Firhillista

Sorry, this doesn't explain anything. Why does it matter how long the transitional board is in place? It's transitional. What do you think they're going to do? 10% of the support have pledged their support already. Not enough you say, but we've only just started. And, oh, I don't know, maybe more would commit if there wasn't so much negativity about the process? And previous experience at other clubs - and let's remember this model is already in place at other clubs in Scotland - shows that more people commit when the fan ownership is established. 'Without Weir...' seems a bizarre argument - he's here! He's offering to fund the buyout. Why is his money less attractive than New City Finance? And the whataboutery of maybe needing emergency cash. Well, quite. Maybe the floodlights will fall down. What then, eh? Well maybe any well run organisation would have contingency funds in place. It doesn't need the backing of a rich benefactor. (Which, it might be worth pointing out, we actually have.) The information they have collected is the name, telephone number and email address of interested fans. Again, whether the holding of this information complies with data protection (which it should) seems hardly to be the smoking gun which condems the entire approach. Any process such as this has to start small before growing. It needs to build support. I still don't understand why some people apparently want to see it drowned at birth.

It's a transitional board. What's your point, caller? What Machiavellian plan are you concerned is hidden behind this? How will this lead ultimately to the destruction of Partick Thistle? You've picked over every utterance from TfE, even throwing out the red herring of data protection to paint them as incompetents and charlatans, claiming that 'the judgement on social media is against them', and you're now reduced to highlighting one issue you claim is unclear from a lengthy response to fans questions. Meanwhile, the venture capitalists get a free pass. A group whose record in football club ownership is less than stellar and information on which is available online gets no scrutiny whatsoever. What don't you like about fan ownership? Does it undermine the capitalist order? Genuinely bemused.

So companies always attempt takeovers of other companies in complete secrecy because it might impact on their shareholders?! This is nonsense. We're now at the point of making up justifications for a group of venture capitalists to excuse their behaviour.

What possible reason, commercial or otherwise, could explain why a group which wants to buy a football club would provide no information whatsoever about their plans? 'Hostile takeover' doesn't begin to explain anything. Clearly, they don't give a toss about the fans and why should they? They have no interest in Thistle other than to make money. But let's have a go at actual Thistle fans who have jumped in before this group have taken over the club.

David Beattie brought Jacqui Low onto the board. Colin Weir is in no position to dictate who's on the board of directors of Partick Thistle, as events have shown. Was she there because she represented Colin Weir's interests? It's hard to tell, but if she was, it was with the agreement of David Beattie. I think the reason he stepped back was exactly as was said at the time - he wasn't happy at the prospect of an international consortium buying the club. I kind of get it - it's one thing gifting money to a club that has limited resources, but why would you want to do that for a club owned by billionaires?

So, if David Beattie and the current board are prepared to stay on to run things, then Colin Weir comes back in, buys the shares and the bits of the ground owned by Propco, build us a training ground and funds youth development and then makes all of this available for fan ownership. Sorted! So, onto other things... does Mitch Austin actually exist?...

Is the hostility to fan ownership that's being expressed on here practical or ideological? Is it that there's a concern that Thistle fans owning the club would mean poor decision making and an inability to maintain and develop income? Both reasonable worries, but surely valid concerns for the fans of Hearts, St. Mirren and Motherwell, all of whom seem to be coping okay. Or is it that for some people fan ownership seems a bit too socialist and they think that it's better having business people in charge who know about making money? Which in some ways seems the safe option, but requires the acceptance that the main purpose of the club is financial, rather than sporting, success. Are we concerned about being fooled by snake oil salesmen or do we not trust ourselves? It's been said that in the echo chamber of social media the jury has found against the TfE proposal. But this is mainly a small group of people all with similar views talking to themselves. The article in the Herald today by Graeme McGarry provides a more balanced account and expresses surprise at the hostile response from some Thistle fans to the idea of fan ownership. Of course any new owners of Thistle will have to answer questions about their plans and intentions. TfE/Colin Weir or whoever. But, as things stand, it seems to me that the fan ownership model is the one most worth pursuing. I'm more than prepared to change my mind if the international consortium - New City Finance or Pacific whatever - come up with a plan to make us Premiership contenders, winning cups and playing in Europe. I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat. It's just that I've got a funny feeling that's not what's on offer.

Sorry, there's nothing mythical about the money Colin Weir has given Partick Thistle. It's made a significant difference to the club and to say that we 'cannot afford' to accept such funding is the most convoluted logic imaginable. The guy doesn't want to run a football club; he doesn't even seem to want to OWN a football club; he just wants to see the team he supports doing well. Having a go at him for that seems perverse.

Well, as Dylan put it, "Nothing was revealed..." It was probably too much to hope that the AGM would clarify things as it's a meeting of shareholders and they're the people who want to sell the club, but haven't been able to explain who to and for what purpose. I share some of the concerns about the fan ownership route, but I don't get the hostility it seems to have drawn. It's not like this is a model that's dropped out of space, all alien and threatening. It's been here for some time now. Shouldn't we be asking how is it going at Hearts? St. Mirren? Motherwell?

This isn't about one individual. I've no axe to grind here and I wouldn't know Paul Goodwin if I met him in the street, but the proposal he's put forward isn't just about furthering some ego trip, even if he thinks it is! There's a model here which is already a proven success in other Scottish clubs, not to mention in many others across the globe. We have an opportunity to set Thistle up as a community club and secure the future of the club as such. Do we want to? I don't know the answer to that, but I do think we should consider it on it's own merits, not on whether we think the person proposing it is a good guy or not. If the model was implemented as suggested, Mr Goodwin would have no more influence than any other shareholder/fan.

It is a scheme which will be familiar to almost every football fan in Scotland as they will have witnessed similar schemes at Hearts, Motherwell and St Mirren, in recent times. Dunfermline Athletic, Annan Athletic and Stenhousemuir have also embraced this ownership model and followed Clyde and Stirling Albion. Every one of these clubs adopted this scheme to protect their clubs from future concerns over who owns and ultimately controls their club.

https://thistleforever.org/ I get that this is a situation where there are so many permutations of what might happen it's difficult to get complete clarity on anything, but TfE have at least publicly put forward some information about how they see things progressing. I'd copy the link to the website of the international consortium too, but, hey, doesn't exist...

So... fans don't want other fans running the club. They'd rather have people who are NOT fans, but in it for the money instead? I get that you think the club should be run by business people, but the model that's proposed isn't suggesting a move away from that, necessarily. We're not debating the management of the club, but it's ownership. I want Thistle to be managed competently and effectively, but I also want strategic decisions about the club to be made by people accountable to the fans. From the extremely limited information available about the New City Finance consortium, that won't happen under that model.

Thank you for the response. Yes, I agree! But. If Colin Weir transfers the ownership of the shares to Thistle fans as is being suggested - although, clearly, the implementation of that has to be explained - then the ownership and responsibility for those shares will then rest with the fans/shareholders who are then, in turn, responsible for appointing a board of directors accountable to the fans/ shareholders. Surely this is better than the club being owned by a group who will be accountable only to themselves?

I genuinely don't understand your objections to Colin Weir's involvement with the club. You've made it clear on numerous occasions that you don't think his involvement is in the club's best interest, usually, if I'm correct, because you don't think a 'sugar daddy' approach is sustainable long term. Yet there's no doubt his money has made a significantly positive contribution to the club. What's proposed, as I understand it, is that the club be run along similar lines to what's currently the case, only that the majority shareholders would be the fan consortium. Colin Weir's involvement would be limited to what's been in place over recent years. Is that not in the best interest of Partick Thistle?

I think the concerns about TfE largely stem from the misconception that 'fan ownership' means 'fan management'. I own shares in Marks & Spencer, but I don't run the company (so don't complain to me). I share the worries at the prospect of fans managing the club, if it's anything like what happens on here! Can you picture it? It'd be like one of those bar fights in the old Westerns, folk flying out windows, broken windaes and blood in the sawdust, just waiting for the sheriff to walk in. Fortunately, experience elsewhere indicates that's not how it works in practice. Instead, clubs are run by people competent to do so while being held accountable by the fans/owners. As things stand, I hope the current owners grab this offer from TfE with both hands. It's real, it's practical, it doesn't require cross-border permission - it could be done and dusted fairly quickly. Let's hope tomorrow's AGM results in a good, positive future for the club.

I get that there's lots of questions to be answered about all of this, but the only group apparently prepared to interact with the fans at the moment is Thistle for Ever. I've not seen anything from them that suggests they're hiding some agenda we'd all be concerned about. There's no doubt that fan ownership works - there's examples here in Scotland, down south and across the globe with Germany probably the best. My concern would be could fan ownership generate the kind of investment that the club needs to establish a position in the top league? Having said that, I'm even more concerned that New City Investment would treat us as a feeder club and as a means of unloading debt. All in all, I'd want to hear more about both proposals, but Thistle for Ever look like the best bet at the moment. Whatever happens, the status quo doesn't look like an option. Going to be an interesting season.

Having slept on it and tried to come to a more objective view of yesterday's game, I can honestly say that I think that was the worst performance from a Thistle team in years, worse even than the two play-off games against Livingston. In his pre-match interview, Scott Allison said that they'd had training sessions with the team, not coaching sessions and that was obvious throughout. That was Gary Caldwell's team playing to the same shape with the same tactics and the same mentality - just without Gary Caldwell micro-managing from the sidelines. There's no point in over-analysing what was wrong yesterday, it's been done to death on here in recent months. We can at least be optimistic that whoever comes in will change things signicantly. What I found more depressing is what yesterday told us about some of our players. You can't hide who you are on a football pitch and yesterday showed some of our squad in a very poor light. Pass marks to all those who tried their best - Kakay's inability to get the ball past the first defender was frustrating, but at least he kept trying. Cardle and Millar put in loads of effort without much result, but they kept on trying, Zamatta tried to play his game with little support. Even Bannigan tried, though God knows he's looking more a limited player with each game and he's certainly no leader on the park There's a few others, though, who need to have a look at themselves. I have a great deal of respect for what James Penrice has achieved at such a young age, but yesterday I thought he chucked it early on. McGinty is obviously limited in his abilities, but his lack of concentration yesterday was shocking. O'Ware either isn't the player that we thought he was, or his injury has affected him really significantly, or he just isn't that bothered about playing for us any more, because these are the only explanations I can come up with for yesterday's performance. I still think we have individual players who can move this team up the league. The challenge for the new manager will be finding a system that can make best use of their abilities. In the longer term, he might be best advised to find players with bigger hearts.

They walked through that game like it was a training exercise. Chucked it when the third went in. The new manager's remit is clear - avoid relegation. He's got his work cut out.

Yet again we're losing to a team, not because they're superior to us, but because we've pushed the destruct button - twice! Game's not over, though. Pars look poor. If we can get an early goal...

At the game. First out-of-work manager spotted - and prospective new Thistle manager - Martin Canning! More news as we get it.

This is my view, exactly. I've always thought Thistle are the team for the poets, anarchists, dreamers and downright weirdo's. It's why I love Kingsley as the mascot - his weirdness reflects what the club's about, in my opinion. So appointing a woman as the manager would be fine by me, it would fit with the character of the club, as I see it, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. Where we are now requires a safer approach, although there's no guarantee with whoever comes in. So rather than arguing about Shelley Kerr can we just go back to worrying about Lee Clark.

For me, it should be - Fox - we'd have lost last Friday but for him - Caldwell was rightly criticised for chopping and changing, so Fox should retain his place, I think. Kakay - did enough after a difficult start to suggest he's a stronger defensive option than Williamson and handy going forward too. O'Ware and McGinty in central defence. Penrice. Bannigan and Palmer as holding midfielders. Gordon in central midfield to make the most of his runs into the box. Millar as chief striker and moany bugger. Cardle on the left wing, where he's most effective. Zanatta on the right pretending to be Dennis McQuade... 5-0 Thistle.

And Young might prove to be just as successful, but do we want to be taking that chance right now? For every Alex Ferguson (if you can even count beyond the one and only), there are thousands who move up a division and fail. Given all that's happening at the club right now, someone who's been over the course before seems the minimum requirement. (Not Lee Clark.)

Shelley Kerr is the wildest suggestion of them all. Not because she's a woman and she'd be the first female manager at this level of professional male football (in the world?), but because she's no experience of managing a full-time team at this level, which puts her in the same category as Darren Young and a few others. We desperately need a safe pair of hands. (Not Lee Clark.)