Woodstock Jag

I am confident that the Working Group's proposals will be seen as a very significant step forward, with a genuine recognition of the role that fan democracy needs to play. I don't perceive what has been proposed to be a few tweaks. It is quite an imaginative solution given where we are now, and one that (I hope) gets us most of where TJF wanted the Club to be, while providing some important assurances to the existing Trustees that proper custodianship will be in place.

In case anyone missed it at the start of the week, there was a joint statement on the progress on the fan ownership situation: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/joint-update-on-future-of-fan-ownership/ Essentially we are waiting for the Trustees to consider and (we hope) ratify the proposed way forward, and for us then to set out collectively the intended timescale and milestones for implementation. There has been *a lot* of activity behind the scenes at Firhill since the change of board, and I will say this for the Trustees: this has kept several of them fully occupied. They also very clearly recognise that TJF is the primary vehicle for fan engagement, and all going well this will be reflected in the changes made to the fan ownership model. As for the question about financial contributions, it has always been TJF’s ambition, whatever the Club’s financial situation, to provide direct and indirect financial support to the Club. The decisions made by TJF to use some accumulated funds in this way reflects (a) a change of attitude of the Club Board to us as a source of funding and (b) significant behind the scenes progress to recognise and embrace TJF as the vehicle for fan engagement. We did want to have a more detailed budget proposal to put to members in the aftermath of our first full trading year. But bluntly, the working assumptions about the role TJF would play at the Club, which necessary underpins that, has changed completely in the space of the last 8 weeks. Essentially all of the feedback we’ve received from members has been to endorse the recent commitments we’ve made, and they have driven significant membership growth as well. Obviously we want to regularise the influence that our members have over our broader decision making, but with a lot of things not tied down yet about the future ownership and funding model, we think, and I suspect most members will understand, that it’s best to get the chronology on this right. The Working Group, it should be emphasised, was set up by the Trust, in its capacity as majority shareholder, to improve the ownership model. The group included people across very different segments of the Thistle support. Its purpose was never to have a long and wide consultation exercise, but to get to grips with very obvious deficiencies in the model and to fix them. TJF were at the table because the fans already broadly backed the approach and solutions we were likely to suggest. Before the end of the season (and I hope much sooner) it will become clear why this stage in Thistle’s journey has involved a lot of work behind the scenes. I entirely understand the clamour for information, but this has to be done the right way. If it wasn’t, you have my word that TJF directors would be making it abundantly clear at the earliest credible opportunity, just as we have done on so many other matters, not least the Club’s most recent set of accounts.

Sent you a DM about this.

For what it’s worth we are working on this. There are complications under company law for U16s to be full voting members but we want to find a way to overcome that as younger fans really are going to be the lifeblood of the Club going forward.

Absolutely ******* glorious.

To emphasise, I agree with you that the reasons for not doing it appear tenuous, but equally yes the above is an oversimplification in some respects. One of the main advantages of pre-match online purchases is that it's much easier for the Club to track away sales before the game (and to judge, for example, whether a particular away support warrants the opening of the Main Stand, or merely a section of the Jackie Husband Stand). That significantly impacts several aspects of match-day expenditure (think lighting, stewarding, catering etc). Also, ticket arrangements can work both ways in terms of incentives. If you've already bought a ticket on Tuesday and it's pissing it down on Saturday you'll probably still turn up because you've already paid your money. If you have a PATG option, you might put off deciding whether to travel from Kirkcaldy until the Saturday morning, and then decide not to go. This can as easily cancel out the extra revenue as the people you encourage to go to games by making other purchase options available, and is why the Club should rely on some proper data on the impact of the recent shift to see if it really has saved money. It may, as I've suggested earlier, that more measured and reliable comparisons can be made in the close season. If you're offering a PATG option, you're doing it for the entire away support, not just those who wouldn't otherwise go. So it's the admin burden of serving, on a matchday (at our level) anything up to 500 people, not the handful of people who might have been put off by no PATG option. So it's probably not "hire one person for 3 hours". It's probably needing at least 3-4 and possibly more people, especially if and when the Main Stand, rather than the Jackie Husband Stand, is being used. If you offer a cash option at the turnstile itself, it also introduces cash handling challenges that don't currently exist. Those things all have to be weighed-off against one another. Again, I agree with you that the Club should, if possible, be offering a PATG (and cash) options for both home and away fans. I think that's the best way to make football more open and accessible to punters. But it's not as straightforward as "five extra punters covers costs". It's about how well the wider matchday operation works with the people they have. If you were at the Queen's Park game on Monday, you'll know exactly what I mean.

I've said before personally that I'm sceptical it makes a huge difference to the admin burden for the reasons you state. You can rest assured that when these aspects of the match-day experience are being looked at again, TJF will make sure these questions are part of the discussion. In terms of timing this is purely one of immediate priorities. I think the Club should do some data work on away attendances and work out what impact a move to ticketed-only has had. However, you'll appreciate with the recent changes, some things are more urgent and pressing than others. We've always believed that the fan ownership community should be about the wider fan experience throughout Scotland, not just for Thistle fans, though, and I agree we need to make sure our away fan offering maximises both revenue and match-day experience. I hope that provides some reassurance.

As Scotty says, this is ultimately a decision for the match-day operations team. The Club has cited the cost/administrative burden as the reason for this approach. You may recall that TJF raised concerns about this practice (and the move away from cash payment options at other Clubs) earlier in the season. I'm sure this is something that the Club is keeping under review. With the season well underway it may be something more naturally to revisit in the summer, when a more wide-ranging look at the Club's administrative resourcing and match-day operations can take place.

He's talking about the draft financial accounts 2021-22 of TJF, which we circulated to our members yesterday afternoon, alongside a financial update about TJF.

I'm not sure I'm on board with the "group games are boring" idea when Japan, South Korea, Senegal and Morocco all made it to the last 16, one of the World Cup finalists lost to Saudi Arabia, the other lost to Tunisia, Brazil lost to Cameroon, Japan beat Germany and Spain etc. etc. The main concern for the next World Cup is that groups of 3 are barely groups at all, and you'll have a team sitting-out the final matchday.

The Jags Trust are an important part of the jigsaw here. We found them to be very on the ball at the recent Club AGM in terms of asking the right questions. As a former Jags Trust board member I am confident they will have a role in what happens next.

Yep pretty much this Tom. The priority for the next few months is Board room stability. Now that we have a Working Group, and a timeline, for a set of proposals to improve the model and the trust deed, it is much “cleaner” to have an interim board keeping the Club running properly, while we sort out more permanent arrangements. The question of fan representation, very obviously, is one for the Working Group. I am sure those nominated to that group will have some practical ideas about how to ensure the organisations (Club, Trust, TJF) complement one another in the more permanent model.

Cannot emphasise enough how good an idea it would be for people who have not yet joined TJF, or who (for whatever, often understandable) reasons have allowed their membership to lapse, to rejoin today. Fundraising is going to be very important in the coming weeks and months. And we are a ready-built vehicle to deliver it.

If it's apathy you want to overcome, get yourselves along to Munn's on Saturday for the Quarter Finals!

You may have seen the Trust has published a statement about this: In short, they and the Club are (purporting to) rely on legitimate interest, rather than consent, for this data sharing arrangement.