Robert Dunn's Potential

We need to get our story straight - and so does our Chairman heading into the imminent meeting to discuss the The Rangers issue. It's important that we are clear that we aren't doing this to dance on anyone's grave, we're not holding opinions out of bloody-mindedness - this is about the fabric of Scottish football and all that is important in creating a level playing-field. 1 - Rangers cannot be punished. Even if people wanted to. They are like Third Lanark - a club from Scottish football history and therefore any punishment meted out to Rangers is simply hammering additional nails into a coffin that is already firmly shut. 2 - The Rangers (newco) should not be punished - it hasn't done anything wrong. What should happen is that it should be treated like any other club and follow the process that the likes of ICT, Ross County, Peterhead, Elgin and Annan have followed in recent years. Application to join the league as any other club would and its bid accepted or rejected on its merits. Finally, as Jags fans we now need to step up and use this incident as a rallying call to make that extra effort to support the club on and off the park. For most of us, that is predicated on the Board making the honourable decision to treat The Rangers (newco) like every other club and make sporting integrity paramount in our game. If that happens, I will get myself signed up to the Centenary Club and make the effort this season to get to at least half a dozen extra games.

So, if the Arts need changed because currently the BoD and Club are required to seek approval from the shareholders every time there is a possible conflict of interest, were the shareholders asked to approve the fee proposals from the likes of Gerber Landa and Gee in the past?

Dean Keaton, Hockney, McManus, Fenster and Verbil Kint I think

A pedant writes: not all of the places in that list of 117 are countries. Hong Kong is part of China, Cayman Islands and Falkland Islands are British protectorates and aren't recognised nations, Channel Islands are British as are Isle of Man and Gibraltar, Guam and Puerto Rico are American and Martinique is part of France. It just seemed right to have a bit of old-fashioned dotnet style pedantry thrown in at this point Keep up the good work

You can tell it's the new era at the club - I remember when scooping a signing like this led to an angry phonecall from the vice-chairman

Haha - definite typo. Meant to say "rarely". The short version is that shares aren't the problem, people are. We have and have had for too long, the wrong people holding the balance of power in the Trust and using that power to create total stagnation at best.

I don't think the shares have been a millstone - I think they're a really important protection should the worst come to the worst (again). I think it's our general apathy that has been the millstone as a support. Where there are plastic titles to be had, a certain type of person goes looking for them. These people are really the folk at the front of the queue when there's real work to be done. If a group of active, positive fans were willing to step forward and force a real election with at least 50% more candidates than positions then I think the Trust is worth one last effort. As it stands, it doesn't need to be the voice of the fans. This forum has a better claim to represent the supporters than the Trust Board as it sits.

Does anyone know the total membership number of the JT so we know what 10% is? I appreciate that I could email the membership secretary but it's too early in the morning for satire.

That's an absolutely unbelievable statement - and not in a good way. The Trust as it is, is making itself completely irrelevant to the club Board with this pathetic hand-wringing and more importantly it's making itself irrelevant to the supporters. If the members of the Trust Board do not think that the Trust is in disarray then look again. There have been mass resignations and the inference that we have to draw is that those who have left could no longer work with those left behind. Given that the visible, active, dynamic and professional side of the JTB are the departures, don't expect people to buy into the idea that the Trust is a stable and productive unit right now. Add to that, the fact is that there are people gathering names to force an EGM to get rid of the leaders of this hegemony that has dogged and dragged the Trust to this precipice. The Trust is now an embarassment and without wholesale change in its Board and its method of leadership and activity it will remain an embarassment. Those remaining at this point should announce an election as soon as possible and every single one of them stand down. The shares that the Trust holds are too important to allow it to be terminally damaged.

Are some of the folk on the Jags Trust Board too busy to do anything that resembles active work before the game?

Hey, it's another internet tough guy! BearsdenLoyal Seriously, it's probably worth relaxing safe with the knowledge that there are more important things to worry about than who peed in this pool first

So you believe that there's no better alternative to AC/TH/EP running the club? Two of the three getting paid more than they're spending in there? Don't make me laugh. I could name you individuals but I wouldn't do that on a fans forum - that would be as unfair to the viable replacements as you are rose-tinted in your assessment of the recent past. Let's wait and see who steps into the breach but I have no doubt that they are better alternatives - look at what the irreplacable have left behind.

You inferred that the departing directors were people "who invest in the club". That's not true though is it. As for whether or not we've gained anything - you just need to read the reserved sense of optimism that there might be a brighter future for Thistle again instead of what seemed like a slow descent to oblivion. Personally, I like 2 of the 3 departees and I wish them well but Allan Cowan making the kind of comments that he did on departure is moronic. These were guys who played a major part in rescuing the club the last time but if they don't accept that they are now responsible for the mess that we're in then they have no chance of any positive legacy. Short version: stop defending them. They performed well initially and then seriously disappointed. The club is in a mess financially, the fans' morale was as low as I can ever remember it and we're bottom of the league. That responsibility lies at the door of those who administered the club to this point so leave with grace and with our thanks for the positive things that you did.

So, these investing directors we've lost then? Nothing?

Clubs, players and agents becoming more adept at using freedom of contract has damaged smaller clubs disproportionately. The larger the club in the higher leagues can afford to lock players into longer contracts with relative certainty of their future finances. In the lower leagues, especially in Scotland with 10 team divisions, clubs can't be certain of future finances which means a player who performs well can probably leave for little or no money. Therefore, the impact is that small clubs don't breed their own players as much and instead wait for the castoffs from the big clubs whose youth systems are bloated with mediocrity.

I'm fascinated - talk me through this "investment". Leaving aside the shares that were given for no consideration to TH and the miniscule holding of AC (EP did of course pay for his shares when we needed it most), has anyone got a copy of the accounts and do they tell us how much Gerber Landa and Gee were paid for doing such a magnificent job of setting the budgets and maintaining the accounts of a company that has lost more money than the Inland Revenue?

Cowan's comments are enough to make you sick. If he would shut up, we would mostly let him disappear over the horizon with thanks for his part in Save the Jags but he can't help himself and has to pretend that he's leaving the club in good shape: Really? Please Mr Cowan, for your own sake, don't speak about Partick Thistle again because it seems that you are either deluded, incompetent to the point that you don't realise what is going on or simply a liar.

I hope that's not the pre-requisite. If investment is out there then great but we need guys that know how to balance the books, know how to be honest to the support and above all, are there to put the good of the club ahead of the good of Propco. We had a board paralysed by poor past decisions and ongoing conflicts of interest so it's time for expertise over a few quid. Until the books are balanced and the club stabilised, who would invest in a dying company anyway?

To be fair, I think Allan Cowan paid for the small shareholding that he has so as far as I am concerned he has a right to keep them. Tom Hughes is a different story but above all right now, for the good of the club we would be better avoiding a blood-letting and given that TH received his shares for nothing but did expend a great deal of time and effort for the club (albeit there's no doubting it has been a failure in recent seasons) I think TH should give back the overwhelming majority of his shares either to the club or the Trust and would not object to him retaining say, 50,000 of the million shares so that he always has a little bit of the club. The time is neither for misty-eyed eulogies for their time at the club nor recriminations - either would be counter-productive and almost certainly prejudiced with agendas other than the recovery of our football club.

So you can comment on fans being critical but not on the board dismantling the club - are you channeling your inner Neville Chamberlain?

You mean the directors' corner is propco's corner I assume (of course the directors involved will have taken every measure to avoid conflicts of interest). Surely you don't think there is synergy in aim between PTFC and a special purpose company set up to strip assets from PTFC and make as much money as possible out of them.

The bold bit is the only change I would make - don't leave these guys opportunities for equivocation.

If you think that is an acceptable reply from the Chairman of Partick Thistle to a fan when we're bottom of the league, when we've used the phrase "financial armageddon" so many times that we've lost touch with what the words mean and when the fans have been disenfranchised and driven away like never before then you've already got the club you deserve. If Allan Cowan is looking for someone who can do a better job as Chairman then I can ask around my nephew's primary 2 class to see if any of them want to earn some extra pocket money. If we were flying high it would be unacceptable to respond to a fan like that but at the moment it simply beggars belief that this man with his miniscule shareholding in the club thinks that he is so important to PTFC that he has the right to insult and denigrate supporters. If he thinks that an email is abusive then ignore it or reply with the class and dignity that is absent in the original communication. We did not choose to be broke and bottom of the league. He did choose to be Chairman. Wear that responsibility with more class until the second you walk away.

It's time to ask the club representatives if they believe there are any members of the current club board who, rightly or wrongly, are damaging the image of the club in the eyes of the supporters/customers. Do they think that there are directors who are responsible for some fans not attending Firhill? Do they think that the club would benefit from seeking new blood either from within the support or outwith it to re-energise the club. Above all, in my opinion, the Trust should openly thank some of the directors for the time and effort that they have undeniably put into PTFC but call on them to acknowledge that their day is up, that while once they were an asset now they are a liability and it is time for them to resign and move on. If the club ask who is going to step in - tell them you'll offer them a list of names within a week.

If they believe they earned these shares then did they pay tax on their value? Maybe one of the accountants on here could educate us because I would understand that if you are remunerated with shares that have a definable value (at least in the eyes of the club who sold shares at a specific price during Hughes & McMaster's tenure) then they would have to pay income tax on that value. I would bet that if Hector the Inspector called then neither TH nor BMcM would claim that the shares were earned. They weren't. They were taken as guardians of the club. BMcM is no longer at the club and we no longer need his guardianship. TH has stated his willingness to go if there is someone to replace him so perhaps he could confirm in writing to the other shareholders at the request of a major shareholder like, for example, the Trust, what he intends to do and why. If he claims that he earned the shares then that could be his problem....