CaleyJagsTogether

Special General Meeting

Recommended Posts

Given the sad and sorry state of affairs that has been revealed over the recent history of CJT, I would have though it is more productive to encourage this meeting to take place, perhaps just by moving the date two or three weeks later. By continually harrying and decrying whoever is currently on the board, whatever their competency or lack of, doesn't really progress anything. If they are out of their depth, as they appear to be, then they could probably do with a bit of help and encouragement, so the whole thing can get sorted.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Long Man said:

Given the sad and sorry state of affairs that has been revealed over the recent history of CJT, I would have though it is more productive to encourage this meeting to take place, perhaps just by moving the date two or three weeks later. By continually harrying and decrying whoever is currently on the board, whatever their competency or lack of, doesn't really progress anything. If they are out of their depth, as they appear to be, then they could probably do with a bit of help and encouragement, so the whole thing can get sorted.

I agree although, it has to be said, that advice and assistance appears to have been offered from a number of sources but those offers have, as far as I'm aware, all been scorned.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is our present Supporters Liaison Officer ? It also appears to me that confidentiality is demanded by the Supporters Direct organisation. I am reliably informed that the present CJT echelon are basically debarred from making comments on this forum which is evidently being preyed on by the predators. I would be very interested to hear the views on this debate from the Supporters Direct organisation. I am saddened that individuals on both sides of the divide, except Bannerman of course, who have given large amounts of their time to this organisation are squabbling and practically at war with each other's. I sense that the motivation to challenge and change is as much about internalised anger and resentment, actually understandable in some instances, towards people at the club who are attempting to change the face of ICTFC. Unfortunately I sense a fight to the death, dog with a bone feeling and unfortunately this argument will probably fester for some time. Instead of a best of three scoring system this is akin to a three set badminton match and we are still in the early throes of the first set. It is clear to see who is standing on one side of the court but posters probably have no idea who the opposition are ? 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Who is our present Supporters Liaison Officer ? It also appears to me that confidentiality is demanded by the Supporters Direct organisation. I am reliably informed that the present CJT echelon are basically debarred from making comments on this forum which is evidently being preyed on by the predators. I would be very interested to hear the views on this debate from the Supporters Direct organisation. I am saddened that individuals on both sides of the divide, except Bannerman of course, who have given large amounts of their time to this organisation are squabbling and practically at war with each other's. I sense that the motivation to challenge and change is as much about internalised anger and resentment, actually understandable in some instances, towards people at the club who are attempting to change the face of ICTFC. Unfortunately I sense a fight to the death, dog with a bone feeling and unfortunately this argument will probably fester for some time. Instead of a best of three scoring system this is akin to a three set badminton match and we are still in the early throes of the first set. It is clear to see who is standing on one side of the court but posters probably have no idea who the opposition are ? 

Johndo, as far as I am aware, the present SLO at the club is Kristine Fraser. It’s difficult to see what role she would have until the internal business is sorted out and CJT then have a legitimate basis with which to communicate with the club through the SLO. I know that Scotty has offered an equal platform to all to comment on this matter and it has been used by CJT and those wishing to affect change. It’s an open argument – there is no internalisation on my part – and it has nothing to do with people who are “trying to change the face of ICTFC” The signatories to the original requisition for a special general meeting are the ones using a public forum, CJT are choosing not to. I for one am happy to answer any questions that posters on here might have and I’m sure that Don would echo that – in fact we are the only ones who have explained matters.  As for demanded confidentiality from Supporters Direct, if you look back at my posts I have quoted them as regards advice and comment supplied. Asked, they were happy to be quoted. If there is a continued silence from the present Board of Directors it is  self-imposed. To end it, all they have to do is comply with a legitimate request from the membership, present their arguments in a special general meeting and either stand or fall by them.

Davie – my views only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reply davie. May I ask some very simple questions to CJT - Are you bound to strict confidentiality ? Are the Board of Directors choosing not to comment until the General Meeting ? Can Kristine Fraser make a comment in her role of SLO ? Finally I would suspect that none of this involves the playing staff and they are just getting on with the football ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davie said:

Johndo, as far as I am aware, the present SLO at the club is Kristine Fraser. It’s difficult to see what role she would have until the internal business is sorted out and CJT then have a legitimate basis with which to communicate with the club through the SLO. I know that Scotty has offered an equal platform to all to comment on this matter and it has been used by CJT and those wishing to affect change. It’s an open argument – there is no internalisation on my part – and it has nothing to do with people who are “trying to change the face of ICTFC” The signatories to the original requisition for a special general meeting are the ones using a public forum, CJT are choosing not to. I for one am happy to answer any questions that posters on here might have and I’m sure that Don would echo that – in fact we are the only ones who have explained matters.  As for demanded confidentiality from Supporters Direct, if you look back at my posts I have quoted them as regards advice and comment supplied. Asked, they were happy to be quoted. If there is a continued silence from the present Board of Directors it is  self-imposed. To end it, all they have to do is comply with a legitimate request from the membership, present their arguments in a special general meeting and either stand or fall by them.

 

Davie – my views only

 

Seconded

Share this post


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

To end it, all they have to do is comply with a legitimate request from the membership, present their arguments in a special general meeting and either stand or fall by them.

 

Alas, I fear that the current situation is beyond redemption and it is no longer possible to hold a constitutionally valid meeting with a watertight outcome on Wednesday 18th, or to comply with the original requisition at all.

In terms of the notice, only 13 clear days were given and, as Caley D stated, it would only require one successful objection to render the meeting invalid. It's also not clear whether any objection could be retrospective, should someone not like any outcome reached. Then there are the means  the Board used to publicise the meeting. Did they comply with the legislation? Meanwhile, the removal of the Facebook notification and the Board's attempt to have the arrangement cancelled could arguably leave enough doubt about whether the meeting will go ahead to invite a third possible challenge. The current arrangements could also result in one "side" considering themselves to be under-represented, casting further doubt on any outcome.

I suspect that the legal expert within our numbers may have his views, which I imagine it may well not be appropriate for him to express publicly. However, even as a complete layman, and simply based on the several parallels with earlier events on both sides of the merger divide, I do have to wonder about the legality of the story so far?  

Indeed, if any CJT member got fed up enough, might the whole thing now be wide open to some kind of challenge by way of Interdict, which I believe is a means of preventing a legal wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the meeting on or off ? Where is it recorded that the Board are attempting to cancel the meeting ? This is becoming a total farce.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

So is the meeting on or off ? Where is it recorded that the Board are attempting to cancel the meeting ? This is becoming a total farce.

On or off? Search me!

Where is it recorded? See CaleyD's post around 11am today. He quotes an email from the board stating that it is "impossible" to hold the meeting within the 28 days. April 18 is 26 clear days on from the original requisition, but only 13 after the day of notice.

Farce? That's what I've been trying to say at least since the existence of an anonymous board was posted here on Feb 27 - but this reality check is dismissed by some as unduly harsh on the board members!

And in that last connection, I should perhaps add that if their backsides hadn't been held to the fire from the start..... we still wouldn't even know who they are!!

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see it is that sort of mindless end statement that is annoying so many people. Davie, Caley D and others are sticking to rules and laws and avoiding needless personal digs. You may have missed that a couple of prominent CJT members have experienced significant personal tragedy and trauma recently and if there is an erase to be stuck in a Feckin fire it is anybody's who has to depend on personal insults .

  • Agree 3
  • Disagree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are my personal comments.

I've stated this before....but this is not, and should not be or become, a witch hunt.

There are people on the CJT board who have skill sets, knowledge and energy which are of value to the society.  The call for everyone to step down and a new election is not to get rid of all these people, it's to ensure that everyone on the board is properly elected/appointed and the members get a rightful say in who they want to stay/go/add.

Only once that has been done can they look to dealing with any other matters which are there; or may arise as things are brought back on track.

  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an outsiders point of view it seems a shame that so much bickering is going on. Can we not come together have a meeting sort out the ground rules and try and move on. At least the football is better to watch which to me is the main concern. I know this might be a simplistic point of view but it would seem more complicated to work out than brexit or who poisoned who its football, jackets for goals and off we go. Another 3 points to night is my concern

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/04/2018 at 10:29 AM, CaleyD said:

An email was received, from CJT, by those who requested the SGM stating that the request was "quite complex to administer within our current rules" and, as such "This is making the request for a meeting within 28 days from the date of the letter impossible to achieve."  This appears to be based on advice from Supporters Direct (umbrella organisation), but it would seem that advice has been provided without a full understanding of the situation.

Whilst it would be easy to assume, it's not entirely clear from that whether or not the meeting listed in the OP has been cancelled and confirmation of that has been requested.

There was also a request from CJT for a meeting with representatives of those who put their names to the SGM request.  This has been welcomed on the basis that it also include a representative from Supporters Direct (to advise, mediate & bare witness) and without prejudice to the members rights to now call the already requested SGM themselves should they deem it necessary.  A response is also awaited on that matter.

I've had a response in relation to the EGM dated 18th April 2018 as follows...

Following the objection the meeting is unable to proceed as planned on the 18th and will be rescheduled. We are continuing to work with Supporters Direct and have a board meeting on Thursday so we will respond fully following the meeting.

I thought it might be useful to let people know 👍

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this all so very sad that friends with common interests and goals should fall out in this way. Unfortunately, rules are rules, and when it comes to company law there can be no grey areas. I just hope this can all be sorted out soon and amicably to the benefit of all concerned and the club in general.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

I've had a response in relation to the EGM dated 18th April 2018 as follows...

Following the objection the meeting is unable to proceed as planned on the 18th and will be rescheduled. We are continuing to work with Supporters Direct and have a board meeting on Thursday so we will respond fully following the meeting.

I thought it might be useful to let people know 👍

It is indeed!

I think this is probably the least unfavourable outcome in a situation where any chance of fulfilling the statutory requirements of the original requisition disappeared last midweek with the original indication that the meeting would take place on the 18th.

I think I should perhaps take the opportunity of this hiatus to explain why I have been pretty persistent on this issue - from a time long preceding the Board's declaration at the end of February.

I believe that one of the major strategic issues facing the football club is - and always has been - the development of support. The obvious need for this ranges from the balance sheet to the feeling the guys get when they walk on to the pitch on a Saturday. Nuff said on that familiar matter.

Two major assets in any campaign to develop support are, in my view, the Social Club and a successful supporters' organisation.

In the case of the Social Club, I took a good swing at that on here and in my HN column back in January which didn't go down too well in some quarters but very well in others. The intervening progress will be acknowledged in the paper on Thursday but, at the time, one of several problems in Grieg St was that you needed to feel you were entering a Caley Thistle branded Caley Thistle social club and not the Orange Lodge.  Now you do because this has changed very much for the better under Alan MacDonald's stewardship in recent months.

As for CJT, it was bad enough having a perpetually inactive supporters' organisation but in my view that got a whole lot worse when the inertia became institutionalised with the appearance of the Board late in February. The EGM motion offered the opportunity for that knot to be cut and the holding of this meeting is vital in terms of getting this body up and running. Apart from CJT holding 10% ICT voting rights, an active supporters' organisation must be in operation before the start of next season which is less than four months away. This is why pressure needs to be maintained in order to develop support as much as possible in advance of what looks MOST likely to be a pretty credible push to return to the Premiership at the second time of asking.

So, if action is taken tomorrow to rearrange this meeting it can be held on Thursday 26th April if the original requisition is considered still to be legally valid or on Thursday May 10th if it's considered that both the 28 and 14 day processes have to be repeated.

Yes, I think it's that urgent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it at all help if someone would say volunteer as if you like a helper for the current Chairperson and Directors since if that's all is needed I could go to Inverness for a few days  a week?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mediator is a good idea Blair and if you have no vested interest either way, both membership reps/signatories and board reps may be amenable to a roundtable discussion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems like a good idea  Glover personally I have no big interest in getting paid by someone from the club one way or another .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Glover said:

A mediator is a good idea Blair and if you have no vested interest either way, both membership reps/signatories and board reps may be amenable to a roundtable discussion.  

Excellent idea and could be dubbed The Blair Witch Project :cheer01:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, keep to the script please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick update....

A meeting between CJT and representatives of those who requisitioned them for the SGM will take place next Wednesday. The meeting will be chaired by someone from Supporters Direct.

  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

presumablyHang Feckin on - after all the references to regulations and rules that has smothered this issue how has this been accepted ?

I don't know Johndo. They are  limited company in which case no manner of "we were so busy otherwise" excuses can really be accepted. They are totally and absolutely constrained by companies legislation with which they have failed to comply. If you presume to be the board of a limited company then you are obliged to comply with the appropriate legal requirements - which simply has not so far happened.

PS - donview tells me you were round and about earlier with your lovely wife and, presumably thanks solely to her :lol:, your doubtless equally lovely daughter - and I missed you.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.