Jump to content

The Queen of the South thread


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said:

 

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.

If the shareholders didn't grill them on these points (plus the delay in appointing Naysmith that may have contributed to missing out on the Celtic game) then it demonstrates the weakness of accountability only to shareholders. If everybody was distracted by one point on the agenda, then it shows how easy it is to avoid accountability.

I understand that the company also made a loss before a technical adjustment resulted in a profit. So I'm assuming the shareholders asked about that too. If they didn't that is another point which has escaped scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mr X said:

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

Which they've done, just not to everyone's satisfaction. 

We seem to be setting a very high bar for change, while those that want the status quo are not really required to say why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kirkyblue2 said:

A fan rep could have helped here.

Really? How?

12 minutes ago, Flash said:

If the shareholders didn't grill them on these points (plus the delay in appointing Naysmith that may have contributed to missing out on the Celtic game) then it demonstrates the weakness of accountability only to shareholders. If everybody was distracted by one point on the agenda, then it shows how easy it is to avoid accountability.

I understand that the company also made a loss before a technical adjustment resulted in a profit. So I'm assuming the shareholders asked about that too. If they didn't that is another point which has escaped scrutiny.

Again, you're right. Im still not clear, though, what difference a Trust board member would make to this. 

8 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Which they've done, just not to everyone's satisfaction. 

We seem to be setting a very high bar for change, while those that want the status quo are not really required to say why. 

Im not sure how wanting more than vague generalisations is setting the bar "very high". Theres no real obligation to justify the status quo. If the benefits of the change arent obvious thats enough not to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Really? How?

Again, you're right. Im still not clear, though, what difference a Trust board member would make to this. 

Im not sure how wanting more than vague generalisations is setting the bar "very high". Theres no real obligation to justify the status quo. If the benefits of the change arent obvious thats enough not to proceed.

Not sure if serious or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Really? How?

Again, you're right. Im still not clear, though, what difference a Trust board member would make to this. 

Im not sure how wanting more than vague generalisations is setting the bar "very high". Theres no real obligation to justify the status quo. If the benefits of the change arent obvious thats enough not to proceed.

Agree with Mr X here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

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.

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.

Thanks for clarifying that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Seriously?

No that's not a high handed, contemptuous approach at all.  I'll do the board the courtesy of assuming that's just your view and doesn't reflect theirs.

Well, Im talking more generally than specifically about this particular case. As Flash said, neither side come out of this looking particularly well. 

6 minutes ago, kirkyblue2 said:

Not sure if serious or not.

Perfectly serious. In what way would a supporter director have helped? What could they have done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

Well, Im talking more generally than specifically about this particular case. 

What?

So in general terms (getting away from the subject under discussion for reasons best known to you) there's no obligation to justify preserving the status quo?

Extraordinary stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What?

So in general terms (getting away from the subject under discussion for reasons best known to you) there's no obligation to justify preserving the status quo?

Extraordinary stuff.

Really? I have conversations all the time about change. The conversations are generally about the potential benefits or issues implementing the change would bring. I dont recall ever not implementing a change because anyone justified the status quo. Either the change happens because there are benefits or it doesnt happen because there arent.

Thats why I was talking generally. Maybe my experiences dont apply here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What?

So in general terms (getting away from the subject under discussion for reasons best known to you) there's no obligation to justify preserving the status quo?

Extraordinary stuff.

An annual AGM of shareholders is an obligation. Sometimes it prefers the status quo. Sometimes not, as has happened in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JessieField said:

An annual AGM of shareholders is an obligation. Sometimes it prefers the status quo. Sometimes not, as has happened in the past.

Yes, but Mr X seems of the view that whatever is in place at a given time need not be justified, even if some people advocate altering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Ok, this is just weird now.

Maybe its a systems thing - thats generally what we talk about - but we dont spend time sitting around justifying why a system shouldnt change. We discuss improvements and changes and the pros and cons.

Im not sure why you think thats so weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Maybe its a systems thing - thats generally what we talk about - but we dont spend time sitting around justifying why a system shouldnt change. We discuss improvements and changes and the pros and cons.

Im not sure why you think thats so weird.

Because surely the pros and cons are considered in relation to the merits of the thing that might be getting changed.

 

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...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...