happysouth Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Director Colin Rutherford has resigned from the board From the OS - "Queen of the South today announced that Colin Rutherford has resigned from the Board with immediate effect. Colin who has served on the board for 6 years is taking up a new business interest and therefore feels it only right that he steps down. The Board of Directors would like to take this opportunity of thanking him for all his hard work and dedication to the club. We wish him all the best for the future. Mark Robertson." and there are 62 shares for sale. http://www.qosfc.com/news-latest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 More changes at the AGM next week at board level? Chairman Robertson perhaps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happysouth Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Chairman Robertson perhaps? That would be a pretty big move but not out of the question and not something i would be unhappy with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qos1990 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 would think Mr Hewitson will take up chairman position, maybe someone else move onto the board to replace rutherford? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 would think Mr Hewitson will take up chairman position, maybe someone else move onto the board to replace rutherford? Like a trust representative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qos1990 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Like a trust representative. or one of Hewitson mates? who was asking all the questions last AGM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 or one of Hewitson mates? who was asking all the questions last AGM I wasn't at the last AGM, but I would imagine an appointment along those lines to be far more likely. Unfortunately, IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeredbook Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Like a trust representative. That wont happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUMFRIES_CREW Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 or one of Hewitson mates? who was asking all the questions last AGM And who might that be ? Funeral Director by any chance ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUMFRIES_CREW Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 No no, hotelier.... MW or JH ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qos1990 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 He certainly did try to shoot down trust but was shot down himself in process. Just a thought likes, he was rumoured to be asked before sure he attended one of our games v falkirk. Just with it looking likely off changes in top seat might suit, the old pals act 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) He certainly did try to shoot down trust but was shot down himself in process. I don't think he tried particularly to shoot down the Trust nor got shot down himself either. He made a point about something he was unhappy about, no more, no less. To no great surprise Trust Committee members disagreed with him. The exchange is included in the minutes of the last AGM which have been circulated to shareholders. Like it or not I have heard of a good few people who were annoyed to discover that the money they stuck in collection buckets at Palmerston in the first few weeks of the financial crisis didn't go straight to the club without conditions attached as they presumed money being collected inside the ground would have done. I don't think it was made anything like clear enough at the time that money going in the Save Our South buckets went to the Trust and not the club. I never actually put any money in the buckets as I was working at the time and simply gave any donations I gave directly to the club but I had presumed at the time of the first one at least that it was being collected to give to the club. At the time of those initial collections the Save Our South movement was not even connected to the Trust. Both my father and my wife, who DID both stick money in it were annoyed to discover later that the money hadn't been given directly to Queens. EDITED to add: The club AGM was probably not the right place to raise the issue mind you. It had no direct relevance to the point of the night. Edited December 7, 2011 by Skyline Drifter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 All the money from bucket collections has found it's way back to Queen's, at the meeting that Ross organized at Locharbriggs in the beggining of "Save our South" there were surveys handed out. One of the questions was about how you would like the money to go back to Queen's and the purchase of shares came out on top, which was why it was decided to do it this way. I think the total shares bought amounted to £6000 or something, since the share issue is now finished money has found it's way back to Queen's in other ways via sponsorship and some other things. If it was up to me, the Trust wouldn't give the club money for nothing, but not everyone shares my view obviously. Not saying it didn't, nor that there was anything wrong with the Trust buying shares with money it clearly raises towards its own aims (which there definitely isn't). I'm saying it wasn't made clear at the time to the people who put money in buckets inside the ground that the money wasn't a direct donation to the club and some were therefore annoyed about it. And that's true, it wasn't. A lot of that money obviously came from people who weren't at the Locharbriggs meeting and certainly hadn't mandated what they thought were donations to be used to buy shares for an organisation they may well not have been members of. And as I said, Save Our South wasn't connected to the Trust at the time of the first collection. If people feel they were misled a bit on that front then it's unfortunate they can't say so without being "shot down" for being perceived to have had a go at the Trust. It's not that important in the scheme of things, nobody died, the club eventually gets the money, the Trust continue to do a great many good things for or on behalf of the club. But it shouldn't be a crime to point out the occasional thing that could have been done differently with hindsight. Which is really all Mr Wallace did at the time. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Save our South wasn't a club run thing, I thought that was obvious. You maybe did. It certainly wasn't obvious to the majority of people who chucked money in buckets inside the ground at the time. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to assume a bucket collection inside the actual turnstiles would be money given directly the club and not used by a third party. Like I said, I certainly knew that "Save Our South" wasn't a club run thing but even I thought the original bucket collection was just a volunteer force on the day collecting donations for the club. I had no awareness that the money was going to be retained for a period before being used to buy shares etc. A number of people later complained to the club about that when they found out. I'd imagine a significantly large number of people still don't realise it didn't go directly to the club. Mr Wallace was entitled to complain about that without being "shot down" for it. Albeit as I said, the club AGM probably wasn't where he should have done so. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 For what it's worth I thought it was pretty clear that the money wasn't going directly to the club. If it had been, I probably wouldn't have donated any. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 For what it's worth I thought it was pretty clear that the money wasn't going directly to the club. If it had been, I probably wouldn't have donated any. This. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 For what it's worth I thought it was pretty clear that the money wasn't going directly to the club. If it had been, I probably wouldn't have donated any. This. Another this. However, I can understand that some people may have got the wrong end of the stick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeredbook Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 For what it's worth I thought it was pretty clear that the money wasn't going directly to the club. If it had been, I probably wouldn't have donated any. Agree totally with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_vortex Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Agree totally with this. As do I ........ All the money i've donated has went through the Trust / Save our South campaign & the Barflies . That way I know exaclty what my money is being spent on . There's not a hope in hell I'll donate any extra money I may have directly to the club . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOPFITTER Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 You maybe did. It certainly wasn't obvious to the majority of people who chucked money in buckets inside the ground at the time. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to assume a bucket collection inside the actual turnstiles would be money given directly the club and not used by a third party. Like I said, I certainly knew that "Save Our South" wasn't a club run thing but even I thought the original bucket collection was just a volunteer force on the day collecting donations for the club. I had no awareness that the money was going to be retained for a period before being used to buy shares etc. A number of people later complained to the club about that when they found out. I'd imagine a significantly large number of people still don't realise it didn't go directly to the club. Mr Wallace was entitled to complain about that without being "shot down" for it. Albeit as I said, the club AGM probably wasn't where he should have done so. So we have gone from "some" people to the "majority" being misled, and "A number of people later complained to the club about that when they found out." For the sake of accuracy can you quote your figures for the majority against the number who contributed and who kept count of the actual number who contributed. How many was "The Number" who later complained to the Club ? As you could be seen as supporting an attack on the "Queens Trust" and their intentions by appearing to agree with Mr Wallace, (in tone anyway) of your responses, I assume you would welcome him if he were offered a position on the Board of, Queen Of The South, then he and you could comment from a position of inside knowledge on exactly what "The Trust" have provided in terms of monies and other assistance to the Club. Do you and Mr Wallace feel it would be suitable for someone acting on behalf of the Club to engage in Mud Slinging between Club and Trust on Internet Forums or other media ? and if not, what actions do you believe would be suitable to end such behaviour ? Is it not just a wee bit coincidental this affair rears its head again so close to the AGM of Queen Of The South ???????? 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.