New Owner

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Perhaps they agreed prior to seeking approval from those selling.

Its not a matter of choice it’s a matter of legality based on any contracts, clauses etc

Those contracts and clauses are a matter of choice it is not a legal requirement and the statements of Beattie and the board members were made AFTER due diligence was agreed 

Edited August 25, 2019 by javeajag

[Norgethistle]

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Those contracts and clauses are a matter of choice it is not a legal requirement and the statements of Beattie and the board members were made AFTER due diligence was agreed 

They may be a requirement by the purchaser prior to discussing anything with the seller in detail. It’s exactly what may companies do just for standard business 

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

They may be a requirement by the purchaser prior to discussing anything with the seller in detail. It’s exactly what may companies do just for standard business 

I do understand it ...im just pointing out that’s what they might be choosing to do not what the are absolutely required to do....their choice 

I note your avoiding the board point  

[Dark Passenger]

19 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Perhaps they agreed prior to seeking approval from those selling.

Its not a matter of choice it’s a matter of legality based on any contracts, clauses etc

The takeover was deep into the due diligence process when the question was asked of the board members at the Q&A.

I asked the question about meetings with Trust reps/members expecting to be told that barriers existed to such a meeting, if that was indeed the case.

No such barriers to any meetings were identified. Every one of the three board members present, plus the chief executive, signalled their support for a meeting.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Dark Passenger

[Pinhead]

Maybe they were up for the meeting and suggested it to potential new owners and the new owners refused...easy to beat up Beattie and co i suppose though....

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, Pinhead said:

Maybe they were up for the meeting and suggested it to potential new owners and the new owners refused...easy to beat up Beattie and co i suppose though....

Easy to say I’ll ask them if they want to have a meeting.....but he didn’t 

[Dark Passenger]

27 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Perhaps they agreed prior to seeking approval from those selling.

Two of the four people who signalled their support for it at the Q&A *are* selling. We were told the Chairman supported it, too.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Dark Passenger

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

Two of the three people who signalled their support for it at the Q&A *are* selling. We were told the Chairman supported it, too.

The due diligence was agreed after the new board was appointed so the contracts, NDA and so in would have been part of that.....the commitment to the meeting was made after that on two separate occasions by three of  the selling shareholders 

explanations?

[Dark Passenger]

8 minutes ago, javeajag said:

explanations?

1. The potential new owners don't want to do it. I'd have expected the Chairman to state that if that was the case, though.

2. The sellers have had a change of heart regarding a meeting.

3. The takeover's on the rocks.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Dark Passenger

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

1. The potential new owners don't want to do it. I'd have expected the Chairman to clarify that if that was the case, though.

2. The sellers have had a change of heart.

3. The takeover's on the rocks.

Or was it just a convenient thing to say ?

[Dark Passenger]

Perhaps. But I'm sure the board's promise to improve communications means we'll know soon enough. 

 

 

 

[javeajag]

Just now, Dark Passenger said:

Perhaps. But I'm sure the board's promise to improve communications means we'll know soon enough. 

 

 

 

I’m sure your right 

[dl1971]

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the consortium give a damn about the fans/trust

For me the onus should be on our thistle minded board to explain in greater detail why they are selling. The lack of detail remains suspicious thus the tsunami of comments. No wonder the trust statement today was full of frustration. Like most I'm heartily sick of how this has been handled. 

[Firhillista]

My takeaway from the statement is that if the SFA give the go ahead, this consortium will purchase a majority stake in Thistle. Any feelings the fans have about it are irrelevant. 

The only way this won't happen is if the SFA says no.

[jlsarmy]

3 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

My takeaway from the statement is that if the SFA give the go ahead, this consortium will purchase a majority stake in Thistle. Any feelings the fans have about it are irrelevant. 

The only way this won't happen is if the SFA says no.

Still can’t see this happening unless SFA and the English Authorities move the goalposts( pardon the pun ) at to the rules they put down re dual ownership.

[jaf]

I can see both sides of this. 

They did indeed agree to this meeting at the meet the open day, which I suspect dark passenger will even agree was more easily won than anyone expected.   A promise should not have been given that could not be delivered. 

On the other hand, they did not say when it would take place. 

We were all clamouring for a chance to hear from board.  It would have been better with hindsight waiting a couple of weeks and hearing from Beattie though. Springford and gilfillan had nightmares. 

I also think the trust in order to discharge their duties do need to leave personal preferences for old boards or new boards to one side to do the unenviable job of representing the supporters correctly  I am sure that is tricky but if I was in the board or potential buyers shoes, I wouldn’t be too keen acquiescing to a meeting of hostile people with a grievance beyond the issue at hand, especially one not universally held within the support   I think universally we can agree that the reassurance of a meeting on the future would be useful though  

 

 

[Dark Passenger]

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

I can see both sides of this. 

They did indeed agree to this meeting at the meet the open day, which I suspect dark passenger will even agree was more easily won than anyone expected.   A promise should not have been given that could not be delivered. 

On the other hand, they did not say when it would take place. 

They did. I specifically asked if they would lend their support to a meeting taking place *before* any deal was finalised 

[jaf]

Just now, Dark Passenger said:

They did. I specifically asked if they would lend their support to a meeting taking place *before* any deal was finalised 

Yes.  Sorry I meant timeframe. 

[Dark Passenger]

6 minutes ago, jaf said:

I also think the trust in order to discharge their duties do need to leave personal preferences for old boards or new boards to one side to do the unenviable job of representing the supporters correctly  I am sure that is tricky but if I was in the board or potential buyers shoes, I wouldn’t be too keen acquiescing to a meeting of hostile people with a grievance beyond the issue at hand.

What are you implying?

[jaf]

1 minute ago, Dark Passenger said:

What are you implying?

Nothing implied 

I am simply stating that there is an issue that concerns all supporters. And lesser issues that do not. And the focus should be on the former. Which I hope we all agree with. 

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Is the meeting all that important anyway or simply a piece of protocol? For instance if there's any assurances given in a scale of 0 to 10 how would you rate the creditability of such assurances? 

While I'm at it another question I've been meaning to ask....... If the finances of the Club were being run along the lines that the present board would've considered prudent would Beattie & Co have been happy to sit on the sidelines or would they still have taken back control of the Club?

[javeajag]

9 hours ago, jaf said:

I can see both sides of this. 

They did indeed agree to this meeting at the meet the open day, which I suspect dark passenger will even agree was more easily won than anyone expected.   A promise should not have been given that could not be delivered. 

On the other hand, they did not say when it would take place. 

We were all clamouring for a chance to hear from board.  It would have been better with hindsight waiting a couple of weeks and hearing from Beattie though. Springford and gilfillan had nightmares. 

I also think the trust in order to discharge their duties do need to leave personal preferences for old boards or new boards to one side to do the unenviable job of representing the supporters correctly  I am sure that is tricky but if I was in the board or potential buyers shoes, I wouldn’t be too keen acquiescing to a meeting of hostile people with a grievance beyond the issue at hand, especially one not universally held within the support   I think universally we can agree that the reassurance of a meeting on the future would be useful though  

 

 

Beattie agreed to the meeting before the open dayy it was reiterated then.....in the Trust statement  if August 10 the meeting was to be before the transfer of the shares.

interestingly your couple of weeks have passed and still nothing from the chairman.

your last point is strange .... both trusts have been anything but trying to be supportive if they can so not sure what your getting at 

im not sure what two sides you are referring to ? The one who agreed the meeting and then pulled it or the one who asked for it was told they would get it and then told they wouldn’t ? There is no equivalence 

Edited August 26, 2019 by javeajag

[javeajag]

7 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Is the meeting all that important anyway or simply a piece of protocol? For instance if there's any assurances given in a scale of 0 to 10 how would you rate the creditability of such assurances? 

While I'm at it another question I've been meaning to ask....... If the finances of the Club were being run along the lines that the present board would've considered prudent would Beattie & Co have been happy to sit on the sidelines or would they still have taken back control of the Club?

I don’t think finances were the reason they came back.....it was to facilitate the takeover which the previous board were not supporting 

[jaf]

11 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I don’t think finances were the reason they came back.....it was to facilitate the takeover which the previous board were not supporting 

I think this is largely correct. Board Have a duty to shareholders   

But in addition, I understand there was one specific financial issue too.    

Whatever, the past is the past   Only the passing of time can explain what was for the best, we all have opinions but no ones opinion can be more accurate than anyone else’s   What is for sure is that Beattie et al have handled this really poorly since coming back onto the board  

 

 

[jaf]

7 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Is the meeting all that important anyway or simply a piece of protocol? For instance if there's any assurances given in a scale of 0 to 10 how would you rate the creditability of such assurances? 

I agree with this. If they had said at the meeting, look this isn’t going to happen and here’s why, then I would have been disappointed but probably accepted it  I thought it was strange/unusual that this was so easily agreed to on the day  

it was the last question - perhaps Springford just wanted out of there and thought that the atmosphere of the meeting meant he had to give a placatory answer   They really do deserve all the criticism they get over this  

it is also a brilliant example of why the fans trusts ought to have a board representative since they can’t be guaranteed a simple meeting and perhaps the trusts should be asking for that  it could be put in articles and enshrined in them prior to any deal so it cannot be changed   That might be better tan repeatedly asking for a meeting that isn’t in the gift of board to give? 

finally, it’s a perfect example of why the continuation of this board cannot happen  in the long term  and why i believe a disinterested disconnected disappointed board/shareholder group is a much worse outcome than new owners (even if new owners ultimately are motivated by financial gain)