Meeting With The Board

[B.C.G. JAG]

Actually, there's nothing to stop them arranging and calling the meeting now. No need to wait until such time as they have the detail. That can follow.

True, but it would obviously be helpful to everyone if there was something to discuss.

[jaf]

I agree David, but that was why I was trying to make a point that the Trust is more than the NW bus and that there are hundreds of members who are able to direct how the Trust votes. They are also supporters, not some wildly separate entity.

 

Yes but those hundreds of members need to get their information from somewhere. Who frames the infirmation they get?

 

I would suggest the thing to do would be to circulate 4 brief documents -

 

1 A summary of the clubs case for change and what the changes mean in reality

2 A summary of the counter srguments from wherever the Trust Board get that

3 A summary of the practical context of all this - this is so important - its not a theoretical point scoring exercise

4 A summary of the consequences of either adopting the articles or not adopting them

 

I fail to see how anyone to make an informed decision without a full range of the facts such as this.

 

Just as the BOD can be criticised for not circulating enough information to allow shareholders to make an informed decision before the EGM, surely the JTB are guilty of the same thing if they do not present a full appraisal to allow members to make as informed a decision as possible.

Edited September 8, 2011 by jaf

[Mr Scruff]

Yes but those hundred members need to get their information from somewhere. Who frames the infirmation they get?

 

I would suggest the thing to do would be to circulate 4 brief documents -

 

1 A summary of the clubs case for change and what the changes mean in reality

2 A summary of the counter srguments from wherever the Trust Board get that

3 A summary of the practical context of all this - this is so important - its not a theoretical point scoring exercise

4 A summary of the consequences of either adopting the articles or not adopting them

 

I fail to see how anyone to make an informed decision without a full range of the facts such as this.

 

Just as the BOD can be criticised for not circulating enough information to allow shareholders to make an informed decision before the EGM, surely the JTB are guilty of the same thing if they do not present a full appraisal to allow members to make as informed a document as possible.

100% spot on. I've asked (and still not received) a summary of the Trust's specific objections, other than 'insufficient information' or some derivative. That was before the meeting. Presumably the meeting clarified this? Still haven't heard the specific objections (leaving aside the AGM issue which I understand was conceded).

 

This is not making me think well at all of the Trust; yes my Trust. And the response seems to be 'well stand for election against the JT board then'. Not a great picture of accountability.

 

If the objective was to make the current board look dictatorial, secretive and politically introverted then I'm afraid (for me) it has backfired.

 

Sorry JAF realise this distracted from your points, which I believe are well made.

[Fellow Traveller]

One thing that looks a bit off was the Trust holding Mr Prentice's proxy vote.

 

If they wished to vote against the motion, so be it, but agreeing to also cast a proxy vote for a former director tends to give the impression, mistaken or otherwise, that they were part of an organised faction, a faction that has now been called out by David Beattie as wreckers. As a representative body, they should focus on being there for their members only and let Mr Prentice and any others find themselves some other willing stooge.

[Blackpool Jags]

One thing that looks a bit off was the Trust holding Mr Prentice's proxy vote.

 

If they wished to vote against the motion, so be it, but agreeing to also cast a proxy vote for a former director tends to give the impression, mistaken or otherwise, that they were part of an organised faction, a faction that has now been called out by David Beattie as wreckers. As a representative body, they should focus on being there for their members only and let Mr Prentice and any others find themselves some other willing stooge.

 

100% spot on, IMO.

[Allan Heron]

100% spot on. I've asked (and still not received) a summary of the Trust's specific objections, other than 'insufficient information' or some derivative. That was before the meeting. Presumably the meeting clarified this? Still haven't heard the specific objections (leaving aside the AGM issue which I understand was conceded).

 

This is not making me think well at all of the Trust; yes my Trust. And the response seems to be 'well stand for election against the JT board then'. Not a great picture of accountability.

 

If the objective was to make the current board look dictatorial, secretive and politically introverted then I'm afraid (for me) it has backfired.

 

Sorry JAF realise this distracted from your points, which I believe are well made.

 

jaf's comments are indeed spot on. But I would suggest that there was "insufficient information" available prior to the meeting (and this is true for any shareholder - it's not just an issue for the Trust).

 

Having said that, it's beginning to look like there may be a much clearer process this time around :-

 

1. The open meetings that seem to be getting arranged by the club. These need to happen first and can fill in background and wider context
   
2. EGM of the Trust to consider the amended details against the background of that wider context, and finally
   
3. EGM of the Club for the vote
   

That allows the whole issue to be debated in full with a wider appreciation of the context, including hopefully a narrative on how we got to where we are and also the consequences of not approving.

 

That would have been a more fruitful way of approaching things first time around and it's a matter of regret that it wasn't followed by the Club Board. It's not rocket science either so it's actually been quite straightforward to try and paint the board as "dictatorial, secretive and politically introverted" were you of a mind to.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Allan Heron

[Munkey]

jaf's comments are indeed spot on. But I would suggest that there was "insufficient information" available prior to the meeting (and this is true for any shareholder - it's not just an issue for the Trust).

 

Having said that, it's beginning to look like there may be a much clearer process this time around :-

 

1. The open meetings that seem to be getting arranged by the club. These need to happen first and can fill in background and wider context
   
2. EGM of the Trust to consider the amended details against the background of that wider context, and finally
   
3. EGM of the Club for the vote
   

That allows the whole issue to be debated in full with a wider appreciation of the context, including hopefully a narrative on how we got to where we are and also the consequences of not approving.

 

That would have been a more fruitful way of approaching things first time around and it's a matter of regret that it wasn't followed by the Club Board. It's not rocket science either so it's actually been quite straightforward to try and paint the board as "dictatorial, secretive and politically introverted" were you of a mind to.

 

This is exactly how matters like this should be conducted, for a fan who doesn't read this forum, and isn't involved in the trust the first they would have heard of this meeting and the saga would have been DB's post on the official site yesterday. And I'm sure they would be left wondering why such an important meeting and vote has already happened and they were left clueless.

 

An idea I’d like to see put in place for the forthcoming meetings would be to broadcast them somehow on the internet. Be it video or simply audio. I know the audience will be minimal but someone who can't sacrifice a night to travel into Glasgow and back for any reason still has a right to know what’s is going on at Partick Thistle FC. I can offer to investigate this and workout the logistics if it were approved by club, trust and has at least some demand from the fans.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Munkey

[Mr Scruff]

jaf's comments are indeed spot on. But I would suggest that there was "insufficient information" available prior to the meeting (and this is true for any shareholder - it's not just an issue for the Trust).

 

Having said that, it's beginning to look like there may be a much clearer process this time around :-

 

1. The open meetings that seem to be getting arranged by the club. These need to happen first and can fill in background and wider context
   
2. EGM of the Trust to consider the amended details against the background of that wider context, and finally
   
3. EGM of the Club for the vote
   

That allows the whole issue to be debated in full with a wider appreciation of the context, including hopefully a narrative on how we got to where we are and also the consequences of not approving.

 

That would have been a more fruitful way of approaching things first time around and it's a matter of regret that it wasn't followed by the Club Board. It's not rocket science either so it's actually been quite straightforward to try and paint the board as "dictatorial, secretive and politically introverted" were you of a mind to.

Allan,

 

I agree with much of what you say. My frustration is that I believe there was sufficient information by the time the show of hands was taken on 2nd, and the seeming intransigence suggesting that this was still the case until the Club pulled some "rabbit out of the hat" was wrong.

 

I'd like to see a strong, energetic trust with a mature relationship with the Club. And a clear, simple objective. But frustrated that this episode illustrates (well for me anyway) how far we are from that.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Allan Heron]

Allan,

 

I agree with much of what you say. My frustration is that I believe there was sufficient information by the time the show of hands was taken on 2nd, and the seeming intransigence suggesting that this was still the case until the Club pulled some "rabbit out of the hat" was wrong.

 

I'd like to see a strong, energetic trust with a mature relationship with the Club. And a clear, simple objective. But frustrated that this episode illustrates (well for me anyway) how far we are from that.

 

I wasn't at the meeting so don't know what was said. It may well be the case that sufficient information was made available by the time the vote came round, but that wasn't the case at the start of the meeting.

 

Had I been there on my account that wouldn't have presented any difficulty, but from a Trust perspective, their hands were tied by what was decided on the previous evening and, in any event, a verbal assurance about the holding of AGM's simply isn't good enough (any more than assurances about not having meetings at 10am on a weekday morning).

[La Scimmia Rossa]

I'll be there.

 

It needs to be run properly though. Can you ask the board to bring a load of half season ticket application forms? If they can guarantee that messrs Hughes, Cowan and Prentice will have no future- of any sort- at the club. I'll sign one. If you can keep Maggie Forsyth quiet, i'll give you a hug.

 

edited to add: If the board were to launch some sort of share scheme for the fans, that could be a good way forward. Preferably one that dilutes the influence of the former board AND the Trust.

Edited September 8, 2011 by La Scimmia Rossa

[Big Col]

I have to admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the legal angle here and the motions etc.

 

But one thing I do know is that I trust the current board a hell of a lot more than the previous board, and a hell of a lot more than the Trust Board.

 

I for one will be writing to Mr Beattie telling him so, and I would urge any fellow fans of a similar ilk to do the same.

[lennythistle]

I have to admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the legal angle here and the motions etc.

 

But one thing I do know is that I trust the current board a hell of a lot more than the previous board, and a hell of a lot more than the Trust Board.

 

I for one will be writing to Mr Beattie telling him so, and I would urge any fellow fans of a similar ilk to do the same.

 

my thoughts exactly.

[Vom Itorium]

Ditto

[B.C.G. JAG]

I have to admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the legal angle here and the motions etc.

 

But one thing I do know is that I trust the current board a hell of a lot more than the previous board, and a hell of a lot more than the Trust Board.

 

I for one will be writing to Mr Beattie telling him so, and I would urge any fellow fans of a similar ilk to do the same.

That's good. I don't trust any of these guys, old or new, or in the case of DB, both. Let's not forget some of these guys were also in the boardroom whilst some shambolic decisions were being made. That doesn't mean they are entirely to blame, but they are still responsible. Is it so wrong to have some guarantees in writing that protect the fan's approval of the Board? Trusting them more than the last lot doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A little bit of prudence please. There's no reason the changes can't go ahead, but it has to be done in a sensible way, and the emotive 'trust me' statement from DB fails to address those concerns in a business like way. These are business men - believe me, they wouldn't accept the terms offered either if it were the other way around. They have said they are willing to make changes to their motion, however, given their form on disrespecting the legal instructions of shareholders, I think it is right to ensure that protections are enshrined in print rather than tokenistic verbal promises. These things are way way too important to be decided on whimsical ideas like which incarnation of the Board you prefer - that should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Edited September 9, 2011 by B.C.G. JAG

[Steven H]

I have to admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the legal angle here and the motions etc.

 

But one thing I do know is that I trust the current board a hell of a lot more than the previous board, and a hell of a lot more than the Trust Board.

 

I for one will be writing to Mr Beattie telling him so, and I would urge any fellow fans of a similar ilk to do the same.

 

Blind trust? Haven't we had our fingers very badly burnt in the recent past by that very thing? No trust in any of them, but if they can come up with something that makes the Propco conflict of interest a stand alone issue, that has seperate decision making processes, then and only then will I use the word trust in relation to the current board.

 

 

That's good. I don't trust any of these guys, old or new, or in the case of DB, both. Let's not forget some of these guys were also in the boardroom whilst some shambolic decisions were being made. That doesn't mean they are entirely to blame, but they are still responsible. Is it so wrong to have some guarantees in writing that protect the fan's approval of the Board? Trusting them more than the last lot doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A little bit of prudence please. There's no reason the changes can't go ahead, but it has to be done in a sensible way, and the emotive 'trust me' statement from DB fails to address those concerns in a business like way. These are business men - believe me, they wouldn't accept the terms offered either if it were the other way around. They have said they are willing to make changes to their motion, however, given their form on disrespecting the legal instructions of shareholders, I think it is right to ensure that protections are enshrined in print rather than tokenistic verbal promises. These things are way way too important to be decided on whimsical ideas like which incarnation of the Board you prefer - that should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Agree entirely. In relation to what I said above, any proposal re the decision making process on Propco needs to have written guarantees. Trust can only go so far, particularly when the stakes are so high for many of us. I'd like to think DB and BA would be willing to accept the fans cannot simply trust them in relation to the Propco conflict of interest, and if they aint prepared to give written guarantees on this issue then they don't deserve any trust. As for the other conflict of interest areas (for example buying catering stuff from McGhees) then the current board can make the right decisions that could benefit the Club and provide McGhees with a new order...but the stakes are far lower in those types of scenarios.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Steven H

[Allan Heron]

As for the other conflict of interest areas (for example buying catering stuff from McGhees) then the current board can make the right decisions that could benefit the Club and provide McGhees with a new order...but the stakes are far lower in those types of scenarios.

 

Don't think McGhees sell stakes

[Steven H]

Don't think McGhees sell stakes

 

Aw Naw, that was not well done at all.

[Lindau]

A raging Beattie quoted in todays Record

 

"The reality of our situation today is that we have a small number of shareholders who are standing in the way of this club's attempts to move forward"

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

I'd be very appreciative of the opportunity to put questions to the club board.

 

I suggest that, if it is to be a worthwhile and productive exercise, some consideration be given to the coordination of the event. For example, the position of chair or compere for the evening is a skill and can make or break such meetings. The use of audio amplification and recording of what is said would be invaluable in order to review and understand concisely what we are being told.

 

I hope this will be a chance to get a clearer picture of our club's position, intentions and direction.

[Fawlty Towers]

Has there been any progress on getting this arranged?

 

I see that Rath Rovers have called an open meeting with their fans, hopefully they are not in any major difficulties:

 

http://www.raithroversfc.com/cgi-bin/features.cgi?id=214

[Jordanhill Jag]

Has there been any progress on getting this arranged?

 

I see that Rath Rovers have called an open meeting with their fans, hopefully they are not in any major difficulties:

 

http://www.raithroversfc.com/cgi-bin/features.cgi?id=214

 

Notification will be sent out in the next 24 hours

 

Jim

[Tom Hosie]

Notification will be sent out in the next 24 hours

 

Jim

 

And I'd buy a copy of Saturday's programme.

 

Sorry, for the shameless plug.

[Fawlty Towers]

Notification will be sent out in the next 24 hours

 

Jim

 

Thanks for the update Jim.

[Steven H]

Just received an email from Ami, Meet The Board night will be next Thursday at 7:30pm in the Aitken Suite.

[honved]

Just received an email from Ami, Meet The Board night will be next Thursday at 7:30pm in the Aitken Suite.

 

I think you'll find that e mail went to a whole bunch of people so don't get too excited.

 

PS mine had xxxs