MarciaBlaine

If I had the PTFC Trust’s gift for communication, I wouldn’t do it much either.

“A big Colin Weir did it and ran away”

Perhaps the apology could be entitled “hurrah for the red and yellow shirts”? As Stewart Lee once said, “They’re very keen on balance at the Daily Mail. It’s been a watchword for them going back to the 1930s”

On a night when nobody looked good, Mullen was a stand-out as the worst player on the park. Clearly couldn’t be arsed.

I think for most of us who know the ins and outs of the story it was a recap, but the Jags Foundation guys came across well and importantly it was refreshing to have a relative outsider (Spiers) giving an unbiased view on the ridiculousness of it all. He was very clear that the whole transfer stinks. If I had a criticism it would be that Spiers could perhaps have sketched out the full timeline a bit better to make the narrative easier to follow for newcomers. Hard to do though, when it’s such a murky tale. And of course having representation from PTFC Trust or the club board would have been ideal but they didn’t respond. He wants to get their view too and I’ll certainly be tuning in to that if he manages to track them down, though I don’t hold out a lot of hope.

Was a good listen. I hope Spiers and others stick with covering the story.

Politicians up and down the land will be fascinated by this new definition of a conflict of interest: "When I awarded that lucrative contract to my pal's company, I wasn't doing it as the Minister of Transport, I was doing it as myself."

He’s apparently doing a podcast tomorrow about this. Think it’s behind a paywall on the Press Box page at Patreon though. https://www.patreon.com/pressbox

I think that because that question invites evasive answers, it’s not the right one. ”When will we get fan ownership?” seems more pertinent to me. Maybe less likely to be answered, mind.

Hmm, it depends on fitness. Browlie's comeback has been notably slow.

At the risk of being the big guy in Trading Places who leans over his pal's shoulder and says "Yeah!" every so often, I'm happy to agree to all of that. Truthfully though, I think many of us do. The difference is in how to change things and in how long people are prepared to take for change to pan out. Football is awfy conservative in many ways, and can often bring out the traditionalist in folk when they might be more reactive in other walks of life. Change is coming and the support for it is there, the question is when and how.

The tone is strikingly reminiscent of things the club have put out - snide, defensive, evasive and selective with the truth. I'd be amazed if that was a coincidence.

Having a summary and a longer detailed version is an excellent idea. Much more accessible for some who could struggle with a longer read for any number of reasons - eyesight, literacy, time and others. On that note, has the Trust considered using anything like Biteable for short videos? It’s free, very easy to learn/use and makes content really accessible for people. Social media engagement increases by something like six times when images and video are used.

One incredibly important thing in the James Cairney Q&A is their statement that it’s only about 20 noisy people being negative. If you have issues with what’s going on then PLEASE SPEAK UP. Email, social media, at games etc. Quiet disapproval is being taken for complete appproval.

The new Q&A is pretty confusing. The Trust initially worked up a proposal (let’s call this proposal 1) to establish if their approach would work. This clearly can’t be the proposal they’ve just published (proposal 2) because they initially said they didn’t want representation on the board and proposal 2 says they do. And now they say in the Q&A they’re working on a proposal. Number 3? We won’t get to see it until the board agree to it. Cloak and dagger stuff all the way.