jaf
-
Posts
1,379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jaf
-
-
4 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:
Another couple of Championship clubs (Raith and Morton) have submitted their accounts. I am sure someone on here will be able to explain how they compare to ours in general.
I recall TJF stating they were going to do an analysis of all Championship club's accounts when we published ours - is that still a thing or have recent events changed that?
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC026287/filing-history
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC003264/filing-history
Hi Martin
Indeed, we said we would do a comparison table of net current assets once more accounts published; net current assets being the 'margin of safety'. It remains our intention to publish that to members as promised.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:
Does the penultimate paragraph imply that anyone renewing or buying a season ticket for the first time will have their details shared by the club and the Trust and the Foundation by default?
No. There will be an opt in option at season ticket renewal time.
-
17 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:
For all those who are saying promotion with QP in the league was unrealistic, should perhaps remind themselves of this pre-season thread.
Just 2 people predicted that QP would be in the top 4 and the bookies had them as 50/1 to win. I think that when the targets were set, that was realistic. Obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Love this quote from @Cfirejkl .... "A couple have Queens Park in their top 4 - I would have them relegated. Seems like they scraped through last season- hope I’m wrong. ALways had a soft spot for them." Wonder if he still has the soft spot ?
Three of the current top four were the three clubs with the longest odds pre-season!
Really interesting to look back on that
-
12 minutes ago, MarciaBlaine said:
Totally appreciate that the above leaves some parts of the story unclear. But I'd argue they're also unclear in the statement, particularly to readers who may not be able to read between the lines, so that's kinda my point.
(Absolutely not trying to bash TJF who are doing extremely hard work in trying circumstances, which I really value.
But I'd hope it's worth highlighting quick and easy opportunities for improvement.)
Hi thanks for the feedback
I think you are right to acknowledge that there is some very specific wording we either had to, or wished to use. I think we also wish to come across in as professional a way as we can whilst we continue to build the case for fan ownership by being credible. To do so, we adopt that professional language.
But it is also important to educate/inform as many people as possible with these updates, so your point on clarity is noted.
Of course, we also have some members who actually appreciate the language used (from private feedback received), so we have a challenge keeping everyone happy - but we will do our best!
Thanks
-
4
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:
Although they do have a member on the board and presumably knew what was about to happen. If they don’t agree with the decision, surely have a responsibility to say - at least to their members.
I am only on page 2 of this thread, so apologies to TJF if they have done.Just to confirm we have now clarified with a statement. We did not know about this at all.
To clarify, we were asked to put forward / nominated a board member onto the new board but she is not “our representative”. She serves in the position in her own right as a director, with the personal responsibilities that brings.
One of the many things on the to do list for the future is working together protocols between the board and the fans organisations. This has always been an important aspect of TJFs idea of an ideal or best case solution.
At the moment, TJF have not yet got any formal position - although progress has been made on this. Whilst we have worked much better alongside this board, the board are independent of us and we have no formal position.
Perhaps all of this highlights why we need the formality clarified soon. And why we need working together protocols that function well and give us all the version of fan ownership we wish for and expect.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:
I do hope that the people involved in the behind scenes stuff realise that the more things stagnate on the pitch the more deseparate we become to hear something positive on this front.
Martin,
You will not have to wait too much longer to hear something - unfortunately I cannot comment for 'on the park'
-
Is he not going to Dundee United anyway? (Flush with cash from the souttar sell on).
-
46 minutes ago, scotty said:
Never felt less up for going to Firhill as I do just now. Off field shenanigans combined with a team which doesn't seem to be able to lift themselves, never mind inspire the fans have combined to instill apathy. If we lose again today (or at least don't make an effort to win) I will find it difficult to go back to Firhill. As for buying a season ticket next season ....
I don’t think the club realise this. Going to the football is the most habit forming thing. Go every week, you never want to miss a week. However get out of the habit……
Being privileged to know what I do, I will find it difficult to buy the 3 season tickets a year i currently buy (and today will be the last hospitality I take, only because I had committed to do so) whilst Gerry Britton remains in post and whilst certain board members remain at our club.
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:
I think it is because, so far, there appears to have been no consequences to their coup d’etat.
Except that every communication from the club or Trust results in increased membership of TJF. Even I am considering joining.Please do. You will be VERY welcome. If you need private reassurance, PM me and I will gladly speak with you one to one.
Consequences are not something TJF can do alone. We need all of your help.
We aren't giving up. We aren't going away.
We told TBC that when they told us we weren't getting the shares. We told Jacqui Low it again when she later asked what our intentions were for TJF. We remain resolved to be true to those promises - as long as our members want us.
Sandy
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:
Don't disagree, tho' St Johnstone do have an income stream that we can't have. But yes they are a well run club.
I don't do polls but are us Jags folk more upset with off the field or on field matters? With me it's the former. Of course the two can be related but with me because of what's going on (more correctly, not going on) behind the scene I'm just more saddened rather than angry with our recent performances on the park.
Further the idea of Jacqui Low, who has no mandate whatsoever, sacking OUR club's team manager seems to me just plain wrong. Her appointing a new manager is equally wrong. That's regardless of the Gary Caldwell fiasco. Loads of well run clubs pick dud managers so that's largely irrelevant. Then again a person without a mandate doing nothing and not replacing a manager when his time is up is just as wrong. This just brings me back to highlight my view that off field matters are far worse than current team performances.
This depends entirely on how you define well run! There is conventional wisdom. And there is PTFC's.
Some seem to argue, or accept , being well run is whatever fancy valuation method you have used to swell your net assets. Under those criteria, PTFC trounce St Johnstone. PTFC have net assets of in excess of £14m, with St Johnstone having a lowly £1.8m of net assets. (This is of course because St Johnstone have not revalued their stadium which shows exactly the limitations of concentrating on net assets, as I suspect no one truly believes we are 8 times as wealthy as St Johnstone?)
This exact point - which emerges in the TJF accounts analysis - is further proven by looking at two other key figures, namely cash, and net current assets. In cash terms St Johnstone hold £3.9m of cash reserves versus our £330k in the May 2022 accounts. So they have nearly 12 times the amount of cash reserves as we do - something more in line with the view of them being a well run club. This is explained well in their (non-petulant) directors report.
Furthermore, whilst our net current assets ratio is 1.1 (down from 1.65 and lurching closely towards being under 1 - not a good thing), the net current assets ratio of St Johnstone is 8.2 in their last published accounts.
Sometimes you need to scratch beneath the surface.
-
8
-
-
I have been saying all week I hope we have been practising defending set pieces as that’s Dundee’s best chance of scoring (as evidenced by the game at Dundee).
i don’t claim to be any master analyst of football tactics. If I could see that, I would have hoped our management team would have. To me, therefore, the second goal was just a terrible goal to concede.
-
7 hours ago, erty13 said:
Sorry forgot to say thank you to the people on here who have messaged me on here giving me support on this exchange of views.
John
It’s not an exchange of views
its an opinion (yours) which is now corroborated as being erroneous versus inconvenient facts which are now corroborated as being true.
Yet still no apology that your speculation was wrong?
I hope, if elected, you can leave these petty biases and erroneous preconceptions behind.
-
As most people know, I am Sandy Fyfe and I am standing. Good suggestion Tom.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Tom Hosie said:
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.
Thank you Tom
-
7 hours ago, erty13 said:
This is a one sided argument.
I and anyone else who was not on the Jags Foundation board have not seen any documents or minutes. All we have to go on, is the very limited detail that has been talked on here. Is there a reason why this information can not be shared.
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?
-
6 minutes ago, erty13 said:
Jaf
It is really hard to ground anything on facts when no real information has come out of the Jags Foundation. It would have been good if the minutes you referred to were shared with all members, rather than information held by a select few.
If you look at other post on here about registration of titles, there is a cynical view of this process and Jaquie Low by people who are far closer involved in the inner workings of the Jags Foundation.
I might think there are various reasons for there not being greater communication of facts but we won’t get into those just now.
we are all different but whether your default position is overly trusting of everything from one side, or the other, there are facts and opinions Tom hosie did a good job of bringing some facts to this forum in the spirit of transparent honesty I would hope he could now confirm that there was never any suggestion of what you speculate in either documentation or from any individual at any TJF board meeting If he won’t confirm , as I say the minutes and documentation shall do so
lets stick to the facts best we can rather than speculation? Good luck in the remainder of the election campaign
-
26 minutes ago, jaggy said:
I usually get the emails in my inbox but I’ll check
Comes from third party voting software.
-
4 minutes ago, jaggy said:
I’ve not received a voting email yet. I’m surprised they didn’t all get sent at the same time
Check spam jaggy. That’s where mine was!
-
On 5/8/2022 at 6:14 PM, erty13 said:
I think this might also be one of the differences of opinions.
Whether you like or dislike Jaquie Low, her influence with Colin Weir, played a big part of him buying the shares and buying out propco. If a previous board had generated the level of third party funding that has been delivered in the last 2 years, we would be celebrating their achievement, and would be looking to work with them.
I may be reading too much into the previous Jags Foundation boards views, but it comes across as the current ptfc directors, don't contribute anything, so let's get the shares transferred and get rid of them.
This was never going to succeed.
100 per cent inaccurate.
if elected , the detailed documented minutes will prove the point to you. I hope you will come back to say you were wrong and put the record straight.
I also hope tom hosie will confirm that point to you since you seem to trust his previous posts would be good for the election campaign to be grounded in the reality of facts rather then erroneous speculation
-
5 hours ago, Tom Hosie said:
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.
Hi Tom, I recall this meeting well. It was 13th October. I remember you saying , and I am paraphrasing, 'Whoever does this role , its a poisoned chalice - I think you should do it Sandy'!
The reason I did not take the club board role was not due to a general reluctance though. It was due to a very specific one which you have omitted from your history of events. It was because I noted that I was best placed to remain on the TJF Board to oversee due diligence process without being compromised nor conflicted. On 14 October, I wrote to Gavin Taylor to decline the board position formally (having said I would sleep on it), including this paragraph which one of your fellow board members at the time described as a 'compelling reason' for me not to go onto the Club board (because at that time, there was an expectation by all on the TJF board that due diligence, as fed back during engagement sessions, was indeed a prerequisite to move forward). The position of others changed later. I have simply remained consistent.
"3. I think I can add more value to TJF than to the PTFC board. That is a matter of opinion, but in particular for example in assessment/instruction of due diligence. I know you and I differ on this. You think it doesn’t matter as we will never refuse the share transfer. I agree with that to an extent, but I feel passionately that it absolutely does matter for our credibility that we know the position we are taking into fan ownership so there is a realistic set of expectations for our friends and fellow supporters."
I am glad you and I now agree that the approach which was taken and was supported by the majority of the TJF Board 'did not work well'. As you know I felt this approach was flawed and I consulted my Institute and ethically was therefore required to resign on their advice. At the time you opined, how could I speak about working together and compromise and then resign when not getting my way? I think that matters of ethics where you have a regulatory body don't quite work like that, in that you sacrifice having the choice of compromise. Compromise over ethical matters is something I would not do.
For fan ownership to work, in my opinion, the fan ownership body needs to be professional and have independent thought and standards (and ethics) from the outset. For the avoidance of doubt, this need not be adversarial as you suggest. I truly believe that can be avoided, but I also do not think there is any harm in having the ambition to do things as professionally as can be done from the outset.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, javeajag said:
However it is likely that some of TJF executive will be in the Board and maybe all - we don’t know - and it’s not clear who the non TJF members in the Board would be.
and Board experience is light on the candidates so far. Being on a company Board has wider responsibilities and accountabilities than you reference. I’m not sure any of the candidates have been on a commercial board.
I am happy to go on the record that I have no desire to be on the football club board. I know others in our group feel the same. TJF previously tried to suggest that role for me, and I declined. I think its easy to underestimate some of the fabulous skills among our support though.
I think I agree with you in that TJF board and club board members require different skillsets and motivations.
Also to whoever said that 'getting rid of the entire club board' as the agenda of TJF - past or prospective - that is absolutely untrue.
-
5 minutes ago, erty13 said:
Numbers are important. The size and financial viability is what gives an organisation credibility.
If the Jags Foundation does not increase the numbers it represents, it will fail in any negotiation with the board.
The focus should be on building its voice and gain the consensus of the newly elected board to represent all the fans, rather that try to load the election in favour of a group with predetermined views.
My predetermined view is aligned to yours. We need to increase numbers. I don’t think you will find disagreement to that among any of the group standing. Nor indeed any of the group standing down I suspect.
Its hard to sell something to sceptical people when you don’t know what you are actually selling. That’s why there have been the demands for clarity on what criteria would make TBC engage with a fans organisation, something we do not yet know after two and a half years.-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, javeajag said:
Mmmm……I’m not sure that having a ‘slate’ of like minded individuals which looks very much like another ‘grouping’ was the best way to go but that’s your call.
looking at the group as a whole to me it’s a little lightweight to be running what is a business after all …..being a fan is not enough
hopefully more candidates with more experience will come forward , if they exist.
Running a slate gives voting members a little more meat on the bones of what they are voting for.
it also means that after an inordinate amount of time so far , if elected, that group can “hit the ground running”, and won’t spend time arguing with themselves over initial steps. There is I think some merit to that. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Ultimately, it’s firstly for the members to decide when they vote, and secondly for TBC to decide whether to engage with whoever the new TJF comprises of. Every member is entitled to stand. Every member is entitled to vote. -
48 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:
I agree with your aim and the sentiments of what you’re saying, but until 3BC, the Chair (one and the same!), the PTFC board make clearly known exactly what the criteria is, (as they see it) to be regarded as “Fit and Proper” (ie what they said the previous TJF leadership/directors WERE NOT) how do we know a new TJF leadership/directors would be any more acceptable than the first one?!! I would still like to know what exactly were the reasons for the previous leadership to be rejected. We haven’t been told, only a few very vague words were offered. The official statement DIDN’T say, they accepted TJF but they rejected the leadership. It REJECTED TJF! WHY? I think the next step is for Jacqui LOW to finally come out and do some talking, be clear, explaining and offering up some transparency BEFORE the TJF elect a new leadership. I don’t know anything about the first leadership to be honest. And, I don’t totally understand why they offered to stand down. Jacqui Low and not one single member of the board is standing down. My point is, without knowing much, much more, electing a new TJF leadership may only be wasting time, and make (to TJF/PTFC board) not a jot of difference. We need to know what we’re not being told and then act. Eg If 3BC/ PTFC do not much care for a TJF which they cannot control and want people in the leadership who will always defer to Jacqui Low, that wouldn’t be acceptable to me and many, many others I would say. I and others want an independent leadership of TJF, accountable to the Thistle supporter fanbase first, and not beholden to 3BC, the Chair or anyone else.
I recognise much of this, and we cannot MAKE TBC engage with the next TJF board. But by making TJF a stronger and stronger members organisation, we increase the opportunity for engagement with them.
The 'Common Platform' also means that the next TJF board could be aligned and have unity. This will help accelerate options, and the group has been an ideas factory so far, and so I have high hopes that there are lots of ways we can move this forward - if elected.
-
3
-
Hearts Viaplay Cup - Sunday 20 August
in Main Jags forum
Posted
Hi all
I thought I should contribute here from a position of certain knowledge.
1. There were investment discussions which TJF were part of and central to. Two of us including myself were subject to NDAs in respect of this. IF these discussions had progressed to a successful conclusion, there would have been full transparent disclosure / consultation with members given TJFs involvement in the process and the consortium of investors.
2. Those particular investment discussions did not proceed to an investment. For various reasons but it is entirely wrong to say it was rejected by the club nor anything to do with Ian McCall. Completely wrong.
3. The club needs investment. That remains the case as we have mentioned previously. The process was useful as it showed that fan ownership and private capital / investment could Co-exist with the right investor.
4. I am very happy to privately discuss further @javeajag if there is any specific questions that remain unanswered.
Sandy Fyfe