partickthedog

I can see that you are coming round to the underdog way of thinking!

Just trying to understand the whole statement by the PTFC Trust. Some of it seems very significant. Some of it is woolly and vague. Still at last it would appear that tectonic plates are starting to shift. I would like to know (and would be interested in the views of other posters) whether the PTFC trustees are saying this on the prompting of the Club Board who have realised that their previous policy was a total car crash and are now trying to salvage what they can from the wreckage, or whether the PTFC trustees have finally discovered some courage and independence and remembered that their duties are owed to the fans rather than to the Board?

Maybe Mr Rough parried your email past the post for a corner?

Looks like the selection of the PTFC trustees all over again. I don’t get a vote.

Good start. Still in the pack.

Although both PTFC Trustees and PTFC Board continue to deny that they have been planning and acting in lockstep, the correlation between their respective thought processes can be clearly seen in that both think and speak in progressive multiples of 10 in assessing the level of fan discontent. 20 angry fans with typewriters become 30 angry fans by the canal. When will they realise the full extent of the problem, in that there are actually 40 of us who are quite concerned?

Sounds like there have been too many episodes of Eastenders

Some noble shocks in the last round, but just not enough of them. I do not need to win a lot, just to win the right ones. Banking on Darvel and Stirling University. Here goes: HAAA AHAH HHHH HHAH Thanks as always BB.

Remember being there. James Penrice's first start and he got an immediate assist by landing the first corner on Frans' head. It was a "dead rubber" as United were already relegated and we were safe in the bottom 6, but going nowhere. Have a horrible feeling that Simon Murray scored one or more of their late goals.

Just so happens that my normal course of work over the past few days has brought me into contact with a Motherwell supporter. In routine low key email chat regarding the respective fortunes of our football clubs, he said the following; {Mutual friend] has been keeping me informed of all the goings on with the [Thistle] fan ownership push. Far from ideal, and very different to the Motherwell approach. I hope something similar to that works out. It’s been a positive journey for us thus far and one that has so far been proven to work for a club our size.

Apologies for thread-hogging! Wikipedia tells me that Episode 79 of "the Twilight Zone" first aired in 1961 was entitled "Five Characters in Search of an Exit". I have no idea about the story line, but one can only hope.

As regards TBC, Jacqui Low is the only independently minded Director, and therefore effectively any decision by TBC is a decision by JL. The only other Director is a solicitor firm's nominee company. Such nominee company may advise or even warn in their capacity as solicitors, but will not bring any distinctive agenda to the table. They will act on the instructions of their instructing client, namely JL. There is no question of JL leaving a decision to her fellow Director(s), as the only other Director would need to have either new or standing instructions from JL to be able to make a decision. The Board's fingerprints are all over this, not forgetting that various members of the Board had to facilitate the initial assumption of the 5 current PTFC trustees. To endeavour to portray these trustees as a spontaneously arising grouping who have "come late to the party" (in the words of the Chief Executive) is a total nonsense. The other frustrating common theme in reporting is describing this as a contest between "rival fan groups", as though there were some common yardstick against which both could be measured. The reality is that there is only one fans' group. The 5 PTFC trustees and their small number of acolytes are not a fans' group.

Totally fair points and I will declare my interest as Andrew's dad! It is always difficult when you have to go first, and then do not have a possibility of responding after the second person has spoken. As you will have seen from previous newspaper articles and radio/TV reports, the Club and/or PTFC Trust always refuse to take part in a direct debate with TJF representatives (no doubt because they know that their indefensible position will be more easily exposed than when they can make their own unilateral statements). The very important joining of dots which you mention is quite difficult to explain in an upfront statement without becoming rather technical and perhaps losing the interest of the interviewer or listener, watcher or reader. Of course in a debate if Gerry or whoever says that the PTFC Board had/has no involvement in decisions by TBC, that can be shot down more readily and effectively.

Being a natural compromiser, I supported the "demonstration" yesterday in so far as abandoning my usual place in the John Lambie Stand and joining the march round the ground. I then sneaked into the Jackie Husband Stand. I found myself sitting in the same row as one of the 5 PTFC Trustees, so I introduced myself as one of the trust's beneficiaries and engaged in debate on various matters, including in particular the absolute necessity of all trustee places being made available for election by the whole Thistle fanbase at the earliest opportunity. The original 5 would of course be welcome to put their names and plans forward on an equal footing with other candidates, so that the Thistle fans could make their own free choice as to who should represent their interests. It would not be fair to repeat the whole conversation, but one apparent concession appeared to be that the incremental model of election (5 originals remaining in place and being in the majority with others gradually introduced over the coming years) was not set in stone, but would "depend on what the fans tell us". I would hope that the fans will tell them loud and clear (whether the trustees will listen and/or act is of course another question). I appreciate that there will be different views among the current narrowly defined beneficiary group as to whether they want to give contact details to the Trust when asked by the Club if they wish to do so. My personal view would be to say "yes", so that any communication from me (and others in the same category) to the Trust has the added weight of coming from a known trust beneficiary. For the avoidance of doubt I want all Thistle fans to be equally involved in fan ownership, regardless of whether they are season ticket holders (and indeed how long they may have been season ticket holders for). However, in this current phase, when we are trying to make the best of the wholly inadequate model of fan ownership which has been foisted upon us in the form of the Trust, there is going to be a particular responsibility on the present beneficiary group to carry the fight to the Trustees. Therefore I would encourage beneficiaries to take up this burden (however distasteful receiving no doubt aggravating communications from the Trust might be), while always respecting and understanding those who will take a different view.

I appreciate that we can all have our different views on the appropriateness and effectiveness of yesterday's boycott. However, I would not want to suggest that those who chose to express their feelings in this way are not Jags supporters. Agree with you about the sendings off. Total over-reaction.