Woodstock Jag

You would need to be able to cross-reference two lists, each of which is held by different GDPR controllers. When people sign-up as a Foundation member, we ask them if they are a season ticket holder, but we have no way of checking that and it will (at best) be accurate at the point the information is collected. For what it's worth, though, about 60% of our members identify as season-ticket holders. Many of those will have disclosed that last season, but others will have done so this season. This would obviously undercount those who weren't but now are, and vice versa.

We specifically held off on the holding of the EGM because we wanted to provide Three Black Cats with the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Articles of Association. We gave them a generous window within which to comment, after they said there were "practical challenges" to third party rights that they would want to consider before agreeing to. They offered no further substantive comment. It is also important that our members have the proper notice to digest, make sense of and can properly respond to the documents. As Supporters Direct and others have always pointed out, the best examples of members organisations are ones that are properly transparent and engaged with their members. We are content to rest on demonstrating those values in practice with regard to our governance.

I am not a trust law expert. The extent of my claim to knowledge about them is a second year LL.B. university course more than a decade ago. There are people in our support who deal with these things more often than me in the bread and water of their professional lives. But I get the basics. Of course, the PTFC Trust plausibly might change its rules and composition. As the documents I linked to show, it has done so before. For example, it has: abolished the Federation, a body that was originally intended to oversee the Supporters Trustee elections changed the rules about the beneficiaries (to reduce the ST requirement from the previous 3 seasons to the previous 2) changed the rules about the terms of office of the Directors (both Supporters Trustees and Director Trustees) changed the rules about how many Supporter Trustees are to be appointed changed the rules to remove the need for a timely set of Supporters Trustee elections changed the rules to treat co-opted members as though they had been elected It strikes me that its track record of governance is of an organisation that changes its rules to fit the current circumstances, rather than one that works within the rules that it sets itself. That should give pause for thought when anyone is thinking about how its rules would operate in the future, even if changed. As we explained in our 22-page document, normalising governance is extremely important. It's why we got proper professional advice when preparing our own draft Articles of Association. It's why we shared the draft with 3BC for comment on its particulars. But we know that people involved with 3BC now were involved with dealing with governance matters to do with the PTFC Trust at various points. How do we know this? Jacqui Low used to be a Director Trustee, and, if you look at the front page of the December 2019 Deed of Assumption, Murray Beith Murray (Peter Shand's firm) was clearly involved in the drafting of post Weir buy-out changes to the PTFC Trust's governance arrangements. So if something radically different is anticipated, I think two reasonable questions might be asked: (a) Why didn't 3BC just identify the PTFC Trust as the desired vehicle at the outset, or at any point in 2020, 2021 or even early 2022? (b) How (hypothetically) could the PTFC Trust know what changes needed to be made to its governance structure unless 3BC told them what those were? Bearing in mind that 3BC raised pretty much only one issue with The Jags Foundation's proposed Articles of Association, which we document very fully in our 22-page document.

The PTFC Trust does not have Articles of Association (you have those for a Company). The PTFC Trust is literally a Trust. Which means it is a body that exists by virtue of a trust deed. That is the legal document. There is no requirement (unless it specifies) for a trust to have an AGM or an EGM. It simply isn't that kind of organisation. It doesn't have members or shareholders; just trustees (as appointed under the trust deed from time to time) and beneficiaries (as defined by the trust deed). You can find the original Trust deed here: https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Trust-Deed.pdf - it was agreed to in 2015 when the PTFC Trust was first created. However, that Trust deed has been varied several times. May 2016: https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Deed-of-Variation-of-Trust-Deed.pdf November 2018: https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Deed-of-Variation-of-Trust-Deed.pdf September 2019: https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Deed-of-Variation.pdf December 2019: https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Deed-of-Assumption-and-Conveyance-relating-to-the-Partick-Thistle-Football-Club-Trust.pdf I'm not sure that these are prominently displayed anywhere on the Club website. However, these are all files that have been uploaded to it at some point and can be found by knowing what to google (specifically "PTFC Trust deed" and the top 5 results). ETA: and to be clear at the time of writing all of these URLs work.

Update We now have more than 700 members. I've been to Thistle games with a lower turnout than that.

This is, of course, the sort of thing we could have ascertained with a very basic due diligence exercise, which Jacqui Low and Peter Shand denied us. I wonder if they denied the other interested party access to this information?

It bears repeating, but the Club website discloses the existence of three Supporters' Trustees on the PTFC Trust. Normally these are supposed to be elected. But none of those were. They were co-opted appointments. No PTFC Trust elections have taken place since (if my memory serves) 2018. It has conducted no meaningful social media activity since before the pandemic. The other three trustees are Club Board appointments. At the last check, they are the Chief Executive, Andrew Byron and Alan Caldwell. The latter two were originally elected to the PTFC Trust Board (I believe most recently in 2018) but are now there in a different capacity. They have also been on the Club Board, as Three Black Cats appointees, since late 2019. For the avoidance of doubt, no Club Board members, bar Jacqui Low, have corresponded with The Jags Foundation at all since we became Directors.

Wasn't aimed at anyone in particular EKJ. Just a piece of friendly advice to those who want to feel able to do something constructive in the current situation.

I've just seen this thread. How you wish to express displeasure at the current situation, and to whom, is ultimately a matter for each individual. As far as I am concerned, the primary responsibility for the current situation rests with (a) the Directors of Three Black Cats (b) the Club Board and (c) the anonymous third party group that is now the preferred recipient. Club sponsors are not responsible for the way my colleagues were treated. They are put in a very difficult position by governance-related wrangling of this kind and many of them just want to support the Club in whatever way they can. Sponsors absolutely do have power and influence, through their own wallets, but if you are of a mind to engage with them on this issue, please do so in a civil and polite way, and do not conduct yourselves in ways that might be construed (whether rightly or wrongly) as attempting to intimidate them or their businesses. Quite besides the fact that we need not to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator, nuisance tactics probably won't work, will antagonise rather than win-over those sponsors, and that does nothing to advance the case we are making. By all means, raise concerns, state your point of view, show your passion for our Club. But do it the right way.

For clarity there is no such thing as a "member" of the PTFC Trust. You can't "join" it. You can't "quit" it. There are only beneficiaries.

UPDATE ON MEMBERSHIP We now have more than 650 members. Thank you to everyone who has supported us to date and to our new members. It is so heartening to see Thistle fans back us and our approach. Today we have launched a new introductory discounted rate of membership. For the first year, people can join for £1 per month. This is intended to make sure that the cost-of-living crisis does not prevent Jags fans from getting involved and having their say. Read more here: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/join-the-jags-foundation-today-for-1-per-month/ To members: please keep your subscriptions going. Our collective power to fundraise already has pledges of over £70kpa. If we can grow that to a six figure sum, it will be harder and harder for 3BC to ignore what the fans want. To those who haven't joined yet: please get on board. We are the largest ever Thistle-membership-based group. We are the vibrant and engaged group actually engaging with fans. But we need your help. The sign-up form has been updated to reflect the new rate: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/sign-up/

Sandy in particular has been phenomenal in this process. He has led us with an abundance of patience, pragmatism and persuasion. Bluntly many of us in another setting would have lost our rag with them long before it ever got to this.

Peter Shand isn’t a passenger in this, as I hope our document makes abundantly clear.

We have prepared a document, which more fully sets out how the discussions with Three Black Cats played out between our election in late May and the rejection meeting last night. It's a long read, but it's a necessary read. And it's part of our promise to you for transparency and accountability. https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/fan-ownership-or-sham-ownership-you-decide/

Per the notice, I'd ask that members please email requests to participate by Zoom at the EGM to [email protected]. Can't be sure of keeping track of stuff coming in through other routes!

FAN OWNERSHIP UPDATE Important Statement from the The Jags Foundation this evening. Please read: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/fan-ownership-a-statement-from-the-jags-foundation/ Join the Foundation: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/sign-up/ Have your say at our EGM.

You may have seen that we raised concerns about the (then) absence of a pay-on-the-day option for Thistle fans at Dens. Matchday accessibility is something we care about a great deal. One of the roles we see for TJF is as an advocate of supporter and matchday experience. We are able to bring an independent perspective on these sorts of issues, and advance the interests not just of Thistle fans but of football fans more widely in Scotland. A lot of these accommodations are about fostering an inclusive culture, where everyone wants to be at Firhill even if we're not winning every week.

I suspect that our support skews, at least partly, towards subsections of the population who are marginally less digitally engaged. For example, I would hazard an educated guess it skews older and that it skews (outside of season ticket-holders) towards the more economically disadvantaged. There is also the basic point that men's football crowds skew overwhelmingly male, though I don't know what that does for digital exclusion. I know Lloyds Banking Group did some work on this a few years ago: perhaps others have looked at this more recently? What your figures also do not account for is digital literacy. Owning a smart phone is not the same as being able to use a QR code or being able to use an online ticketing platform without problems. Similarly having access to the internet is not the same as being able to use it without assistance. While many transactions are cashless, and it is to be welcomed that football clubs are making it easier for people who want to to transact in a cashless manner, that doesn't address the exclusion of those who either can't or would prefer to undertake cash transactions, or in-person transactions. I therefore think it's important that we maintain those options where possible.

Replacing signage before the first home game of the season does not "take away from the main purpose of the football club". You are saying ridiculous things. Whatever one's thoughts on the turnstile issues (no one thinks it was the Club's finest hour) there is no evidence that it was caused by, or in any way resulted from, bilingual signage being put up in recent days. Unless you know differently?

Personally I think we should stop selling pies on the first home game of the season. It might distract the Club’s full attention from the first team getting results on the pitch. Pies should only be allowed once the transfer window is shut. That way we know it doesn’t distract from signing another centre back.

Anyone who reads the Twitter responses to the Club’s Comms on this knows exactly what I mean. There’s a place for diplomacy, but equally when people are saying daft things there is a place for candour. Putting up some Gaelic signs does not “take away from full focus of running the football side of the club”. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

You’re all wetting your knickers over absolutely nothing. A bit of Gaelic signage will have absolutely no effect on the operational capacity those who work at Firhill and will have zero impact on the composition and readiness of the playing squad. It will have zero impact on the ability of the Club to pay attention to other bits of the stadium (if anything it will be an excuse proactively to inspect parts of the stadium to make it more fit for purpose on match days). There are plenty things we’d like to see improved at Firhill on and off the pitch, but this isn’t getting in the way of doing them. It’s just a nice thing that harms nobody (except the precious sensibilities of people who think Gaelic is some sort of political statement when it isn’t). Could we include some signage for other groups and reach out to communities who speak other languages to get them to Firhill? Absolutely. Let’s see if there’s funding for it and build a new generation of Jags fans. That’s not mutually exclusive with this. It is worth remembering that some of the best Gaelic revival initiatives were initiatives of the original coalition administrations at Holyrood (it was a big thing for Jack McConnell) and they were supported on a cross-party basis. It’s a tragic state of affairs when something as benign as preserving linguistic culture and history in a modern setting is turned into a proxy for internet-dwelling nationalists of all persuasions.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say we have missed out on zero signings as a result of some bilingual signs being put up.

I'll be interested to see what the wider scheme is that is being launched. There's a lot of really good stuff being done under the guise of Gaelic-medium teaching in schools, but it's obviously not that well resourced.

I can put it no better than the thieved afternoon tea has!