• herch-banner.jpg

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Well that worked well - This thread has got far more interesting since debarring the posts lightening the whole scenario. Perhaps a sign of the CJT "power" in the future if the complainants join the new Board.

  • Agree 1
  • Facepalm 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2018 at 10:27 PM, Charles Bannerman said:

I've heard that suggested before but if so, how did the relatively recent creation of CJT get a hold of it? And even if that was the case, there must be something the club cab do to ensure that a supporters' group has a 10% voting right.

I think you'll find the builder was instrumental in this as he didn't like the people on the old members club board and he was desperate to reduce the voting rights to 10%

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

I think you'll find the builder was instrumental in this as he didn't like the people on the old members club board and he was desperate to reduce the voting rights to 10%

A further straight question - if you were on the current board, what would your attitude have been to accepting the £250,000 personal donation from "the builder" which is part of the £450,000 received in recent months to keep the club afloat?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you thought that my debarred posts were taking the P*** - then we are really entering into the realm of unsubstantiated rumour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

A further straight question - if you were on the current board, what would your attitude have been to accepting the £250,000 personal donation from "the builder" which is part of the £450,000 received in recent months to keep the club afloat?

I think you will find that the more suspicious minded of us will view DS buying 250k shares might have been to head off the Savage/McGilvary approach and re-ignite the patch confrontation!  

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the numbers totally support that conspiracy theory, given that the Muirfield Mills interest alone already outnumbers the Mcgil/Savco holding by about 3:2. But even if this were the case, DFS now has about 300,000 shares - approx 8% (I'm not rigorously checking numbers at this time of night) while MM control about 1.3M (ballpark 35%) and Mcgil/Savco has around 900,000 (knocking on 25%). Then, in a pretty splintered situation, you have the Supporters'  Society we're not sure if the club actually has or not, holding (or perhaps not holding?) 10% of voting rights - more than DFS who is now around the 6th biggest shareholder. However that 10%, the 5th biggest clout, is in a state of total uncertainty.

On the other hand if it's felt that the club would be better off without that £250K.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/03/2018 at 5:29 PM, Charles Bannerman said:

A further straight question - if you were on the current board, what would your attitude have been to accepting the £250,000 personal donation from "the builder" which is part of the £450,000 received in recent months to keep the club afloat?

aye. here he comes again for the sake of football and the city. my erse!!!!!!!! has a lot to do with poor management by his puppets.

  • Facepalm 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A letter has been delivered to CJT today (22nd March 2018) instructing the existing board to convene an EGM.  The letter is backed, in name, by 37 society members.

The purpose of the meeting shall be...

  1. to vote on the removal of all persons from the Society Board.
  2. to hold a fresh election to appoint members to the Society Board in accordance with the society’s rules.

As I have said to people I have spoken with about this recently, it's not a witch hunt.  The reason we are asking for the removal of everyone on the board at present is due to the numerous concerns and doubts over the legitimacy of their position/s.  The first step in the society moving forward must be a board properly appointed by the membership.  If those currently claiming a position on the board believe they are the people to take things forward, then there would be nothing stopping them standing for election along with anyone else who wished to put themselves forward.

CJT now have 28 days in which to convene the meeting, communicate it's happening to to the membership and implement the process for the election.

  • Thanks 6
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Convene" is an ambiguous term. For the purposes of clarification, do they have 28 days from now to set a date for the meeting, or must the meeting happen within 28 days from now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

"Convene" is an ambiguous term. For the purposes of clarification, do they have 28 days from now to set a date for the meeting, or must the meeting happen within 28 days from now?

Apologies, the meeting must happen within 28 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CaleyD said:

A letter has been delivered to CJT today (22nd March 2018) instructing the existing board to convene an EGM.  The letter is backed, in name, by 37 society members.

The purpose of the meeting shall be...

  1. to vote on the removal of all persons from the Society Board.
  2. to hold a fresh election to appoint members to the Society Board in accordance with the society’s rules.

As I have said to people I have spoken with about this recently, it's not a witch hunt.  The reason we are asking for the removal of everyone on the board at present is due to the numerous concerns and doubts over the legitimacy of their position/s.  The first step in the society moving forward must be a board properly appointed by the membership.  If those currently claiming a position on the board believe they are the people to take things forward, then there would be nothing stopping them standing for election along with anyone else who wished to put themselves forward.

CJT now have 28 days in which to convene the meeting, communicate it's happening to to the membership and implement the process for the election.

I hope the letter of requisition is watertight. In 1993 the Caley committee managed to delay a second meeting on the merger for weeks  due to holes in the Rebels' letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately although my membership form was sent, recorded delivery, and arrived almost three weeks ago I have had no acknowledgement so I will try again in a couple of months time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recieved an e-mail yesterday at 6:27pm from Caley Jags together which says "Hi Davie, following a Caley Jags Together Board meeting we would like to acknowledge reciept of your request for a meeting. We are working to make the necessary arrangements to deal with the business raised in your letter.

We have set a provisional date of Wednesday 18th April at 7pm, we hope to be able to confirm this date along with the location in the very near future" It's signed by Hamish Wood Company Secretary.

Notwithstanding that CJT are required by their rules to give 14 days clear (not provisional) notice of the meeting - and it's not appeared to anyone else, never mind the membership I'm of a mind to ask CJT here and now to make notice of this meeting on CTO. It's as close to a public forum that we have that reaches the membership. It wasn't my request, it was that of the thirty odd others willing to question the Board with me, Don Johnstone and John Horne. Find the venue, finalise your communication and date the meeting 14 days from that time so that all members have an equal opportunity to prepare and be there. After all, some people seemingly needed to firm up travel arrangements before the e-mail above was sent and we can't have that, can we.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to hold a meeting on that date, notice would have to have been given to members before midnight last night as "Clear Days" do not include the day notice is given or the day of the event.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2018 at 11:39 AM, DoofersDad said:

What an extraordinary statement from CJT.

CJT held an AGM on 5th December 2017.  As is evident on a very lengthy thread elsewhere, very short notice was given  for this meeting and many members received no notification.  Due to the short notice, I was unable to attend but it seems as though the meeting was a shambles.

I am not aware that CJT have issued any report or minute of that meeting but Caley D summed up his impression of the meeting by posting "Long and short of it.....the society is currently in abeyance due to having insufficient board members.  An EGM will be held at some point in the future (no timescale was given) to rectify this and bring it back into proper operating order."

In CJT's statement above there is reference to a Board meeting being held; that the Board is now up to 6 members and that this Board is now seeking 4 more members.  But there is no mention of holding an EGM.  Why not?

The statement says "We need to know what’s important to you".  I would have thought what is important to us is clear from the 6 page thread elsewhere on the forum.  We want a supporters' body which is representative of the supporters, which actively works in the interests of the supporters and which keeps the supporters fully informed.  Instead, we appear to have a self-appointed group who, over many years, appear to have done very little in representing supporters' interests, have consistently failed to communicate with the members and who appear to be acting unconstitutionally by simply ignoring what I understand was an unopposed call at the AGM for an EGM.

The statement goes on to say "We are actively working to update membership records so we would like to encourage you to respond promptly."  Just what exactly are people supposed to respond to?  Is this supposed to mean that yet again members are expected contact CJT to tell them we are members?  And if we don't, will we be deemed not to be members?

The statement refers to a proposed meeting with Graeme Rae.  Surely it is quite inappropriate for such a meeting to take place before the EGM takes place?  It is vital that communication with the club on behalf of the supporters is carried out by people who have a remit from the supporters.

It seems strange that after weeks of silence, this anonymous statement should appear so soon after Davie's  recent post in which he stated that he would attempt  to call an EGM with the aim of calling for the resignation of the existing Board membersand electing a new Board to take CJT forward.  I will be interested to hear what progress Davie is making in due course.  But one thing is clear.  This mess has to be cleared up ASAP both to protect the voting rights and to give the supporters a genuine voice within the club.  We have to have an EGM as soon as possible to establish a new Board to take things forward.  That will  provide a platform for the existing Board members to state their case and argue as to why they think they should continue in post.  It will then be for the members to decide.

The current board appear to be running the club into the ground. It's reflected in our dire attendances. I doubt a fans group will make much (if any) difference. 

  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TopSix said:

The current board appear to be running the club into the ground. It's reflected in our dire attendances. I doubt a fans group will make much (if any) difference. 

the 10% vote is most important at times like this.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, davie said:

I recieved an e-mail yesterday at 6:27pm from Caley Jags together ............ have that, can we.

Does this self-appointed "Board" not realise that they are dealing with and are subject to the serious matter of Parliamentary legislation called The Companies' Act here?

The ONLY thing they have going for them in terms of their handling of this requisition for the meeting is that 6:27pm on Tuesday April 3rd to 7pm on Wednesday April 18th does, as defined above by Caley D, constitute "14 clear days".

HOWEVER that is rendered totally irrelevant and redundant by the fact that, on at least two grounds, they have not yet competently issued a notice of any meeting in terms of the Articles of Association and the Companies Act. Firstly, they haven't actually called a meeting - they have only expressed an unconfirmed intention to do so. And secondly, even that unconfirmed intention has only been communicated to a single individual and not to the membership of the Company as required by the Act.

On the assumption that the original requisition for the meeting is competent - and the "Board" have given no indication that they believe that it is not - then they have failed to meet the requirements of the legislation.

This situation is still possibly a little short still of the need for Court action, but in that event, the "Board" would certainly find themselves having to explain why they failed to comply with an Act of Parliament and possibly also justify their claim to be the Board of CJT. On the other hand if they are NOT legally entitled to act as the Board of CJT, neither are they legally entitled to respond to a call for a General Meeting.

In that event.... who is, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

God ?

nah, I gave him a shout but he's busy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Does this self-appointed "Board" not realise that they are dealing with and are subject to the serious matter of Parliamentary legislation called The Companies' Act here?

The ONLY thing they have going for them in terms of their handling of this requisition for the meeting is that 6:27pm on Tuesday April 3rd to 7pm on Wednesday April 18th does, as defined above by Caley D, constitute "14 clear days".

HOWEVER that is rendered totally irrelevant and redundant by the fact that, on at least two grounds, they have not yet competently issued a notice of any meeting in terms of the Articles of Association and the Companies Act. Firstly, they haven't actually called a meeting - they have only expressed an unconfirmed intention to do so. And secondly, even that unconfirmed intention has only been communicated to a single individual and not to the membership of the Company as required by the Act.

On the assumption that the original requisition for the meeting is competent - and the "Board" have given no indication that they believe that it is not - then they have failed to meet the requirements of the legislation.

This situation is still possibly a little short still of the need for Court action, but in that event, the "Board" would certainly find themselves having to explain why they failed to comply with an Act of Parliament and possibly also justify their claim to be the Board of CJT. On the other hand if they are NOT legally entitled to act as the Board of CJT, neither are they legally entitled to respond to a call for a General Meeting.

In that event.... who is, then?

Charles firstly the board is not self appointed

Not sure on what grounds you think court action might be necessary.  I once again note that you are not a member and never have been so your interest in this really amazes me.

The board are well aware if the timescale required to hold the meeting and the email Davie mentions was purely a matter of courtesy and the meeting will be confirmed and due notice given 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Confused 1
  • Facepalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, L_G said:

Charles firstly the board is not self appointed

Not sure on what grounds you think court action might be necessary. 

I once again note that you are not a member and never have been so your interest in this really amazes me.

The board are well aware if the timescale required to hold the meeting and the email Davie mentions was purely a matter of courtesy and the meeting will be confirmed and due notice given 

 

So firstly.... who appointed the Board then? Was a properly constituted, properly minuted and properly concluded General Meeting of the Company involved? If not, then how was the Board appointed? The manner of its appointment seems not unrelated to the current requisition for a General Meeting with a motion for it to stand down.

In terms of court action, you have correctly used the conditional - "MIGHT be necessary" - which reflects what I said. I am sure you are aware of how close the Board is to being in breach of the Articles of Association and hence of the Companies Act, in terms of providing categorical arrangements for a meeting to the membership within the prescribed timescale.

In terms of my interest in CJT, I'm perfectly entitled to express my views on and take an interest in anything I want without the need to be a member of it. For instance, I am not a member of any political party but still feel free to express my views on any of them. But more to the point here, I AM a shareholder in Inverness Caledonian Thistle and am hence more than entitled to express a view on a body which has a protected 10% voting right in that company - especially when the group claiming to control that body make the Masons look like the inventors of the Freedom Of Information Act. Indeed, I would suggest that your very questioning of my interest is just another reflection of the extremely defensive and restrictive attitude which has been the hallmark of this Board rom the start. Please remember that it even had to be prodded before it would reveal who it members are!

If the Board are well aware of the timescale, then presumably you are equally aware of when and how you are legally obliged to provide the membership with confirmed details of the General Meeting which has been requisitioned.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles is/was most certainly a member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Charles is/was most certainly a member.

I was a member of the Supporters' Trust but decided not to carry that on to CJT because, on reflection, membership of a supporters' organisation could constitute a conflict of interest since I have not yet quite retired from the reporting business. Furthermore - and somewhat ironically in view of recent posts - I feel that there could be a similar conflict of interest if I WAS a member of the organisation .....at a time when I may be making public and media comment on it as the jobbies get closer and closer to these rapidly spinning blades!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.