Sign in to follow this  
CaleyJagsTogether

Special General Meeting - Rescheduled date

Recommended Posts

can anyone tell me why cjt was set up as a limted co? I would have thought the associated costs and regulations would have pointed to a club/association set up.

Share this post


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

can anyone tell me why cjt was set up as a limted co? I would have thought the associated costs and regulations would have pointed to a club/association set up.

Primarily to ensure a professional approach to governance!!  It also has a very different mandate to a supporters club setup in being a community benefit organisation, as opposed to a member benefit organisation.  Finally it allowed it to register as an Industrial and Provident Society giving it access to the regulatory and financial benefits afforded to co-operatives and not-for-profit organisations.

Share this post


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

Primarily to ensure a professional approach to governance!!  It also has a very different mandate to a supporters club setup in being a community benefit organisation, as opposed to a member benefit organisation.  Finally it allowed it to register as an Industrial and Provident Society giving it access to the regulatory and financial benefits afforded to co-operatives and not-for-profit organisations.

weĺl it obviously hasn't worked. what community benefit has cjt provided?

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it hasn't done much of anything of late...it hasn't always been thus.

Share this post


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

weĺl it obviously hasn't worked. what community benefit has cjt provided?

Most recently we  worked with the charity Lucky to be here and donated a defib and training to the Inverness Street League.  Press photos to follow

Share this post


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

Most recently we  worked with the charity Lucky to be here and donated a defib and training to the Inverness Street League.  Press photos to follow

do you feel that is sufficient and worthwhile activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:07 PM, Hearach said:

A friend of mine may be away on date of meeting. She asked CJT for proxy form and was advised it would be sent. She has texted me her proxy vote as requested paperwork not received. Will this be acceptable? 

The eventual calling of the meeting is obviously welcome, but this revelation has uncomfortable echoes of the recent past. And again, in terms of what would be "acceptable", we return to the straight fact that this is a limited company with legally binding articles of association which must be adhered to.

Or do you go down the road of having a vote and then finding it challenged by the losing side on the basis that the proxy procedures were incorrectly administered?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No longer relevant thanks to Italian air traffic controllers. My friend will now be attending the meeting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well NO surprise that it has gone to re-election. Hopefully there are a number of interested candidates next month to consider. If ever there was a time that we needed a strong, committed representation then it is NOW. There are a number of worthy candidates from the previous board and hopefully they will be strengthened by as many newbies as possible. But lets hope that the blend of old and new gel quickly and any lingering, personal beefs are put aside.

  • Agree 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meeting was (for the most part) conducted in amicable fashion.  In brief....

  • Resolution One, to remove the current board, was voted "for" by the members in person and by proxy.
  • Resolution Two, to set a date for the election, was done so as the 19th June 2018.

The board will remain in place until the elections (a requirement to protect the legal status of the organisation) and an election management group will/has been formed...and will include two volunteers who step forward from the floor.  This will include representation/assistance from Supporters Direct.

The board have asked that anyone who did not receive notice of the meeting get in touch to ensure they have the correct contact details ([email protected]) if you are speaking to anyone who's not online then please assist them as best you can.  Notices and details on making nominations for the elections will be sent out in due course.

From a personal point of view, it was a disappointing that many of the people who have made a lot of noise (one way or the other) on CJT were not in attendance at the meeting personally, or represented by a proxy....some people would have been unable due to other commitments and/or geography and those are not the people I am referencing.

CJT exists for many reasons, but above all else (IMO) it is the custodian of a 108 shares handed down by the old guard and carrying an enhanced (10%) voting right.  It might sound cliched, but those shares quite literally represent all the blood sweat and tears that went into the formation of Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC.

I appreciate that people will be looking at the society right now and seeing something they probably want nothing to do with, but it can't change unless fans step up to the plate to get it back on track....and once back on track, help it thrive.  Right now it needs people capable of the former to come forward for the elections in June....even if that is just a short term commitment.

There's 10 places available on the board, so ample space for those with the necessary skills.....and just as important, those with the necessary energy and passion to get sh!t done!

  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know why people voted to call a new election but I did notice a handful of votes against a new election from the floor. Would’ve been interesting to hear why they voted that way. 

Edited by Renegade
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

CJT exists for many reasons, but above all else (IMO) it is the custodian of a 108 shares handed down by the old guard and carrying an enhanced (10%) voting right.  It might sound cliched, but those shares quite literally represent all the blood sweat and tears that went into the formation of Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC.

You could probably add "toil" in there as well. These 108 shares and 10% voting rights are an important legacy of the partner clubs which put the current one there in the first place, and also the net £1.23M of combined assets which went into the construction of the Caledonian Stadium. 

Share this post


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

We all know why people voted to call a new election but I did notice a handful of votes against a new election from the floor. Would’ve been interesting to hear why they voted that way. 

To be fair the same may be applicable in reverse. There was an opportunity for those who wished to vote against the board to make public their thoughts but none were forthcoming.  I just hope that those who voted will be standing for election next month

 

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the meeting go from your perspective Mr Bannerman ? I suspect that you had a lot to say and closely monitored the legality of the proceedings ? Sorry - should have first asked - Were you there ?

I voted FOR - not to do with anything about the present membership but a feeling that this all had to start from anew. But as CaleyD and LG have alluded to it needs people to act and not chirp negatives from a forum. There are probably a number who do not live locally who would want to assist in any way possible. Is that actually a possibility ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, L_G said:

To be fair the same may be applicable in reverse. There was an opportunity for those who wished to vote against the board to make public their thoughts but none were forthcoming.  I just hope that those who voted will be standing for election next month

 

With respect, I don't think the same is applicable in reverse.  There are a large number of concerns which led to the calling of the Special General Meeting and these have been well documented in public on this forum in a number of threads.  There has been no or inadequate response to these points from the Board or anyone else.  Davie made the point that we all knew why we were at the meeting so lets just vote on the resolution.  Detailing the concerns would only have served to embarrass the Board members present and nobody would have wanted that, especially as you had the courage to chair the meeting at short notice following the Chair's resignation.  It can't have been an easy thing to do and I applaud you for that.  Members now need to move on and work cooperatively together in order to drive CJT forward. 

As for standing for election next month I think it would be helpful for those considering whether to stand to have some clarification from the Board on a couple of issues which need to be understood before the working group tackles the mechanics of calling the election.  The first is what Rules are in force and the second is what general arrangements the Board has for elections.

As I understand it, there are 3 sets of Rules floating around.  One set dated 2005 was approved by the members and duly registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).  A revised set was approved by the membership in 2012 but never submitted to the FCA.  A further revised set has been registered earlier this year with the FCA but without the legally required approval of the membership.  These 3 sets of Rules all have different details about how Board Membership is constituted.

The 2005 Rules state that the Board may have up to 12 members at least 2 of which must be co-opted members.  The 2012 Rules state there can be up to 12 members with up to 4 additional members by co-option.  The 2018 rules allow for 10 elected and up to 5 co-opted members.

None of the 3 sets of Rules give any details relating to election procedure.  All 3 state that members will be elected in accordance with the election policy adopted by the Society (or words to that effect).  

It would therefore be very helpful if the Board would clarify which set of Rules are in operation and if a copy of the Board's election policy could be made available as an attachment to a response.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

With respect, I don't think the same is applicable in reverse.  There are a large number of concerns which led to the calling of the Special General Meeting and these have been well documented in public on this forum in a number of threads.  There has been no or inadequate response to these points from the Board or anyone else.  Davie made the point that we all knew why we were at the meeting so lets just vote on the resolution.  Detailing the concerns would only have served to embarrass the Board members present and nobody would have wanted that, especially as you had the courage to chair the meeting at short notice following the Chair's resignation.  It can't have been an easy thing to do and I applaud you for that.  Members now need to move on and work cooperatively together in order to drive CJT forward. 

As for standing for election next month I think it would be helpful for those considering whether to stand to have some clarification from the Board on a couple of issues which need to be understood before the working group tackles the mechanics of calling the election.  The first is what Rules are in force and the second is what general arrangements the Board has for elections.

As I understand it, there are 3 sets of Rules floating around.  One set dated 2005 was approved by the members and duly registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).  A revised set was approved by the membership in 2012 but never submitted to the FCA.  A further revised set has been registered earlier this year with the FCA but without the legally required approval of the membership.  These 3 sets of Rules all have different details about how Board Membership is constituted.

The 2005 Rules state that the Board may have up to 12 members at least 2 of which must be co-opted members.  The 2012 Rules state there can be up to 12 members with up to 4 additional members by co-option.  The 2018 rules allow for 10 elected and up to 5 co-opted members.

None of the 3 sets of Rules give any details relating to election procedure.  All 3 state that members will be elected in accordance with the election policy adopted by the Society (or words to that effect).  

It would therefore be very helpful if the Board would clarify which set of Rules are in operation and if a copy of the Board's election policy could be made available as an attachment to a response.

 

For the sake of moving to an election, we have to operate on the basis of the rules that are currently registered.  Whilst we know there could be (is) an issue there, the registered rules would be the currently recognised legal basis for any business being undertaken at this time.  That would only change (and lead to considerable further delay) if formally challenged.

Co-opting can be set aside in regards to the election as the need to bring in additional skills or help cannot be ascertained until the board is in place and it falls to them to co-opt as necessary.

That means there are 10 spaces available for election.  With the option to co-opt beyond that should the need present itself, I don't see the number presenting any immediate risk to taking things forward.

Given the nature of how the election has come about, the standard election policy is not entirely relevant/applicable.  However, with Supporters Direct providing assistance as part of the Election Management Group we can/should have reasonable expectation that due process will be followed.

I believe CJT provided the Election Policy as an attachment elsewhere on one of the growing number of threads, but attach it for convenience.

2012_election_policy.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don/Laura/Whoever  - as noted there are a growing number of threads ... Would it be prudent to add a CJT subforum  or perhaps even a 'clubs' page which can have its own separate sub-site entirely (see here). This would keep things tidy and may have other benefits down the line with making forms or other documents available. The offer is there, if its of interest then we can work it into the summer upgrade plans. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only worry with that, at present, would be awareness....and people missing stuff because they don't bother with anything other than this section of the forum when looking for club related info.

Going forward....it would be a decision for those on the CJT Board as part of some kind of communication plan/strategy/process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it could get lost, but there are ways to make it prominent in the newest version. As you say, something for the elected board to decide after the next meeting. just putting it out there as an option. no skin off my nose either way. 

Share this post


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

I agree that it could get lost, but there are ways to make it prominent in the newest version. As you say, something for the elected board to decide after the next meeting. just putting it out there as an option. no skin off my nose either way. 

It's going to need something and I personally like the option of it being linked to the community here where it will save the board time and allow them to concentrate on other matters 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP - There are probably a number who do not live locally who would want to assist in any way possible. Is that actually a possibility ?

Share this post


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

BUMP - There are probably a number who do not live locally who would want to assist in any way possible. Is that actually a possibility ?

Serving on the board would be a bit difficult...but I'm sure there are tasks that could be performed/assisted with remotely.  It would very much depend on the new board, how they operate and what opportunities that may present.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:11 AM, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

How did the meeting go from your perspective Mr Bannerman ? I suspect that you had a lot to say and closely monitored the legality of the proceedings ? Sorry - should have first asked - Were you there ?

I cant believe that Charlie didn't attend. He appeared to be the person in the know and a cert to be elected.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.