Julie Ann

forced secured proxies from other shareholders?

savage must have something on the director general

don't remember seeing it. i know about the meeting from on here

who's ryan conroy? good luck with the auction.

From Steven H's previous post: and you'd be right. ian dodd (chief exec and director) said the break clause was three years. granted it was probably missed by most as their focus was on david beattie saying he didn't know but ian dodd say it. i was more amazed that no-one on the board had deemed it worthwhile raising it with the warriors despite numerous danger signs flashing in newspapers, forums and warriors websites.

like the centenary fund?

but any fan that is so inclined can get elected to the jt and change it. those in place just now are only there until their tenure ends. my point is that the only fans interested in this stuff are those at the jt. if there were otehrs they'd be in amongst it. i refer back to my earlier point: what if those currently at the jt who people have a problem with join the new organisation and stimey what its aimed at acheiving. do you ban them from joining? of course not, which brings it back to getting those who are motivated enough to take the jt by the scruff of the neck and changing it. edited to add: however if the jt has become so tainted in terms of its reputation then something fresh could be useful. however it still doesn't remove the fact that whatever the group is, called or stands for its is about the people in it and that could almost certainly include those who get flack in the jt currently. its a vicious circle.

if that's in response to my post then you've misunderstood me. my question was only to highlight why i thought a second group would be pointless. no-one's calling for anyone to be banned from any group so please put that aside.

the firhill cup. great example. organised by people with nothing to do with the jt. superb day. club embraced it. fans got involved and coughed up to take part and then bought dvds afterwards. cash handed over. no seats on the board, no shares changed hands.

really? your business has a major source of income that has a break in the contract but you don't know when that is? you think that's reasonable? it might be sort of reasonable if it was an organisation that had hundreds of similar contracts in place but i'm guessing we've not. warriors, greaves and the facilities management company that run the catering and hospitality, can't think of anything else. i was surpised that ian dodd didn't offer an answer as he (impressively) seemed to have a forensic grasp of everything operational within the club including the way the floodlights shone. edited to add: i think ian dodd did confirm a three year break option didn't he?

i too fail to see what a separate supporters group would achieve. would it be in competition with the jt? would the people who are causing some folk concern on the jt be banned from joining the alternative group and applying their views on the new group?

and that's why i said for football as a whole it could be good but followed that up by saying its a red herring because for clubs to survive they need as much money as they can get. david beattie said as much last night. i stand by my opinion that if falkirk or hamilton were in the spl neither reid or pressley would be saying this. incidentally, i'm not saying i wouldn't want to see reconstruction merely pointing out that when the cash is in your pocket you don't want give it away. something about turkeys and christmas?

these calls for league reconstruction by clubs like falkirk and hamilton, while holding significant merit for football as a whole, are a red herring. lets be honest here, if thistle were in the spl there's no way we'd be pushing for reconstruction. it was said as much last night that we'd go where the money is and that's exactly the same for falkirk and hamilton. did either of these clubs shout about a 20 team league when they were benefitting from the increased incomes that the spl brought them? if they did i apologies but i'd suggest "did they ****" is nearer the mark. david beattie said last night that the 10 team spl would have brought more moeny to lower league teams and he also said that we'd be at the front of the queue if an spl2 ever came about. if falkirk or hamilton (or us) or morton or whoever wins this league wait and see if they keep pushing for a 20 team league.

what about: "hello, i'm the chairperson of the jt. i appreciate that there are lots of people in the room who will have questions so i'll keep the jt's questions to just a couple to make sure everyone who wants to speak has a chance." the jt chairperson could also have stood up at the end and thanked the top table instead of sitting with her arms folded and frowning.

i don't understand that. last night was a perfect opportunity for the jt to raise and discuss their concerns in front of the biggest audience they've ever had. the jt chairperson sat with her arms folded all night and her colleague took pages of notes presumably suggesting he thought that lots of interesting things were being said? if the jt is supposed to represent fans views they should be right in the mix at these things. critisicm has been aimed at the club (rightly) for its poor communication and engagement but the jt needs to have a look at itself if it wonders why people are cancelling memberships and viewing it as a waste of space.

a couple of current and former jt board members were. one sat with her arms folded all night and the other took lots of notes and played with his ipad. neither spoke or asked any questions. there were no questions asked by the jt, at least they weren't stated as being asked by the jt. shame, you'd have thought it would have been a great opportunity for them, as thistle fans

very important question. what if the jags trust members support the current board's plans? what if its just the current jt board being railroaded by longstanding faces who have history and stuckrecord syndrome about seats on the board pushing their own personal agenda? how do we know that the jt board is representing the views of its members? any jt member been asked?

anyone else just received a rambling letter from the chairperson of the jags trust? if so, can you help by providing an explanation of what she's talking about? thanks

change its name for a start. even reading those three words makes me cringe.

somewhere else on this forum someone said the next game against morton had been changed to the friday night. any confirmation of this? the club website has no mention of it and the fixture list shows it on the saturday,

fair play to you. just certain members of the jt having private chats with ex directors and major shareholders?

now you've got me really confused. the original post that was answered claiming not a hint of truth was: but its been stated as fact that the trust had mr prentice's proxy. so there was a hint of truth wasn't there albeit the whole post not being 100% accurate? or are we getting into ptfc board speak?

so when you posted in the egm thread that there wasn't a hint of truth about the trust having mr prentice's proxy that wasn't really true and there was a kind of hint of truth about it? was it mr peden that had the proxies of 3 million shares and not the trust?

the ironic thing is that if the club died off the back of this we'd just get the prime movers setting up another club which they'd own themselves. and there would be another one set up in competition. and another set up because they don't like the ones who set up the others two and it woudl go on and on and on

safe to say that whoever was going to bank roll those signings won't be after this morning's meeting