lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Happy yo but my point wasn't re my right to post but the innuendo What innuendo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 What innuendo? That was a board member, friend of board member etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Thanks for keeping the thread high up the page. Saving me the effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Anyhow, you have to admire javeajag for his/her ability to deflect attention from members of the board (past and present) and onto himself/herself. I'd have to give a 10 for effort. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been thinking about what it is that annoys me so much about all of this: it isn't that Jim Alexander is no longer a director of the club. The football club may be richer or poorer for his departure - I don't know. But I've got a strong emotional tie to the club, and in a strange way, I treat it as an extension of myself. I feel proud when it does things right, determined when things aren't going well and "the world's against us", and downright embarrassed when things are done in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner. Sure, director disputes happen, and people get voted off boards from time to time, but everything I've heard about this smacks of a second rate, grubby way to do business. In a daft way, I feel that reflects badly on both me and "my" club. Crazy? Perhaps, but lots of people manage to conduct their professional life in a manner that warrants respect from others. In my business dealings, I have come across more intelligent business people deserving of respect than I have grubby charlatans who deserve a wide berth. Perhaps I'm a fool, but I really don't understand why it seems to be so difficult for us to have an efficiently run business that does things in a professional and respectful way. Of course, my perceptions of this whole sorry afair could be wrong, but the parties who are able to set the record straight don't seem willing to do so; or maybe it's because they can't. How very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 That was a board member, friend of board member etc the list of shareholders is a matter of public record. You stated your shareholdings earlier. Therefore its fair to say a stab could be made to your identity if someone wanted to. In actual fact, i dont think even any member of our Board would be stupid enough to zzzzzzzzzzzzz a real fan on a public forum. I have noticed in the past quite often the substance of a thread gets derailed by your involvement. I have to be honest, I have zero interest in you, I only care about the conduct of Keith Harris, Orville and Cuddles and whether their conduct (past, present and future) is detrimental to the stakeholders of Partick Thistle, of which you and I javeajag are both members. You are welcome to keep trying to divert attention from the questions just as I am going to keep raising them in this forum and others until reasonable answers are given to reasonable questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Anyhow, you have to admire javeajag for his/her ability to deflect attention from members of the board (past and present) and onto himself/herself. I'd have to give a 10 for effort. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been thinking about what it is that annoys me so much about all of this: it isn't that Jim Alexander is no longer a director of the club. The football club may be richer or poorer for his departure - I don't know. But I've got a strong emotional tie to the club, and in a strange way, I treat it as an extension of myself. I feel proud when it does things right, determined when things aren't going well and "the world's against us", and downright embarrassed when things are done in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner. Sure, director disputes happen, and people get voted off boards from time to time, but everything I've heard about this smacks of a second rate, grubby way to do business. In a daft way, I feel that reflects badly on both me and "my" club. Crazy? Perhaps, but lots of people manage to conduct their professional life in a manner that warrants respect from others. In my business dealings, I have come across more intelligent business people deserving of respect than I have grubby charlatans who deserve a wide berth. Perhaps I'm a fool, but I really don't understand why it seems to be so difficult for us to have an efficiently run business that does things in a professional and respectful way. Of course, my perceptions of this whole sorry afair could be wrong, but the parties who are able to set the record straight don't seem willing to do so; or maybe it's because they can't. How very sad. Great post David......the soul of the club has gone, what made us proud to be a Jags fan has been stolen, last seen being plundered by an arch capitalist and his puppets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Some great insights and some passionate posts on this thread. As Double Ugly says, keep them rolling in folks. Does it not make you wonder why so many committed and articulate fans are beginning to cluster round the same key questions - and there is one poster who 'dies not know anyone on the Board' yet is so sure there is nothing untowards at the heart of Thistle? I respect any poster to have his/her own opinions; but javeajag, your confidence in how we should interpret Board developments is very reminiscent of a poster we have seen before down the years on previous forums. So, perhaps to avoid us jumping to the wrong conclusion, would you be prepared to share your actual first name? In return, mine is sandy... Edited February 26, 2011 by sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Hell's bells, Sandy, can we give it a rest? Who gives a shit who he is? There are reasons why I've been putting this sort of stuff on a separate blog instead of on the forum and this is one of them. So I think I'll confine my remarks to the blog from now on and let you forum guys wander off down whatever dead end you like. I think there are questions to be asked and which ought to be answered about how the club is being run. This does nothing to help make that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Hell's bells, Sandy, can we give it a rest? Who gives a shit who he is? There are reasons why I've been putting this sort of stuff on a separate blog instead of on the forum and this is one of them. So I think I'll confine my remarks to the blog from now on and let you forum guys wander off down whatever dead end you like. I think there are questions to be asked and which ought to be answered about how the club is being run. This does nothing to help make that happen. Sandy, who cares? Do not divert off the key questions,which to my mind are..... 1. Whether DB is displaying hypocrisy by voting one way whilst typing up programme notes giving an entirely different opinion, if that happened? If he voted for Jim why doesnt he just confirm it? 2. Are the shareholders ready to stand by their axe weilding roles? Are they even aware of them? 3. Are the Board entirely satisfied that corporate governance and company law has properly been followed in the events leading up to the recent AGM and in the conduct of the AGM itself, and that no conflicts of interest manifested them selves in that process? 4. Have the Board any evidence that Tom Hughes ongoing presence around the club in official capacities is a barrier to the greater supporter engagement they claim to crave, and are choosing to ignore it? Or have they no evidence that he is such a barrier? 5. Do they feel that they have fulfilled their fiduciary duty at all times in the period beginning twelve months before propco transaction to date? Whether javeajag is 'someone' or not is irrelevant and dilutes the need to keep hammering home these questions IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Sandy, who cares? Do not divert off the key questions,which to my mind are..... 1. Whether DB is displaying hypocrisy by voting one way whilst typing up programme notes giving an entirely different opinion, if that happened? If he voted for Jim why doesnt he just confirm it? 2. Are the shareholders ready to stand by their axe weilding roles? Are they even aware of them? 3. Are the Board entirely satisfied that corporate governance and company law has properly been followed in the events leading up to the recent AGM and in the conduct of the AGM itself, and that no conflicts of interest manifested them selves in that process? 4. Have the Board any evidence that Tom Hughes ongoing presence around the club in official capacities is a barrier to the greater supporter engagement they claim to crave, and are choosing to ignore it? Or have they no evidence that he is such a barrier? 5. Do they feel that they have fulfilled their fiduciary duty at all times in the period beginning twelve months before propco transaction to date? Whether javeajag is 'someone' or not is irrelevant and dilutes the need to keep hammering home these questions IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I agree that I'm not the issue - I'm James if that helps anyone - as I'm someone but no one ! As I understand it the directors of the club are supporters as well and it costs them time and money and I'm not really sure what they get out of it....I just don't happen to think try are part of some sinister plot to run the club down so they can divide up the spoils that are left and run off into the night... I don't know much about why JA was voted off - and neither it seems does anybody else- so I'm happy to accept DBs explanation ..... I also think he's an ok guy in what are not easy circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Hell's bells, Sandy, can we give it a rest? Who gives a shit who he is? There are reasons why I've been putting this sort of stuff on a separate blog instead of on the forum and this is one of them. So I think I'll confine my remarks to the blog from now on and let you forum guys wander off down whatever dead end you like. I think there are questions to be asked and which ought to be answered about how the club is being run. This does nothing to help make that happen. It must be kind of uncomfortable going about your business with someone's nose up your backside, Greig. With that in mind, I do enjoy your blog. There are questions to be asked but the fawning over the dearly departed here is getting a little hard to stomach. Not that I disagree with the issues raised, but if Ronnie had been handed his jotters by shareholders I doubt there'd have been such a fuss. However, as I said before on Jim Alexander's removal, how often does a business get to completely misunderstand its customers? Edited February 26, 2011 by McKennan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Double Ugly and jaf, fair points. It's the critical questions that matter so I'm happy to leave space for someone to answer them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I agree that I'm not the issue - I'm James if that helps anyone - as I'm someone but no one ! As I understand it the directors of the club are supporters as well and it costs them time and money and I'm not really sure what they get out of it....I just don't happen to think try are part of some sinister plot to run the club down so they can divide up the spoils that are left and run off into the night... I don't know much about why JA was voted off - and neither it seems does anybody else- so I'm happy to accept DBs explanation ..... I also think he's an ok guy in what are not easy circumstances Thats a fair post and a perfectly reasonable opinion to take. As I believe is my contrary view based on things I have witnessed, been party to, been told, or documents seen. Without that catalogue of evidence, I may even reach the same conclusion as you. Jim Alexander is so not the issue. He may be a consequence of the issue, but he isn't the issue. Since you are not sure what they get out of it, and since you do not like innuendo, perhaps we could get some clarity on it...maybe you could join those asking questions...perhaps you may like to ask, as you are entitled to do as a shareholder, could you please document the total value of payments made to Tom Hughes' firm over, lets say the past 5 years and in the balance of fairness, a list of the payments he or his firm has made to the club? At the end of the day javeajag, whatever their motivations, there is much anecdotal evidence as to the contempt with which certain office holders view the supporters, their customers. Can they really expect anything but contempt in return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 26, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I respect any poster to have his/her own opinions; but javeajag, your confidence in how we should interpret Board developments is very reminiscent of a poster we have seen before down the years on previous forums. It should do Sandy as he was also javeajag on ptfc.net and as far as I can remember he's always held the same view so fair play to you javeajag for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 It should do Sandy as he was also javeajag on ptfc.net and as far as I can remember he's always held the same view so fair play to you javeajag for that. Thanks for confirming Willjag, nothing wrong with holding consistent views; healthy forums represent a range of opinions and allow debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 nothing wrong with holding consistent views; healthy forums represent a range of opinions and allow debate. I'm sorry, that's next door. It's being hit on the head lessons in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Saturday's programme notes might be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Would you elaborate please, Tom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I was expressing a view, more in hope than expectation. There's no excuse for them being dull, but Mr Beattie seems to have become a master of obfuscation. Shame. I held out some hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Saturday's programme notes might be interesting. What, is he going to answer jaf's and others questions, and HONESTLY?? I was expressing a view, more in hope than expectation. There's no excuse for them being dull, but Mr Beattie seems to have become a master of obfuscation. Shame. I held out some hope. Damn you, getting my hopes up briefly there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 What, is he going to answer jaf's and others questions, and HONESTLY?? I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he does, and he may well do, we can truly welcome a director keen to make greater engagement with supporters more than simply rhetoric. If he doesn't, you can draw your own conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I'm sorry, that's next door. It's being hit on the head lessons in here. I do enjoy your dry and observant humour, m'lady! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he does, and he may well do, we can truly welcome a director keen to make greater engagement with supporters more than simply rhetoric. If he doesn't, you can draw your own conclusions. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Saturday's programme notes might be interesting. Or maybe not 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.