Homer Thompson Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: Because surely the pros and cons are considered in relation to the merits of the thing that might be getting changed. Well of course. Is it possible we're just semantically out of line here? To me, thats evaluating the change, again because thats generally what we focus on. I can see, though, that the argument of a con of the change could also be considered a justification of the status quo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, Mr X said: Well of course. Is it possible we're just semantically out of line here? To me, thats evaluating the change, again because thats generally what we focus on. I can see, though, that the argument of a con of the change could also be considered a justification of the status quo. Well yes, that's what I meant but we're going round in circles. Most posters and apparently shareholders are with you on this, in thinking things must stay the same unless massive, tangible benefits of change can be proven in advance. I think that those resisting this change also owe us a convincing explanation as to why. I don't think that's unreasonable, but plenty clearly do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Well yes, that's what I meant but we're going round in circles. Most posters and apparently shareholders are with you on this, in thinking things must stay the same unless massive, tangible benefits of change can be proven in advance. I think that those resisting this change also owe us a convincing explanation as to why. I don't think that's unreasonable, but plenty clearly do. Yes, I rather think we were! And after all that, we actually agree 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mr X said: Yes, I rather think we were! And after all that, we actually agree Never. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, kirkyblue2 said: What do the shareholders check? Some of them meet once a year and are glorified donors with minimum shares. Correct. I'm a shareholder at falkirk but I've got feck all idea of our financial position etc between one AGM and another. Sometimes things happen long before the shareholders can do anything about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 5 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. Except that it has already been put off twice and the current postponement is indefinite (as you say), and there are a number of proposed exceptions into which a small and transparent corporate director like the Queens Trust could fall. It is another straw-man legalistic argument like the "formal obligation to put in money". Edited February 22, 2017 by Margaret Thatcher 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said: Except that it has already been put off twice and the current postponement is indefinite (as you say), and there are a number of proposed exceptions into which a small and transparent corporate director like the Queens Trust could fall. It is another straw-man legalistic argument like the "formal obligation to put in money". You have presumably researched it more than me then. The current postponement is indefinite and Companies House are unable to advise when it is likely to be brought in now but so far as they are aware it is still Government policy to ban them so it has to be considered a short term solution surely? I was led to believe exceptions would be rare and unlikely but I dont profess to be an expert here. I would be interested to hear about them though. Do you have a link? It isnt a 'straw man' argument at all since clearly the current appointment of the Trust as a Director would be valid. Nobody said it wouldnt be. There are other potential solutions in the longer term such as the Trust temporarily transferring 250 shares to an individual rep or even changing the articles to remove or amend the restriction on director shareholdings (which would need a 75% vote). I was merely pointing out the situation being voted on would likely have needed changing in the medium term anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fae_the_'briggs Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Still on the AGM, but away from this fans rep discussion, there were rumours that the Chairman was contemplating stepping down soon, was anything mentioned about this on the night? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tactician Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 think people seem to forget two of the 3 board members where in charge when the club nearly went tits up, when without the sos and trust we probably wouldnt have a club. it might be running smoothly now but he had to bring mark robertson in to help, still think it is wrong decision to not vote the trust onto the board. also the supports liaison officer was this job advertised anywhere? im sure that every club who has appointed one hasnt just offered it to someone close to the club but advertised it and had fans vote for the person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 What's the word on the streets? For, against or not bothered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PALMYLAD Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 think people seem to forget two of the 3 board members where in charge when the club nearly went tits up, when without the sos and trust we probably wouldnt have a club. it might be running smoothly now but he had to bring mark robertson in to help, still think it is wrong decision to not vote the trust onto the board. also the supports liaison officer was this job advertised anywhere? im sure that every club who has appointed one hasnt just offered it to someone close to the club but advertised it and had fans vote for the person. I always believed that the money Billy Hewitson paid Queens for the small piece of land next to the Arena saved the day ....??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTulip Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Bought for £124,000. Sold for £200,000 2 years later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PALMYLAD Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 That's why he's a successful businessman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PALMYLAD Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Bought for £124,000. Sold for £200,000 2 years later. Out of interest , who now owns it ..? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTulip Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 DGHP got it in 2013. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 The land that was offered for public sale, prior to Mr Hewitson buying it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacekid84 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, the tactician said: think people seem to forget two of the 3 board members where in charge when the club nearly went tits up, when without the sos and trust we probably wouldnt have a club. How much did save our south and the trust raise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PALMYLAD Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 The land that was offered for public sale, prior to Mr Hewitson buying it? Pretty sure it was . Like or loathe him he pretty much saved the day back then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steakpiegravy Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 See we made the National then. http://www.thenational.scot/sport/15110729.The_Kicker__Queens_block_fan_representation_but_the_tide_is_turning/?utm_content=buffer01b5d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 The case for not having a fan rep on the board doesn't hold water. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.