Woodstock Jag

The Future of Fan Ownership At Partick Thistle - A Roadmap We are absolutely delighted today to be able to announce that agreement has been reached to a fan ownership model, between the PTFC Trust, The Jags Foundation and The Jags Trust. You can read the joint statement about what has been proposed, and the expected next steps at the link below ⤵️ https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/the-future-of-fan-ownership-at-partick-thistle-a-roadmap/ My own take on this Under this model, the PTFC Trust will become a passive ownership vehicle, under the custodianship of two corporate trustees: The Jags Foundation and The Jags Trust, which will provide the democratic vehicles for fan engagement and influence. The existing trustees will continue in a temporary capacity, but step aside when the model has bedded in and they are content it is operating as intended and in the interests of the Football Club. As part of this new corporate trustee arrangement, TJF and TJT members, as well as all season ticket-holders, will become beneficiaries of the PTFC Trust. This will give each group of fans important rights on major decisions about the Club (notably including on any future proposal to sell the stadium). A beneficiaries vote will also be used in the (hopefully extremely rare) event that the two corporate trustees are unable to agree on a major decision in exercising the PTFC Trust's rights as the majority shareholder. However we would expect more of the fan voting and decision input to be done through TJF and TJT by way of “a special membership class” so as to ensure season ticket holders have a voice. The three groups have also published an indicative timeline, which sets out when we hope key stages of the implementation to take place. For TJF's part, the implementation of this new model will involve further changes to our Articles of Association. Therefore there will be the opportunity for our members to vote on the necessary steps for this proposal to proceed. Legal advice needs to be sought and coordinated so that all three bodies are aligned and implementing the same thing. We don’t anticipate any problems here but when you have a company, a mutual, and a trust, it’s important to make sure that their corporate governance is properly aligned. Changes will need to be made to TJF's Articles of Association, and to The Jags Trust's constitution, to facilitate fan votes and data sharing with the Club (so that season ticket holders get to participate). This has therefore been timed for season-ticket renewal. That provides a nice clear point for people to opt to share their details with direct consent (big tick for GDPR!) The thing that hasn't been fully worked-out yet is a review of the relationship between the majority shareholder and the Football Club board itself. You will see on the timeline, below, a reference to a review of the Memorandum of Understanding. This will provide the opportunity to improve that side of the ownership model, in anticipation of the corporate trustees being appointed.

Broadly agree with laukat’s sentiments, for what it’s worth. He’s left the Club in a better place than he found it. I’m less convinced about enjoyable to watch (second half of last season was torture). There have been some really great games (Inverness before Christmas a textbook example as was Hamilton away last season). But I wouldn’t go as far as to say entertainment has been heavily prioritised.

Because going off on one publicly would have achieved precisely nothing. It’s not something that can be undone. They are, but they’re completely irrelevant to this decision made by the Club Board, not the Trust. You’d have to ask the Club Board when it made the decision. The press reporting suggests the decision was taken after the Cove Rangers game. So that would suggest “no they didn’t” because the Hodson money was made available before the Dunfermline game, a clear fortnight earlier, and when the transfer window was still open. Their assessment has clearly been influenced by what happened subsequently.

I highly doubt that the target league performance was an express written condition of anyone’s contract Jim. What the Club’s operating budget would break even at, and what the league performance target set by the board is, and what the manager’s contract says, are three distinct things.

I agree but they won’t win the playoffs and they won’t be 2nd. As others have correctly pointed out the whole playoff structure is stacked against the teams in 3rd and 4th. Yes he is. Not at this level. But he has more coaching qualifications than Ian McCall! I’m not. I’m suggesting that the ones with the biggest gaps were pretty much a write off with McCall in charge because believe he had a very low chance of finishing 2nd or 3rd (the only positions that would make a six figure difference to prize money that even McCall himself hadn't ruled out). That’s a pretty bizarre thing to come out with given that we didn’t even know the decision was being taken until it was announced on the Club website. For the avoidance of doubt no financial commitments made by TJF are linked to this. At all.

If you’re dancing on the head of a pin about teams in second not necessarily winning the playoffs, fine, but that’s a curious ditch to die in, Jim.

Forgive me here, I’m not having a go, but I don’t understand what your argument is. You’re suggesting that after the other 7 directors left, the first thing that the PTFC Trust should have done was remove Duncan Smillie from the Club Board? When it was absolutely mission critical to understand what had happened in recent Board deliberations and when and how key decisions had been made? The reason this board is an interim board is so that the transition to what you appear to have wanted could be done properly. Who, specifically, should have been on the Club Board from December onwards? I don’t mean generalities: specific names. So you think one of the first things the Trust should have done was serve notice on the one other person left in senior management, with day to day operational understanding of the Club? It’s been barely two months since the outgoing directors resigned. Do you think what you’re saying is credibly here? Honestly? On the footballing side almost no one regrets the end of groundsharing. But I would just reflect that without it, even allowing for costly remedial works, last year’s accounts would have looked even worse than they do. Those are very different skillsets, though. It doesn’t follow that just because someone is good at charitable work, or running a voluntary organisation, that they would be good on a Football Club board. For example I would be absolutely terribile on the football board. I have no business contacts, I am a millennial who has no independent wealth of my own that isn’t tied up in a mortgage, I live in London, I have no footballing contacts, and I like a good keyboard square go. But I’d like to think I am doing a reasonably good job as Secretary of TJF. But we are here we are. People can fight the last war, and many are doing so valiantly, or we can try to improve the current position. Football is a results business. The difference between finishing 2nd and 5th in our league is the difference, in prize money, greater than last year’s operating losses at the Club. Breaking even and losing £200k a year, for a Club that has less than £400k in the bank as of May last year, is the difference between having and not having a football club within a few years. Was it cack handed to announce this decision on the Sunday evening? Unquestionably yes. Was it the wrong footballing decision? We’ll see. But not immediately. These things take time. There isn’t an off-the-shelf solution that you could have implemented in mid December. That’s not how the transition to fan ownership works. It’s never been like that. I agree, but it takes time to listen to a group representing (now almost) 1050 people (I checked this morning) and to give effect to an agreed plan. Because Scottish football doesn’t stop while Partick Thistle sorts out its existential crisis.

The management team was not “sacked for not meeting [targets]”. They were relieved of their duties because the Club Board felt that its objective: promotion, was more likely to be met with a change of management team.

Wrong. They were relieved of their duties because the Club Board made an assessment that the Club’s footballing objectives were less likely to be met with the existing management team in charge than with a change of management team. This is not the same as simply saying McCall “didn’t meet his targets”. £240k. No, it could be anything from a worsening of £50k on our current league position (if we fall to 8th) and a £240k gain (if, miraculously, we finish 2nd). It’s £160k if we finish 3rd and £80k if we finish 4th. This is only true if you believe Alan Rough has his sums right and that the following other things are all true: (a) the Club increased income to cover the £215k operating loss of the previous season (b) the Club fully replaced the non-recurring revenue from the Queen’s Park groundshare (c) the Club, separately, increased income to cover any increase in the player budget compared to the previous season (d) the Club, separately, increased income to cover rising off-field costs (given inflation challenges and roof repairs in the summer The above are all necessary (or at least highly likely) budget assumptions for the 2022-23 season, based on what we know about the Club’s operating costs and income from the 2021-22 season. If the Club are telling you that meeting the 2022-23 budget is going to face “significant challenges” its safe to say it isn’t because Ian McCall wasn’t given enough money for players. It’s because one or more of the budgeting assumptions isn’t holding up, and/or because the team is underperforming and prize money will be lower than expected. If, even after the Rangers money, they are still telling you that “significant challenges” exist you know pretty much for certain that one or more of the non-footballing assumptions hasn’t held up. Which is what makes Alan Rough’s break even claim not credible. All purely footballing speculation. A lot of fans don’t share your optimism about how McCall would have done. Only if someone shares your assessment of Ian McCall’s performance and expected future performance. Correct. But putting McCall on gardening leave has no significant negative impact on those finances unless you believe McCall would have finished 2nd or 3rd in the league. You clearly think that. Lots of others don’t. Only if it has significant cost implications. Which it’s safe to assume giving the gig to Doolan, as opposed to (say) Jim Goodwin, does not. I mean it kind of is the key issue Jim. Teams that get promoted don’t (in almost all cases) get pumped at home by part time teams that concede over five goals a game in their previous six games. As I pointed out earlier, McCall has an established track record at this level of starting very strongly in a season, the arse falling out of the season, and finishing mid table or worse. I like the guy and he’s left the Club in a better place than he found it. But with the players at his disposal there was really no excuse for being 5th at this stage in the season: injuries or otherwise.

(1) Literally read this, we made our views abundantly clear https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/message-from-the-tjf-chair/ (2) I am happy to state on the record that announcing this on the Sunday was incredibly ******* stupid and pisspoor Comms. Is that critical enough for you? But what’s done is done and cannot be undone in that respect so there’s no point having protracted moans about it. And if even I’m saying that… (3) I am saying the substantive decision is one the Club Board was entitled to take, and one that I happen personally to think on balance is the right one (4) TJF has absolutely nothing to do with operational football decisions at the Club. Nor does the working group.

No I am talking about promotion by whatever means. The only teams to have gained promotion with as many or more defeats than us are Dundee and Dunfermline. Only a small handful have been in the top 4 with more than 12 defeats (I think it’s fewer than 5 times in over 20 years). A freshened change of approach, impeccable professionalism, an experienced coach and a very intelligent guy. Zero ego. That’s a temperament that I think could succeed, and if it doesn’t, I don’t think we’ll lose out much. Because my own view is that McCall wouldn’t have got us into the playoffs, or at best would have got us in 4th and we would have lost to the team in 3rd. On that rationale Doolan loses us, probably at worst, a five figure sum if the team craters to 8th, and I reckon he’ll probably have us finishing 6th at worst. And I’m reminded that McNamara as a young manager was also given the reins part way through a season and started to build something pretty special. If Doolan does anything other than make a total hash of it this is a great opportunity for him and for us. If he does make a hash of it, then fair enough, the sceptics have called it right. These calls are what Club Boards have to make.

We sent an email around about 3 weeks ago which explained how you can do this, but basically it depends on what you have at the moment. If you’re a £1 or £5 member and you want to up to £10, the best thing to do is email me ([email protected]) as I can then change your membership class to reflect your contributions. If you want to make a supplementary recurring donation (whether one off or recurring) separately to that, it’s best to use the donation link on the website (www.thejagsfoundation.co.uk/donate) If you already have a supplementary recurring donation, but want to change that amount, please contact us. That way we can make sure the new amount comes out in one payment rather than several different ones (that means lower transaction costs for us and easier for you to track!). And if you have any other questions, contact us!

I'm curious as to who you think should have been appointed as Directors in December if not people chosen by the majority shareholder? There was no functioning fan ownership model in early December 2022. There was no mechanism in place for the fans to exert democratic control over the PTFC Trust. They did not even have a contact list of their existing beneficiaries. Who were they supposed to appoint, exactly, and who were they supposed to reach out to, when 7 of the 8 board members had just stormed off in a petulant huff over a fan protest and some awkward questions about the annual accounts they'd just signed off? This interim board, as was explained at the outset, was specifically assembled to provide breathing space up to the end of the season to allow essential business decisions (footballing and financial) to continue to be taken. This was an inescapable arrangement while the ownership situation was worked on by the Trust's Short-Life Working Group. The Working Group was, let's not forget, a broad cross-section of fans which met in their spare time, between Christmas and New Year, to develop proposals. Those proposals have had to be considered and fed-back on by the Trust, and the fans were given an update to that effect less than a month ago, indicating that the next major staging post would be mid-February.

Only in the sense that no one here has a crystal ball about the final league standings. An educated judgment has to be taken. People simply disagree about the balance there. In the sense of individual positions in the league we absolutely do know the financial implications because the prize money distribution is public domain information. In the entire existence of a 10 team, 36 game second tier, a team has been promoted with more than 10 league defeats in a season twice. We’ve already lost 10 games and there’s 1/3 of the season to go. Defeats to teams averaging a point a game or less, at home, is not the form of a promotion-chasing team. It’s the form of a team looking over its shoulder. And that’s fine. You’re entitled to those opinions. They, the Club Board, clearly disagree with you. But their decision isn’t wild. It’s well within the range of decisions any board would have considered taking given where we are.

One point off and on a very obvious downward trajectory. Ian McCall has form for starting a season strongly then fading away. His only notable exceptions to this in the last 15 years have been in the third tier. Managers get sacked all the time mid-season when the Club Board perceives a season target has become unachievable or unlikely to be achieved. McCall isn’t special here. A Board is a Board is a Board. You know that as well as I do Jim. The fact that this one had to be assembled at short notice and is intended to be transitional doesn’t change that. You wouldn’t have said it shouldn’t be making any player budget decisions in January “because its only provisional”. McCall certainly wouldn’t have liked being told he couldn’t extend Hodson’s contract or bring in McAvoy on loan “because it’s an interim board” would he? Interim boards are temporary but they still need to be prepared to make footballing decisions during a football season. Scottish Football doesn’t stop because “Partick Thistle isnae ready”. If you have issues with temporary custodians taking these decisions while finding their feet mid-season take it up with the 7 people who resigned from the Board in December, forcing the new owners into the position of having to put something else in its place. We aren’t “still clearly in contention”. We are out of the race for first and at most “probably” still in contention for promotion. Ask the Club Board. Ask the Club Board. You’re angry because your mate is on the receiving end and you rate him as a manager more than other people do. That’s all this is here Jim.

I’m not “supporting” them. As TJF explained on Monday morning, we were critical of their decision to overshadow Sunday’s game with the timing of the announcement. I still think they got that wrong. I’m simply saying that there’s a reasonable argument for relieving the management team of its duties at this point in the season: a respectable footballing argument that also makes sense financially given reasonable assumptions, in the context of Doolan being appointed interim manager. Let us not forget that the outgoing manager had presided over back-to-back home defeats against the two worst teams in the league, had openly “chucked it” on the league title itself (usually managers aren’t that candid to be fair) and his team was significantly underperforming league performance relative to what was widely accepted as being at least the second best resourced player budget in the league back in the summer. That budget may subsequently have been overtaken but I don’t see much evidence of a splurge by Ayr, Morton, QP or Dundee. Do you? I was commenting on here, as a fan, several days before McCall’s sacking that I thought people’s excuses about his squad carrying injuries was a sideshow. My view hasn’t changed: that the case for a change is finely balanced but that things were going stale and that, as long as the replacement doesn’t end up costing significantly more, a change is justifiable. It would have been much harder to justify bringing someone in externally, because that would have cost a lot more, and provided no guarantee of improved performance to pay for itself.

That's a footballing judgment which may or may not be correct. I am not confident that (a) there would be a fully fit squad or that (b) even if there was, that McCall would improve on recent form enough to secure a top 4 finish. I'm assuming the Club Board must have felt the same way.

What do you mean by "accurate" Jim? This is all over the place. We know three related things: (a) the previous Board argued, and members of it still argue, that they set a balanced budget (b) that Alan Rough tells us this was premised on the Club finishing 2nd or better in the League (c) that, accordingly, the manager's target set at the start of the season was to finish 2nd or better Which of these are we supposed to take as "inaccurate"? You can say that (a) is false - it almost certainly is, but that doesn't falsify (b) or (c). But it's not inconsistent to say both that: (a) the manager was given enough money to be competitive for promotion and (b) that the Club's budget wasn't balanced, or could only be balanced based on several unrealistic assumptions It is possible that the player budget was set based on too-optimistic assumptions about performance and insufficient regard for risk of failure. I'm not an accountant, but I would suggest that any Club with a working assumption of finishing 2nd in the Championship is foolhardy. The baseline even for well resourced Clubs should be to break even at about 4th place and to spend accordingly, unless they have very substantial cash reserves. This links back to what TJF said about the "margin of safety" and the decline in Net Current Assets and cash last season. But equally, you can also set a player budget that is competitive in footballing terms for promotion, but for the overall budget not to be balanced. Indeed, that's exactly what happened last year when more than £215k was lost, mostly because of income that did not materialise (as was admitted at the AGM, and in direct contradiction of the Directors' Statement in the accounts). To me it looks like you're mates with McCall and you feel he's been hard done by. That's perfectly legitimate. But the current Club Board clearly thinks that with him in charge our chances of a top 4 finish, and therefore chances of promotion, are less than they are with Kris Doolan in charge. We'll see soon enough if, on that footballing assessment, they are right.

On a point of accuracy, we were 9th, but your point is otherwise valid.

They're talking about two different things. One is the player budget. The other is the club's overall budget. They are saying that the player budget was sufficient to meet the footballing objective of promotion. They are also saying that the overall budget that was set will be challenging to be kept to, presumably because anticipated sources of revenue have not materialised and costs have been higher than budgeted for.

It is possible for two things to be true at once, Jim. (1) that the money allocated to the player budget is believed to be more than adequate to mount a promotion challenge (2) that the Club's finances are "challenging" regardless of whether or not promotion is secured.

Jim this really boils down to you think Ian McCall would produce a better league outcome than Kris Doolan. That's fine. Plenty of people agree with you. The Club Board disagrees, and clearly thinks McCall should have been doing better given the resources made available to him. That's their current assessment of the situation, irrespective of whether he was in fact given sufficient resources by the previous Board to meet whatever target he was set, and irrespective of how realistic it was that that target would be met.

The assessment of the Club Board is that, with Ian McCall in charge, his objective was no longer attainable. People might reasonably disagree with that assessment, but it's not one beyond the range of reasonable conclusions a Club Board could draw.

Relative to £240k it isn’t.

The financial impact of dropping place compared to our current position is not substantial. The prize money difference between 5th and 8th is less than £50k. That figure, in the context of the gap between 5th and 4th, 5th and 3rd or even 5th and 2nd, is not substantial.