Woodstock Jag

Entirely up to you. Firstly, thank you for contributing to TJF over and above the General rate. Almost 250 of our members do this, and it makes a huge difference. Secondly, you can remain a TJF member from as little as £1 per month, on the Basic rate, though we would encourage those who are able to contribute at either the General (£10pm) or Concessionary (£5pm) rate. Purely on the question of most beneficial... A season ticket is of course subject to VAT, so the Club gets £275 of your season ticket (before payment processing fees) and the tax man £55. TJF gets 100% of your monthly subs (before payment processing fees). We have (very modest) running costs, but the overwhelming majority (over 90%) of our membership income finds its way back to the Club, Academy or Women's team through the pledges.

Christ, Fawlty, you stalk my edits of that website 😂😂😂 Post coming out later tonight confirming next steps. I’ve just been at the theatre so I’m not at my laptop!

Delighted that these appointments are now over the line. Both Sandy and Craig are people I've personally long thought would be excellent additions to the Club Board, but it's only been recently that the circumstances and timing have been right for both of them. Two guys who carry credibility, know how to build effective working relationships, always want to fix things, understand and actively want to work with and get the best of fan ownership, and who would have been really valuable appointments even if they weren't already died-in-the-wool Jags fans. This is a good day for our football club.

Was just going to reach out to you FT! Saw the email drop this morning that this was going to hit our bank account. Thank you again to everyone who uses this affiliate fundraising to support TJF. It is hugely appreciated.

I picked that number a bit out of the air but obviously: (a) Barcelona should pay £65 million minimum (b) the Class C shares are only redeemable on the excess of a cash balance in a set of accounts above £2 million So a £2 million profit would mean they could (in theory) start to be paid back, but to get Donald back below the threshold and so where he would lose his automatic right to a board seat, you’d need to redeem more than half of the Class C shares (so in practice to be more than £3 million in the black).

I don’t follow at all. This explains why his shares are non-voting shares. It doesn’t explain why he gets the right to join the Hearts board or to nominate someone else to it. Just like Donald has at Thistle and just like Kibble (for two positions) does at St Mirren.

You’re shifting the goalposts here. Your original claim was, and I quote, “highly unusual” for a specific minority shareholder to be given a guaranteed right to sit on a football club board. I could also have pointed out that even after Foundation of Hearts became the majority shareholder, Anne Budge also retained such a right under the Bidco Agreement they had. It is therefore surprising that you claim you are “not aware of any other Club with a similar arrangement for a Minority Shareholder” when there are high profile examples of it, and at that at another Scottish fan-owned club. I could also mention St Mirren, where the main minority shareholder was also given not one but two guaranteed nominees under its equivalent of the Club-Trust Agreement. Notable minority shareholders who have invested financially don’t just rarely get guaranteed representation on the boards of majority fan owned football clubs; it is a common situation and typically a consequence of blending fan ownership with the need for private capital. If your beef is with the other rights attaching to the main Class C shareholder, just say so. TJF have often said that, all other things being equal, we would have preferred a deal that didn’t involve dilution of voting share capital. But board representation, the specific point you made, is a clear red herring, because minority shareholders get board seats, either through special classes of shareholders or through shareholder agreements, almost routinely. It’s part and parcel of many small and medium sized businesses. There is of course another important difference between Donald’s shareholding and Tony Bloom’s, and that’s that no one involved ever actually expects that Donald (or others who invested alongside him) will get his (or their) money back, himself included. While his shares are in theory redeemable if we sell Ben Stanway to Barcelona for £3 million, in practice the Club is unlikely to be in a position to trigger the redemption any time soon.

Tony Bloom at Hearts. As explained by the Foundation of Hearts at the time. You're welcome.

The majority shareholding is held by the legal vehicle known as the Partick Thistle Football Club Trust. The trustees of the PTFC Trust are two organisations: TJF 1876 Limited (known as The Jags Foundation) Partick Thistle Supporters Association Limited (known as The Jags Trust) The Jags Trust is also a shareholder in its own right. TJF is not. Jacqui Low was given shares previously held in a personal capacity by Colin Weir (presumably following his executors fulfilling his testamentary directions). Those shares were issued to him and his wife back in 2015 at the same time as a shareholding was issued to the (then) newly created PTFC Trust, after Colin Weir and others agreed a deal with the Club to wipe out about £1 million of bank debt.

The appraisals were done as a combined effort by the boards of both trustees. Directors seeking reappointment were asked to provide a summary of achievements in-post and, if requested, to offer themselves for an interview with a panel of three trustee representatives (typically 2 from TJF, one from TJT). Newer directors were asked to provide a CV as to their suitability, rather than a list of achievements. This approach is set out in the Club-Trust Agreement, and directors were appraised both collectively (looking at things for which they were jointly responsible) as well as on the business areas for which they had taken on specific responsibility. It was also used as an opportunity to appraise the board structure and the Club’s relationship with legally distinct entities like the Youth Academy. As for relevant experience of trustees, illustratively and non-exhaustively, the boards of the two trustees include (among others): (a) an HR professional with two decades of experience in performance management in the finance and energy sectors (Lynsey Kane) (b) a partner in an accountancy firm with decades of experience in company audit and significant expertise and experience in the finances of football clubs (Sandy Fyfe) (c) someone who (before retiring) worked for the Care Inspectorate for several decades in a monitoring and compliance capacity (Morag McHaffie)

There is a delicate balance to be struck with things like this though. We didn’t know whether the delays Club side would be resolved relatively quickly or if they’d take several weeks to resolve. We risked either raising expectations unduly (in the event any deadline wasn’t met) or appearing to be unduly critical or negative (if the Club in fact ended up turning it around quite quickly). TJF giving a public running commentary on when something like that will or won’t be published by the Club isn’t (IMO) necessarily helpful communication; it’s a rod for the backs of people already operating under known and challenging capacity constraints to provide complete and accurate information. I should also say that we received only two emails about the delays to the publication of the Q&A. And you know who sent both of them 😉 Had there been several members chapping at the door asking for an update, the situation might have been different. But when it is isolated correspondence we generally opt to respond directly, rather than to issue a member-wide update. We have been looking at Mailchimp analytics in recent months that showed readership of the (long) newsletter style email updates was lower than average and falling. In March we therefore prioritised (given there were a lot of different projects taking up capacity behind the scenes and other work commitments of volunteers) providing single item updates by email, on things as and when they arose, as they have higher read and click through rates and are much quicker to compile. This was done to try to encourage key messages to be seen and acted on where time sensitive. For example in March we had two updates on the quarter final ticketing situation, the launch for general sale of the Stanway Pin, and the launch of the Tartan Talismans top. Either side we also had to run the POTY polls, run two auctions and a raffle. A judgment call was made that a bespoke member email to provide a glorified holding response, which might have been seen as uncollegiate towards those working on preparing the responses, probably wasn’t warranted. Fair enough 🤣

Could you explain what, specifically, you mean by this? I genuinely can’t think of anything that TJF has failed to communicate (promptly) to the fans this season. To the best of my recollection, every time you’ve asked us about when something was going to be published or announced it was answered promptly and/or it was something that was for the Club, not TJF, to answer.

The majority shareholder is the PTFC Trust. It is a trust, with trustees and beneficiaries. The trustees are two fans organisations: TJF 1876 Limited (The Jags Foundation) Partick Thistle Supporters' Association (The Jags Trust) Those two organisations are represented by their respective elected boards.

To be completely honest it's a legacy of the circumstances in which the pledge first started. It's not where I'd start from if we were starting from scratch today. I suppose it hasn't been considered necessary to ring-fence TJF donations because, as one of the two trustees, TJF's board is asked to sign-off on the Club's budget proposals each season (under the Club-Trust Agreement) anyway. We therefore have a clear indication of the balance of spending priorities and the wider budget of which pledge income is a part. There is a risk that ring-fencing or similar could end up being an entirely artificial process, as if TJF decides to fund something that have been happening anyway, the Club Board might then simply bank the saving on that budget line and allocate the up-side somewhere else. How did the Pledge start? Regular monthly TJF contributions to the Club of £10kpm started in July of 2023, after a one-off £50k donation made in June 2023. This financial support was committed to because a financial disclosure exercise in the first half of 2023 indicated that the Club was at risk of running out of cash, following substantial losses. It was TJF's way of "doing our bit" to help keep the lights on while the Club sought external investment (later delivered through Donald McClymont and his wider network). Why was the Pledge done as a donation? There was some internal debate on TJF's board at the time about whether our financial support should be (a) a donation or (b) a subscription for shares. In the end (a) was chosen as the mechanism because it was the simplest to deliver in short timescales and it involved zero administration costs. The June donation and the follow-on pledge provided the Club with a guaranteed £160k of income for the 2023-24 season that could be factored-into the 2023-24 budget. One of the consequences of it being a donation is that it counts as "income" on the Club's Profit and Loss account and therefore makes the Club Board's task of delivering an (on-paper) breakeven budget (significantly) easier. Had we gone down a cash-for-shares or soft loan route, it would have shored up the balance sheet/cash reserves but wouldn't have positively impacted the P&L. Initial lack of member consultation Because the pledge was introduced relatively urgently, there was not time to seek formal approval for it from members at TJF's summer 2023 AGM (the papers for the business had already gone out). However, a commitment was made to seek member consent for this financial commitment to continue beyond the 2023-24 season at the summer 2024 AGM. Member feedback to the pledge announcement was overwhelmingly positive and there was significant membership and donations growth around that time. Academy Pledge Separately, in November 2023, we consulted about starting the Academy Pledge at £2kpm. This was endorsed by a membership vote and started in December 2023. This is technically not a hypothecated donation either, and it goes straight to the Academy's bank account to use as it sees fit. But another way of looking at this is that it sort of is a hypothecated donation, insofar as it must be used for the Academy rather than for just any purpose at the Club. Renewal of the Club and Academy Pledges and introduction of the PTWFC pledge During the 2024-25 budget discussions in April 2024, TJF's board was asked by the Club Board what level of direct financial support it felt able to provide for that year ahead. TJF's board indicated that, at the then subscription levels, we could probably commit to increasing the pledge to £12.5kpm (£150kpa). However, we stressed that this would be subject to member approval at our AGM. At the summer 2024 AGM, members were invited to approve three pledges: £12.5kpm (£150kpa) for the Club £2kpm (£24kpa) for the Academy £5k for the 2024-25 season for the Women's team These were overwhelmingly endorsed by members, with either one or zero objections. Pledges exceeded for 2024-25 As with the previous year, the Takeover and other sponsorship actually meant the support given to the Club directly in season 2024-25 was in excess of £170k. The Women's team pledge was similarly exceeded by over £2k, thanks to a series of auctions/raffles on the PTWFC Foundation Shirts and our sponsorship for the Petershill Takeover event. Pledges renewed for 2025-26 As we approached our summer 2025 AGM in mid-June, the Club Budget had not yet been agreed. TJF had indicated, to help the Club Board, Academy and Women's team with their respective planning assumptions, that TJF's board would recommend to members renewing the pledges at existing levels and on the same terms. Members (again) decisively endorsed all three pledges at the AGM. There was no desire at that point in time to pull the rug from under the Club Board at precisely the point when it was clearly struggling to develop viable proposals for a breakeven budget. Greater member input into allocation of funds. There was some discussion at TJF's summer 2025 AGM about whether TJF's contributions should be in some way ring-fenced (and one member suggested it should be ring-fenced to the playing budget). His view was that this would be a major driver for additional sign-ups and donations. We agreed to explore options for greater member input into how pledges/spending is allocated, and that is something that is now being taken into account as the Club Board develops its 2026-27 budget proposals.

Hello folks I share your frustration on the point to do with post-AGM comms. We sent the questions to the Club Board on 13th February (day after the AGM). As best I understand it, most of the responses were prepared in fairly short order after that, but there were a couple that couldn’t be answered properly without up-to-date information. It was felt better to provide answers as a package rather than in dribs and drabs. We have reminded the Club Board several times that there was a shared commitment to get these responses out and have been chasing on an almost weekly basis. The recent changes at Club Board level have put more pressure on the remaining board members in terms of capacity, and they’ve also required the process for management accounts to be changed and for the Club to implement some systems changes to make sure they are kept current going forwards. The Club has received active assistance on management accounting and a number of other projects from the recently restructured Finance Working Group (and Sandy Fyfe in particular) and this means reporting is now back up to date. We most recently reminded the Club Board of the need to get the post-AGM communication out on Monday evening (when we met with them to discuss this and several other matters) and have been given an assurance that the Q&A will be ready by Friday. The broader piece on active engagement is one we have been constantly impressing upon the Club Board, though they have faced some challenges in recent weeks operating as a smaller team. Once board numbers are restored (something that is being actively worked on at the moment) the Club Board knows the expectations of engagement on them and their expanded team. And we’ll expect that to be delivered and they know they will be accountable to us on that. Thank you for bearing with us on this. It’s not as slick as it should be.