stolenscone

Maybe the proof wasn't still in the pudding, he might be getting more first team opportunities?

I guess the difference is oversight vs hands on management. The latter being the responsibility of the club board.

Sometimes it's good to take a break from the keyboard and clear the head. Bit of perspective and all that.

Free agent

To be fair, I don't think that many (any?) would argue that we shouldn't running a balanced budget. I guess the difference of opinion is what should (or indeed could) the new board have done in the immediate aftermath of the old board, who mismanaged the budget, leaving en masses. Personally, I would prefer to park this discussion until we have the information to assess whether or not the new board is able to run a balanced budget. It seems to me that they were parachuted into a crisis not of their own making. Steps were taken to stabilise the immediate problem, and they should be judged on their performance after that point. Who knows - Jim may be proven to be correct. At this moment in time though, I don't see how anyone can know, unless they are privy to knowledge that isn't in the public domain.

Wouldn't redundancy payments have had to have been made in order to sack non playing staff in January, and wouldn't those payments have outweighed any cash savings in the very short term? I have no special insight into the cash position in January, but if it was as bad as is being made out, I suspect that adding an immediate redundancy liability would have tipped it over the edge into insolvency. I don't offer a view on whether the non playing staff budget is sensible or bloated. I'm only saying that savings from cutting the non playing staff budget wouldn't be felt until the next financial year - by which time it's presumably too late?

Hi Jim - if your point here is about good corporate governance (rather than representing the specific interests of a very narrow group of supporters) then I think we agree. I would prefer to see that done via a truly independent non exec director though. I don't think that it works well if you just have different people trying to represent small groups of the support, which I suspect would eventually cause factionalism. If I recall correctly, the composition of the board was something that the club and TJF had flagged from the outset as being an issue, born from the absence of a proper period of transition and handover. I agree that it needs sorting, but I'm also mindful that it's still a journey. If the final landing still has no proper balance, then we should try to change that by voting to mandate the majority shareholder supporter association(s) to make that change.

Hi Jim - I hope you're keeping well? My view, for what it's worth, is that the PTFC Trust is something of an anomaly. In due course, the unelected trustees will resign, and we're left with a shell that holds the shares that is fully accountable to fans via the membership of the two supporter associations. Of course, if the unelected trustees don't resign, then I think we have a problem. As for the Jags Trust: it's been such sleepy organisation for so long that I totally get your point. (Does it not hold regular AGMs and hold regular elections? It certainly should.) I can, however, understand why they were folded into the structure - the run up to the resignation en masse of the previous board was a very fractious time, and there was merit in trying to be as inclusive as possible. Ultimately, though, I would like to see us with a single, engaged and responsive fan base represented by a single engaged and responsive supporter's body - which at the moment feels like it should be TJF, if only because of their greater energy and activity. As for minority shareholders having a director nominated to the club board: I would prefer not to see this happen. (In the interests of full disclosure, I do hold a few shares.) My reason for thinking this is that I want there to be unity among the support - no one group deserves to have more influence than any other. (Should season ticket holders get a director? What about non season ticket holders? What about people who bought bricks? Etc etc. You get the point.) I think that it should ideally all be done through a flat structure via a single fan body. Last point: I would have preferred the TJF / club board to have consulted on the changes to the articles of association. But I say that without knowing the background or having spent any time assessing the extent of the changes that were made. Context is important - I only expect consultation on the big stuff, and I'm not yet certain how big or otherwise the changes were. Nor do I know what commercial confidentiality restrictions might have applied before the investment. But on its face, it does feel like a bit of a misstep. That said, you can't run any business without having some latitude to make decisions. So, I'm currently on the fence on this particular point. Best wishes David

Thanks for clarifying WJ. Not ideal, but perhaps understandable given the precarious finances.

I confess that I haven't been following the detail as much as I might have done, but aren't they just non voting preference shares? So there's a first call on dividends, but no voting rights? (Hence the ability to have a director on the board - which director can be outvoted anyway.) As I say, I'm not close enough to the details, but if it's viewed as an unsecured, interest free loan, repayable only if a company that's never had £2m in the bank happens to have £2m in the bank, then it feels a bit less sinister than is being portrayed. I may be wrong in my assessment though, which is just a personal view.

Hi LJ - isn't that what TJF is supposed to achieve though? It feels more democratic to have all supporters to have their say via the fan vehicle (which in turn is the trustee that nominates the club director) whan it would be to say that a single minority shareholder nominates a director. Maybe just me, but the model doesn't feel terribly "establishment" to my mind.

In an ideal world, I expect that the shares would be held directly by a democratic supporter body, but I get why it's not that pragmatic to move the shares around again. On it's face, a trust structure is a poor vehicle to deliver a democratic voice to supporters. But reversing TJF and the old Jags Trust in as trustees essentially achieves a similar outcome by the back door. The idea is that democracy is exercised by TJF, in its role as Trustee, implementing the will of supporters which is exercised through TJF in its role as supporters' association. I like that there are now key issues that legally need member votes - eg sale of the ground. It also looks as through the group of beneficiaries is extended to anyone who wants it - buy a season ticket or, more easily, join TJF or the Jags Trust if you want to have your voice heard. I appreciate that some will continue to be sceptical until the original 3 Trustees resign, but I think that we have made enough progress recently to give people some time and space to let that play out as advertised.

This feels like a positive outcome for the football club in the long run.

It did indeed. (I did say that it was a controversial view!!)

It might be a controversial opinion, but my own view is that the 2nd JLow incarnation wasn't a complete disaster. Was it during this period that the ground ownership was unpicked and returned to the Club? That alone was a very generous act by the Weirs. But of course, I'm not suggesting that the financial performance of the previous Club board (absent a lottery winner to prop them up) was anything other than problematic. Anyway, despite the financial pressures we are under now, I'm glad we are where we are - in other words, that the Barnsley thing didn't happen AND that Ms Low is no longer running the Club Board.

I can completely understand those who have an issue with the people who were parachuted into the PTFC Trust trustee positions before Ms Low departed. I don't think it's difficult to criticise the initial stage of their tenure. The mood music seems to have changed radically since Ms Low left. I have no reason to doubt TJF board members when they refer publicly to a constructive working relationship having developed. With hindsight, I prefer to think of some of the Low-era behaviours as misguided, ham fisted, but well intentioned. Perhaps I am being naive; perhaps Sandy and GRE are right? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that the structural elements of this feel on a better footing, and while I don't think that proper fan ownership has been delivered yet, the road map set out at TJF's latest AGM appears to show a deliverable way forward in relatively short order. Wind back 6 months, and I didn't honestly see a path to achieve this. Anyway, I suspect that much of this is largely irrelevant now. The Club (and supporter owners) won't find itself short of challenges going forward. We don't have the luxury of a large fan base. Pulling together with a common goal and shared vision feels like the only real option. That doesn't mean happy clapping toeing of the line, but it does mean everyone having a part and stepping up to play it as best they can.

I don't think that you can blame McCall for that. Managers will always plead for funds to sign just one more player. It's up to the board of directors to set budgets and sanction spend.

I guess this is one of the benefits of fan ownership. Once the ship has been steadied, there is nothing to prevent the fans and Club board having an open discussion about it - making it clear what the financial cost to the Club would be. Look at the St Mirren board's decision about allocation of tickets to Old Firm fans as an example. In the medium term, I'm expecting the Club to be much more collaborative and inclusive in the future, given the changed ownership model. There's no reason why it couldn't and shouldn't be the case.

That level of detail would not be available from the published accounts.

I guess that's possible, but since none of the previous board had put any of their own money into the club in previous years, it would seem unlikely that that was about to change.

I guess the point to bear in mind is that we're not talking about a c.£580k one off shortfall - it's a regular cash flow shortfall. So, either income increases in a sustained way, or costs are cut. The obvious solutions (glib as that might be) are to increase regular sources of income - season ticket sales, match day attendance, TJF donations to the club via paid membership subs- and reduce the playing budget. It's not a nice place to be, but if we care about the club, and we're financially in a position to do so, then we can all play a small part. The alternative is to have no club to support. I can see it being a difficult few years, although I am more encouraged by the involvement of some people now to help manage us through this than in previous times.

I suspect it sounds more complicated than it actually will be in practice. If it passes, you end up with the Colin Weir shares staying in the same place. It's acknowledged that a trust structure is not suitable for participatory democracy, but the PTFC Trust becomes democratised via the democratic structure of its new corporate trustees - the Jags Trust and the Jags Foundation. So, fan ownership is exercised at grass roots level via those two bodies, and then implemented at PTFC Trust level. While it's not how you would choose to start if you had a clean bit of paper, it seems to me to be an elegant solution to the key issues with the inherited position.

Although I guess it brings everyone into the tent, which can only be good.

Hi Jim - I hope you're keeping well? My point was really about some of the wilder conspiracy theories around the decision to change the manager. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I'll come to the view that the most obvious reason is what has happened - namely that it was a decision taken as a result of performances on the park. I haven't been one of those who have been calling for the management team to be replaced, and I haven't offered any view as to whether or not it's the right decision. I can, however, appreciate why some people think a change was required. I can also understand why others would have offered more time, given the tight league, injury issues and general risk and cost associated with the change. As you say on other posts - the next decision is going to be a very big one for the Board to make.

Gosh - what an abundance of conspiracy theories. We have a team that has been under pperforming for one reason or another for a few months. A fair portion of the support have called for change. So, the decision itself might not be one that everyone agrees with, but it's not one that causes you to wonder what on earth they were thinking of. The timing is odd, but the Board of Directors is inexperienced. Unless I hear to the contrary, I'll assume the obvious - that the Board decided it was time to change the management after the Cove game and made a mess of the timing of the announcement. Anything else I've heard on here seems less likely to me, but what do I know ...?