Jacqui Low

[Jordanhill Jag 259]

1 hour ago, scotty said:

But we're not talking about shareholdings we're looking at the organisation of the football club.

The Football Club is a Limited Company and governed by the Companies Act ( which some people seem to be missing )  

[Semi Nurainen 289]

14 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Football Club is a Limited Company and governed by the Companies Act ( which some people seem to be missing )  

+1

[scotty 275]

So what does the Companies Act say about how a trust holding shares for fans operates? Which is what we were talking about. Not what the directors who are appointed to the board do.

[Garscube Road End 740]

4 hours ago, allyo said:

Ah well hang on. There was a girl with a saxophone with him, right enough

Was she a sexy saxophonist?

Edited Sunday at 02:50 PM by Garscube Road End

[Jordanhill Jag 259]

4 hours ago, scotty said:

So what does the Companies Act say about how a trust holding shares for fans operates? Which is what we were talking about. Not what the directors who are appointed to the board do.

The Shareholding Vehicle doesn't impact on how the Company Operates - there are obviously  rules of Corporate Governance for any Trust but by and large the Limited Company operates  the same way as any other Company - Board of Directors being responsible solely  

[jaf 204]

14 hours ago, scotty said:

The only difficulty I see with this is that the club will then be owned by two fans' organisations. Fans will be able to join one or both organisations and therefore the checks and balances could be negated.

Perhaps if the two organisations had different roles. one fundraising and the other management it could work.

Not for the first time we seem in totally different wavelengths. 
 

your post was about the merits or rather demerits of separate ownership by two fans organisations  how any owner - trust or otherwise - achieves ownership is by being a shareholder  

my point was then about a merit to counter your demerits   Then you claim that’s not what was being talked about!  I’m completely lost  following the logic but I’m sure you will be right

 

 

 

 

[ScottyDFA 89]

14 hours ago, BowenBoys said:

My identity is fairly well known. I worked with Jim's nephew many years ago. He was very nice too.

Jim Oliver, or Jim Bowen?

 

[scotty 275]

7 hours ago, jaf said:

Not for the first time we seem in totally different wavelengths. 
 

your post was about the merits or rather demerits of separate ownership by two fans organisations  how any owner - trust or otherwise - achieves ownership is by being a shareholder  

my point was then about a merit to counter your demerits   Then you claim that’s not what was being talked about!  I’m completely lost  following the logic but I’m sure you will be right

Sorry, we have come at this from two different directions.

I was thinking about the two fans organisations. The same fan will be able to join both, so if a number of them want to push the club in a certain direction then they can use their votes to push things in their way. But if the other organisation want things to go in a different way then the crossover could make the situation unworkable. We are talking about shareholdings held by groups of people not individuals.   I don't know how rules to protect minority shareholders can help if there are conflicts outwith the boardroom. Maybe you can clarify for me.

Edited Monday at 06:38 AM by scotty
spelling

[jagfox 673]

Some fans won't be able to join the PTFC Trust under its current entry requirements. I meet them but still haven't been registered.

[BowenBoys 1,405]

7 hours ago, ScottyDFA said:

Jim Oliver, or Jim Bowen?

 

  Oliver.

I'm sure we all think of JB at 4.45 on Saturdays when we look at what we could have won.