Woodstock Jag

I just don't get how the Club can go from having directors step in on an emergency basis to plug a deficit, making noises about PT football suddenly to giving several players 2.5 year contracts. Buchanan must have been on an utterly obscene wage if these moves are anything like part of a sustainable budget.

And Scott Fox?

The point is, though, that at current salary rates we're losing money!

Don't want to be seen as a doom merchant, but where's the money coming from for these deals? Only a few months ago we were told that the directors had to personally plug a £100k deficit in the budget up to December and that they needed to raise another £100k by the end of the season. Suddenly that problem has been "fixed" by a sponsorship deal and "other corporate sponsorship" and they're throwing long-term contracts about with no apparent concern about how to pay for it. Don't get me wrong. From a purely footballing perspective it's good to have these guys tied up. I really don't want to see us end up with the same old financial problems as before, though. These players aren't going to be going for big transfer fees.

I happen to think it's the latter. I don't think there's any muddy water in describing the general administration of our club by its directors over the past 5 years minimum as incompetent. Like, say, budgeting for break-even at 3500 through the gate; or losing £200kpa minimum for 5 consecutive years? The great thing about defamation is the defence of veritas. My personal opinion is that there was a clear conflict of interest in the way it was handled given several parties were effectively on both sides of the fence. I don't think that's marginal territory as regards legality in the slightest. I am...

Yes I know he says that. If you look at what I was saying *in context* I was simply responding to northernsoul's recollection of events at the JT Open Meeting, and giving my own personal interpretation of those comments. As far as I can see I've not said anything defamatory and have merely said I would be interested to know the facts. When I said I believed the term used was "net taker" I was referring to David Stewart's comments. That seems to be backed up by the transcript. When I said I believed he didn't restrict it to one director I was again referring to David Stewart's comments. Again that seems to be backed up by the transcript. When I said I was never privy to the actual numbers, I mean I never read or was told the specific amounts directors were purportedly paid for services rendered. I don't think this infers anything. So what's the problem?

I've had a dig through the recording of the JT meeting and here are David's comment's verbatim (at 1 hour, 7 minutes, 40 seconds): Questioner: Do the board put a lot of money in the Club themselves, you know digging into their own pocket? DS: I think some people do, I think some people don't. Questioner: Cause you hear about a lot of other teams who are bankrolled by people with money on their board and our board don't seem to be doing that, you know what I mean? Not necessarily like Dundee but... Other Person (cutting across): I think a guy paid £250k for his shares, so I think that's a fair bit of money to me. DS: The reality is that two directors, and I could be wrong in this but my understanding is that two of the directors were a net taker of cash from the business by virtue of the services their companies were providing to the football club and those directors are no longer on the board

I've tried to make it abundantly clear that I am only saying how I interpreted the (recorded) comments of the then JT Chair. I don't think I've imputed anything potentially defamatory (indeed it's not *that* unusual for directors to draw money from a football club for services rendered.) It is, I think a separate issue from the substantive points at hand.

Missed that first time round... I'm not assessing whether they wee fair and reasonable. I'm just saying what I took stolenscone's words to mean when he said what he said at the JT Open Meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not inferring wrongdoing from the mere assertion that some (then) directors were net takers from the Club.

Cue announcement tomorrow that Eddie Prentice has been appointed Puppet Apprentice at £80kpa.

Nothing fishy implied in net taker. I simply mean a net taker. Services rendered for Club vs Financial input.

In other circles, the only response to that would be "Telt".

Say it isn't so.

That as the case may be, the maths suggests that it unlikely that Tom Hughes abstained in the vote given the situation with proxies. Combine that with his role in the approach to the Jags Trust to which at least one current director was privy and involved and his ongoing role at the Club and it seems likely that there was at the very least collusion from one or more members of the Club board in Jim's removal.

When I saw the thread title and subtitle I thought Grehan had been elected to the Club Board...

Which would be even more ridiculous. Laugh or cry. Which is it to be?

I presume you're referring to the way they did it in preceding years? If Directors weren't voted for individually at this meeting then how was Jim thrown off the board?

I'm not Brown McMaster's tax adviser. You'll probably find that Tom Hughes is...

I remember at the 2010 AGM he claimed that McMaster was given his shares as remuneration for his full-time work for the Club for 3 years. Does that mean that Tom Hughes should be expected to give back the shares alongside every penny he cost the Club?

I think the term used was "net taker" and I don't think he restricted it explicitly to one director. I must admit I was never privy to the actual numbers beyond the well-known Eddie Prentice salary. I took it as a given that he meant the obvious (Prentice) but was making a thinly veiled hint about Tom Hughes and the services provided by GLG. I would be very interested to see what fees have been associated with activities carried out by GLG on behalf of the Club for the past 4-5 years.

I haven't checked the Articles of Association, but I strongly suspect that divulging any information about a proxy (except with that proxy's express consent/direction or for a reason required by virtue of law) would be on very shakey legal territory.

Although, northernsoul, recent events suggest to me that those with shares still hold the cards in the boardroom even though most of them aren't there. I'm not comfortable at all with what seems to be a rather cosey mutual interest between some who remain on the Board and those who must have voted to remove Jim Alexander. Edit: that mutual interest, of course being the Property Company.

Oh absolutely, but the point is our financial situation has got considerably worse than many of those around us, and it's been the same folk holding the levers the whole time. Whether that is down to incompetence or malice isn't clear, but neither are satisfactory. If Microsoft starts losing £10 billion a day because of a corrupt or incompetent director (let's say they'd have otherwise lost £2 billion a day), the fact that Apple might be losing £5 billion a day because of a similarly but less corrupt or incompetent director doesn't make it okay. That director should still have absolutely nothing more to do with that company and a more honest or more competent director should replace him, free from encumbrance of the old guard sticking their noses in again and again. Why? I'd love to believe they are. I really would. If they are though, their best isn't good enough.

The thing is if you look at the arithmetic and the way that Tom Hughes and a current director conducted themselves prior to the vote, it would be completely irrational for them not to at least vote in favour of keeping Jim on the Board. My understanding is that of major shareholders the JT and Grant Bannerman voted for Jim (that's just shy of 1.5 million shares). If the rest of the Club Board voted in Jim's favour, that would have generated just shy of 3 million votes for Jim. Now given that one of those shareholdings is held by the director who is understood to have been in consultation with Tom Hughes (who also owns 1million shares) when contacting the Trust, it surely follows that the reason they both sought that meeting must have been because they were of like mind. If that then means the current board endorse Jim, Tom Hughes ought to have followed suit: just shy of 4 million shares in Jim's favour. That would only leave McMaster (1040k), Springford (1m), Prentice (1m), Jim Oliver (500k), Duncan Stewart (500k) and Robert Smith (200k) with shareholdings of note. I have absolutely no doubt that at least 1million of those shares would have been inactive, possibly 2million. That would mean Jim's position was safe. The only possible conclusion we can reach, therefore, is that Tom Hughes did not endorse Jim Alexander. We also know that he was overheard discussing several persons' proxies and that he appears to be advising and courting support of elements of the current board. Can we then or can we then not presume that he must have abstained or voted against Jim Alexander's re-election? If he, Beattie and Gillfilan abstained, that takes 2.5 million shares out of the equation. That means you would have needed a co-ordinated set of proxies from a combination of McMaster, Springford, Prentice Jim Oliver and Duncan Stewart, several of whom have absolutely no active involvement in the Club anymore, to reach a figure of 4 million votes against Jim's reappointment. It stinks. It stinks to high heaven. Norman Springford's shares were bought, but you're right about McMaster's and Hughes.

Okay, so you don't think that a Club that's losing more than £200kpa on a turnover in the region of £2 million and has sold half its stadium is in serious financial trouble when the guy with the calculator that caused that is still there? Well it's not ridiculous. On the most part it's true. There are some directors with much better (though far from perfect) track records (Geoff Brown at St Johnstone; Rod McDonald at Hamilton) but then you have the Calum Melvilles and Masones who raise the fans' hopes with empty bluster and with a reckless disregard to treating their Clubs like a business leave them on the brink. If essentially the same people fail over a 10 year period, they clearly are incompetents or charlatans.