Jump to content

Jacqui Low


blakey
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, allyo said:

I'm not expert, but my understanding would be that the shareholders can influence the question of who is on the Board, and can ultimately remove it if it is unhappy with its performance, but should not be influencing the decisions taken by the Board while it is in place.

This (if accurate) seems quite logical,  and simple. And not really in conflict with much that has been said here (before we get into another shouting match).

This, plus, as JJ said a while back, directors are required to act in the best interests of the company.  This clearly must be legal and in line with laws, h&s and codes of practice or they, and potentially the company (if aware or complicit) could be in significant bother.

Also, for anyone doubting whether directors end up in jail, the HSE do a great regular newsletter highlighting just that, it's always an interesting read and often sobering at times too.

Subscribe below.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/news/subscribe/index.htm

 

Can we also agree that there's little doubt that Jackie wanted to be a success personally at Thistle and to all intents and purposes wanted the best for the club too, she probably could have done things differently (couldn't we all?) and may or may not end up involved again one day.  No one knows for sure although it's reported on here that TFE have said that she won't have any official role within their model so that's that till we hear differently.

Edited by sb1876
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

JJ , think you’ll find a people who have a 55% shareholding have the control of our Club , they’ve obviously got 55% of any vote that goes on , whether that’s the removal of a director or whatever if they thought that the BOD weren’t working in their favour , is that not how the last boardroom coup worked ?

The BOD are really at the behest of the Shareholders if it’s deemed they’re not working in their interests or the Clubs 

Exactly 

proving a board is not operating in the interests of all shareholders in a private company when they have  55% of the shares at least is lets say ... challenging 

but I expect the club to be run as we would all expect 

the only game in town now is making fan ownership work ...it seems ok at Motherwell so there is no reason why we can’t make a success if it 

Edited by Springburnjag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fenski said:

Yep. To think this thread started on the same day the New Owner thread was closed...

Noticed that too. Perhaps we just need a thread where a handful of posters can argue the toss as repetitively as they desire, whilst a few other better informed posters can make salient points in the full knowledge that their valid points and information will likely be overlooked.

God knows why we need such threads but far be it from me to say they shouldn't exist. To each their own. :thumbsup2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

JJ , think you’ll find a people who have a 55% shareholding have the control of our Club , they’ve obviously got 55% of any vote that goes on , whether that’s the removal of a director or whatever if they thought that the BOD weren’t working in their favour , is that not how the last boardroom coup worked ?

The BOD are really at the behest of the Shareholders if it’s deemed they’re not working in their interests or the Clubs 

Ok so we are clear  there is a misconception on Control and for the sake of our Directors  and others then I hope that they understand the difference between Majority Shareholding & Control - note the word is Majority Shareholding not Owners- s has been bounced about on Social Media 

Yes at any given time the Majority Shareholders can serve notice of removal - this is a formal legal notification - recorded and served and minuted 

However CONTROL of the Club is with the Directors and legally always is - all Shareholders can do is make requests - and remove the Board - they can give No instructions - they cant speak to staff - they have no input in any shape or form - they have no titles - Nada - Nothing - a Majority Shareholder has no more rights than me as a Shareholder - they just have more shares to win a Vote if it gets to that 

Now if someone is taking decisions who is not a Director then the definition of a Shadow Director may come into play as covered by the Companies Act 

My advice to any Director is comply with the Legislation - you are  the responsible individual - something goes wrong - you will be held accountable - Health & Safety - Employment - Finances - its all on you as an individual - if by abiding by the rules your Services are no longer required - fine - you did what the Legislation required you to do and you can look yourself in the Mirror 

With Title comes responsibility - Society considers responsibility of a Director that important its defined by an Act of Parliament - so rather than has been implied - its a small Company and it doesn't really matter - as a Club who prides itself in being  Fair & Open then it matters a lot 

Cheating isnt ok - on the Park or with anything to do with the Club - Play by the Rules - the end never justifies the means if the means dont reflect the values of the Club 

Was a previous Board removed by Majority Shareholders - Yes - was it done strictly within the Rules - Yes   

So you are 100% wrong regards the 55% and I think misconception is at play on multi levels 

   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springburnjag said:

Exactly 

proving a board is not operating in the interests of all shareholders in a private company when they have  55% of the shares at least is lets say ... challenging 

but I expect the club to be run as we would all expect 

the only game in town now is making fan ownership work ...it seems ok at Motherwell so there is no reason why we can’t make a success if it 

No the only game in Town is fir the Club to be run properly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok so we are clear  there is a misconception on Control and for the sake of our Directors  and others then I hope that they understand the difference between Majority Shareholding & Control - note the word is Majority Shareholding not Owners- s has been bounced about on Social Media 

Yes at any given time the Majority Shareholders can serve notice of removal - this is a formal legal notification - recorded and served and minuted 

However CONTROL of the Club is with the Directors and legally always is - all Shareholders can do is make requests - and remove the Board - they can give No instructions - they cant speak to staff - they have no input in any shape or form - they have no titles - Nada - Nothing - a Majority Shareholder has no more rights than me as a Shareholder - they just have more shares to win a Vote if it gets to that 

Now if someone is taking decisions who is not a Director then the definition of a Shadow Director may come into play as covered by the Companies Act 

My advice to any Director is comply with the Legislation - you are  the responsible individual - something goes wrong - you will be held accountable - Health & Safety - Employment - Finances - its all on you as an individual - if by abiding by the rules your Services are no longer required - fine - you did what the Legislation required you to do and you can look yourself in the Mirror 

With Title comes responsibility - Society considers responsibility of a Director that important its defined by an Act of Parliament - so rather than has been implied - its a small Company and it doesn't really matter - as a Club who prides itself in being  Fair & Open then it matters a lot 

Cheating isnt ok - on the Park or with anything to do with the Club - Play by the Rules - the end never justifies the means if the means dont reflect the values of the Club 

Was a previous Board removed by Majority Shareholders - Yes - was it done strictly within the Rules - Yes   

So you are 100% wrong regards the 55% and I think misconception is at play on multi levels 

   

 

The new BOD of Directors came into play after the 55% buyout , are you really saying the new BOD have no idea what direction the new 55% shareholder wants to go in ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

The new BOD of Directors came into play after the 55% buyout , are you really saying the new BOD have no idea what direction the new 55% shareholder wants to go in ?

The New BOD were appointed exclusively by the 55% and Ive no doubt that they know the "direction"  they wish to go in - however there is a marked difference between responding to a general direction and as your suggesting a majority shareholding has Control or a say in how the Club is run - they do not - if the Directors arent reflecting how they see the Club should be run then Shareholders can remove them 

That is the available legal sanction - beyond that the Directors  run the Club in all aspects - otherwise its shambolic - hence why the Companies Act gives clear instruction as to Director Responsibilites     

For instance - Staff Decisions - Employment Decisions - H&S Decisions - Financial Decisions - and even Football Decisions ref Management Budget etc are exclusivly those of the Directors no external input -its very clear 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The New BOD were appointed exclusively by the 55% and Ive no doubt that they know the "direction"  they wish to go in - however there is a marked difference between responding to a general direction and as your suggesting a majority shareholding has Control or a say in how the Club is run - they do not - if the Directors arent reflecting how they see the Club should be run then Shareholders can remove them 

That is the available legal sanction - beyond that the Directors  run the Club in all aspects - otherwise its shambolic - hence why the Companies Act gives clear instruction as to Director Responsibilites     

For instance - Staff Decisions - Employment Decisions - H&S Decisions - Financial Decisions - and even Football Decisions ref Management Budget etc are exclusivly those of the Directors no external input -its very clear 

There is absolutely no doubt who is in control of our Club , the guy who bought the 55% shareholding of the Club and knows what direction he wants to take us .

Incidentally he is also on the BOD as well as being the majority shareholder, so the key decisions that you speak about, football decisions, budgets etc will obviously be driven by his input and thinking .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok so we are clear  there is a misconception on Control and for the sake of our Directors  and others then I hope that they understand the difference between Majority Shareholding & Control - note the word is Majority Shareholding not Owners- s has been bounced about on Social Media 

Yes at any given time the Majority Shareholders can serve notice of removal - this is a formal legal notification - recorded and served and minuted 

However CONTROL of the Club is with the Directors and legally always is - all Shareholders can do is make requests - and remove the Board - they can give No instructions - they cant speak to staff - they have no input in any shape or form - they have no titles - Nada - Nothing - a Majority Shareholder has no more rights than me as a Shareholder - they just have more shares to win a Vote if it gets to that 

Now if someone is taking decisions who is not a Director then the definition of a Shadow Director may come into play as covered by the Companies Act 

My advice to any Director is comply with the Legislation - you are  the responsible individual - something goes wrong - you will be held accountable - Health & Safety - Employment - Finances - its all on you as an individual - if by abiding by the rules your Services are no longer required - fine - you did what the Legislation required you to do and you can look yourself in the Mirror 

With Title comes responsibility - Society considers responsibility of a Director that important its defined by an Act of Parliament - so rather than has been implied - its a small Company and it doesn't really matter - as a Club who prides itself in being  Fair & Open then it matters a lot 

Cheating isnt ok - on the Park or with anything to do with the Club - Play by the Rules - the end never justifies the means if the means dont reflect the values of the Club 

Was a previous Board removed by Majority Shareholders - Yes - was it done strictly within the Rules - Yes   

So you are 100% wrong regards the 55% and I think misconception is at play on multi levels 

   

 

Can I make a suggestion that we close this down ? Your not a lawyer neither am I and it’s all a bit irrelevant anyway ( please don’t respond) 

it would be in everyone’s interest if you me and everyone else put their energy into helping the club transition to the next stage of our development .

Edited by Springburnjag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

There is absolutely no doubt who is in control of our Club , the guy who bought the 55% shareholding of the Club and knows what direction he wants to take us .

Incidentally he is also on the BOD as well as being the majority shareholder, so the key decisions that you speak about, football decisions, budgets etc will obviously be driven by his input and thinking .

He has one vote on the Board - his shareholding  has no relevance to the voting at Board Meetings - and all decisions should be made on Merit not to keep a Major Shareholder happy - otherwise why bother having a Board  ? 

If you believe that a Shareholder Controls the Club - then you are seriously wrong - Shareholders have no legal standing beyond owning shares - only Directors can make decisions  - not sure what part of that you dont understand 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Springburnjag said:

Can I make a suggestion that we close this down ? Your not a lawyer neither am I and it’s all a bit irrelevant anyway ( please don’t respond) 

it would be in everyone’s interest if you me and everyone else put their energy into helping the club transition to the next stage of our development .

What dont you like how its going  ? 

Dont need to be a Lawyer the rules for a Director are very well described and simple to follow ...........  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

He has one vote on the Board - his shareholding  has no relevance to the voting at Board Meetings - and all decisions should be made on Merit not to keep a Major Shareholder happy - otherwise why bother having a Board  ? 

If you believe that a Shareholder Controls the Club - then you are seriously wrong - Shareholders have no legal standing beyond owning shares - only Directors can make decisions  - not sure what part of that you dont understand 

 

Wow , you’re a man of many contrasts, on one thread re the hiring of Gary Caldwell you’ve told me Jlows influence probably swayed it on the BOD , regardless that she only had one vote on the Board .

Are you seriously telling me that Colin Weir who is the majority shareholder and also on the Board won’t have the most clout.

I suggest that any of the BOD who aren’t going with the plan will be removed as is his right as  the majority shareholder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Noticed that too. Perhaps we just need a thread where a handful of posters can argue the toss as repetitively as they desire, whilst a few other better informed posters can make salient points in the full knowledge that their valid points and information will likely be overlooked.

God knows why we need such threads but far be it from me to say they shouldn't exist. To each their own. :thumbsup2:

Can't argue with that. No room for it on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

What dont you like how its going  ? 

Dont need to be a Lawyer the rules for a Director are very well described and simple to follow ...........  

 

No I think your making a t*t of yourself ....this macho desire to have the last word and go on and on and on about how right you are .... well misogyny wins out looks like 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Springburnjag said:

Can I make a suggestion that we close this down ? Your not a lawyer neither am I and it’s all a bit irrelevant anyway ( please don’t respond) 

it would be in everyone’s interest if you me and everyone else put their energy into helping the club transition to the next stage of our development .

Just about the most sensible post on this thread.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there was one poxy, 'how to run PTFC' thread that lasted 200+ pages, now this one appears to be going the same way …. can the proponents of this verbal diarrhea please continue their discussions by using the personal mail method …. or arrange a meet at a hostelry close to Firhill to continue their discussions face to face?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

So there was one poxy, 'how to run PTFC' thread that lasted 200+ pages, now this one appears to be going the same way …. can the proponents of this verbal diarrhea please continue their discussions by using the personal mail method …. or arrange a meet at a hostelry close to Firhill to continue their discussions face to face?

 

Why should they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...