt the Younger where Edmund Blackadder was the voter and the parliamentary agent? This AGM would seem to have been conducted a bit like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcapmilkdrinker Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) The real important item of business on the agenda at the AGM was item 5: To remove Share Capital limit and extend authority of the Board of Directors to issue shares. Why would the existing shareholders agree to the removal of a provision that entrenches their hold over the club? Maybe they weren't told? However if they have worked out a dodgy way around it how can the club expect the poor punter to pay for shares without any realistic chance of the fans holding a significant balance of power? Edited February 25, 2011 by madcapmilkdrinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 I don't know enough to condemn the current Directors and the much criticised recently departed former Directors as Their Satanic Majesties but I do think that there are legitimate questions to be asked...and no particular sign that answers will be forthcoming. However, as far as I can see your only contribution to this forum is to reply on threads like this invariably to defend the Board of Directors and to dismiss all criticism as trivial and pointless. That is entirely legitimate and welcome as any debate benefits from the voicing of a contrary view. I do however wonder why this seems to be the only issue that interests you enough to post, particularly when your view is that it doesn't matter. Do you have any opinions on League Reconstuction, part-time football, the playing surface at Firhill, the potential of the young players, Simon Donnelly, or anything else relating to Partick Thistle? i think a quick check on my posts over the years will indicate i post on a number of issues so im not sure what your beef other than i dont agree with you? i have lots of opinions just not yours and im not apologising for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Why would the existing shareholders agree to the removal of a provision that entrenches their hold over the club? Maybe they weren't told? However if they have worked out a dodgy way around it how can the club expect the poor punter to pay for shares without any realistic chance of the fans holding a significant balance of power? We're lacking in detail about the precise intention of the agenda item at the AGM but the share structure of the club can't be amended without the consent of shareholders which is what was being sought by inclusion of this on the agenda. Of course, that detail was not provided to shareholders in advance of the meeting as far as I am aware. And you can add to that the anti-social time that the meeting was held (and held at that time, it might be added, for the benefit of a non-shareholding member of the board who was still unable to attend) which would have impacted on the ability of many individual shareholders to attend. Not a good mix and it's small wonder that what might be a routine motion starts to stink to high heaven. If the club would rather people didn't invent conspiracies, it would help greatly if their behaviour didn't appear so conspiratorial. I think the intent is to allow the club to be able to issue additional shares without specific approval from the shareholders. It's not clear why they feel the need to do this, especially as the existing share capital of the club is not fully subscribed. If I was a shareholder then I'd vote against this if it was presented as a general relaxation rather than as a specific requirement with a specific objective. Edited February 25, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 I used to post on those endless music threads, but I am old and boring now so do so no more!! Its a fair point....the difference i guess between javeajag and i apart from a fundamental diagreement as to the competencies and perceived conflicts of interest of Tom Hughes, is that anyone who really wants to know, can easily work out or find out who I am.....whilst javeajag wears a (very thin) cloak of anonymity...some of his posts (ie zzzzing a longstanding and respected fan of the club) would be most unbecoming of a club official IMO, but then I have a different moral and ethical code to some of those connected with the Board. The fans of Partick Thistle have been emotionally blackmailed, bullied, taken for granted long enough, and until that ends,I intend to keep posting my opinions on those who do not come up to conduct and performance levels we should be able to expect from them, both on this forum and offline, and I of course agree javeajag is entitled to continue to post his alternate views. this is actually a good example of why people might not post... given the innuendo etc dished out....for the record i am an ordinary fan who happens to be a season ticket holder, i dont know personally or otherwise anyone on the board and have no connection with them at all, i have a few shares bought years ago, am a member of the jags trust and have been a thistle fan for 40 years...and ill post what i like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 i think a quick check on my posts over the years will indicate i post on a number of issues so im not sure what your beef other than i dont agree with you? i have lots of opinions just not yours and im not apologising for that So you've posted on threads re "League Reconstuction, part-time football, the playing surface at Firhill, the potential of the young players, Simon Donnelly" Please accept my apology for a previous post. I also got the impression that you were a one issue poster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 i think a quick check on my posts over the years will indicate i post on a number of issues so im not sure what your beef other than i dont agree with you? i have lots of opinions just not yours and im not apologising for that In the main forum you've posted loads of posts in threads marked: David Beattie Jim Alexander Question Re. Billy Allan Eddie Prentice Good Ridence Cowan And Hughes? Planning Application Now Submitted. you've also made a post in 1 Just In thread and a thread marked New Barcelona Top and something about You Have To Laugh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 ... i have a few shares bought years ago Hehheh I have precisely 20 a shares and 100 b shares.....! oh yes if the club goes tits up I could have lots of shares worth hee haw But in reference to propco application being submitted in July last year you said: Well I bought some shares in the club through this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 this is actually a good example of why people might not post... given the innuendo etc dished out....for the record i am an ordinary fan who happens to be a season ticket holder, i dont know personally or otherwise anyone on the board and have no connection with them at all, i have a few shares bought years ago, am a member of the jags trust and have been a thistle fan for 40 years...and ill post what i like! Read my post again...I was defending your right to have an alternate view and to post that view, i said that very explicitly. You can apologise anytime you want to...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter of '63 Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 i think a quick check on my posts over the years will indicate i post on a number of issues so im not sure what your beef other than i dont agree with you? i have lots of opinions just not yours and im not apologising for that Well I did specifically say that your contributions were "entirely welcome and legitimate". I don't post regularly on threads about the Board because as I stated I don't know enough to have a particular opinion. I feel slightly uncomfortable about you becoming an object of scrutiny on here but I was genuinely curious why an ordinary fan would post so regularly on one specific subject only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Interesting blog article Some familiar concepts in there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 But in reference to propco application being submitted in July last year you said: Not sure what the point of this is but I have the shares listed and looked at propco but didn't think it was a good investment....there was abtime when you Gould buy club shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Read my post again...I was defending your right to have an alternate view and to post that view, i said that very explicitly. You can apologise anytime you want to...... Happy yo but my point wasn't re my right to post but the innuendo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 In the main forum you've posted loads of posts in threads marked: David Beattie Jim Alexander Question Re. Billy Allan Eddie Prentice Good Ridence Cowan And Hughes? Planning Application Now Submitted. you've also made a post in 1 Just In thread and a thread marked New Barcelona Top and something about You Have To Laugh... I think they qualify as a number of posts on different threads?....though I might fail your not a real fan if you dint post like I thinknyou should test 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.