Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In some respects, it's more of the same - trust us to get it right and give us more time - but this time with an added hint of what the next steps might be. Fine at the start of the process, but actions over the last few months have eroded reserves of trust and good will. So I'm left wanting to believe that this is a way forward, but deeply suspicious that I'm just being fobbed off again. The best way to break that cycle for me is to get the Foundation board in a room with the Trustees again and see if the Trustees can be pinned down on substance and a timetable. Some trust is needed to move this forward. The PTFC Trust have wasted their entitlement to it, but the Foundation haven't, at least for me. If they assess that this is a meaningful attempt to move forward constructively, then I will lend them my good will and see if they can work with the Trust to find a resolution.
  2. There are obviously many reasons that might impact on a person's decision to attend. We can speculate about that all day long. What is clear, however, is thatsomme supporters have been very clear about why they did not attend the Kelty game. A club of our size really cannot afford to alienate any supporter. The management of the football club should be doing everything in its power to be inclusive and encouraging to every single fan. They won't always succeed, but what we are seeing from the club board at the moment seems to be the polar opposite of that right now. Given the nature of the business, that feels to me as though it is a significant management failing. Fewer engaged supporters = less cash. Not enough cash flow = no business. It doesn't matter a stitch how you dress up the balance sheet. Cash (or lack of it) kills any business. An alienated support, even if it's just part of the support, is hugely problematic and finding a way to re-engage with them should be the number 1 priority for the board right now. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening at all.
  3. A director and ambassador of the club making fun of aggrieved supporters instead of reaching out to them? That's a real class act. I suppose it's at least honest. He and others can't be accused of trying to hide the contempt that they appear to feel for the fans. I guess we ought to be grateful for these small things...
  4. For me, the Evening Times interview was a mixture of things that I know to be factually incorrect or misrepresented and things that I find to be too fanciful to believe in the absence of hard evidence. I've said this before, but the one thing that I find to be unbearably annoying is people trying to treat me like a fool when, candidly, they are either not good enough at deceit or not clever enough to pull it off. It's a real turn off.
  5. Indeed. I really really don't appreciate it.
  6. It certainly looks that way. And perception is important if you want to try to build the trust, engagement and co-operation of others. Regardless of whether the perception reflects the reality (only the Trust and club board can know that for certain), I think it's an unhelpful (my predictive text thinks I should say "unhealthy") way to approach things.
  7. Two things immediately struck me: 1. That there was no reason given for a refusal to allow all PTFC Trust trustees to be re-elected next year. The only credible argument against this happening would be to try to say that the Trust needs continuity and stability to execute its plan, but since there is no sign of what the plan might be, and since by their own admission the current trustees were ill prepared to take on their roles, I can't see that argument would hold any water. 2. The sentiment that it's not appropriate for the majority shareholder to comment on the accounts. If it's not appropriate for the majority shareholder to hold a view on how the company is being run, then who does that fall to? The sentiment itself is problematic, as it resonates with the ultra passive view of the shareholder's role, and is in large part what caused a credibility issue for the Jags Trust. Indeed, it's exactly this passive approach to the shareholding that causes me (and I suspect many others) the greatest concern in all of this. It's fair to say that the trustees have started poorly. It will be difficult for them to shake the tag that they are merely stooges for the club board, and that the whole concept of fan ownership is a sham. This sort of approach will only cement that view in the opinion of many.
  8. There has been a fairly steady flow of emails to members. I haven't checked the website itself, but it would mischaracterise things to suggest that communication had dried up from the Foundation.
  9. I think that you might have a point about the relevance of the line, LJ - in Scotland, it would be viewed as pejorative by a lot of people - but I guess that's an editorial decision by the writer, and it is factually correct. I have had the misfortune to see the pre-publication exchange with Neil, though. Coming from the chair of a company to a customer of that company, it's pretty unedifying. I think that most people would expect to be up before HR, at the very least, if they spoke to a customer like that in their day job. As a supporter, it makes me feel quite sad that we have come to this.
  10. If you go back and read the most recent interview the trustees did with the Evening Times, you'll see that they essentially admit that if they like an email then they'll reply to it, but if they don't then they won't. I guess they didn't much like your questions so they don't feel inclined to do you the courtesy of a reply. That's fan representation for you.
  11. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from the Trust is willing to speak to Graham Spiers without TJF present. They seem happy to occasionally give interviews so long as there isn't anyone in the room with enough knowledge of events to pin them down to answer a challenging question.
  12. Did anyone from the Trust or TJF agree to go on Graham Spiers' podcast?