Tom Hosie
-
Posts
854 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Tom Hosie
-
-
The Women's Team have signed two new players this close season so far.
The others have been re-signings.
-
17 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
Regarding, “Ceding ownership of the shares doesn’t automatically equate to ceding control of those shares or control of the club.” I am sorry I don’t understand what you mean by this sentence. Can you explain as clearly as possible.
The majority shareholding sitting outside of the Club Boardroom wouldn't be an unique position for Partick Thistle to be in.
Indeed that was precisely the position when the David Beattie led group ousted the Jacqui Low board in 2019 and had been for some time.
In essence you can maintain control of organisation even if not sitting on its Board if you happen to be the major shareholder.
-
5 minutes ago, javeajag said:
You mean Jacqui low.
If that's the point you want to labour, go ahead.
-
27 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
Your ‘line of thinking’ (that I referred to ) was what appeared to be (in your comment) an acceptance of majority supporter ownership which doesn’t include democratic accountability. THAT I could never accept as I don’t think majority fan own ownership without that democracy as part/parcel of it would be true fan ownership. And, I don’t think others would accept it. The key is in the word ‘change’. Those who support TJF and true fan ownership are looking for real change and away from the top down management behind closed doors that has been the model up to now. That is why ‘Jags For Change’ has emerged. If you’re not for the sort of change that involves supporters electing leaders on to a board, and some become becoming part of the PTFC board (subject to election/re-election periodically) then I don’t believe you are really in support of majority fan ownership. And if we do end up with a group taking the shares, where some sit on the board following “the rules” that JL has made herself and decided on herself, as “judge and jury” that don’t allow for disagreement and independent thought on the part of the group with the shares, and accountable to the membership of supporters, THAT won’t be majority supporter ownership at PTFC. JL and others on the PTFC Board need to accept that power is being ceded to the supporters through majority supporter ownership of those shares. The way things will be done is going to change if we get true fan ownership . And ‘transparency’ is a big part of that too. If they can’t or won’t accept that, there is no ‘going forward.’ Others must make up their own minds. But, mine is made up on that!
Re the first bit in bold, I think you would be hard pressed to go through this discussion here and find anyone who sees meaningful fan ownership as anything other than as you describe it.
Re the second bit in bold. Ceding ownership of the shares doesn't automatically equate to ceding control of those shares or control of the Club. You speak as if the transfer of shares to a democratic fans organisation is inevitable and that 3BC have no control over that, when the reality is the exact reverse. They hold all the cards. They set the agenda. You might find that unpalatable, but it is the reality of the situation. It's why the newly elected Jags Foundation Board face a massive, and immediate, challenge in becoming part of the discussion re the destination of the majority shareholding in Partick Thistle. Right now they aren't part of that conversation.
I'm repeating myself but IMO the pace of the transfer of the shareholding, even this far down the line, needs to slow down.
If TJF as the soon to be the only truly democratic (do the Jags Trust still hold elections?) credible fans' organisation with room to grow, increase its membership and become increasingly reflective of the support isn't part of the conversation then we need to stop the conversation. If it isn't part of the conversation then it can hold as many elections as it wants and have every single Thistle fan worldwide as a member but it will remain as far away from being the majority shareholder in Partick Thistle as it has ever been.
Lets put a moratorium in place with regard to the shareholding transfer. Put together a working party with representatives from all interested parties; fans organisations and shareholders, and try and find a workable solution to this. Otherwise we are missing out on a wonderful opportunity. One that might not come around again.
-
1 minute ago, sandy said:
That’s helpful Tom. You have a lot of experience in & around the Club.
Years ago maybe. Less so now, thankfully.
-
7 minutes ago, sandy said:
Tom, we would all agree that meaningful fan ownership should be the outcome. Apart from issues like DD, what do you think 3BC would need to satisfy them?
I honestly don't know. I think we somehow need to get past the DD issue first and I don't know how you do that.
I have to stress at this point, I'm speaking entirely for myself here.
What I'd like to see is a clear vision for what happens after the share transfer both short (a kind of first 100 days thing) and long term. And less about the mechanics about how the organisation will govern itself, as important as that is.
The problem the old Jags Foundation Board had was that it was appointed and not elected. It didn't have any mandate to present a vision/plan for fan ownership.
Maybe it's sole task should have been to get us to the point of having an elected, mandated, Board and then the discussions with 3BC begins re the timescale for the share transfer.
Sorry, not articulating myself very well.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, sandy said:
I struggle to understand where 3BC can go if TJF is a ‘dead duck’
Right now? Nowhere credible for a meaningful fan ownership.
Which is why I hope the speed of the share transfer can now be slowed. Crazy I know after all this time to actually want to slow it down further.
TJF is just sitting there. It is the most credible but unless there is a shift in the respective positions, or even a softening of one, either one, position, re Due Diligence it is IMO and with much regret a 'dead duck'.
If the new Jags Foundation Board can reopen dialogue with 3BC that would be a massive and really positive, albeit, small step.
-
7 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:
Delighted to have your vote, Tom
As you rightly say, no one is going to presume to speak for TJF until the election results are announced (I hope) on Thursday morning.
Let's see where the lay of the land is later this week. The election has been an important process for demonstrating the representative credentials of TJF.
It strikes me that it would be very difficult indeed for another body to demonstrate equal or better fan engagement on the timescales envisaged by the statement.
I think there's the opportunity for a reset here. Ignore the rhetoric and what is clear is that 3BC wants a swift transition to fan-ownership.
Despite the fall-out of the last couple of months, TJF remains the only and the obvious candidate to deliver that goal.
Sorry to disappoint WJ :-)
I don't disagree with your post above. Quite the reverse.
TJF is the only, or will be, democratic body representing the fans. It's potentially the most credible organisation to receive the shareholding. They are my preference to receive the shareholding.
I fear though that that ship has sailed. Or at least is too far from shore to get back to port on time.
My hope is that 3BC don't now rush to hand over the shareholding. That there is still time for a meaningful fan owned Partick Thistle. If it takes even longer. If it needs to be something other than TJF then so be it. This is about the long term future of our Club
-
4 hours ago, sandy said:
In all of this, let’s not forget the reasons given for not selecting TJF before were (according to 3BC) around ‘fit and proper’ aspects such as business experience.
By the simple mechanism of democratic elections of new TJF Board Members, the blend of skills/energy/experience will be different to before. If it was an apple before, it will be a pear after. It logically follows that 3BC would re-assess the suitability of TJF.
Perhaps submitting a ‘note of interest’ now and following that up after the election result with a firm commitment by the new TJF Board would be a useful and constructive approach.
Actually the 3BC statement of April 9th made no reference to "business experience" and a lack of it as being a factor in TJF not progressing towards passing a fit and proper test.
I took that statement to mean that the organisation itself wasn't progressing towards that goal rather than the individuals themselves not doing so.
Perhaps a complete change in TJF Board can alter that but time would appear to be against them. Especially as the Due Diligence impasse looks to me insurmountable. Both 3BC and the likely majority on the new Jags Foundation Board seem pretty entrenched in their respective positions. Indeed reading the April 9th statement again this morning, it seems to have been a major factor in the process breaking down in the first place.
-
1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
I would have thought the Jags Foundation would have put out some sort of ‘response’ to todays PTFC website statement on the JF site. They did with the 09/04/22 one, on the same day it emerged. But, there’s nothing. Okay, The Jags Foundation ISN’T mentioned in the PTFC statement specifically, but the accusation is made (without alluding to who precisely they are talking about) that some are being ‘divisive.’ Then, there is an invitation for ‘parties’ (fans) to come forward to be considered for the shares, which 3BCs says it wants to get on with passing on imminently. Today’s PTFC statement seems anything but conciliatory. TJF are a democratic organisation with leaders elected and accountable to a large number of supporters. There is NO other comparable organisation representing the supporters yet 3BCs seems keen to stress it is looking for one, and as TJF is NOT mentioned, you have to assume TJF is NOT one they want to consider! If that does not require a response, at the present time, I don’t know what does!
There is currently no Jags Foundation Board in any position to make any comment. It's the very definition of a lame duck Board.
They are in place solely to facilitate the current election at the end of which there will be an elected, as opposed to appointed, Jags Foundation Board for the first time.
They'll have a mandate from the membership to carry out their election statements.
TJF will be the only democratic elected body representing Partick Thistle fans.
They will be faced by an almighty, and immediate, challenge.
3BC have already intimated that the shareholding won't be transferred to TJF.
TJF will be tasked with trying to facilitate a softening of that stance while also not softening their stance* that a formal Due Diligence exercise needs to be completed before they will accept the gift of the majority shareholding.
I don't know how you square that circle.
I certainly don't know how you square that circle within the timescale that the 3BC statement today suggests the shareholding transfer will take place in.
There are three fans' organisations.
The Jags Foundation
The Jags Trust
The Partick Thistle Trust
As of today, May 23rd 2022, my own very personal opinion is that none, in the short term at least should receive the majority shareholding in our club.
The first, it has already been said, won't receive the majority shareholding and not insubstantial work needs to be done to establish any kind of relationship with 3BC.
The second backed the Chien Lee takeover and played, perhaps indirectly and unintentionally , a part in the return of the David Beattie led Board. As a result it doesn't, to me, seem credible that it will become home to the majority shareholding.
The third isn't a democratic fans organisation and limits its membership.
IMO for genuine and meaningful fan ownership of Partick Thistle to take place these three organisations need to become altogether much more closely aligned. Perhaps create one just one fans body.
*I'm working on the assumption that there will be a Jags for Change majority on TJB once the election has been completed.
Apologies for the multiple edits.
-
6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:
TJF tried to get the information it needs “without calling it due diligence”. That’s why Gavin Taylor was on the Club Board for several months.
The information didn’t get through, as Tom Hosie has testified.
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.
-
26 minutes ago, javeajag said:
c. Cats are not going to be allowed in the stadium as a result ‘
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?
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, The Ghost said:
1. I'm not sure the relevance. This isn't about a slur on the candidates - it's a slur you made towards the entire previous TJF board. The date doesn't matter.
2. You stated it as your speculation and you've been corrected by two former members of TJF's board. You've still not apologised.
3. Fantastic, I'd love to hear your latest speculation. For what it's worth, my intentions were that whether I agree with everything that the previous TJF board did or not, they are all Thistle fans who were trying to do the right thing by the support. They have been insulted by 3BC (not fit and proper) and don't deserve to be subject of false speculation by candidates for the new Board. If you'd just held your hands up and apologised when Tom corrected you then I wouldn't have bothered. That was my intention. There's still time for you to do that.
TJF's board needs to be accountable and subject to scrutiny from the fans (as does the club's) so if you don't like being called out on making false speculation then don't make false speculation.
Finally, I'd just like to thank the hundreds of messages of support and bewilderment I've had from people regarding this exchange. It's wrong to single folk out but special mention to David Hasselhoff, the people of Metz, Peter Andre and two of the Beach Boys
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.............
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
So, it’s a bit like a local councillor election ‘cycle’?
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.
-
21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
Tom may be able to confirm, but my understanding from the election info pack that Allan Heron put out to candidates is that, absent early resignations, three posts will come up for election on an annual basis, and the result in this election will be used to decide who will serve a 3, 2 or 1 year term at first instance. Each election held after this one would be for three year terms.
If there are additional vacancies, presumably they would be filled at the following election for the remainder of that term?
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
sentenceterm. -
30 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
Will these elections be repeated periodically eg every three/four years?
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, erty13 said:
What I and many others who were not previous board members are trying to assess is what went wrong and how can it be done differently. What are the issues that got us to this posistion. Is there a different approach that can be taken. What will make the outcome different this time around
Unless these questions are are answered then the new board will come against the same challenges.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
But, if it was ‘later’ discovered (at some hypothetical point) that member(s) of the PTFC board were actively, openly or quietly working ‘against’ TJF/the supporters (who had majority shareholding in the club) then this person(s) position would surely become untenable and they should be replaced by someone else who might be/not be connected with TJF. TJF purports to be a democratic organisation, with an accountable leadership. It can’t be ignored after the supporters gain that shareholding that the situation has changed. (If it hadn’t what is the point of majority supporter ownership of a football club?) The previous board will no longer have a complete free hand to do what it wants as before. They will have to listen to and take account of the majority ie the supporters. The hope is there will be much agreement between the board and TJF, but this reality cannot be ignored. To have a majority means to SOMETIMES go against the wishes of the minority, with their consent. This is the basis of democracy.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, jaf said:
I know you won’t believe me, and that’s why I suggested @tom hosie should pop on and verify this so we can move on from your erroneous unfair speculation. Tom had a desire to put facts out there on this thread and you respected and accepted his version of events. You are speculating entirely wrongly. Tom can confirm you are and I hope he does so we can move on. You could perhaps even proactively PM him to validate what I am saying?
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.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:
Thanks Tom, a little confused as on the first post it states
“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 with TJF Board that wasn’t readily available elsewhere. Where the ‘blockage’ came from I genuinely don’t know.“
yet on the second it states
“ 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. “
Was the information not flowing back,? Which I’d be very surprised about.
Or did the club board not actually have information regarding to daily finances, budget adherence and future liabilities? Which would point to the board not actually controlling the 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.
-
19 minutes ago, javeajag said:
This is a very small business if there is sensitive/commercial information I think I would want to know what it is before they throw the ownership over the fence …..the fact that everybody had to sign NDAs and then nothing was disclosed is on the one hand hilarious and on the other very concerning,
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:
And that is fair enough for TJF. But playing devils advocate a wee bit here - what about PTFC ? They have to protect themselves. They info that is being handed over is very sensitive/confidential. Who/How many people on TJF are going to see it ? Are there NCD’s in place ? And what about the time it takes ? Due diligence can become all consuming, particularly on a small admin team.
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.
-
3
-
2
-
Partick Thistle WFC Season 2022-2023
in Main Jags forum
Posted · Edited by Tom Hosie
That's the fixtures for season 2022-2023, the first under the auspices of the SPFL, released for the Women's team.
League season starts on Sunday August 7th away to Hearts. First home game is the following Sunday against Celtic.
Before then we have 3 pre-season friendlies as per below. All are at Petershill Park and all have 1.30pm kick offs. Entry for these games is via donation:
10/7: East Fife
24/7: Kilmarnock
31/7: Boroughmuir Thistle