jaf Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I hope the puppet master and all the little inconsequential puppets have a good plan now - some of the hypocrisy shown by certain people is embarrassing and disgraceful Maybe BA is a more mature individual than me though and won't demand all his cash back immediately?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 you at the agm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 bloody hell, that bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I understand the motion was defeated using proxies which suggests the major shareholders/vindictive losers concerned were not interested in being there to discuss sensible solutions and were only looking to inflict damage. Not a hopeful sign at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) What you're saying – with less than half an hour of the meeting gone – is that Europa (proprietor W Allan) will send Thistle (co-proprietor W Allan) to the wall with a demand for unpaid bills? Why bother with the charade of an EGM then? Make the demand, force administration and start negotiating. I hear the guys in charge of both businesses get what they want when they set their minds to it. (In short, wait til the end of the meeting.) Edited September 2, 2011 by McKennan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) I understand the motion was defeated using proxies which suggests the major shareholders/vindictive losers concerned were not interested in being there to discuss sensible solutions and were only looking to inflict damage. Not a hopeful sign at all. The problem is a sensible solution also means not approving the Articles Of Association. I had hoped that common sense would prevail and the matter not be put to a vote which would inevitably be defeated (it needed the support of 75% of those present and voting to pass). Whilst there is nothing illegal in the Articles there are changes in there which are, quite simply, not appropriate for a football club. The whole things needs to be looked at but it would have been bad for the club imo, if the motion was passed or if it was defeated. I don't want Hughes et al back but I also don't want a club where there's no need to have AGM's (and no alternative way for shareholders to be involved) or where shareholders might be obliged to sell their shares to a third party Edited September 2, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) What you're saying – with less than half an hour of the meeting gone – is that Europa (proprietor W Allan) will send Thistle (co-proprietor W Allan) to the wall with a demand for unpaid bills? Why bother with the charade of an EGM then? Make the demand, force administration and start negotiating. I hear the guys in charge of both businesses get what they want when they set their minds to it. (In short, wait til the end of the meeting.) Except that W Allan is not a proprietor (either in whole or in part) of Thistle. He's a director but not a shareholder Edited September 2, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 What you're saying – with less than half an hour of the meeting gone – is that Europa (proprietor W Allan) will send Thistle (co-proprietor W Allan) to the wall with a demand for unpaid bills? Why bother with the charade of an EGM then? Make the demand, force administration and start negotiating. I hear the guys in charge of both businesses get what they want when they set their minds to it. (In short, wait til the end of the meeting.) Nope...I am saying I would but he is undoubtedly a more pragmatic and bigger man than me....plus his investment in propco would be unaffected in fact potentially enhanced by doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 A dark day for PTFC brought about by everything that blights Scottish Football. The let's form a committee to decide a committee to appoint a committee attitude has brought the club to it's knees. The bowling club mentality that has ruled over us for too long continues to pull the strings and we are now staring at an Armageddon worse than anything seen before. We will look back in time on the history of PTFC and realise that Save the Jags was the worse thing that ever happened to PTFC in the way that it allowed the club to be divvyed up. How dare anyone wish to run PTFC like a REAL business.. how dare they! Some people should be utterly ashamed of themselves today. PTFC RIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The problem is a sensible solution also means not approving the Articles Of Association. I had hoped that common sense would prevail and the matter not be put to a vote which would inevitably be defeated (it needed the support of 75% of those present and voting to pass). Whilst there is nothing illegal in the Articles there are changes in there which are, quite simply, not appropriate for a football club. The whole things needs to be looked at but it would have been bad for the club imo, if the motion was passed or if it was defeated. I don't want Hughes et al back but I also don't want a club where there's no need to have AGM's (and no alternative way for shareholders to be involved) or where shareholders might be obliged to sell their shares to a third party The holding of AGMs was to be amended in to the articles of association. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The problem is a sensible solution also means not approving the Articles Of Association. I had hoped that common sense would prevail and the matter not be put to a vote which would inevitably be defeated (it needed the support of 75% of those present and voting to pass). Whilst there is nothing illegal in the Articles there are changes in there which are, quite simply, not appropriate for a football club. The whole things needs to be looked at but it would have been bad for the club imo, if the motion was passed or if it was defeated. I don't want Hughes et al back but I also don't want a club where there's no need to have AGM's (and no alternative way for shareholders to be involved) or where shareholders might be obliged to sell their shares to a third party. Allan, I definitely didn't support the motion and think the current directors were incredibly stupid to put it to a vote that has invited the assorted deadbeats to gang together. But the question has to be what happens now and if the upshot is that Cowan, Hughes and the Pedenite tendency are going to start elbowing their way back in, as Beattie and Allan take a walk, then we've just gone out of the frying pan and into the sort of fire we won't survive. So I would have been reassured if both sides had instantly moved to find some sort of accommodation. The signs aren't good at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 A dark day for PTFC brought about by everything that blights Scottish Football. The let's form a committee to decide a committee to appoint a committee attitude has brought the club to it's knees. The bowling club mentality that has ruled over us for too long continues to pull the strings and we are now staring at an Armageddon worse than anything seen before. We will look back in time on the history of PTFC and realise that Save the Jags was the worse thing that ever happened to PTFC in the way that it allowed the club to be divvyed up. How dare anyone wish to run PTFC like a REAL business.. how dare they! Some people should be utterly ashamed of themselves today. PTFC RIP Yep, the two most succesful business guys to be on our Board in recent times are at present sitting in a room with their heads in their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Yep, the two most succesful business guys to be on our Board in recent times are at present sitting in a room with their heads in their hands. More likely to be writing their resignation from the Board letters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Have Beattie & Allan actually said they would/will walk if the vote didn't pass? To say I feel sick at the thought of those 2 leaving, would be an understatement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) Yep, the two most succesful business guys to be on our Board in recent times are at present sitting in a room with their heads in their hands. But you have to ask themselves why such successful businessmen have got into this position. They have gone into this as far as I can see with no strategy whatsoever to ensure that these motions got passed. Given some of the changes proposed and the weighted majority needed, it required advance communication and a high degree of explanation along with a pragmatic approach to dealing with issues of controversy. None of that seemed to be present. Some conclusions are inevitable - this strikes me as such an occasion Edited September 2, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) More likely to be writing their resignation from the Board letters... I would not blame them if they are. Who needs the hassle? Edited September 2, 2011 by jaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Have Beattie & Allan actually said they would/will walk if the vote didn't pass? To say I feel sick at the thought of those 2 leaving, would be an understatement. They will walk. They have no option when their hands are tied by the sorry state of affairs that PTFC Ltd is ruled by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Have Beattie & Allan actually said they would/will walk if the vote didn't pass? To say I feel sick at the thought of those 2 leaving, would be an understatement. No. And they are pragmatists, and their hearts may rule their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broomhill jag Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) I know this may seem the last sort of post you'd want right now, for folk who have a very good understanding on what is going on right now and all the way back to the details of Propco. I've found all of these meetings and business deals completely confusing. Could someone on here correct me if I am wrong but, from my understanding is today about: The BoD wanting control to do as they please without shareholders being able to stop them? If so, whos wanting what? Edit: After reading the last few posts I guess my last question has been answered. I'm beginning to panic. Edited September 2, 2011 by broomhill jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Some had theories that Beattie/Allan & current board members got together with Hughes/McMaster etc to get Jim Alexander off the board, if they did, why would they not have had the same arrangement today to get the vote passed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) But you have to ask themselves why such successful businessmen have got into this position. They have gone into this as far as I can see with no strategy whatsoever to ensure that these motions got passed. Given some of the changes proposed and the weighted majority needed, it required advance communication and a high degree of explanation along with a pragmatic approach to dealing with issues of controversy. None of that seemed to be present. Some conclusions are inevitable - this strikes me as such an occasion PTFC is a business. It needs to be run like one and not treated like some blazer-gaining plaything as it historically has and may well be again in the sorry future that lies ahead. Edited September 19, 2011 by Vom Itorium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Allan, I definitely didn't support the motion and think the current directors were incredibly stupid to put it to a vote that has invited the assorted deadbeats to gang together. But the question has to be what happens now and if the upshot is that Cowan, Hughes and the Pedenite tendency are going to start elbowing their way back in, as Beattie and Allan take a walk, then we've just gone out of the frying pan and into the sort of fire we won't survive. So I would have been reassured if both sides had instantly moved to find some sort of accommodation. The signs aren't good at all. Ergo, no choice at all then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Some had theories that Beattie/Allan & current board members got together with Hughes/McMaster etc to get Jim Alexander off the board, if they did, why would they not have had the same arrangement today to get the vote passed? This is one of the problems - a focus on theories (conspiracy and otherwise) about what the other's real motives are instead of focusing on the issue. As far as I can see, one side has been as bad as the other in this respect. That's a sign of immature schoolboys, not succesful businessmen who should pride themselves on a professional approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 They will walk. They have no option when their hands are tied by the sorry state of affairs that PTFC Ltd is ruled by. I hope they do. The only way to save the club is to f*ck it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 i wish someone could explain what the hell is going on (in simple terms ) as i and assume other don't have a clue what half of this means. . 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.