Steven H Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Forget the lottery guy. Bearing in mind JAF's characterisation of the club, stumbling into the arms of any rich guy and asking him to save us because we're a lovely wee club is just to invite more of the sort of shafting we've been getting for a decade. What sort of philanthropist would throw away cash into PTFC when there are genuinely deserving causes everywhere you look? They will all want their pound of flesh and won't hesitate to take it, even as they tell you how Thistle-minded they are. Only the collective effort and resistance of the fans ever could or ever will save the club. Good luck with that hopeless cause. Look back at the promises to protect Thistle's future after the Save the Jags period from Hughes and McMaster and Cowan and Prentice and Springford. And then every single one of us should hang our heads in shame for letting them turn that into what we've got now and are about to get with bells on. Again, not what I was getting at was merely talking about help with the fundraising. I don't want another Gretna or a sugar daddy owner and any action needs to be from the fans not a one-man bank. Do we have a ball-park figure for court action if it is a viable one? Do people think the fans would be able to raise that money? Then, would we be able to achieve what Jaf proposed? Without getting into the realms of 'panic stations', this makes Propco stink even more than it did already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjptfc Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I am in no way an expert in business law or anthing like that, so I'm only here commenting on a basic few points raised by others (and some of you appear to be far more clued up than I in the business side of it which is encouraging), however, it's true that our apathy as a support has led us to where we are today. We have allowed it to happen. These guys who are accused of running the club into the state it's in today have been allowed to do so, we have ourselves to blame. I include myself in that, we saw what was happening and did nothing about it. Is it too late? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I am in no way an expert in business law or anthing like that, so I'm only here commenting on a basic few points raised by others (and some of you appear to be far more clued up than I in the business side of it which is encouraging), however, it's true that our apathy as a support has led us to where we are today. We have allowed it to happen. These guys who are accused of running the club into the state it's in today have been allowed to do so, we have ourselves to blame. I include myself in that, we saw what was happening and did nothing about it. Is it too late? Given that a couple of years ago a thread like this would have been overflowing with comments from all shades of opinion, and that Steve's comments have gone without an addition for almost 24 hours, it seems clear that apathy does indeed reign. And yes, it probably is too late. As Doris Day once sang (or Sly Stone if you'd like to appear hipper) Que Sera Sera. (As for legal action against the board, I suspect that can only be raised by a shareholder. But it is an opportunity for the Trust to stick their head back above the parapet.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Given that a couple of years ago a thread like this would have been overflowing with comments from all shades of opinion, and that Steve's comments have gone without an addition for almost 24 hours, it seems clear that apathy does indeed reign. And yes, it probably is too late. As Doris Day once sang (or Sly Stone if you'd like to appear hipper) Que Sera Sera. (As for legal action against the board, I suspect that can only be raised by a shareholder. But it is an opportunity for the Trust to stick their head back above the parapet.) Was thinking that myself but a few years back we'd either have co-opted fans with genuine expertise on, or just as likely be discussing getting some fan(s) with expertise onto, the Jags Trust Board. Getting fans opinions and concerns across thru the only recognised collective available. Undoubtedly the thread would veer off on a tangent when someone posted some diatribe about the Trust. Some would argue it's the only game in town while others would take the expired canard stance while someone else would post something cryptic about a supporters bus and so on. Once the thread was a respectable dozen or so pages long with hardly a fish pun posted we'd be little or no further forward. Maybe we're no worse off with apathy than all that in-fighting? More importantly I wouldn't consider a guy, who denied us what could've been some of the greatest funk/fusion by being too drugged out to collaborate with Miles Davis, hipper than Doris Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Was thinking that myself but a few years back we'd either have co-opted fans with genuine expertise on, or just as likely be discussing getting some fan(s) with expertise onto, the Jags Trust Board. Getting fans opinions and concerns across thru the only recognised collective available. Undoubtedly the thread would veer off on a tangent when someone posted some diatribe about the Trust. Some would argue it's the only game in town while others would take the expired canard stance while someone else would post something cryptic about a supporters bus and so on. Once the thread was a respectable dozen or so pages long with hardly a fish pun posted we'd be little or no further forward. Maybe we're no worse off with apathy than all that in-fighting? More importantly I wouldn't consider a guy, who denied us what could've been some of the greatest funk/fusion by being too drugged out to collaborate with Miles Davis, hipper than Doris Day. That's a fair point. Maybe we should co-opt Sly Stone onto the Trust Board Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 That's a fair point. Maybe we should co-opt Sly Stone onto the Trust Board Why not, we've already got the family on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 That's a fair point. Maybe we should co-opt Sly Stone onto the Trust Board better at this stage getting rid of the deadwood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 better at this stage getting rid of the deadwood. Then you would need folk to Stand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Then you would need folk to Stand!, M'Lady corrected that for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Do we know for certain what is planned for the egm? Or are people assuming from what's been included in the notice for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Do we know for certain what is planned for the egm? Or are people assuming from what's been included in the notice for it? Yup, earlier in the thread Stolenscone outline the detail (limited as it is) which was in the paperwork from the Club. Woody also explained what it meant...kinda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Yup, earlier in the thread Stolenscone outline the detail (limited as it is) which was in the paperwork from the Club. Woody also explained what it meant...kinda. Cheers, I half read it, but not well & couldn't make much sense of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Do we know for certain what is planned for the egm? Or are people assuming from what's been included in the notice for it? This gets to the nub of the problem. You can't discuss something at a general meeting of shareholders without providing due notice to them. What you have in this instance are changes of a potentially wide impact but where shareholders are being starved of the detail. This isn't the first time this has happened - changes have been made to the Articles Of Association with only a cursory explanation being provided at the meeting. Shareholders in general did not have any visibility of the changes, and the Trust Board were provided with a copy on the afternoon of the meeting (and only because I complained about the absence of same). Even so, this is insufficient time to analyze the changes and consider their impact and value. It seems that in this case the intent is to remove the restrictions in the Companies Act which covers areas where there may be a conflict of interest. If this is the case, it's very hard to come up with a reason for this that does not increase suspicion about the motives involved. It may also hand complete control to the Board with limited if any ability of the shareholders to hold them to account. If there are good reasons for following this path then good practice would suggest that shareholders should be receiving a full copy of the changes with point by point explanations of why they are looking to have these incorporated. If they don't do this, then it is extremely bad practice and can only lead interested observers to assume the worst. In the first instance this will need shareholders of the club to raised objections about the process and to question the changes. If the information is not forthcoming in an appropriate fashion by the time of the meeting then moves should be made to adjourn the meeting to allow proper consideration. I've no doubt the usual "we're Thistle-minded people" line will be used to smooth it through but this is utterly beside the point - this is no way to conduct corporate governance for any organisation. Seperately, one has to question the extent to which actions of this nature might mean that the individuals involved are no longer fit and proper individuals to be at the helm of a football club. (Not sure what, if any, provisions there are for this with the SFA and/or the SFL). Edited August 12, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Given that a couple of years ago a thread like this would have been overflowing with comments from all shades of opinion, and that Steve's comments have gone without an addition for almost 24 hours, it seems clear that apathy does indeed reign. And yes, it probably is too late. As Doris Day once sang (or Sly Stone if you'd like to appear hipper) Que Sera Sera. (As for legal action against the board, I suspect that can only be raised by a shareholder. But it is an opportunity for the Trust to stick their head back above the parapet.) I don't think it's apathy. From those i have spoken with, it seems it's more along the lines of: For some people, it's just following the Jags no matter who's in the boardroom or not wanting to get involved in the off the field (or 'political') side of the club, even to point of them not even wanting to know what's going on. But for the majority in the support, to varying degrees of unhappiness and opposition, they are against propco and the desecration of the stadium further. Coupled with the fact there is clearly a HUGE conflict of interests between the propco and club boards, many do feel propco is not the answer, or at the very least, there should not be people who hold shares, influence and sway on both boards, or the appearance of various dodgy dealing and ******* the club over. Splitting that majority further, is the fact that now, for over half of them, they feel it's too late to do anything, and thus they take the view that's there's nothing else they (or the support overall) can do to stop Propco or change certain boundaries. Of the remainder, it's a case of they feel there is no one there (or making themselves known to the support) to 'lead the charge' against the club board or indeed the propco board. When people see the likes of RM, DU, FT, SS, HV and the like disappearing (or "given up fighting" to quote a phrase i have heard several times), after years of questioning the way the club has/is run, as well as the whole Propco situation, after trying to garner awareness and support within the club's following; seeing the likes of the JT prove to be a complete waste of time and totally unrepresentative of it's members (and potential members), only interested in thinking they are something special with their wee private tea parties and selling out the fans; the majority view now seems to be "we hate the situation, club with no money, resorting to propco where thistle-minded claimants are appearing to be lining their own pockets longterm while the club will die under their stewardship, or at very least we will end up with no stadium" ..... but the fact there is no groundswell, or group of people banging the drum and making loud (and uncomfortable) noises for the club and propco boards, then it appears to me, there is a huge percentage of the Thistle support against propco, and wanting to do something, but not knowing what or how, due to the fact there is no "anti-propco" movement, or anyone 'taking up the baton'. And thus, we appear apathetic. That's how i see it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fredthecheesecloth Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Here is how I see it, Propco is a bit of a goverance disaster, and needs to be tidied up at the very least. THE JAGS TRUST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON TOP OF THIS WHEN IT STARTED. Partick Thistle fans in general, and I include myself in this, have completely lost motivation/support for the football team, the football club as a whole, and everything else around the club. There are so many things that have changed in the last 10 years, be it the singing at the away matches, the attendances, the general atmosphere at the ground, the away supports coming to firhill, the credit crunch, alan archibalds hairline, the attitude of the bulk of the players on the park, the attitude of those in the boardroom (or has it?), the transfer market conditions... The club is rotten to the core, and I think the bulk of us are helpless to stop the gradual decline into no stadium/part time football/death. Situations like Antoniagate (shambles) and Dick Campbell have only made it worse. When I was younger I thought we had the best fans in the world. In my opinion we are now probably one of the worst. We have no representation (the jags trust are a dead duck), no voice, no unity, no nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fredthecheesecloth Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Can I also add that the day the Jags Trust presented Morag McHaffie as the candidate to join the board, my last bit of care or fight was sucked straight from me. Too much fighting over small print in that JT, and not stepping back to see the bigger picture. WE WONT HAVE A FOOTBALL CLUB IN 10 YEARS TIME, use your loafs, and when you get a chance to meet the board, put something credible forward, dont sit fighting over **** ALL! Where have all the good guys gone? We all know. Edited August 12, 2011 by fredthecheesecloth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 And thus, we appear apathetic. That's how i see it anyway. No, I think you've defined the actuality of apathy and not the appearance of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (As for legal action against the board, I suspect that can only be raised by a shareholder. But it is an opportunity for the Trust to stick their head back above the parapet.) Depends on the nature of the breach of duties, but a minority shareholder can go through a "derivative action" procedure if the majority of shareholders won't initiate litigation on behalf of the club against the conflicted directors. It's quite costly though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 The Trust have only recieved the formal notice as well and we will be taking legal advice on this while looking to obviously be totally against these motions. By the by, does anyone know who Helen Muir is? (Compyany Secretary apparently) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 This gets to the nub of the problem. You can't discuss something at a general meeting of shareholders without providing due notice to them. What you have in this instance are changes of a potentially wide impact but where shareholders are being starved of the detail. This isn't the first time this has happened - changes have been made to the Articles Of Association with only a cursory explanation being provided at the meeting. Shareholders in general did not have any visibility of the changes, and the Trust Board were provided with a copy on the afternoon of the meeting (and only because I complained about the absence of same). Even so, this is insufficient time to analyze the changes and consider their impact and value. It seems that in this case the intent is to remove the restrictions in the Companies Act which covers areas where there may be a conflict of interest. If this is the case, it's very hard to come up with a reason for this that does not increase suspicion about the motives involved. It may also hand complete control to the Board with limited if any ability of the shareholders to hold them to account. If there are good reasons for following this path then good practice would suggest that shareholders should be receiving a full copy of the changes with point by point explanations of why they are looking to have these incorporated. If they don't do this, then it is extremely bad practice and can only lead interested observers to assume the worst. In the first instance this will need shareholders of the club to raised objections about the process and to question the changes. If the information is not forthcoming in an appropriate fashion by the time of the meeting then moves should be made to adjourn the meeting to allow proper consideration. I've no doubt the usual "we're Thistle-minded people" line will be used to smooth it through but this is utterly beside the point - this is no way to conduct corporate governance for any organisation. Seperately, one has to question the extent to which actions of this nature might mean that the individuals involved are no longer fit and proper individuals to be at the helm of a football club. (Not sure what, if any, provisions there are for this with the SFA and/or the SFL). Instead of being told that a copy of the Aricles of Association are available for viewing at the Firhill Office and that shareholders can view them 15 minutes before the meeting starts at 10am on a Friday morning. The whole thing reeks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Am I the only one to have come home to discover rather cryptic papers for a PTFC EGM to be held next month? Perhaps I'm special, or maybe nobody cares any more. What is the time, date and venue for this meeting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjptfc Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Instead of being told that a copy of the Aricles of Association are available for viewing at the Firhill Office and that shareholders can view them 15 minutes before the meeting starts at 10am on a Friday morning. The whole thing reeks... My thoughts exactly. If there is nothing untoward or underhanded, why not completely disclose the details to the shareholders (which I thought would be standard practice) prior to the meeting to allow time for review and consideration of the whole thing. It's very strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 What is the time, date and venue for this meeting? Friday 2nd September, 10am, Aitken Suite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 The Trust have only recieved the formal notice as well and we will be taking legal advice on this while looking to obviously be totally against these motions. By the by, does anyone know who Helen Muir is? (Compyany Secretary apparently) In other words the Trust will either abstain or go along with the proposal and use their standard excuse of how their vote wouldn't have changed anything and it's better to be in with the board so they can change things from the inside rather than being excluded. Sorry mate but the Jags Trust have had numerous chances to stand up for the fans and have failed every time. Don't hold out any hope of things changing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 In other words the Trust will either abstain or go along with the proposal and use their standard excuse of how their vote wouldn't have changed anything and it's better to be in with the board so they can change things from the inside rather than being excluded. Sorry mate but the Jags Trust have had numerous chances to stand up for the fans and have failed every time. Don't hold out any hope of things changing here. If the Trust abstains on this then I will resign. (not much of a threat but there you go) Frankly, it's true that even if we vote no there is every chance that the motion will still be passed. With that in mind it's up to the Trust to make sure that EVERYONE is able to access all of the details of this and make it public knowledge of what is happening. 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.