Tom Hosie

And just to reiterate I indicated that I didn't know where the 'blockage' in terms of knowledge sharing was. To the best of my knowledge there was no issue in terms of Gavin playing a full Directors role with access to all relevant information. Yet that information didn't filter down to TJF Board. The knowledge sharing approach didn't work. Is that an argument for a more formal Due Diligence approach or an arguement that greater effort should have been made to make it work? Thankfully that debate no longer needs to occupy my thinking, and I have a more chilled time of things as a result. Good luck to those that will be tasked with trying to inch us closer to a fan owned Club. I don't envy you.

That's it for me. Low Out! Britton Out! McCall Out! 50/50 sellers, one in particular Out! Retired Programme Editors Out! On a serious note, are these kind of exchanges at all helpful or useful?

If it' s Mike Love of The Beach Boys, I wouldn't consider that a message of support to take pride in. If Brian though.............

Not really as local council elections are every 4(?) years. There will be annual elections to TJB with three positions up for election each year.

That sounds about right. We drew lots to see who would be standing in the first round of elections and the subsequent years. I was down for the full three year sentence term.

That isn't really an election question, so forgive me interceding. Elections to TJF Board are held annually. I believe a change to the TJF constitution/articles of association would be required to change that. As I recall it's not all 9 positions that are subject to annual election, you want continuity on the TJF Board just as you do, IMO, on the Club Board. The old TJF Board decided by lot which individuals would be up for re-election in year one, year two etc. Subsequent events overtook that process :-)

I wonder if this thread is almost an unofficial hustings whether there is any value in any poster whose is standing to indicate that in their posts? Some are obvious but others less so.

The bit I've placed in Bold is important. I don't think those challenges aren't insurmountable but there will need to be some softening of positions taken, at least on one (either) side otherwise we will find ourselves in exactly the same position in 6+ months time than we do now. This election process is hugely important in terms TJF's credibility and accountability. I don't believe it can truly be considered a fans/members organisation until it has gone through its first election cycle. I don't think though, and I want to be wrong, that this election is going to take us any closer to a fan owned Partick Thistle. I think the journey has some ways to go until its anywhere near its end.

I'm not really wanting to be dragged into huge debates, especially when we are talking hypotheticals, but seeing as I decided to post, and add other replies, the other day then I guess I've only myself to blame. Just for the avoidance of doubt, TJF doesn't "purport" to be a democratic organisation. It IS a democratic organisation. The clue is the election process that is currently ongoing. I think part of the problem the previous Jags Foundation Board had in terms of accountability is that it wasn't elected. It couldn't be as the organisation itself didn't exist and was created essentially be those that were, for want of a better word, selected to sit on the original Working Group. That's all history though. This election process is a good thing. Whether you personally support those that will be elected or not they will have been elected to their positions and will have a clear mandate from TJF membership. As I see it upon the transfer of the shareholding the Club will continue to operate as it did previously with the Board of Directors tasked with the running of the Club. What will change is that TJF membership, through TJF Board they elect, can shape and influence the direction that the Club takes which the Club Board will be tasked on following. I can't pretend to understand all the legal practicalities of it so somebody please intervene if I'm talking nonsense here but as I understand it there exists a mechanism for directors to be removed from a Board at an organisation's AGM upon a vote of the shareholders. As the majority shareholder then it wouldn't be too difficult a task for them to remove any director(s) not acting as they see fit. If TJF members don't like what their Board are doing on their behalf they can stand or vote against those that come up for election. For whatever faults TJF might have it isn't a lack of democracy. Sorry, the above post could all have been worded better. Not enough time to properly articulate my points.

Just looking through the previous exchange. If I'm picking this up correctly, amid the baked goods discussion, then jaf is 100% correct. The focus and motivation of the previous Jags Foundation Board was entirely on facilitating the transfer of the majority shareholding. There was no discussion about Boardroom changes upon that transfer. The one doesn't necessarily lead to the other in any case. Reading the candidate statements it reads to me that that focus and motivation would remain unchanged irrespective of who is elected. To offer a personal view, I don't think that immediate and wholesale Boardroom change upon the eventual transfer of that shareholding would be a good thing for the stability of the football club.

The first part quote could have been worded better. It should read "No information, to the best of my knowledge, was shared by Gavin Taylor with TJF Board that wasn't readily available elsewhere". I can see why there would be confusion. I'll reword my original post. Gavin didn't, in any correspondence I saw or at any TJF Board Meetings I attended, indicate that he wasn't given unfettered access to the Club's activities or raise concerns. Nonetheless there was no meaningful exchange of knowledge between Gavin and TJF Board. Or at least none that I was aware of. I wasn't able to attend every Board Meeting I'm trying to avoid presenting, as fact, why I suspect that was the case. All I will say is that our, TJF, Board meetings were rather narrow in focus. It's a failing on my part that I didn't ask raise this issue at TJF Board Meetings which I have cause to regret.

Just to be clear, in case my overly wordy post is being picked up wrongly, I genuinely don't know where the 'blockage' (if indeed there was one) was formed in terms of knowledge sharing. At no point while I was on TJF Board was any suggestion, at least that I was aware of, given by Gavin that he wasn't provided with unfettered access to the Club's activities as befitting a Club Director. Equally though there wasn't much time spent discussing the report that Gavin provided on the Club Board activities at our, TJF, Board meetings. Our focus seemed to be on other things, often circular debates on Due Diligence. That we didn't make the knowledge sharing process work better is a source of frustration. I repeat that was a collective failing. I'm not throwing Gavin under the bus here, I hope it doesn't come across as I am. He was a reluctant conscript to the Club Board due to other commitments and I think his subsequent resignation is perhaps reflective of that.

The Board of TJF all signed NDAs at the time that Gavin Taylor took up a place on the Club Board. This was to allow Gavin to share information from his role as a full participatory member of the Club Board with TJF Board. If my recollection is correct those that signed that NDA, myself included are; quite properly IMO, still bound by it.

It is with no little trepidation that, as a member of the initial failed TJF Board, that I stick my head above the parapet. My motivation is to provide a little background on some things and provide some personal observations. Hopefully some of it might be useful and/or of interest. I’ll start with the difficult bit. Due Diligence. I’ll be honest my knowledge of what constitutes due diligence was/is very limited. It’s not something that I’ve had cause to have involvement and my approach to that was very much that of a layperson. There were others on TJF Board with far greater knowledge than me. It’s only sensible to defer to them. Problem was there were conflicting views. The position of Three Black Cats was that Due Diligence wasn’t required as the shares would be a gift. The legal advice provided to TJF Board supported that. However, it doesn’t seem sensible to me to simply accept the majority shareholding without knowledge of the financial position and the internal workings of the Club. It was proposed by Three Black Cats that in the period in the lead up to the transfer of the majority shareholding there would be a period of knowledge sharing between the Board of the football club and the Board of TJF. In practical terms this would involve a period where a member of TJF Board would sit on the Club Board as a full Board member. This would not just provide a snapshot of the financial position of the Club at any given point but provide an understanding of how the Club had reached the current position and plans moving forward. Through that Board member, TJF Board were to gain full knowledge of the Club’s position. We signed Non-Disclosure Agreements which I took comfort from as this suggested full disclosure. You may think me naive , or just plain wrong, but I didn’t get any sense that they was any attempt to hide anything or any attempt to delay/prevent the transfer of the shareholding from taking place. Others, with far more knowledge and experience than me, suggested that Due Diligence can, and has, thrown up things that even the ‘seller’ was previously unware of. It’s a compelling argument. There was some discussion as to who from TJF Board would perform this Club Board role with some, understandable reluctance, from those approached. Eventually it fell to Gavin Taylor to perform that important role. As a layperson, in terms of Due Diligence the above worked for me. In practice, and purely from my perspective, I don’t think it worked well. Despite signing those NDA I didn’t have a better sense of the internal workings of the Club than I did prior to signing it. No information, to the best of my knowledge, was shared by Gavin with TJF Board that wasn’t readily available elsewhere. Where the ‘blockage’ came from I genuinely don’t know. By the time Gavin stepped down from his position on the Club Board I’d stepped down from TJF Board. It was with no little sadness that I read the joint Three Black Cats/Partick Thistle statement saying the TJF would not be the recipients of the majority shareholding. My view is that the Fan Ownership model is one that all clubs should aspire to. It puts control of the Club in the hands of the people that care most about it. There are good people involved with TJF. Some I considered friends beforehand (and beyond) and some that I consider friends now. Did we agree all the time? No but the desire to make it work was there although our thoughts as to the best route differed. The Three Black Cats statement said that they had concerns re the progress TJF was making in terms of passing the “fit and proper” test. I took that to mean the organisation itself rather than the individuals themselves as has emotively been suggested. Either way it’s wasn’t pleasant reading. I do think, however, that some of the points made in that statement though hurtful weren’t without merit. I do feel that TJF Board did get bogged down on the Due Diligence issue. Others will disagree and I respect that view. I think we failed, and it is a collective failure I’m in no way trying to absolve myself of blame, to reach out to the broad church that the Thistle support is. There was some sterling work done with some relatively small groups but I think we ignored, for want of a better expression, ‘the silent majority’. That people still see Fan Owned and think Fan Run means we failed to articulate that distinction. I think too we failed to reach out to the other shareholding groups and make TJF an even broader organisation. Whatever fan organisation ultimately receives the majority shareholding, and I have to believe it will happen, needs to try and represent as many people as possible. I have concerns that the current approach brings a fan owned Partick Thistle no closer. For it to succeed there has to be compromise from both sides. There needs to be a far less adversarial approach from all parties. I don’t currently get a sense of any movement towards that, not least because until the elections are completed there really isn’t a Jags Foundation Board. Trust me when I say that I passionately want to see a fan owned Partick Thistle and I wish anyone working towards that goal all the luck in the world. For me it’s less about short term change and more the future Partick Thistle long after I’ve vacated my seat at Firhill for a more celestial one elsewhere.

WHAT'S GOING WRONG? The first 45 minutes at Tynecastle on Saturday were arguably the most miserable that the Thistle support has had to endure this season. And it hasn’t exactly been a season to be enjoyed any other time either. If a week is a long time in politics then a year in football is an eternity. This time last year the Thistle fans were eagerly anticipating Kris Doolan’s 100th Thistle goal as the team as a whole pressed hard for a top six finish. A Doolan double against Ross County took him to, and then past, the 100 goal mark with the 2-1 win a major factor in clinching the top six finish that was confirmed a few weeks later with a win over Motherwell. Securing the Club’s highest finish in 30 plus years was not an insignificant achievement and was a visible representation of the continued progress of the Club since probably around 2012. Fast forward 12 months and instead of trying to consolidate last season’s top six finish Thistle find themselves as the split fast approaches involved in a real scramble to avoid relegation to the Championship. So what exactly has gone wrong over the course of the last 12 months? Why do Thistle find themselves struggling so badly with relegation a distinct possibility? First thing to acknowledge is the fact that this season’s Premiership is significantly stronger than last season’s. I wrote in this very blog way back at the start of the season that repeating last season’s top six finish would be a massive challenge and a failure to do so shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a failure or as a sign of a deterioration in the quality of the Thistle squad. Indeed it was argued by many, myself included, that this season’s squad was in fact a stronger one than last season’s. To use a stronger league to explain away Thistle’s woes this season though would be to seriously misjudge the situation. The problem is much more complex than that. It is strange to be writing this article with just 8 games of the season remaining. It feels like a season that has never quite got going. It’s all been a bit stop and start with no real momentum or flow to it and Thistle’s overall displays are probably reflective of that. I’d always argue that it is important to try and add the right players to an existing squad rather than simply recruit players because they are available but the fact that Thistle didn’t complete their transfer business until relatively late on didn’t allow a bedding in period for new signings, the League Cup sectional stage would have been ideal for that. As a result it took some time to come anywhere near to establishing a preferred starting eleven and formation. Indeed as April fast approaches there is still no sense of a settled side or shape to the team. Everything about the season, fixtures and team selection alike, has felt fragmented and disjointed. Then there is the start to the season itself. Included in our first six league games of the season were fixtures against Hibs, Celtic, Aberdeen and Rangers. Now you need to face each side in the league at some stage of the season or other and we should never go into any game assuming defeat but that’s a tough start and no mistake. A poor start and the pressure is on from the very off. The above may be factors but doesn’t tell the full story though. In the first half of the season there is no doubt that injuries had a major impact on results and the non availability of so many players contributed to that fragmented and disjointed look to the team that I mentioned. All teams will suffer injuries but we were badly hit not just in numbers of players injured but probably more significantly by the fact that they all seemed to be in same area of the team. Losing both Callum Booth and Christie Elliott to injury so soon after James Penrice went out on loan to Livingston was rank bad luck and left us without a recognised left back for several months. Nor were injuries restricted to left back. As the transfer window closed we found ourselves severely lacking in the middle of the park. It can be argued that this problem was less bad luck and more to do with poor planning. We were all pleased to see Stuart Bannigan return after missing all of last season due to injury but was too much expected of him too soon? It was certainly optimistic to think he would return good as new and sure enough as September ended so too did Bannigan’s season as he again went under the surgeon’s knife. Bannigan wasn’t the only midfielder hoping to make a return to action after long term injury problems. Gary Fraser found himself in the same position as Bannigan and while he is currently playing first team football he is doing so while on loan to Morton rather than at Firhill. When Abdul Osman also found himself sidelined in the early months of the season suddenly the decision to not renew Sean Welsh’s contract, or at least adequately replace him, seemed a poor one. Although Martin Woods was signed he, understandably, struggled for full fitness and too often we were left with a central midfield partnership of Adam Barton and Ryan Edwards. Now both of those players have attributes but as a midfield combination it didn’t work offering neither little protection to the defence nor much in the way of creativity. The one bright spot in midfield this season has been the emergence of Andy McCarthy who many would rather see start than Abdul Osman who is still some way short of his best since returning from injury. While the current squad isn’t totally injury free we don’t presently appear to be any worse off in that regard than our immediate rivals. Injuries are not the reason for our current problems. Nor is Saturday’s loss at Tynecastle responsible for our present predicament. That isn’t an attempt to underplay how poor we were at the weekend but against one of the better sides in the division we could have produced a decent display and still lost. What is crippling us at the moment is our continual habit of conceding late goals. Even if you ignore all the other instances of us losing late goals just consider how different the current league table would look right now had we held on to win against Dundee and even taken a point from the away fixture with Hamilton. We would have an extra four points, Dundee three less than their current total and Hamilton two less than theirs. If we are relegated come the season’s end then those two games will stand out. The debate as to why we are so prone to losing late goals is never ending and no nearer to providing an answer. For me it’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. We concede late goals, therefore we panic about conceding another, drop too far back and, bang, concede yet another late goal. And so it continues. I know most people will be all too glad to see the back of this season but the one good thing right now is the fact that there are still 8 games to play. There is still ample time to rectify our current position. Still time to drag ourselves up to what right now would be the lofty position of 10th in the league. There are failings in this squad but there are failings in the squads around us too. We aren’t detached at the bottom. We don’t need others to help us out. Our fate lies within our own hands. The margin for error is a fine one and we can’t afford to replicate the mistakes that so marred the first half at Tynecastle but we can get out of this position. We can be part of next season’s Premiership.