Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davwar78

Harthill Royal

Recommended Posts

Probably time to be specific about some of the long standing issues at Harthill Junior Football Club. If posted here probably this account will be suspended at the request of the SJFA or Pat Beattie. To get the details we suggest you follow the twitter account https://twitter.com/HarthillJFC

Nothing libellous or inaccurate. Just the facts. Would like you to make up your own minds up on how junior clubs should be run.

Shat it ^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the disappearance of the supporters of 'let's just concentrate on the football' or the 'the manager is well respected' or 'time for positivity' think it must be time to move forward on all of this.

We shouldn't expect any response tonight as the Harthill Speakeasy will be full of the party goers. Sipping their Pina Colada's and gin & tonics through to the wee small hours. Happily handing over the cash.

Probably time to be specific about some of the long standing issues at Harthill Junior Football Club. If posted here probably this account will be suspended at the request of the SJFA or Pat Beattie. To get the details we suggest you follow the twitter account https://twitter.com/HarthillJFC

Nothing libellous or inaccurate. Just the facts. Would like you to make up your own minds up on how junior clubs should be run.

^^^Why do some people waste their money going to Las Vegas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the 2 defender who played against Blackburn? Apparently they were both replaced on Saturday with a Heavier Centre half and the right back was replaced with a guy who gave away 2 penalties??? I was at Blackburn and the right back had the best game, he was at Stoneyburn last year! Cmon the royal...not so sure about manager now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the 2 defender who played against Blackburn? Apparently they were both replaced on Saturday with a Heavier Centre half and the right back was replaced with a guy who gave away 2 penalties??? I was at Blackburn and the right back had the best game, he was at Stoneyburn last year! Cmon the royal...not so sure about manager now

Ian Kirkwood wore the No.2 shirt in that game according to the teamsheet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right back was jay something didn't catch his second name, he was dropped to the bench along with Kirkwood and didn't feature against west Calder, Kirkwood got around 10-15 mins at the end, Couple new faces brought in and started by the manager at west Calder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut through Harthill in the car on Sat going to the Fauldhouse game,thought I was in the Shankhill,oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why change both players who were the best of a bad bunch against Blackburn. How long will this manager last if thats what he does to players. Iv supported Harthill for a few years now and want to see us keep a full squad. Wont be surprised if both lads dont come back. Shame as right back had good game Blackburn amd played for Stoneyburn last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume I am a 'guy'. Fair enough! Secondly I never made false statements against the committee. Nor was I ever a manager of the club.

I spoke to a couple of the players last night. Players who have been there through the no money stage, sackings of manager AND committee members, bringing in SJFA to act as representatives of the club in a legal sense, and the introduction of a new manager. So they know the score.

The club had so little money in August they couldn't afford training equipment or balls. The manager bought them himself. I am told he was trying to do the best for the club. When sacked, are you suggesting he should have left them behind? What would you have done?

This is a club that didn't even have enough money to pay their registration to the SJFA. An ex manager paid this I have been told out of his own pocket.

Would be helpful to know what the 'accusations' against the committee were. I was told it was not the behaviour of the committee generally but just about one person Pat Beattie. The only person allowed to see the 'accounts'. :whistle

Not saying anything nasty was going on, however the obvious question is WHY was it so confidential even from the committee members!

Should committee members be given information on the financial position of the club?

dont they hold an AGM ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont they hold an AGM ?

No to the AGM question. "Committee meeting" called at 2 day's notice with not everyone informed. Then committee members sacked and others 'voted on'. A 'quorum' is one person turning up. Not any old person. Just the main man.

No constitution, no members, no AGMs, no information on finances and no transparency.

This makes it much more difficult for every other club that tries to do things properly, attracting sponsors and applying for funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what is doing the rounds at Harthill. This is second hand mind you. its only what sparky was told by person he is working for, but he is close to the club. Make your own mind up from this,

It looked as though there was an attempt to take over the running of the club. Manager and assistant brought relatives on board as committee members.

An AGM was called for Sunday 3rd August. All connected with the club could attend. Management and committee knew about the AGM as they were at general meeting when the date was agreed. It would also appear that the management and related committee members had no intention of attending AGM claiming that they didnt know, and this was their way of undermining the Secretary, and getting him out, as the next man being the President, was an easier target.

The manager, just happened to arrive at the clubhouse shortly before the AGM was to start, and had a read at the Financial Statement, before leaving a few minutes later, and this is what his accusations are based on. There was several copies of this statement for all to see, and not hidden from anyone, along with copies of the constitution and agenda.

Very few attended the AGM, but a committee was put in place from those in attendance, minimum of four, for operating purposes. A further EGM was called for on the first Sunday in September, to allow any changes to be made as required. Nothing sinister there me thinks, just following protocall if that is right.

After the first league game, on the wednesday night against Pumpherston, the management and related committee members asked to speak to the secretary in the clubhouse, but did so after everyone else was away from the ground. They immediately accused him of various things, with mismanagement or non accounting of club funds. The secretary attempted to answer these accusations, but was shouted at every time he tried to speak, and eventually left the meeting without answering any of the accusations. My understanding is also that he said he was going to resign, the next day.

Following on from this point, the secretary didnt go to the game on the Saturday, and then refused to attend a meeting called by the management team on the next Tuesday night. Maintaining that the committee run the club and not the management. The secretary did however, call a meeting to clear his name the following evening, Wednesday, where all committee were asked, and did attend. As far as I am aware, the related accusers on the committee side, walked out of the meeting when the secretary announced that as he had done nothing wrong, he was not going to resign. He also went on to prove his innocense to those remaining, and the finances were for the second time, passed as being correct and above board. There was not one single item of evidence produced at the meeting by anyone to show irregularities, and as a result they were instantly dismissed. It was also stated that the secretary had no say at all, in the decision to sack the management and their relations.

The manager who had just been sacked, saw fit to contact and arrange a meeting with the players on the Thursday, the day after being dismissed. The players should have been training, and not at a meeting with someone who had no justification in calling them together. Ironic then, that no players turned up on the Saturday for the home game against Stoneyburn. This is thr reason that the Scottish fa were called in, as each player was in breach of contract. The ban they could have got was from them, not the club. Nothing to do with the club. What is clear, is that someone, possibly a player, is feeding HarthillJFC with information, and he is using what he thinks are positives for himself.

If this is a true account of events, then shame on you guys, and everyone should get behind the real Harthill Juniors, and help them pull through.

I know what I am beginning to believe no. It would still help big time, if someone from Harthill came out and told us their view. See how much of this is true.

Edited by davwar78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what is doing the rounds at Harthill. This is second hand mind you. its only what sparky was told by person he is working for, but he is close to the club. Make your own mind up from this,

It looked as though there was an attempt to take over the running of the club. Manager and assistant brought relatives on board as committee members.

An AGM was called for Sunday 3rd August. All connected with the club could attend. Management and committee knew about the AGM as they were at general meeting when the date was agreed. It would also appear that the management and related committee members had no intention of attending AGM claiming that they didnt know, and this was their way of undermining the Secretary, and getting him out, as the next man being the President, was an easier target.

The manager, just happened to arrive at the clubhouse shortly before the AGM was to start, and had a read at the Financial Statement, before leaving a few minutes later, and this is what his accusations are based on. There was several copies of this statement for all to see, and not hidden from anyone, along with copies of the constitution and agenda.

Very few attended the AGM, but a committee was put in place from those in attendance, minimum of four, for operating purposes. A further EGM was called for on the first Sunday in September, to allow any changes to be made as required. Nothing sinister there me thinks, just following protocall if that is right.

After the first league game, on the wednesday night against Pumpherston, the management and related committee members asked to speak to the secretary in the clubhouse, but did so after everyone else was away from the ground. They immediately accused him of various things, with mismanagement or non accounting of club funds. The secretary attempted to answer these accusations, but was shouted at every time he tried to speak, and eventually left the meeting without answering any of the accusations. My understanding is also that he said he was going to resign, the next day.

Following on from this point, the secretary didnt go to the game on the Saturday, and then refused to attend a meeting called by the management team on the next Tuesday night. Maintaining that the committee run the club and not the management. The secretary did however, call a meeting to clear his name the following evening, Wednesday, where all committee were asked, and did attend. As far as I am aware, the related accusers on the committee side, walked out of the meeting when the secretary announced that as he had done nothing wrong, he was not going to resign. He also went on to prove his innocense to those remaining, and the finances were for the second time, passed as being correct and above board. There was not one single item of evidence produced at the meeting by anyone to show irregularities, and as a result they were instantly dismissed. It was also stated that the secretary had no say at all, in the decision to sack the management and their relations.

The manager who had just been sacked, saw fit to contact and arrange a meeting with the players on the Thursday, the day after being dismissed. The players should have been training, and not at a meeting with someone who had no justification in calling them together. Ironic then, that no players turned up on the Saturday for the home game against Stoneyburn. This is thr reason that the Scottish fa were called in, as each player was in breach of contract. The ban they could have got was from them, not the club. Nothing to do with the club. What is clear, is that someone, possibly a player, is feeding HarthillJFC with information, and he is using what he thinks are positives for himself.

If this is a true account of events, then shame on you guys, and everyone should get behind the real Harthill Juniors, and help them pull through.

I know what I am beginning to believe no. It would still help big time, if someone from Harthill came out and told us their view. See how much of this is true.

Can you stop the "someone told Sparky" routine and just admit that you are involved. It would give your story more credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looked as though there was an attempt to take over the running of the club. Manager and assistant brought relatives on board as committee members.

QUESTION 1. How can people be brought on as committee members? Just turn up? Is there a vote? Who votes? Maybe refer to the specific part of the constitution/articles of the club.

An AGM was called for Sunday 3rd August. All connected with the club could attend. Management and committee knew about the AGM as they were at general meeting when the date was agreed.

QUESTION 2: How was AGM called. Just verbal invite or notices posted or letters sent? Who do the articles say?

had a read at the Financial Statement, before leaving a few minutes later, and this is what his accusations are based on. There was several copies of this statement for all to see, and not hidden from anyone, along with copies of the constitution and agenda.

SUGGESTION: Given the concerns about 'following the money' perhaps publishing this statement would help eliminate the damaging suggestions.

Very few attended the AGM, but a committee was put in place from those in attendance, minimum of four, for operating purposes.

QUESTION 3: How many exactly? How many makes a quorum? Again reference the articles.

I would suggest the AGM was not called correctly nor were the numbers sufficient to make a quorum. So on both counts the decisions had no meaning. QUESION 4: Do you agree with this interpretation?

A further EGM was called for on the first Sunday in September, QUESTION 5: Same again, how called, how people notfied etc

to allow any changes to be made as required. QUESTION 6: What do you mean by 'as required'?

Nothing sinister there me thinks, just following protocall if that is right. QUESTION 7: Presume you mean protocol as defined in articles of club. If so can you publish them here?

the management and related committee members asked to speak to the secretary in the clubhouse, but did so after everyone else was away from the ground. They immediately accused him of various things, with mismanagement or non accounting of club funds. The secretary attempted to answer these accusations, but was shouted at every time he tried to speak, and eventually left the meeting without answering any of the accusations.

SUGGESTION: Would be good to get answers from the secretary even at this late stage. QUESTION 8: Can you ask the secretary to provide this?

Following on from this point, the secretary didnt go to the game on the Saturday, and then refused to attend a meeting called by the management team on the next Tuesday night. Maintaining that the committee run the club and not the management.

COMMENT: Correct it is the committee that is responsible for running the club. Making the decisions needed and being responsible for all aspects of managing and controlling the money. QUESTION 9: Can you confirm this is the case at Harthill Royal?

He also went on to prove his innocense to those remaining,

QUESTION 10: How does someone prove their innocence? Were documents shown. Maybe bank statements?

and the finances were for the second time, passed as being correct and above board. There was not one single item of evidence produced at the meeting by anyone to show irregularities, and as a result they were instantly dismissed.

QUESTION 11: If no evidence was shown, how can it be dismissed?

It was also stated that the secretary had no say at all, in the decision to sack the management and their relations. QUESTION 12: Is that in the minutes taken at the time, and no doubt circulated by now?

This is thr reason that the Scottish fa were called in, as each player was in breach of contract.

COMMENT: The players are employed by the club. They are the club's employees. Calling in the sjfa is like calling in your HR department to explain the employment contract. There is no doubt that the SJFA legally acted as representatives of Harthill Royal by moving well beyond explaining the details of the employment contract. I would imagine that the SJFA representatives accepted legal obligations by acting on behalf of the club rather than just being SJFA representatives.

The ban they could have got was from them, not the club. Nothing to do with the club.

What is clear, is that someone, possibly a player, is feeding HarthillJFC with information, and he is using what he thinks are positives for himself.

If this is a true account of events, then shame on you guys, and everyone should get behind the real Harthill Juniors, and help them pull through.

I know what I am beginning to believe no.

COMMENT: All our actions are to get behind the real Harthill Juniors. You only need to look at the state of the ground and teams over the last few years to see a club being badly mismanaged. QUESTION 12: Is it to do with simple incompetence or something else?

It would still help big time, if someone from Harthill came out and told us their view. See how much of this is true.

COMMENT: True. Important they present the facts.

Edited by HarthillJFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, do we actually need to rake through all this on a public forum?

Whatever the truth, the old management team are gone, a new management team are in place, and thankfully the club survive.

The place to air grievances is at committee meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fuckin ridiculous frankly. Jimmy Savile?? Get a fuckin sense of perspective here guys. There are some really serious allegations being made here that go miles beyond fitba banter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fuckin ridiculous frankly. Jimmy Savile?? Get a fuckin sense of perspective here guys. There are some really serious allegations being made here that go miles beyond fitba banter.

Couldn't agree more HTG. Some of the allegations are being made here are not for a football forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couldn't agree more HTG. Some of the allegations are being made here are not for a football forum.

These allegators should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussions regarding the finances of Harthill have went far enough.

Any grievances individuals may have should be dealt with in private via the correct routes, not aired on a public forum.

Please note that when making allegations about others, do not think you're anonymous because of a username. If deemed appropriate, I.P addresses and email addresses will be passed to the relevant authorities.

I will reopen this thread for now, if the discussion remains about football and football only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×