[Club AGM]

It is important to stress that the Club is not carrying "residual debt". This phrase is apt to mislead people the way it is being used by some on here.

Soft-loans were made by directors to ease the cashflow position of the Football Club last year, which is why the cash-in-the-bank was actually significantly higher at year-end 2022-23 than in year-end 2021-22. The key point for cashflow is not where it is at year-end, but where it is at its lowest point in the season. If that goes negative at any point in the season, there's a real risk that bills don't get paid, and you're technically insolvent. This is true even if you are running a break-even budget, or even one that operates at a modest profit.

Those loans entered into in the second half of the season in 2022-23 did not appear as operating income in the accounts, and repaying them does not count as operating expenditure. They are irrelevant to the profitability of the football club. That they were needed was a symptom of an erosion of the margin of safety, and that erosion was caused by the Club operating substantial operating deficits across several years. But they are a distraction from the forward-looking picture.

As LenzieJag correctly points out, what the loans affected, in the short term, was the margin of safety: whether there is physically enough cash in the bank to meet payroll, trade creditors and other costs of the business at any given point in the year. The primary purpose of the investment is to alleviate cashflow issues in a more stable long-term way than soft-loans, which are repayable on demand.

Jim is correct that, if the Club runs sustained losses over several seasons, the benefit of this kind of cash injection would evaporate and you would be back at square one. It is legitimate, in the context of tranche 2 of the investment (which was contemplated at the outset and communicated to fans at the time of tranche 1) to ask how much of that money is actually going to go into strategically useful outputs, rather than just plugging losses.

Those are questions that TJF and the Trustees will be asking as and when the detail of any proposal is put to us. If the answers aren't credible, we will say so. And we will say so in advance of a beneficiary vote taking place.

It is an entirely reasonable question to ask about whether credible efforts are being made to bring the Club to a sustainable break-even business. But the scale of the task was absolutely massive after last year, because there was no breathing space to restructure the business in a credible and sustainable way. Jordanhill Jag would have you believe that it's possible to turn Partick Thistle into a break-even business while sustaining a competitive team on the park at the drop of a hat, after (by his own admission) it essentially ran a £600k deficit last season absent a favourable cup tie. That isn't, in my view, a credible position. These things take time, and are done incrementally.

The Club has taken some steps to ensure both that it gets more income and that more of that income is predictable, repeatable and sustainable. There is obviously the TJF money that is a non-trivial part of that. Season ticket sales are also drastically up, and at a higher price-point (as LenzieJag pointed out). There is some (though not much) income from last season that for reasons of timing will be reflected in this year's accounts.

Collectively, this put a substantial dent in the shortfall that would otherwise have arisen this financial year, absent unpredictable sources of footballing income.

As I pointed out at the AGM in my question to the Directors, sponsorship revenue fell by 20% between seasons 2021-22 and 2022-23. The Club can close a non-trivial part of the operating losses gap by rebuilding sponsorship to 2021-22 levels and beyond. We've seen some steps towards that already, with the Wyre Stadium naming (for example) that has no equivalent in the 2022-23 accounts. Some of our sponsorship deals are legacy and multi-year. When they expire, there is the opportunity to remarket those at a significantly higher annual price point. The proof of the pudding will be whether this Club Board is able to realise the potential growth in this area. I understand it is an area Donald McClymont is keen to become involved in, as he alluded to in his video with the fans.

This financial year, the costs of the management team are expected to be non-trivially lower. This is partly because, in the second half of last season, there was a period of gardening leave for a (three-person-strong) group. Kris Doolan doesn't have two assistant managers; only one. The figures at the AGM support the view that there is a significant saving there.

Ultimately I will leave it to others to judge whether the Trustees and TJF are being robust enough with the Club Board. We actively requested that members get in touch with questions ahead of the AGM and only one member actually asked us to ask specific financial questions. Those questions were (essentially) addressed by the presentation provided by the Club, and I then asked as best I could a follow-on question about reliability of forecasts.

But I would just also observe that we are in a very different place from late 2022, when even the majority shareholder, let alone the fans more widely had absolutely zero people in the boardroom. Robust public exchanges happen when there is no opportunity to ask those questions in any other forum: when the Club isn't talking to you.

TJF's understanding of the underlying finances of the football club was significantly improved when Sandy and Andrew signed NDAs in early 2023. But the fact of having signed those NDAs (for reasons of commercial sensitivity) inevitably meant that they could not ask questions publicly in the same way as when they were a group of outsiders with no inside information. We had to work with the Club to agree a process of financial transparency, which is what you eventually saw in the summer. Similarly, Andrew, and now Stuart C, have had/now have (respectively) legal obligations as directors of the football club, but with that also comes the opportunity to see much more detailed financial information than a protest group outside the tent.

The most effective forum to challenge any rogue forecasts, cost control or revenue growing strategies is, for now at least, the Club Boardroom. And when the fan elections take place later this year, there will be directly accountable voices to the fans involved in that scrutiny. And under the CTA there will be more opportunities for the Trustees externally to scrutinise and question the credibility of the 2024-25 budget before it is set (as it requires their approval).

 

[Club AGM]

15 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Don't think I'm making a totally relevant point but there has already been broad consultation with TJF members via questionnaires. As a specific fan attitude/wishes re youth development, primarily the way it is hoped to be funded.  So imo we're at least already at the stepping stone stage.  

I would add to this that our Conference League consultation was a direct response to members contacting us about it, and the results of that survey led directly to the Club Board adopting a position opposed to those changes.

[Club AGM]

1 hour ago, JeanieD said:

Perhaps cynically I sometimes wonder if “fan ownership” is, to a degree, a bit “smoke and mirrors”.

Does the average fan feel any more connected with the club safe in the knowledge that fellow fans are looking after the best interests of the club on behalf of all fans?

 

The key point here, I think, is that you get to influence who is involved in important decision-making. That's what the elected fan reps on the Club Board are about.

The CTA will also give ST holders and TJF/TJT members a direct and binding say over major decisions affecting the shareholding, any proposal to move from Firhill etc.

Longer-term, it's our hope that consultation exercises, and the feedback that is then fed to the Club Board, will lead to more fan-centred decision-making and initiatives that make the fans feel more valued.

Ultimately, a football club is still a business and difficult (often unpopular) decisions will still need to be taken by custodians in the Club's best interests.

But I absolutely trust that those decisions are more likely to be good ones when those in the room are fellow fans with a line of democratic accountability back to the best part of 2000 fans of the football club.

[Club AGM]

29 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

My comment was really tongue in cheek. However, since you raise it, do you think it is important that the board or directors own shares in a football club ? 

The obvious answer to this, of course, is that it's probably more important when a football club is privately-owned, and therefore when the decisions of the Club Board are held to account by (predominantly) likeminded individual shareholders.

It's drastically less important, and if anything less appropriate, when a football club is fan-owned and to be regarded as more of a community asset.

The Club-Trust Agreement that has been introduced (subject to consultation), the commitment to two elected fan representatives, and Trust approval for other Director appointments, provides a structure for accountability that better suits those circumstances.

I seriously doubt there is anything to be gained at a fan-owned football club from factionalising the Club Board based on groups of shareholders.

Donald McClymont is there to protect the terms of his investment, without which the Club would have gone heavily cash negative mid-way through this current season.

TJF's rep is there in recognition of the ongoing financial commitment its members are making to the Club and the need for a fan-accountable presence during the transition to a more conventional and permanent fan ownership structure.

The rest of the Board, including the new joiners, have assigned roles and responsibilities, as was set out at the start of the AGM presentation. They're not there because of the financial stake they do or don't have in the Club. They're there to fill the function presently assigned to them.

Longer-term we expect the Club's Corporate Governance Manual to ensure a robust delineation of roles and responsibilities. This will enable targeted recruitment at Club Board level to fill skills and experience gaps as and when they are identified or arise.

[Club AGM]

22 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

Because TJF have the majority shareholding and so power.

I'm sure you make a lot of good points but the message is lost on a message board.  It comes across as confrontational instead of useful.

Important to stress that TJF is not, itself, the majority shareholder.

We are a trustee of the PTFC Trust, which is the majority shareholder, and our members are included among the beneficiaries of that trust. When Neil Drain steps down we will be codecision-makers with The Jags Trust, acting in the interests of both organisation's members, season ticket holders and 71 Club members.

I appreciate a lot of folk see it as the above for shorthand, but I think it's still an important distinction.

There are multiple ways people can participate in fan ownership at Thistle. Obviously I would encourage folk to do it through TJF, as it has the greatest potential for fundraising and community-building, but we have deliberately kept fan ownership as a "broad tent" for those who (for whatever reason) don't want to be members of TJF.

I hope that we can persuade those with doubts that we're the right vehicle for getting involved through what we achieve in the season ahead.

[Club AGM]

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

One point worth noting 

It was raised that the Club have to agree any Transfer of Shares 

This was requested to Transfer Colin Weirs remaining Shares in February to a Private Individual - it was pointed out by a Shareholder ( not me 😊) that the Club have in the past refused permission of Share Transfers -

however on this Occassion they gave there OK for Share Transfer -  the Shares are circa 10% -added to the USA Investor thats 20% of the Shares - a sizeable chunk 

One small point here: the shareholding in question was 10% of the total immediately before the investment.

But the investment diluted all existing shareholdings.

So Jacqui Low actually only holds 9% or so of the share capital in the company.

We can only assume that the share transfer was initiated by the Executors of Colin Weir’s Estate, in accordance with his testamentary directions.

I’m not sure there is much to be gained from speculating what might have happened if the interim club board, at the time consisting of Duncan Smillie, Richard Beastall, Fergus MacLennan and Caroline Mackie, had refused to give effect to that transfer.

[Club AGM]

31 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I have my own Shares paid for with MY OWN CASH 😊

which is just as well given the lack of questions on Finances and the Share Purchase by the USA Investor asked by TJF

We (TJF and the Trustees) had a list of questions on the finances, several of which were answered in the Club Board’s presentation (which I understand will be circulated more widely in some form).

31 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

One question asked remotely by Greame Cowie - Nada from there Reps in the Room 

TJF and the Trustees invited questions from members and beneficiaries. Neil Drain asked about the basket of questions submitted to do with stadium redevelopment, The Jags Trust asked about stadium maintenance, and as you acknowledge, I asked a follow-on question about the finances (though limitations of the technology set up meant online participants couldn’t really ask follow-ups).

I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that quite a detailed set of financial figures and projections were provided to shareholders in the presentation.

Shareholders absolutely can and should scrutinise whether those forecasts are in fact delivered-on this year, and that will inform the Trustees’ scrutiny of the 2024-25 budget. It’s important to remember that this will, for the first time, have to be approved by the majority shareholder under the Club-Trust Agreement we negotiated.

I’d tentatively suggest at this stage that that new process is the most effective avenue to scrutinise the financial record and proposals of the current Thistle board. TJF wasn’t even a trustee when the 2023-24 budget was set.

[Club Trust Agreement]

6 hours ago, madcapmilkdrinker said:

Is it just me that thinks it might get complicated seeking written approval. (from the trustees) of a managers, or CEO for that matter, contract if it’s over £50K? 

I don’t foresee this, in practice, being a significant obstacle.

Exeter City has the same provision in its CTA. I anticipate that this will function more as a cost control mechanism than anything else: ensuring that non-player contracts entered into do not drastically alter the underlying assumptions of the Club Budget.

It’s not designed to trigger a detailed discussion about the merits of one managerial appointment over another, for instance. That’s essentially a strategic decision of the Club Board to take with regard to the footballing department of the business.

[Club AGM]

46 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I sent a few questions (nothing about the Bing) so can I just ask how will the response be dealt with? Will it be replies sent to individuals or a summary sent to all members? Thanks in advance.

We will aim to ask your questions directly at the AGM itself (if not already covered by others asking the same thing).

If anything isn’t covered in the AGM itself, happy to follow-up and get you a written answer. I’ve not discussed this with the other Trustees or TJF Board members yet, but it might be a good idea for us to do a kind of Q&A document, if possible. Let me get back to you on that.

[Club AGM]

15 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"The shareholder votes of the Trust will be exercised on the basis of the agreed position of Neil Drain, TJF and The Jags Trust."

The Trust (s)  have already agreed there position to Vote in line with any Board Proposals ( otherwise the Board would not be proposing them )   

How else is a Trust supposed to make decisions if not on the basis of an agreed position of its trustees? This isn’t a trick question, I genuinely don’t understand what you’re getting at.

For the avoidance of doubt, no decision has yet been taken by the Trustees on how to vote on the matters arising under the AGM notice. It is for the Club Board to decide who to put forward for appointment, and they’re entitled to listen to or ignore any feedback from the majority shareholder as they see fit.

15 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So there will be No Awkward Questions at the AGM - it will be a Box Ticking Exercise

This is your projection.

15 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Im not a member of TJF - the Thistle Trust - No idea how they keep in touch with there Members - also No idea what The Jags Trust do - so your suggestion that I contact Trusts - which Im not a member of - suggest they Vote against proposals-  that they have already given the Nod to -is pretty far fetched 

If you are a season ticket holder you are a beneficiary of the PTFC Trust. I have provided you with their contact details.

15 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But I will leave you with this thought and you can debate amongst yourselves if your going to carry on supporting the Board without Question 

"We are also looking at plans to develop the city end of the ground and to create new hospitality spaces within the existing stadium footprint".

   See that means you start to ask serious Questions - moving the Earth Alone on the Bing runs into hundreds of Thousands-  and it was a Major Barrier to Propco - Construction Costs for the Bing are Eye Watering - but in PTFC World you get to State any nonsense you like - no one will ever actually say - WTF are you talking about - IF the Board are stating in Public - that they see this as a Serious Proposal to increase Revenue? - then the Trusts need to look at there agreement to re-elect them

Several TJF members have already asked us to ask questions about the City End comments and what they actually mean. We intend to do so.

Thats how this works. Fans raise issues with TJF and the Trust and we raise them with the Club!

[Club AGM]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But if the Majority Shareholder has already agreed in advance then its clear that its a done deal - there is going to be No Robust Questioning in Public at the AGM by the Majority Shareholder -its a done deal

It hasn’t “already agreed in advance”.

If you would like to influence how the majority shareholder votes, please submit feedback to [email protected] or [email protected].

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I'm a Shareholder - I don't need to state what Resolutions I will vote for or against - that's my Business - I'm not answerable to anyone - I bought MY SHARES - WITH MY CASH  - however the Trusts have a Duty of Care to ask robust Questions as the Majority Shareholder and to do so in Public - Clearly that is not going to happen as the deals have already been done   

No deals have been done. Happy to clarify.

But the whole point of fan ownership is that you, as a supporter, influence decisions of the majority shareholder by expressing your views to us.

This then informs the decisions we take on behalf of the beneficiaries.

Including what questions we might ask at the AGM and how we might vote on the resolutions.

You are behaving like someone who refuses to vote in elections then complains about the governments they get not representing them.

[Club AGM]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So just come out and say it, Jim: which motions on the paper for the AGM should the PTFC Trust vote against. No bluff, no spin. State your case.

Thats the point - questions are asked at the AGM and based on responses you can take a View on how you Vote

This is precisely why we are inviting you to raise questions pertinent to the AGM’s formal business, in advance of the AGM.

If you do so, I personally guarantee you that those matters will be raised with the other Trustees and that it will inform the questions we ask at the AGM and (if persuasive) will in turn influence our decisions.

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- however if there is already "agreements " in place with the major Shareholder - then the AGM is simply as you say a legal requirement

There are no “agreements” in place. You’ve made this up.

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Unlike the previous AGM where questions were asked in Public - its now done at Secret Meetings in advance

Nothing was done “in secret”.

The majority shareholder was informed of proposed changes to Club Board composition, it deliberated and it gave feedback on those proposals.

It did not commit to vote any particular way on any motion and has not done so.

Stop making stuff up!

[Club AGM]

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held

Are you being serious - that's exactly what happened at the last AGM with TJF leading the Charge & shortly after the Club Board stepped down  

It wasn’t a grand debate. A lot of very good points were made by minority shareholders then the majority shareholder and another minority shareholder proceeded to vote to approve all the resolutions.

Proving that the voting process at an AGM is completely inconsequential even when the AGM itself becomes a pressure point for the Club Board.

This, if anything, reinforces my point. The big decisions didn’t happen in the room that time either. They happened in the days following.

As a matter of formal business, an AGM is a tick-box exercise, unless you are proposing that the majority shareholder should consider voting against one of the resolutions.

If that is your proposal please name that resolution and state your reasons.

Just like TJF did before the 2022 AGM.

[Club AGM]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No I didn't condemn Andrews Appointments onto the Board - its perfectly normal practise for a Trust to appoint a Director onto the Club Board - what is not normal is that a former Club Board Director goes straight from the Board back onto the Trust

1. TJF is not a Trust

2. Andrew never left the TJF Board

3. When The Jags Trust had a Club Board Rep they simultaneously sat on both boards. This is completely normal with appropriate recusal mechanisms.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- its simply far too cosy and Human Nature is that you are not going to put people under pressure that you previously sat on a Board with - you should not leave the Club Board and rejoin the Trust Board without at least 12 Months of a Gap - that's simply good Corporate Governance - No idea why your defending it - its simply wrong

TJF’s members unanimously approved its Articles of Association at first an EGM and then an AGM inside the last 18 months. Zero members requested that a clause be included prohibiting an elected TJF Board member from being a Club Board member. Zero members requested that, on leaving the Club Board, an elected TJF Board member cannot continue as a TJF Board member.

You are quite simply inventing an issue.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I never said that the existing Directors had to enter an open Competition for there jobs - however there are two New Directors - there was zero to stop those posts being advertised - The Trust is the Major Shareholder it can instruct the Board to advertise New Directors - there was No Good reason why not to - instead its "Who you Know" 

Once again, there is currently no process by which the Club Board can be required to advertise Club Board positions. Under the current governance arrangements it is for the Club Board to recommend people for appointment, doing their own due diligence and process, and for the majority shareholder to scrutinise those proposals and give a view.

Under future governance arrangements, there will also be the need for explicit Trust approval. That change in circumstances creates the conditions for a more formal process of board appointments.

But it doesn’t exist yet.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As you have confirmed - the Trust & the Board have already agreed on various aspects - the AGM is a tick box exercise - No matter what is questioned - the Trusts have already agreed it will back the Board - changed days for TJF from the last AGM 

Not correct.

The Trust provided feedback to the Club Board on certain proposals. The Club Board then decided how to proceed with the AGM papers.

You are jumping the gun.

If you want the Trust to vote against one or more of the motions, email us. Name the motions. Give your reasons.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

A Major Shareholder holds Boards to Account - it does it openly at the AGM - not in Wee Secret Meetings

And we will do so.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Otherwise whats the point in having a Trust as a Major Shareholder     

Control of the football club by the fans organisation, representing the interests of those fans through democratic structures. End.

[Club AGM]

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As you have pointed out - the Trusts have already agreed to the Board Proposals - which I'm assuming is across varies aspects of the AGM 

I said nothing of the sort.

I said that the Trust was consulted before the AGM materials were sent out.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So the Clubs Major Shareholder will not be asking robust Questions at the AGM

Both TJF and the PTFC Trust have actively invited questions from both TJF members and PTFC Trust beneficiaries in advance of the AGM.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- the discussions wont be in the Public Domain - its all been discussed and agreed in advance - the AGM is simply a Tick Box Exercise for Compliance - may as well issue the minutes in advance

The Club literally provided a detailed written update to the fans on the Club Board’s proposals, and TJF emailed an update to all of its members on 18th December explaining the process.

The only formal decisions to be taken at the AGM, as you will have seen from the Agenda circulated to shareholders, is to receive and approve the report and accounts (an essentially technical exercise), to reappoint existing directors, and to appoint new ones.

If you believe that any of those things should be voted against it is entirely open to you, as a season ticket holder, to email the PTFC Trust setting out your concerns and recommending a specific course of action.

And as a shareholder it is entirely open to you to vote against one or more proposals at the AGM or to raise questions pertinent to them.

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held. It is a formal forum to discharge statutory obligations of the company. Directors can be appointed and removed at any time. By announcing intentions in advance, this year has actually provided shareholders with more opportunity to scrutinise appointments than in previous years.

So just come out and say it, Jim: which motions on the paper for the AGM should the PTFC Trust vote against. No bluff, no spin. State your case.

There are seven motions on the paper. Which ones are you suggesting the Trustees should not support?

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

This is from the same organisation who held the previous Board over the Coals at the last AGM ?

TJF had specific concerns about the directors statement, the annual accounts, and the proposals to reappoint several of the directors.

We set out those concerns at the time, while not being in any position to influence the outcome of any shareholder vote.

If we had concerns about the proposed appointments at this AGM, or about the accuracy of the report or accounts, we would raise them. And any concerns of TJF members or PTFC Trust beneficiaries would also be raised.

So far, the PTFC Trust has received no correspondence from beneficiaries about the AGM. TJF has received emails from several members, asking about a range of issues. I am betraying no confidences when I say that, so far, none of these concerned the formal business of the meeting and the proposed resolutions.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Is it that our New Board are so Wonderful that they are not to be questioned at the AGM by the Major Shareholder ?

Questions will be put by the majority shareholder to the Club Board at the AGM. You are invited to suggest questions to us.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Welcome to the PTFC Bowling Club Annual General Meeting

Let’s be honest Jim, you just don’t like some of the people involved and want them removed but you won’t name them publicly.

38 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So what happens if Questions are asked that show things are not Rosy in the Garden - the decision is already made - the discussions on getting Shareholder Support was done in Secret

Feel free to raise any concerns with the PTFC Trust if you believe the trustees should vote against any of the motions. Please specify in any correspondence which motions you want us to vote against.

[Club AGM]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

So whats the Chances of TJF going against the recommendations of the Club Board - when its Chairman is also a Director of the Club Board

Andrew wasn’t the Chair of TJF when the Trust was invited to comment on the proposed AGM appointments. Sandy was. Your premise is false.

Not that it matters because if the rest of the TJF board disagreed with Andrew about something he would be overruled in a vote. I’m not breaking any confidences when I say that both he and Sandy have been in the minority position on decisions taken by the TJF Board. As have I.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

- why put yourself in the position where you have to be recused in the first place ? The Simple solution is that if your a Director of the Cub either "nominated " or appointed by the Trust - you don't go back onto the Trust Board for at least 12 Months

In case you hadn’t noticed, Richard Beastall has literally resigned effective today, ending the only remaining instance of a Trustee being on the Club Board. He has been totally recused from all Trust decisions during his three month notice period.

I didn’t see you condemning Andrew’s appointment to the Club Board in June, or calling for him to step down as an elected TJF Board member. Indeed, that appointment was widely welcomed, as people saw it as ensuring a TJF presence in the room during the transitional phase and in the absence of the formal fan ownership apparatus that is, imminently, to be put in place.

For what it’s worth, we had a robust internal discussion about whether TJF should accept a position on the Club Board. I am betraying no confidences when I say I was originally the most sceptical (because I wanted clearer lines of accountability). I think the ensuing six months entirely justified that presence, because it meant we were able to influence and become aware of things at the right time.

 

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

 If the “Nominated " Directors from the Trust are now to be "permanent Directors" not associated with the Trusts - I'm assuming its due to a unique Skillset - so why were the posts not advertised - in addition why were none of the New Directors Posts not advertised (with the exception of TJF replacement for Andrew Holloway) - the excuse that we are still living with an "emergency club board" is no longer valid - the Club Board sought New Directors - yet No one Knew anything about it ? Surely any organisation goes to the Market to Seek the best out there - surely you advertise and get the best available

Very simple answer Jim. Continuity and stability until the structure is in place.

The Club Trust Agreement, on which fans will be consulted next week, provides the legal framework for future Club Board appointments, and for a Corporate Governance Manual to regulate Club Board appointments and subcommittees.

Until that structure is in place, there is no formal mechanism for advertising skills-based roles.

Given that the Club Board presently consists of 4 people, and one of them chose not to seek reappointment for personal reasons, it would be complete and utter insanity to insist that, just because it’s the AGM, all of the others have to enter an open competition process for their jobs, when there isn’t a structure or arbiter in place to judge their performance against other candidates.

We do this right, not simply to suit our own prejudices or agendas.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

There is No Need for waiting for a New "Draft Trust Agreement" the Trust could simply instruct the Board that it wants posts advertised & people to submit there CVs - or are we still operating on a "who you know" basis ?    

The responsibility for recommending appointments to the Club Board is a matter for the Club Board, not the Trust. The role of the Trust is in the approval of appointments recommended to them as the majority shareholder.

We are a fan owned, not a fan run, football club.

[Club AGM]

I should also add that TJF recused itself entirely from the Trust’s deliberations on the proposed appointment of Stuart Callison, as this was an appointment we had unanimously suggested when Andrew took the decision not to seek reappointment to the Club Board.

Any TJF Board member past or present can testify that deliberations on many matters have seen those in senior leadership roles abiding by collective responsibility even when they’ve disagreed with a particular course of action. Thankfully, significant disagreements have almost always been rare, but major decisions are always robustly tested internally before being adopted. We don’t do things by fait accompli and the role of Chair is not that of a dictator: we set strategy democratically.

[Club AGM]

It is probably helpful to explain the process by which Club Board appointments will be taken.

First, it was for the Club Board to recommend the reappointment of any existing directors and the appointment of any new ones.

A short CV for all proposed new directors was presented to the Trustees. They were invited to express a collective view on these.

Richard Beastall was recused from any Trustee response, as he had a conflict of interest as one of the directors on the Club Board. Similarly, Stuart Callison and Andrew Holloway were recused from TJF’s discussions about its view as one of the trustees, because they were one of the nominees/a current Club Board member.

The Trust provided feedback ahead of the notice formally being issued for the AGM. The shareholder votes of the Trust will be exercised on the basis of the agreed position of Neil Drain, TJF and The Jags Trust.

Next week we hope to circulate the draft Club Trust Agreement, a legally binding document that, among other things, formalises this existing process around Club Director appointments. But rest assured we aren’t idiots and are acutely aware of the need to recuse certain individuals from certain types of decision.

One of the welcome developments, with Richard Beastall stepping down as a Trustee, is a phasing out of these roles of people wearing multiple hats. But these things take time to get right and we are only one year on from an emergency club board having had to be assembled, in very challenging circumstances. It’s better to take a bit longer to get things right than to rush them and screw them up.

[Half time report]

5 hours ago, javeajag said:

So how much did we make then ?

I'm really not sure what more I can do to explain the meaning of "revenue neutral".

The retained gate receipts, after tax, are broadly cancelled out by the cost of hosting the games and the additional costs on payroll.

The net financial effect is close to zero.

[Half time report]

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Yes but it was agreed long before that and we had  3000 season ticket sales 

Higher season ticket sales doesn't necessarily translate into significantly more overall income. What it does is front-load more of that income.

[Half time report]

32 minutes ago, javeajag said:

But let’s forget the extra cash the play off also generated …..

Play-offs are roughly revenue neutral once SPFL cut, split gates and player wages/bonuses taken into account.

[Half time report]

14 hours ago, javeajag said:

The £500k stabilised our finances and gave us a financial buffer at least that’s what the statement said.

So that we don't run out of cash mid-way through the season (as we would have done with a totally emptied margin of safety). Not so that we can start spending lots of money on new football players.

[Home vs Inverness 23.12.2023]

2 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I had a look at this on YouTube, and the match did restart with an indirect free kick.  Whatever the offence,  why wait till the goal before indicating the issue?

Because the linesman realised he’d screwed up as soon as the guy started dribbling (and panicked) whereas the referee was blissfully unaware there was an issue until James C went tonto!

2 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The "double tap" offence ( if that was the issue) occurred when the player dribbled towards goal - not after it was scored! Likewise for the timing of any other offence. 

As Toyah would say " It's a mystery "

Indeed!

[Home vs Inverness 23.12.2023]

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

WJ's original post on this event was that  it was a good goal if it hadn't been for the referee assistant beckoning James Craigen away. Perfectly correct.  But the assistant did shush the player away. 
 

No that wasn’t my position.

My position was that technically it was a goal but that there was a perceived unfairness because James Craigan had relied on a mistaken communication by the linesman.

Craigan should technically have ignored the linesman and booted the ball into the stand/taken possession and carried on until the referee had stopped play (or not).

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Let's look at the corner. Did the player who took the corner move the ball as outlined  in law 17? Yes he must have.  If not the dribbler took and played from the corner,and took more than one touch. Indirect free kick.

Correct. And said player told the linesman several times that he had kicked it.

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Was James Craigen permitted to intervene? In the circumstances outlined above, yes.

Correct.

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The goal was allowed. What law permitted  the referee to change the decision? Law 5 outlines the referees' authority. Law 5.3 outlines the referee's power and duties. Law 5.3 defines " outside  interference". It defines interference as " stops, suspends or abandons the match for any offences or because of outside interference e.g.  if.....

It is absolutely within the discretion of the referee to stop play if there is outside interference. But it’s not at all clear that verbal signals from a linesman constitute either “interference” or “outside interference”.

If the linesman waves his flag for offside and the referee decides the linesman is wrong, or doesn’t see him flag, we don’t say that’s outside interference.

If Douglas Ross screams “red card” or “penalty Rangers” into his earpiece and a player within earshot stops playing as a result, and play continues, that probably wouldn’t be regarded as outside interference either.

I grant you that the list in Law 5.3 isn’t necessarily exhaustive but it’s not a carte blanche. The listed examples are of a kind that mean:

(a) the ball/other players/officials/parts of the pitch can’t be seen properly (floodlight failure)

(b) player or official safety is compromised (external objects being thrown onto the field of play)

(c) deceptive use of referee-like instrumentation by spectators (spectator using a whistle)

(d) other objects accidentally entering the field of play (eg a second ball, an animal)

In the case of (d) play isn’t even to be stopped unless it’s interfering with play.

 

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I remember  vividly my mentor Tiny Wharton telling  me yonks ago that the laws of football are written  to allow that most important intervention of common sense to be used. That flexibility hasn't  changed, to my mind. The e.g. above is all-encompassing, not prescriptive.

It’s non-exhaustive but it isn’t all-encompassing, is my point.

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Did waving James Craigen away trigger "outside interference " ? I believe that the referee thought so.

If this is what he believed, then the game should have restarted with a drop ball, or having the corner kick retaken.

From memory, I believe what actually happened is that Thistle were actually awarded an indirect free kick for “a double touch” by Doran.

[Home vs Inverness 23.12.2023]

34 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

I was at that game but remain rather confused. Is it not the case that touching the ball is not enough? I thought the rule was the ball has to travel its own circumference to be deemed in play. If it didn't then the corner hadn't been taken and Craigen claiming it had been was wrong.

Law 17 of IFAB says, among other things:

“The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves; it does not need to leave the corner area”

So no need for a circumference. No need for the ball to leave the corner area. It just has to visibly move.