northernsoul Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) If folk want answers, maybe not to what goes on in this EGM (if it's allowed) then Mr. Beattie was more than happy to stage another Open Fans meeting at the Aitken Suite last season. The weather was bad and a couple of hours after folk finish work but considering how concerned we were, with what the future plans were for the club the turn out was poor. Mr Beattie encouraged everyone who was there to bring a fellow Jag along to the next one, considering there was a date set. I was grateful for Honved's work in making the meeting happen. This second open meeting never materialized and as fredthecheesecloth mentioned it's pretty much down to the apathy. The good people from the Trust became fed up and walked away and now those how I look up to and gave up a lot of their own time for the benefit of the fans and the club seem to be falling away in instances like these. I could be wrong with the last point, in my last sentence and hopefully I am. More to the point hopefully there is another Open Meeting with the fans with a better turn out. Edited August 12, 2011 by northernsoul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 More to the point hopefully there is another Open Meeting with the fans with a better turn out. We're hoping to get another 'meet the board' set up and are in discussions with Mr Beattie about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 We're hoping to get another 'meet the board' set up and are in discussions with Mr Beattie about this. Thanks for the update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 We're hoping to get another 'meet the board' set up and are in discussions with Mr Beattie about this. That's very respectful of you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 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. and as SOON as possible!! There shouldn't be the need to have a meeting to decide the date for a commitee meeting who then co-opts an electee before reconvening at a time when there's better biscuits available. Find out the information and get it out there ASAP. For what it's worth I reckon that even if the Trust does vote against this it's more than likely already been carved up already so that it can't fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 For what it's worth I reckon that even if the Trust does vote against this it's more than likely already been carved up already so that it can't fail. I imagine that is the case as well, or certainly they'll be confident of getting it through. Anyway, the motions are now available for viewing on the Trust website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) I imagine that is the case as well, or certainly they'll be confident of getting it through. Anyway, the motions are now available for viewing on the Trust website. Certainly from what I read in the programme on Saturday, as a shareholder I'd be insisting that, regardless of how awkward and impractical (was that the phrase?) that the people who have a conflict of interest might find it that they're not able to put it aside at their own interest-conflicted volition, that any such instances should always be subject to specific shareholder approval. Or are they really suggesting that such instances are so frequent...........? I'd also be insisting that if shareholders are being asked to replace the Articles Of Association in their entirety as appears to be the case that they should be given sufficient time to read them and to be able to take whatever advice they may wish to seek before being required to vote on them. On the face of it there's quite a lot of positive things happening at the club. However, it doesn't seem to take much to come across tales which suggest that the operation of the club at board level remains as dysfunctional as ever. As such, it's not hard to think that this move is an attempt to deal with that dysfunctionality. And I find it hard to believe that also makes it in the long term interests of the club. Edited August 22, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Certainly from what I read in the programme on Saturday, as a shareholder I'd be insisting that, regardless of how awkward and impractical (was that the phrase?) that the people who have a conflict of interest might find it that they're not able to put it aside at their own interest-conflicted volition, that any such instances should always be subject to specific shareholder approval. Or are they really suggesting that such instances are so frequent...........? I'd also be insisting that if shareholders are being asked to replace the Articles Of Association in their entirety as appears to be the case that they should be given sufficient time to read them and to be able to take whatever advice they may wish to seek before being required to vote on them. On the face of it there's quite a lot of positive things happening at the club. However, it doesn't seem to take much to come across tales which suggest that the operation of the club at board level remains as dysfunctional as ever. As such, it's not hard to think that this move is an attempt to deal with that dysfunctionality. And I find it hard to believe that also makes it in the long term interests of the club. Not sure what to take from the programme notes as David Beattie also said we had sold around 50 tickets for the back os the shirts sponsorship thingy, when in reality it appears it was more like 30. Anyway, I took it in the same way as you, it makes sense for the board to release the shackles (a certain group of major shareholders who have a history of clubbing together to get what they want) that are holding them back from doing the things they want to for the benefit of the Club. BUT, don't they need the backing of this group of majority shareholders in order for this to go through? It also releases the shackles that prevent those with a conflict of interest re Propco from using their position on the board to benefit Propco rather than the Club. It seems it is yet another "trust us, everything will be fine" plea, I'm not sure that is something we should be expected to do given the number of times we have done that only for the decision makers to fcuk it up (admittedly the decision makers are different, but potentially more dangerous than the previous lot given their conflict of interest). If these motions need to be ratified by the majority shareholders Im not sure Messers Hughes, McMaster, Prentice and Springford will be prepared to go along with it (unless of course they are also involved in Propco, which I think at least 2 of them are). Edited August 22, 2011 by Steven H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Not sure what to take from the programme notes as David Beattie also said we had sold around 50 tickets for the back os the shirts sponsorship thingy, when in reality it appears it was more like 30. Not to take away from the rest of your point, but I think around 50 companies did buy into the scheme, raising around £30k. Not sticking up for the board here - I read the programme comments as being a kind of dismissive 'nothing to see here' - we're only organising an EGM on a technicality. If they could have gotten away with whatever they've got planned without an AGM they would have. Pesky corporate governance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Not sure what to take from the programme notes as David Beattie also said we had sold around 50 tickets for the back os the shirts sponsorship thingy, when in reality it appears it was more like 30. Anyway, I took it in the same way as you, it makes sense for the board to release the shackles (a certain group of major shareholders who have a history of clubbing together to get what they want) that are holding them back from doing the things they want to for the benefit of the Club. BUT, don't they need the backing of this group of majority shareholders in order for this to go through? It also releases the shackles that prevent those with a conflict of interest re Propco from using their position on the board to benefit Propco rather than the Club. It seems it is yet another "trust us, everything will be fine" plea, I'm not sure that is something we should be expected to do given the number of times we have done that only for the decision makers to fcuk it up (admittedly the decision makers are different, but potentially more dangerous than the previous lot given their conflict of interest). If these motions need to be ratified by the majority shareholders Im not sure Messers Hughes, McMaster, Prentice and Springford will be prepared to go along with it (unless of course they are also involved in Propco, which I think at least 2 of them are). I believe the draw on Saturday was just for the home top, there will be a draw next Saturday for the away top back sponsor. Which I presume (guesswork) will have different sponsors in the hat, as well as some of the same, making the number up to around 50? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) I now have a copy of the proposed Articles of Association. If you'd like sight of these download a copy: (Sent jags365 a copy whether he wants it or not ) Articles of Association of Partick Thistle Football Club Limited.pdf Edited August 24, 2011 by admin1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Just giving this a bump - with the help of site admin there's a copy of the amended articles now available as a link on the previous post. Get reading - there will be an exam later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Get reading - there will be an exam later Can I be excused, please? It's my grandmother's funeral today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Ann Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 so is anything going to be said or challenged at the egm or will it be another thing that fizzles away? also, anyone know if jackie is getting this £30k of new money from the back of the shirt sponsorship? or is that going to disappear like everything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 so is anything going to be said or challenged at the egm or will it be another thing that fizzles away? also, anyone know if jackie is getting this £30k of new money from the back of the shirt sponsorship? or is that going to disappear like everything else? I suspect it has already been used in the playing budget, to me our squad seems larger than it has been in years. Also, the Evening Times suggests that our transfer activity has now finished, although they said just before we signed O'Donnell that Jackie is in no rush to make signings and we might not see any for another few days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 so is anything going to be said or challenged at the egm or will it be another thing that fizzles away? That's a rhetorical question, I take it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Here's an interesting scenario:- Money's been getting splashed about recently. Perhaps that our bills being paid via a company not unconnected with one of our directors Somewhere along the line that money (which is being paid by the company so it's not just someone dipping their hands in their pockets) will be converted into shares from the unissued shares That's a potential conflict of interest that impacts on the entire board of directors - they knew where the money was coming from and one of them was going to benefit ultimately. Can be okayed within the boardroom without the need to get specific authorisation from shareholders (you know, the people who OWN the club regardless of whether they hold 1 or 1,000,000 shares) The shares of everyone else are diluted including those who are currently persona non grata Could this be repeat until the ownership structure of the club is transformed from where it is today Add in that property values will recover. Football itself is likely to continue to be loss-making. Along this path we flog the other half of Firhill to PropCo or something similar to ease financial pressures. Stadium sold to the benefit of all expect the football club We end up elsewhere or perhaps up shit creek Approving these changes is likely to mean that all of the above can happen without the active consent of the shareholders. And no end of other things that might otherwise have required specific consent. Edited August 24, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Ann Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 I suspect it has already been used in the playing budget, to me our squad seems larger than it has been in years. Also, the Evening Times suggests that our transfer activity has now finished, although they said just before we signed O'Donnell that Jackie is in no rush to make signings and we might not see any for another few days... we've already spent money we didn't have? who would we have spent £30k on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Here's an interesting scenario:- Cynic. But what do the Outsiders (Hughes/McMasters/Springfords) do with their votes this time around? They used them to mug Jim Alexander off the board (perhaps with the help of David Beattie - I don't think he ever got open and honest enough to say how he voted on that one) but Hughes and Cowan don't seem to be living it up in hospitality the same as before so where do their interests lie now? Will we see them get the old gang together again to vote this down and give Beattie and Allan a wee slap in the chops? Or will they meekly play ball with the Propco juggernaut, in which pie some of them do have a financial finger or two? Since Hughes, McMaster and the Trust were all gifted their shares, in Brown McMaster's words "to preserve the future of Partick Thistle Football Club", you'd have to wonder what would motivate them to allow any measure to go through that sees the football club become increasingly at the mercy of a property company They very thing they set out to protect us from 12 years ago. I'm sure they'll do what's for the best, though. Smart businessmen and Thistle-minded through and through. (Sorry, I forgot Eddie Prentice. It's easily done. ) Edited August 24, 2011 by Double Ugly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fredthecheesecloth Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 Bring back Jim Oliver. All is forgiven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) It's an uncomfortable place to be, but a tactical alliance with Hughes, McMaster etc etc may be what's needed to block this. The question then becomes what follows, and whether anyone will walk away if this vote is defeated. Edited August 24, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 we've already spent money we didn't have? who would we have spent £30k on? We've known about the money coming in for quite a while now (it didn't just appear in our account on Saturday afternoon either), that money could go towards wages for a player or two over the season. So this money could be covering the wages of Elliot and O'Donnell, or Balatoni or Robertson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 It's an uncomfortable place to be, but a tactical liason with Hughes, McMaster etc etc may be what's needed to block this. The question then becomes what follows, and whether anyone will walk away if this vote is defeated. Ah, your enemies enemy is your friend? I like it, but who is the enemy 1) The New Board 2) The 'Outsiders' (to use DU's phrase) 3) The Trust 4) Ourselves 5) All of the above. I choose 5...so, as we are all ememies we will all be friends and work things out in the best interests of Partick Thiste, won't we? Nah, I don't really think so either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 It's an uncomfortable place to be, but a tactical alliance with Hughes, McMaster etc etc may be what's needed to block this. The question then becomes what follows, and whether anyone will walk away if this vote is defeated. If they don't block things at this stage, they'll be history (like the guy who does the shit deal in Social Network). Their shares will look nice in a frame in the wall, but they won't give them an iota of influence. But what's in it for them to make any sort of stand? They have no real money and less of a clue as to how to get the club off its knees so maybe they're perfectly happy to have let Billy Allan's people walk off with it. Nice bit of custodianship there, guys. Top notch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 I have some real fears about this, my gut tells me if this goes through we will have no ground in 2 - 3 yrs max, this propco is NOT for the good of the club but for the pockets of some "thistle minded" directors 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.