Fearchar

@ Norgethistle - Few people, I imagine, would view aspirations as benefits, even in wealthy Norway. In any case, castigating others for not doing what you want them to do is just impotent posturing. If you complained to your family in Scotland for not voting as you wish while you are domiciled abroad, what would their response be? The affairs of the Jags Trust are about as accessible as any organisation's can be nowadays, on the Web and with a plenitude of email addresses and phone numbers for its board. Repeating an untruth ("..it[']s hardly accessible") does not make it any more convincing. (BTW, it appears that you haven't made use of the publicly available information that Margaret Thatcher's anti-union legislation - the most severe in Western Europe - remains largely intact.) Failing to look into matters and then going online to blame everyone else for not informing you or for misinforming you is hardly judicious - rather like ill-founded accusations that others are being untruthful.

A bit off the point, but trades unions in the UK had to suffer for decades first before showing any benefit at all to members. Maybe people in our era prefer to get benefits upfront before contributing, but that has never been the basis of trade unionism - nor, so far as I know, any movement with aspirations to social change.

How dare anyone suggest replacing the Gnome Stand?

If you refuse to become a member of an organisation, then your views don't count because they have no vote to back them: they're just so much hot air. As far as the club board, or any board in the capitalist world is concerned, you get a say when you obtain shares. (Hell will freeze over before any board allows that to change.) The only way for the fan with limited resources to influence the club's board is collectively, and there is only one organisation that offers that approach. This is the situation - no ifs, no buts. Sure, you may not like it, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

I agree entirely: very poor directing. I agree with the latter comment (and I've seen these games): the team is trying to put in crosses far too often instead of a mixture of playing the ball into the box and long-range shots (of which Welsh, Forbes and Lawless are well capable). There are plenty of skilful teams on the planet that only rarely depend on a cross into the box - just not in the typically physical British style of play. Generally, crosses are a bit of a reversion to hit-and-hope, and when you have a single striker waiting for them, then it's only reasonable to expect that a giant centreback will normally get there first. Why waste possession like that? If the ball is played into the box on the ground, the same giant centrebacks are at a disadvantage, because they can't always turn so fast and their tackles tend to be less controlled, leading to more openings being created and/or more penalties being conceded. If we do send crosses into the box, then (apart from set pieces where Balatoni and Muirhead are likely to be involved in an attack) they should usually be low crosses too far in front of the keeper for him to gather them, and close enough to goal for Doolan to be dangerous. Interestingly, in the last game Elliott seemed to recognise how to try and feed Doolan in that way.

It's interesting to see so many people stating that they want to see benefits before deciding to pay a (small) subscription. In my trade union, some years ago our conference decided that newly joined members would not be entitled to major benefits (such as representation for previously existing problems) because some individuals were freeloaders, taking all the benefits of collective representation, such as wage rises, but only ever joining when they had individual problems. (This sold members short, since they were paying for providing these services all the time.) This seems to be the unworldly attitude of many posting here - I want to complain about the Trust because it's not doing what I want it to do, but I'm not prepared to pay the subscription or vote to change it. As noted above, like many other organisations, the Trust is a democratic organisation that's open to anyone. You don't have to participate, but if you don't, then your view does not count nor will it ever count: you have made the decision that your views are to be excluded.

You're right, and it's also difficult to understand the relationship between "News" and match reports, etc. In general, in web design, if one person is slightly bemused, then about 50,000 don't have a scoobie or can't be bothered to find out, and move to another page - possibly here, of course, so that it's not all a loss.

Perhaps "reported abuse" would be more accurate, given public assumptions about gender differences and their relationship with violence. In any case, we can only come to conclusions based on the data available: so "Old Firm Reject Evidence" would seem to be a reasonable assessment of those parties' weak connection with reality.

This perhaps isn't quite a Howto topic, but I'm at a loss where else to put it: what difference does it make if you're befriended on this site? I don't see anything that obviously changes, and it doesn't seem to be something that can be changed by the recipient either - although, if it doesn't make any difference, why would someone want to change it? So what does this function do?

Going back even further, every poster on this forum has African origins (not to mention everyone else now alive!).

My late father, an Aberdeen supporter, saw a match in which Ally MacLeod had the kickoff sent straight to C****c's Danny McGrain, after which, of course, 10 men clad all in red ran at him from all over the park. It succeeded in putting Danny McGrain off his game for the rest of the 90 minutes (and McGrain was a very accomplished fullback). Great psychology!

It's helpful to use all the possible avenues to put pressure on, and dealing with disabled people is something that can and should be put right. I have mailed the Jags Trust asking for it to raise the matter at board level, and I hope that other readers of this thread will do the same. It's clear that Ian Maxwell's efforts are not yielding a response; so the matter has to be taken up a level. The Trust is a major shareholder, and may be in a position even to raise the matter at the AGM.

So that's why the North Stand seemed quieter - morphine!

Maybe he's the new "Duke Gekantawa".

Probably unsurprising, since by 12 pm many people are already in their beds.

IIRC (but don't bet on it), that was one of the tasks the JT board set itself. Of course, the fact that shares have not been issued in accordance with the same agreement may lead to the club board preferring to keep the matter as obscure as possible.

Aberdeen are a big, physical side that get right in the faces of the opposition. They don't even shirk from off-the-ball shoulder charges or from catching the legs of a player that has dispossessed them. It's not pretty, but it's effective for as long as officials allow it to take place. It's also the reason why outside Scotland our football teams do really badly. This team will also face the same in the form of the fake thistle. It's going to take a while for this team to adjust to coping with this ugly side of Scottish football, but like Mr Bunny, I'd rather this team didn't change its style. It's much more enjoyable being entertained by footballing skills. If I want to see strapping athletes thumping a ball long distances and running after it, I'll go and watch shinty. Keep the faith, lads!

Actually, there are a few more things to be done, such as provide clear accounts showing the income and expenditure. Commission payments have been made to the Jags Trust (as was agreed when the Centenary Fund consolidated fundraising efforts), but apparently there has been no indication on what basis: so it looks as if transparency is still needed.

Already? We'd better get up the road quickly, before we miss any more goals.

All good teams are built on a solid defence - and ours just didn't cut it, even against the Macedonians. The first-half defending was reasonable, but achieved through packing the box. As Norgethistle said, "any average to decent team would thump us on that performance last night". It was a disappointing performance after the creditable showing against England, with very little to inspire confidence that improvement will follow.

Purely from a selfish point of view, I'd rather that drinking (anything) were banned: I go to football games to watch the football, and if I have to sit down to do so I'd rather not have to keep jumping up and down and peering round characters going to stuff their faces or to spring a leak when a game is in progress. In fact, I hope that the food and drink get worse rather than better, so that fewer people will feel they need to ease their craving for stodge or fizzy sugar: the board is clearly on the right lines at the moment.

I know of one in Lewis (the father of a colleague). Germanjag is usually in China, AFAIK, and I've converted an Australian in Melbourne to the cause.

Sorry to dampen down the optimism, but I saw a game won in the closing stages by a single goal in three, obtained from a set piece. The Macedonians (certainly not a top European team) should have had a second goal when the Scottish defence was torn apart; but for poor decision-making, at that point the Scottish team would have been under the cosh. Their goal resulted from a high ball into the middle of the defence, too - as if we had no centre backs or goalkeepers used to punts into the box! The whole Scottish team was slow in moving up or down the park. On various occasions a player was released and could have caused problems for the Macedonian defence, except that the rest of the team was huffing and puffing its way up the park much too late to offer any options.

http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/ http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/contact-us Actually, at the Jags Trust AGM there was an interesting discussion (open to all members) about why the current Chairman of the PTFC Ltd Board is prepared to take money and support from the Trust but refuses to acknowledge its contributions, although he does acknowledge less substantial contributions to the club's activities. It may be worth shareholders' while asking why this is so at the upcoming Annual General Meeting of PTFC Ltd.

One of the biggest shareholders, and therefore the only means for fans to influence the company that is Partick Thistle Football Club Ltd. If fan-shareholders don't keep tabs on what's happening, then the club can only end up as the plaything of the wealthy. Look across the Clyde to see the result. Breathe deeply, now. That's it - relax and let the pressure of the urine go. Alternatively, stump up a few £ thousand to cope with the next medical emergency at the club - just to show that you care as much for the club's progress as the trust, of course.