B.C.G. JAG

I agree David, but that was why I was trying to make a point that the Trust is more than the NW bus and that there are hundreds of members who are able to direct how the Trust votes. They are also supporters, not some wildly separate entity. Anyway, as I said in another post, the Club now need to ensure that they get the paperwork out in a much more timely fashion to allow for legal advice to be taken and EGM's to be held. The onus is also on the Directors to make the case for the motion. I don't think The Trust can do anything until it receives the proposed changes.

I doubt it. I get lots of post and emails from the different organisations I've worked for despite not being on their books. If you wanted entry into a Trust only event, your name would be cross referenced with how up to date your membership fees were. I don't think there is anything wrong with the Trust sending out info which could be of interest or use to the broader support. It's hardly the worst crime. You also have to take into account that some people just forget to renew and it's a way of keeping them in the loop. I think there is a wee bit of grassy knoll syndrome going on here.

What purpose would that serve though - and what if the JT members still wanted to vote against, but the support outside wanted to vote for? Who is supposed to take notice of the result? Would the results be used to lobby McMaster? Who would do the lobbying? How representative would the results even be? The Trust is made up of supporters who have paid their membership and are entitled to have a say in the direction of The Trust. As I've said elsewhere, you can't sit outside the room and then kick up a fuss that no-one is listening to you. For what it's worth, I don't think The Trust's position is set in stone, nor unreasonable, and I agree that it is simply not good enough for DB to say 'trust me'. What if he left and someone else came in from Asset Strippers R US? There would be no chance for the Shareholders, including The Trust to question that appointment. There probably is no other game now other than Propco, but there does have to be some safeguards written in that will protect the football club from predators, and a verbal commitment to that is not enough. I don't think it's too much to ask for. I imagine that the Trust would be more amenable to the proposed changes if those safeguards were written in, but that's just me speculating. If there is a point to the JT, it's that it is a shareholder and does have some minor influence here. The only poll that will actually count are the ones The Trust conducts of it's members, and what happens on Oct 7th. Is that fair? Well, if the Trust has about 600 members or so, that's anywhere between a third and a quarter of regular home attendances. And given that they can't all come from the NW bus, I think it's probably safe to assume that the make up of the membership is pretty representational of the rest of the support (although some stats on that could be interesting). I agree though that all of this is hugely frustrating.

Irish Cream

If the Club let everyone know what the amendments are this time in advance then I can't see why there wouldn't be an EGM. But the Club does have to propose something new, and in a timely fashion. As AH said, it's simply not enough to say 'trust me' - we've been there before and that won't cut it. This time The Club needs to actually get paperwork out there and make it's case in advance rather than on the day when many proxy votes and the Trust will have already have had to decide on their position. As AH says, when it was agreed at the previous AGM not to hold meetings when most shareholders would be at work, then it's arrogant in the extreme to ignore that instruction at the very next opportunity. That, and the lack of information available smacks of attempting to suppress any debate. That tactic didn't work, and I hope the Directors realise that. On those merits, why should anyone believe that they would reinstate AGM's and shareholder approval of the BOD on a verbal promise when legal obligations appear to mean nothing. There really is no substitute for showing your hand honestly and engaging in discussion. Those discussions could have been held in advance with Trust reps, but the Club has decided against that. This isn't all about having a rep on the Board, but it does highlight the stupidity and arrogance of not engaging with people.

What is The Trust doing to resolve this? or What has changed since the vote last week? What changes have the Directors made to their motion that will prompt a further consultation with the membership? The Trust Board can't just change their minds from one week to another even if they'd like to. They would need to be instructed to do so by the membership. Nothing new is on the table so I doubt anyone would be able to find a reason to call an EGM. Who would show up for a debate on what was already decided last week? This is where the Directors need to be putting the hard yards in if they want their vote passed and rewriting their motion as well as taking the time to fully discuss it with all parties in advance is surely what they must have understood as necessary from the agm. What makes them think that by blaming the shareholders for voting it down, they will suddenly have managed to convince everyone to change their mind? If the same motion is retabled without changes and without discussions, then really the question should be 'What are the Directors doing to solve this?'

I wasn't at it, but, given that I think we can presume the meeting was quorate, and we know that a vote was taken which instructed the Trust Board how to proceed at the vote - namely to ask for the vote to abandoned for further consultation (a pretty sensible move I think most people would agree) or failing that to vote against, then to be honest I think you're expelling a whole lot of wasted energy here. The Trust also took legal advice on the matter. As a number of people have said on this forum, the Club could have negotiated a way to allow their business to be taken forward without removing shareholders rights. I'm not sure what DB's statement about 'trust me' is hoping to achieve. He lost a vote and should now be looking for dialogue with those who opposed it rather than just trying to push the whole thing through again unchanged. What will have changed from before? Unless someone gathers enough votes to call a Trust EGM and then manages to overturn the previous vote then the Trust Board are legally obliged to vote the same way. DB needs to realise that the vote was conducted in an extremely hamfisted way and he now needs to begin some real dialogue rather than just blaming everyone else. I can see this going the same way as before if DB hasn't learnt anything from the last AGM.

The point I'm trying to make is that an awful lot of people do want it to change, but prefer to sit outside the room and I don't seen how anything will change that way. It's great that there are other opportunities to promote fundraising, but it just seems a shame that such a small support, of which there is an even smaller active 'willing and able' support, seems so divided - which can do little to help either the Club or themselves. The Trust is a Supporter's Association, therefore if the Support want it to behave in a particular way they have to direct it to do so. If all the people on here who say they'd like change actually showed up and directed that change then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Apathy is rife in our support, and true, good leadership might cajole a few more out of that state, but I think it's pointless to make assertions such as 'The Trust prefer to stand outside pissing in'. DB promised a new era of listening and communication, but how much communication can he do with fans when he shut the door on their representation? I myself proposed some fundraising possibilities direct to DB but The Club didn't seem that interested and without them the ideas simply wouldn't go anywhere. I also tried volunteering for The Club on matchdays and it was so badly administered it was offensive. I recall several months ago there was some folk looking to use the Aiken Suite for some fundraisers and clearly those events fell through. It's not just The Trust which is understaffed and lacking the initiative to grasp the thistle. That could change if The Club were willing to open the door to it's Supporter's Association, or even a Supporter's Club - I'm not fussy - but they have to value the contribution some fans could and want to make. Despite all the talk of a new era, it feels pretty much like same old same old. This might all sound a bit cynical, but to be honest it feels like you just can't help Thistle sometimes. I'm leaving the country in a few weeks and do so with quite a heavy heart as I see a crippled football club and an apathetic and divided support. It's a poisonous recipe. However, if you wanted to do freshers stalls, and The Club are willing to put up some support in terms of materials, then use this website AND the Trust's website / mailing list / programme page to find the volunteers. We're too small a support to limit ourselves to cliques, be they Trust ones or Anti-Trust ones.

Fresher's stalls cost money, and student's expect freebies from them. This would obviously then require the Club and probably Greaves to be involved. Given how the Club decided not to continue community projects or maintain a relationship with the Supporter's Association, it might be an uphill struggle to arrange much this year. There has been criticism of The Trust on this thread for not doing this kind of this thing - I agree, it should be doing it. But it requires more than 5 middle aged people with day jobs, with feck all to sell or give away. Time to stop complaining that The Trust doesn't do stuff and actually get in there and make it happen. You're not representing The Trust, you're representing Thistle. The Trust has hundreds of email contacts. If you think this is worth doing, then just whinging on here about the lack of action by others won't do much...

I think the current thinking is to, at least initially, stay with Sterling. Some might argue that we would be better off with that as an independent country than as we are just now as it's the Bank Of England that fixes interest rates for the whole of the UK and Scots might well benefit if we became more equal partners in deciding those rates. Whatever happens, I'd like us to get rid of the ridiculous custom of letting every bank and their dug print bills. It's a nightmare for traveling Scots - banks and currency exchange bureaus keep sample books of all world notes, but no-one keeps Scottish ones as there is so many of them. It benefits no one having so many different bills. On the question of the Monarchy, I heard a couple of suggestions - we could keep the current incumbents but give them another hat so that they are the wearer of two crowns as we've done before, or, as I prefer, declare the throne vacant and give an elected head of state a secondary title such as caretaker or protector. That would hopefully satisfy the bluenoses enough... As for faith based groups, couldn't agree more! They can raise their own funds - however I wouldn't see this as a condition of independence,

Not disagreeing there, it was just the bit in bold that was a bit, erm, bold...

I don't think anyone prefers pissing in from the outside. The Trust may be a lot of things, but that's just a ridiculous assertion and I don't think it helps The Trust, The Support, The Club or the BOD (well maybe the BOD) to suggest that the Trust chose to unseat themselves from the board. You can't blame The Trust for everything!

The answers to those questions could fit on a stamp. But would a different organisation have done anymore? Answers on an even smaller stamp.

This. We only have The Trust we deserve. It's our Supporter's Association. However, we are a tiny support and whilst not enough people come forward to contest elections it means that the same old faces keep reappearing. I'd echo what MP says above in questioning what the point of forming a new organisation is: If you don't like who the Trust Board are, then stand for election, if you don't like the Trust Constitution, then gather support and try and change it. If you don't like the fundraising, then come up with some ideas and try and organise something. I know things are never quite so simple, but it's almost laughable that the same people who complain about 'Committees about Committees' are proposing starting again from scratch and all that that would entail whilst all around us our Club is falling apart. And if you did get that new organisation, who would stand for election? Answer: Probably the same people who can be bothered to do it now. I think of The Trust in the same way that I think of The Labour Party. I don't like everything about it, but in terms of any kind of representation, it's the only game in town. It's too late to be starting again. If we can't be bothered trying to reform our own Supporter's Association then we might as well say our goodbyes to Thistle now. No-one else is going to magic everything nice and rosy, only a bit of hard graft by the Support will change anything. Time to stop blaming other people and look at ourselves collectively as the Supporters of Partick Thistle.

Donovan

Don't know what Browser you use, but on Firefox you can use the Zoom feature in the View menu.

To no-one in particular... It wasn't my intention to stay long. It shouldn't be anyone else's either. I'm off to sunnier climes in the very near future so there really wasn't any point prolonging it and so only served out a brief period of co-optedness during a period of crises. Some may not thank me for that, but I do think we'd be a lot worse off without any kind of representation. If it doesn't work for you, then try and change it. It seems a lot of people want change but prefer to sit outside the room. I don't know how helpful that is. However, as has been seen in these recent days, the Club's policy of keeping fans outside the boardroom has hardly helped their own cause. As a few folk have said, including myself, the only way forward for the Club is for all parties to sit down and find a way forward for the Club that also protects shareholders. That is achievable in my opinion through dialogue. It's time for BA and DB to realise that they need to bring people in if they want to progress things. There are plenty of people on this forum who are knowledgeable and eloquent enough to help bring those discussions to satisfactory end, be that with or without the Trust. If the Trust becomes simply the protector of shares then so be it, but personally I think the entire support suffers from the in-fighting and sniping within our own ranks that weakens the 'Supporter's Association'. We are the Supporters. It's our Association. The idea of alternative has been mooted on a few occasions but little has ever come of it, so perhaps The Trust is the only game in town. Whatever the case, I hope everyone who can speak up does, and everyone who should be heard is listened to. We can't ask the BOD and ex-BOD to put their differences behind them unless we all can too and come to together with the one purpose of saving PTFC. Good luck to everyone who tries, I wish you all the best.

Just to be clear though, I'm not on the Trust Board anymore so things may well have been shared. It's not really got anything to do with me.

Clearly lots of people were seeing these communications. I'll try and not feel too left out.

?

Thing is though, the passengers on a bus usually like to know what direction the driver is taking them. If the driver doesn't put up a clear sign on the front of his bus then it's not very surprising that no-one got on. I'm amazed that anyone expected this to go through today when there was no sign on the bus, no timetable and no guarantees about what happens if the driver goes missing with all the bus fares. There is also no reason why these things can't be sorted out properly.

I wasn't there, but given the nature of the business today, it is actually pretty staggering that it's proposers were not willing to put the hard yards in in advance of the meeting by fully consulting with shareholders about the changes. You can't ask the shareholders to relinquish their control without full disclosure of what the gameplan is. I appreciate that this leaves us in a brown creek without a paddle, but if DB and BA are worth their reputations, then they should be prepared to now sit down with others and discuss practical ways in which their plans can still go ahead without diluting shareholders rights. That would be the sensible thing and I won't be too impressed if they just decide to up and go at the first set back. We keep hearing the expression 'Thistle minded'. Well if they are Thistle minded then there is no need for hysterics now, just pragmatic discussions and planning.

I think something like that has to happen, but I worry we get left with a part time amateur team playing in Ruchill Park with jumpers for goals. It may well be all just a bit of housekeeping, but if so then it's been handled very poorly and the Club needs to reassess it's communications. We were promised a new era of openness but holding EGM's during business hours and not giving shareholders access to the full picture ahead of the meeting smells bad. The question really has to be, how could anyone vote for this? The Club have made no effort to answer that question, but instead appear to be acting in a cynical way. Again, that could just be perceptions, but I'll presume Beattie and Allan have enough business chops to understand how perceptions can affect things. The Club was supposed to have finalised the Board by last December, but it does strike me as obvious that if you wanted the fans and shareholders to come along for the ride in a radical new direction, then it would probably have made sense to have a fan's representative on the board all along. JJ is asking for a bit of faith. I'd like to see a bit of faith and respect reciprocated to the fans and shareholders before anyone takes another giant leap of faith. Leaping doesn't seem to get you anywhere if you look at something like the CF. All I have to go on is that one thing is said, and another thing tends to happen. That hardly sets things up too well for what they're asking for here. If this is all as innocent and as necessary and as safe as some would have us believe, then there should be full disclosure of the gameplan. I don't think that's too much to ask before anyone signs away control of the Club to a property company. And yeah, the pies are crap, personally speaking.

As has been explained, Socialism in one country will never work, it - like any system - will only thrive and survive when it's the rule rather than the exception. To keep asking for an example of a successful Socialist state is a non-question. We have never had a global Socialist System to compare against. Woody has tried to woo us with the achievements of Capitalism, however Capitalism as a global economic system operates with benefits to only a small minority at the top - it can only work by squeezing the workers. Perhaps Marxism is a utopia we will never experience, but it offers considerably more hope than the dour picture you paint of selfishness and greed. Isn't it nice to aspire to something? So I see the Tories in Scotland are looking for a new leader. Can't be much to choose from these days. Have you had the call yet?