The Queen of the South thread

[Fae_the_'briggs]

27 minutes ago, kirkyblue2 said:

I'd rather have a local builder run the club who is not accountable to anybody.

And who, along with his fellow directors, is doing a fine job at present, and who are all accountable to the company shareholders, but don't let that trifling fact get in the way of having a sly dig. 

[Homer Thompson]

6 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

I've still to see anything explaining what a position on the Board would allow the Trust to do that they can't/don't already.

Going by reports from those that were at the AGM it also seems like the Trust are completely unprepared for what the role of Director entails.

To summarise; we don't know why they want the role, and they don't know what to do with the role if they had been given it.  Yet people are still adamant they should get it?

It seems to me the Trust have become too fixated on gaining the esteem of a Director's position.

I agree with that too

2 hours ago, KingfaetheSooth said:

Pretty much this. 

I sat next to two of the Trust in Hearts elected Directors at the Wimbledon game last week and they were very impressive in terms of their ideas and plans for the club. Of course Hearts have had a fairly awful owner in the past so there is an appetite at the club for fan involvement at the highest level. They are also lucky that the majority shareholder is committed to a transformation programme to fan ownership. It's a real shame that the current Queens Directors cannot do the same.

The winds of change are blowing across Scottish football clubs and the Queens Directors need to embrace this and look to safeguard the club in the longer term by anchoring the ownership of the club and Palmerston with the fans and the local community. Equally of course, the fan groups need to be well organised, well run, sustainable and ready to help run the club. In this respect hey need people with a good business background involved and have the backing of local businesses as well as the fans. (they already seem to have the backing of the local council)

The Directors at Queens have shown that they have some good ideas in how to make the club sustainable but this needs to be opened up further to the wider fanbase and community if accusations of parochialism, cronyism and local business people 'feathering their own nest' are to be avoided. To be clear, I'm not saying this is happening, but openness and accountability are crucial with a football club that is not just another local business but something that should be at the heart of the local community.

 

Why does that require a Supporter on the Board to achieve it though?

5 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

And who, along with his fellow directors, is doing a fine job at present, and who are all accountable to the company shareholders, but don't let that trifling fact get in the way of having a sly dig. 

I think this was mentioned a few page back, but its an interesting question. As a director of a company, the supporter would have various legal obligations to act in the interests of the company, shareholders etc. As a nominee of the Trust they then have obligations to them. It would be interesting to know how that works at other clubs, particularly somewhere like Dumbarton where the ownership isnt as straightforward

[JessieField]

21 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I agree with that too

Why does that require a Supporter on the Board to achieve it though?

I think this was mentioned a few page back, but its an interesting question. As a director of a company, the supporter would have various legal obligations to act in the interests of the company, shareholders etc. As a nominee of the Trust they then have obligations to them. It would be interesting to know how that works at other clubs, particularly somewhere like Dumbarton where the ownership isnt as straightforward

This is what I'm not sure about. It was said at the AGM that the Trust would appoint their Director after/if they received a position on the Board. What happens if the person the Trust choose is unacceptable to the other Shareholders of the Company not in the Trust? What is the position then? Who has priority over choosing the Director? I would have thought it was the original Company's shareholders.

[KingfaetheSooth]

25 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I agree with that too

Why does that require a Supporter on the Board to achieve it though?

I think this was mentioned a few page back, but its an interesting question. As a director of a company, the supporter would have various legal obligations to act in the interests of the company, shareholders etc. As a nominee of the Trust they then have obligations to them. It would be interesting to know how that works at other clubs, particularly somewhere like Dumbarton where the ownership isnt as straightforward

For me, it's a question of accountability and trust. A fans' representative would provide some checks and balances. The fans' representative should bring something to the table of course.

Just supposing that Blount Senior had stood up at Monday's AGM and said he wanted a fans' rep on the Board and he was putting himself forward with the backing of the fans/Trust, how would that have played out?

What I'm driving at is the way football in Scotland is going there is little appetite for an ownership structure where the fans are completely excluded from being "owners" in some way or another.

[Skyline Drifter]

31 minutes ago, JessieField said:

This is what I'm not sure about. It was said at the AGM that the Trust would appoint their Director after/if they received a position on the Board. What happens if the person the Trust choose is unacceptable to the other Shareholders of the Company not in the Trust? What is the position then? Who has priority over choosing the Director? I would have thought it was the original Company's shareholders.

To be clear, as there appears to be some confusion over this including from the Trust themselves. The "Director" would have been "Queen of the South Supporters Society Limited" as a corporate entity. Which particular individual had then represented the Trust at meetings is not something the shareholders would have any input on, nor is there any particular requirement that it actually be the same person each meeting, though clearly the intention from the Trust side seems to be that it would have been. Corporate directors are something the UK government is seeking to ban however and this would have been a relatively short term solution. They were supposed to be banned from October 2016 but the ban has been deferred at the moment and Companies House cannot say how long it will be before it's brought in. Any individual taking the role of a director in their own name would need to have 250 shares in their own name. No current member of the Trust actually has 250 shares.

27 minutes ago, KingfaetheSooth said:

What I'm driving at is the way football in Scotland is going there is little appetite for an ownership structure where the fans are completely excluded from being "owners" in some way or another.

There are about 1,000 different shareholders in Queen of the South and shares were available for circa 15 years. I know they are not currently readily available but there are plenty of fans included in the ownership structure at Queens.

[Homer Thompson]

37 minutes ago, KingfaetheSooth said:

For me, it's a question of accountability and trust. A fans' representative would provide some checks and balances. The fans' representative should bring something to the table of course.

Just supposing that Blount Senior had stood up at Monday's AGM and said he wanted a fans' rep on the Board and he was putting himself forward with the backing of the fans/Trust, how would that have played out?

What I'm driving at is the way football in Scotland is going there is little appetite for an ownership structure where the fans are completely excluded from being "owners" in some way or another.

Checks and balances of what? What would they be checking that the shareholders dont?

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

I've still to see anything explaining what a position on the Board would allow the Trust to do that they can't/don't already.

 

Do you really see no symbolic value attached to such a move?

I find myself in agreement with some of the sentiment that says not much would change on a practical level  if a Trust rep was on board.  

For me however, that begs questions not as to what the point would be; but as to what the problem would be.

It's a good forward thinking idea that helps with transparency and with recognising that there's properly something reciprocal about the relationship supporters have with their team.

As such, I think blocking it requires a bloody good reason and I don't see one. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Monkey Tennis

[Shadwell Dog]

22 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Checks and balances of what? What would they be checking that the shareholders dont?

They would make sure the bod are acting in the interests of the club at all times. Whilst this might not be a major issue for Queens at the moment you never know what the future will hold. At falkirk we've had good boards and bad boards. in the past and we nearly went down the tubes in the late 90's . Its trying to prevent things like that happening that mean a fans rep on the bod are a good thing.

[RUSTY1111]

As previously stated, 250 shares are required to be a club director in your own name. I've asked this question before, but you would think that shareholders in the Queens Trust could give their shares to the QT to substantiate their bid to have a director on the Queens board? Apparently this is not viable.

[Guest Flash]

31 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Checks and balances of what? What would they be checking that the shareholders dont?

Shareholders don't have any day to day involvement in the running of the club. And if a company is controlled by a few people, it won't really matter what the majority think. There is a difference between a fan owned club and one where fans own shares but the control rests with a few individuals. I'm not sure whether that is the case here, but it could be. The directors would then really only be responsible to the few controlling shareholders rather than to the majority. And if the controlling shareholders were their pals, the accountability isn't really effective.

You made another point before that fans can currently put ideas forward. This is true, but they have no input into whether or not they are actually implemented. Also, if something was proposed by the current directors, the fans have no input into whether that proposal should go ahead or not, or whether certain changes could be made to it. As I understand KftS, it would be a 2 way thing rather than the present situation of some fan suggestions being taken forward and no scrutiny by a fan rep of anything that maybe shouldn't be done or should be done differently.

I think it boils down to the quality of the individual and the fans who they represent. If it is just some numpty in a suit then obviously it would be a disaster. However, if the fan rep is somebody quite able and if fans with commercial awareness and/or business experience get involved then you are tapping into the skillset of the fanbase as well as the individual themselves. The fan rep would be reporting ideas from those individuals to the rest of the board. And taking ideas from the board to them for input from people with experience of whatever it was. That surely would be a good thing.

I don't think either side has emerged from the meeting with any credit. The trust appear to have been ill-prepared. And Blount appears to have used some vague, non-stautory financial responsibility to put the wind up them and impress the assembled gathering. However, I wasn't there, so maybe that's not the case.

It is just a shame that something which appears to have the best interests of the club at heart has been dealt with in such an adversarial way. Seems to me that neither side really trusts the other. But I could be wrong.

 

 

 

[Homer Thompson]

47 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

They would make sure the bod are acting in the interests of the club at all times. Whilst this might not be a major issue for Queens at the moment you never know what the future will hold. At falkirk we've had good boards and bad boards. in the past and we nearly went down the tubes in the late 90's . Its trying to prevent things like that happening that mean a fans rep on the bod are a good thing.

But, again, isnt that what the shareholders are there for? 

38 minutes ago, Flash said:

Shareholders don't have any day to day involvement in the running of the club. And if a company is controlled by a few people, it won't really matter what the majority think. There is a difference between a fan owned club and one where fans own shares but the control rests with a few individuals. I'm not sure whether that is the case here, but it could be. The directors would then really only be responsible to the few controlling shareholders rather than to the majority. And if the controlling shareholders were their pals, the accountability isn't really effective.

You made another point before that fans can currently put ideas forward. This is true, but they have no input into whether or not they are actually implemented. Also, if something was proposed by the current directors, the fans have no input into whether that proposal should go ahead or not, or whether certain changes could be made to it. As I understand KftS, it would be a 2 way thing rather than the present situation of some fan suggestions being taken forward and no scrutiny by a fan rep of anything that maybe shouldn't be done or should be done differently.

I think it boils down to the quality of the individual and the fans who they represent. If it is just some numpty in a suit then obviously it would be a disaster. However, if the fan rep is somebody quite able and if fans with commercial awareness and/or business experience get involved then you are tapping into the skillset of the fanbase as well as the individual themselves. The fan rep would be reporting ideas from those individuals to the rest of the board. And taking ideas from the board to them for input from people with experience of whatever it was. That surely would be a good thing.

I don't think either side has emerged from the meeting with any credit. The trust appear to have been ill-prepared. And Blount appears to have used some vague, non-stautory financial responsibility to put the wind up them and impress the assembled gathering. However, I wasn't there, so maybe that's not the case.

It is just a shame that something which appears to have the best interests of the club at heart has been dealt with in such an adversarial way. Seems to me that neither side really trusts the other. But I could be wrong.

 

 

 

Thats a fair point about the control of shares.

I understand you're point about having input into which ideas are taken forward etc but that bring its own issues. Is the director able to make decisions by themselves or do they have to check everything with the trust. The former absolutely requires someone with certain abilities, as you also pointed out, to be able to contribute. The latter adds potentially unnecessary delays to the decision making progress. Either way, with 3 other directors the Trusts nominee has, in reality, no actual say in the decision making process. Anything they want can be blocked and anything they disapprove of can be voted through anyway.

I realise this kind of appointment works at other clubs but I dont understand enough about the detail of how to really see how it would benefit Queens.

It also doesnt answer the question of these "checks and balances". What exactly is this director there to check?

[Tam]

Speaking as a shareholder who is happy with the BoD and the financial health they have steered the club towards, I do regret the unfortunate tone of the statement which was made rebuffing the idea of a Trust Director. However, I am inclined to the view that, from the current board's position, such a director would be seen as bringing little to the table at the risk of business confidentiality. In the end, although it's OK to say they are prepared to listen, it would have been satisfactory IMHO, to have formalised a regular, open channel of communication between the BoD and the Trust, without full representation on the board.

Maybe such a regular link is already in existence, in which case fine by me.

[weeredbook]

The Holywood Trust have helped the club financially over the years , the business expertise they have would be invaluable to the club . Or maybe not .

[kirkyblue2]

1 hour ago, Mr X said:

Checks and balances of what? What would they be checking that the shareholders dont?

What do the shareholders check? Some of them meet once a year and are glorified donors with minimum shares.

[Guest Flash]

20 minutes ago, Mr X said:

But, again, isnt that what the shareholders are there for? 

Thats a fair point about the control of shares.

I understand you're point about having input into which ideas are taken forward etc but that bring its own issues. Is the director able to make decisions by themselves or do they have to check everything with the trust. The former absolutely requires someone with certain abilities, as you also pointed out, to be able to contribute. The latter adds potentially unnecessary delays to the decision making progress. Either way, with 3 other directors the Trusts nominee has, in reality, no actual say in the decision making process. Anything they want can be blocked and anything they disapprove of can be voted through anyway.

I realise this kind of appointment works at other clubs but I dont understand enough about the detail of how to really see how it would benefit Queens.

It also doesnt answer the question of these "checks and balances". What exactly is this director there to check?

Taking the last question first, I assume it is to make sure that no one person, or group of people do anything that is detrimental to the club. It is one thing having shareholders see a set of accounts once a year (and the accounts don't always show the full picture and they are historic - we are now nearly 2 years away from the start of the period of the last set of accounts). Quite another if they are involved day to day and can see if something untoward is happening. Prevention is better than the cure kind of thing. As others have said, nobody is suggesting that the current directors would do anything untoward. But that might not always be the case.  So better to appoint somebody when relations are good because it will be impossible if some idiots get control of the boardroom.

I don't know how things work at other clubs, but I imagine the day to day running is left to the fan rep and only major, proposed one-off transactions would have to be reported back. The likes of having a concert might be an example of that.

Yes, the other 3 directors could block things. But ideas would be more likely to be taken seriously if the fan rep was able to argue the case in the boardroom. And he would be representing a good number of people, of course. Clearly, that is the case now, but the directors currently maybe don't have to provide a full explanation for not taking something forward.

Of course, the whole thing requires a collaborative approach. If the directors don't buy in to the idea, or don't respect the fan rep, then they would clearly be intent on blocking everything and it wouldn't work. That is why fighting to even get the idea put forward at the shareholders meeting meant it was doomed to fail. The directors need to be in favour from the outset for it to work. And if the trust itself isn't really all that clear on what it involves and how it would operate, then it is difficult to convince others. Maybe they need to do a bit more homework. As I say, I wasn't there so I don't want to be too critical of anybody.

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Do you really see no symbolic value attached to such a move?

I find myself in agreement with some of the sentiment that says not much would change on a practical level  if a Trust rep was on board.  

For me however, that begs questions not as to what the point would be; but as to what the problem would be.

It's a good forward thinking idea that helps with transparency and with recognising that there's properly something reciprocal about the relationship supporters have with their team.

As such, I think blocking it requires a bloody good reason and I don't see one. 

Surely its up to those advocating change to justify the advantages?

31 minutes ago, Tam said:

Speaking as a shareholder who is happy with the BoD and the financial health they have steered the club towards, I do regret the unfortunate tone of the statement which was made rebuffing the idea of a Trust Director. However, I am inclined to the view that, from the current board's position, such a director would be seen as bringing little to the table at the risk of business confidentiality. In the end, although it's OK to say they are prepared to listen, it would have been satisfactory IMHO, to have formalised a regular, open channel of communication between the BoD and the Trust, without full representation on the board.

Maybe such a regular link is already in existence, in which case fine by me.

I guess thats what the appointment of the SLO is designed to do. They've already had a meeting with supporters clubs, including the Trust, and have an open meeting scheduled for next month. I think its important to also acknowledge that there are lots of fans who arent members of the Trust.

1 minute ago, kirkyblue2 said:

What do the shareholders check? Some of them meet once a year and are glorified donors with minimum shares.

I've never been a shareholder but as far as I know they check the company is being run properly and that the board are doing their job

[palmy_cammy]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Do you really see no symbolic value attached to such a move?

I find myself in agreement with some of the sentiment that says not much would change on a practical level  if a Trust rep was on board.  

For me however, that begs questions not as to what the point would be; but as to what the problem would be.

It's a good forward thinking idea that helps with transparency and with recognising that there's properly something reciprocal about the relationship supporters have with their team.

As such, I think blocking it requires a bloody good reason and I don't see one. 

I've no interest in symbolism, and I see no merit whatsoever in making a major change to a successful structure, for the purpose of adding what you are essentially describing as a token gesture.

Ironically this huge distraction has been very beneficial to the Board.  Under normal circumstances I would have expected them to have received a bit of a grilling on the failed concert, and our rather shambolic Summer in which they made a cock-up of the whole process of appointing a manager, and signed players before he was even appointed.

The club is far from perfect and everyone's time would be better focused on genuine issues, rather than trying to fix problems that don't exist.

[Homer Thompson]

6 minutes ago, Flash said:

Taking the last question first, I assume it is to make sure that no one person, or group of people do anything that is detrimental to the club. It is one thing having shareholders see a set of accounts once a year (and the accounts don't always show the full picture and they are historic - we are now nearly 2 years away from the start of the period of the last set of accounts). Quite another if they are involved day to day and can see if something untoward is happening. Prevention is better than the cure kind of thing. As others have said, nobody is suggesting that the current directors would do anything untoward. But that might not always be the case.  So better to appoint somebody when relations are good because it will be impossible if some idiots get control of the boardroom.

I don't know how things work at other clubs, but I imagine the day to day running is left to the fan rep and only major, proposed one-off transactions would have to be reported back. The likes of having a concert might be an example of that.

Yes, the other 3 directors could block things. But ideas would be more likely to be taken seriously if the fan rep was able to argue the case in the boardroom. And he would be representing a good number of people, of course. Clearly, that is the case now, but the directors currently maybe don't have to provide a full explanation for not taking something forward.

Of course, the whole thing requires a collaborative approach. If the directors don't buy in to the idea, or don't respect the fan rep, then they would clearly be intent on blocking everything and it wouldn't work. That is why fighting to even get the idea put forward at the shareholders meeting meant it was doomed to fail. The directors need to be in favour from the outset for it to work. And if the trust itself isn't really all that clear on what it involves and how it would operate, then it is difficult to convince others. Maybe they need to do a bit more homework. As I say, I wasn't there so I don't want to be too critical of anybody.

All fair points, particularly the last part.

The only thing I'd disagree with is the point about appointing someone while "times are good" as it were. Directors arent appointed for life, so a Supporters director appointed now could easily be got rid of in the future. Thats not a reason not to do it, but it doesnt seem a very good reason to do it

[kirkyblue2]

3 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said:

I've no interest in symbolism, and I see no merit whatsoever in making a major change to a successful structure, for the purpose of adding what you are essentially describing as a token gesture.

Ironically this huge distraction has been very beneficial to the Board.  Under normal circumstances I would have expected them to have received a bit of a grilling on the failed concert, and our rather shambolic Summer in which they made a cock-up of the whole process of appointing a manager, and signed players before he was even appointed.

The club is far from perfect and everyone's time would be better focused on genuine issues, rather than trying to fix problems that don't exist.

A fan rep could have helped here.

[Monkey Tennis]

21 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said:

I've no interest in symbolism, and I see no merit whatsoever in making a major change to a successful structure, for the purpose of adding what you are essentially describing as a token gesture.

Fair enough.

We differ here.  I think signals matter.