Woodstock Jag

This is interesting. I notice the annual amount being made available each year is quite low, and there is likely to be no shortage of competition for smaller amounts. I'm not sure how this scheme would work for a situation like Thistle, where more than 80% of the shares in the Club are already held by (ostensibly) fan controlled entities. It also looks as though whether any loan would be interest free depends very much on the individual circumstances.

Oh, and members have until Wednesday 24th May (inclusive!) to submit their candidacy for the TJF elections! If you can't find the nomination form, get in touch ([email protected]).

A few updates from us in recent weeks worth just reminding folk here: Members' Update on Fan Ownership legals process All is progressing smoothly. We expect the PTFC Trust to hold a non-binding ballot of beneficiaries ahead of implementing the new Trust deed (which TJF board members have been working to support the drafting of). TJF will circulate proposed changes to our own Articles of Association (to enable corporate trusteeship to work properly) at the end of May, for approval by members at our AGM on Thursday 15th June. All going well, this should mean TJF formally becomes a corporate trustee in the summer. This will form the basis of proper fan ownership, and will allow us to work more closely on revamping the Trust-Club relationship to one that is fit for purpose. U16 Memberships TJF is launching, subject to member approval, non-voting junior memberships of the Foundation. We think this is a great way to get the next generation of Jags fans involved in the fan ownership journey. This requires member approval via changes to our Articles, so will be voted on at the AGM as part of the new package. All going well, these will be launched later in June. Ticketing and Crowd Management Issues A lot of members got in touch after Friday's game to express concerns about the ticketing arrangements and the events that took place shortly before the second-half. We issued an update on this on Saturday. We have been talking directly with Club Board members about this, communicated our concerns, and the Club has (in fairness to it) apologised for the ticketing side of this. It is currently investigating what went wrong and the stewarding/policing issues with a view to avoiding any repeat. Conference League We've received a lot of correspondence from members about the proposed Conference League, which would impose a new league consisting primarily of B-teams above the Highland and Lowland Leagues. Our initial view as a group, discussed last night at a TJF board meeting, is that the proposal should not proceed. We have various concerns about this, which you can read about here. However, we are also a members' organisation, and the Club should act in any vote taking into account the wider views of our members and the fans. We're therefore launching a members' survey on the Conference League this evening. We will collate the responses, anonymise them, and provide a summary to the Club, to inform any decision that it might be asked by the SPFL to take in the coming weeks and months. Thistle Pins Check out our Twitter and Facebook later today for a teaser of the May Thistle Pin! Design to be revealed on Wednesday and on sale Thursday! There's some knobbly knees involved!

We had a very poor second quarter, and we conceded too often in the first two thirds of the season. The most remarkable figures in Doolan's tenure so far has been the defensive record. Goals scored is roughly steady across the season, but the defence has been very strong in the last third of the season. The last two league games stick out like a sore thumb by comparison!

So that one game can be televised (this can't happen at 3pm on a Saturday because laws) and to avoid the Disgrace of Gijon.

Not according to the SPFL website https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-play-offs-202223 “Please note: In the event Inverness Caledonian Thistle reach both the Scottish Cup final and the cinch Premiership play-off final, the play-off final ties will take place on Tuesday June 6 and Friday June 9.”

Correct. The extensions only matter if we are in the play-off final.

Just to give a bit of context here... The PTFC Trust intends, as far as I understand it, to have a consultative vote to give democratic legitimacy to the revision/rewrite of the trust deed. Whilst such a vote (strictly legally) isn't needed, there is a recognition, and is part of the "roadmap" that the existing beneficiaries will approve the package of proposals to: (a) expand the beneficiary base to include all ST holders, TJF members and TJT members (b) appoint TJF and TJT as corporate trustees. So I'd encourage anyone who has received that email to complete the survey, as this will help facilitate that vote. We originally suggested that would take place in April, but that deadline has slipped a little (we still expect it to take place but it depends on getting the "legals" finalised first so you'll actually have the text of what you're voting on). Separately, becoming a corporate trustee means that TJF will have new responsibilities, and we intend to update our own articles of association to reflect this. The vote on that proposal will take place at our AGM, which is going to take place on Thursday 15th June. If you're a ST holder but didn't get an email from the PTFC Trust earlier this week, get in touch with them at [email protected]. We want their data to be as complete as possible so all eligible fans get a say.

Wrong. 9-0, 10-1, 11-2 or 12-3 to Raith Rovers would put Queen's Park ahead of Dundee on goals scored. I will grant you that 13-4 (etc.) would put Dundee ahead on head-to-head points.

I mean them doing it because they want to, as part of a plan, rather than one Club being forced to ask for help because they haven't got somewhere to play their games. Enough to severely depress attendances, would be my guess. Look at what happened to Clyde when they were up-rooted from their home to (really) not that far away. Yes, but it was outweighed, in the eyes of many, by playing on a potato field, even with the extra pitch maintenance. I think you've missed the point of my post. I was providing an explanation, not a justification. It requires more than just the kernel of an idea for it to be delivered. There are lots of situational, cultural and financial reasons why it hasn't been done, and why it's not likely to happen, whatever its objective or subjective merits. Personally? I would stop using the Main Stand on match-days as a place for spectators, and house away fans in the North end of the Jackie Husband Stand for most games. My instinct is that we should concentrate the resources we have on making the Jackie Husband Stand and North Stand fit for purpose, because they are more than enough for the primary purposes of the stadium. Whether the Main Stand and Bing are mothballed or redeveloped comes down entirely to whether anyone is able and willing to redevelop them. But neither should be a priority for the Club. As Stuart has said anything else is a vanity project or not credible.

I think his point is that groundsharing with Queen's Park was disastrous for the playing surface. There are plenty of reasons why Thistle and Queen's Park don't (permanently) share a ground, even if some of them wouldn't apply in the event a conscious choice was made to pursue such a solution. One is timing: Queen's Park only relatively recently left Hampden, an asset that was very profitable for them while they owned it, but which would have been manifestly unsuitable for a club like Thistle. One is the circumstances of their ceasing to own Hampden: the reason they sold is was part of a package proposal that would see Lesser Hampden redeveloped. Millions have been spent on that stadium, it's not even finished, and it would be wholly unsuited to Thistle's needs given our fanbase size. One is geography: yes we are in the same city, but Queen's Park is a South Side team and we are fundamentally a North West Glasgow one. Moving Thistle far from North Glasgow would, IMO, kill the Club. One is the Scottish climate and practicalities of ground-sharing (especially at Firhill): our pitch took an absolute battering with weekly football on it, leading to the Club having to spend money on remedial work, lessening the financial benefit of having a tenant. One is the implications of switching to an artificial pitch: several points here - one is cultural aversion to synthetic surfaces, another is up-front financial cost (including if you change your mind later on). We aren't like the Milan or Rome Clubs, where a purpose-built facility serves two clubs of roughly equal size, and of a much bigger size than ourselves. In their case they benefit from economies of scale; in our case the gains are much less significant. They also benefit from much warmer and dryer climate, making the maintaining of a grass pitch much more viable. I would be very surprised if Thistle and Queen's Park end up ground-sharing again in any long-term capacity any time soon. It would be indicative of distress at one or both Clubs, not a proactive plan.

This is a pointless discussion. Unless and until someone is willing to put a substantial seven, possibly even eight, figure sum into a property project by way of working capital, redevelopment of The Bing and/or The Main Stand isn’t economically viable. It certainly isn’t economically viable even then if it’s principally to be used as a footballing facility, rather than for other commercial/residential use. Bluntly, we don’t need, and can’t justify, a 10k seater stadium. We only have it because of rules now widely accepted to be ruinous specifically for clubs of our size. Even 8k is tenuous. Except against the Old Firm or a title decider, I’d go as far as to say that 6k is a little bit of an indulgence. Given that: (a) the Jackie Husband Stand already has 6k on its own (b) previous attempts at property-based redevelopment got absolutely nowhere over a 15 year period (c) Glasgow City Council has consistently rejected planning permission for almost anything on The Bing (d) no Bing redevelopment (as distinct from a tidy-up) is economically viable without redeveloping The Main Stand I would put the prospects of Firhill becoming a 4-sided stadium in my lifetime at approximately zero. In fact, I’ll go further. It is more likely in my lifetime that the Jackie Husband Stand and North Stand are demolished than that The Bing will become a facility for hosting fans on matchdays.

Even if we win all five, we could still finish only 3rd. My gut is this is Dundee’s to lose.

For context, it’s 1.88 points per game. Queen’s Park have 1.74 points per game this season. Dundee have 1.77 points per game. Ayr have 1.58 points per game. McCall won 1.43 points per game. In almost all seasons in the second tier since the creation of a 12 team top flight, 1.88 points per game has been sufficient either to win the league or to finish 2nd. Is it sensational? No. Is it very impressive for someone with no prior management experience, thrown in the deep end with someone else’s team? Absolutely.

Posts when we're scoring! He only posts when we're scoring...

In Dools We Trust.

There's a very obvious logic to it. Final game of the season on TV for whatever game is the most interesting. Plus. All games to be played simultaneously to minimise the risk of *shenanigans* along the lines of the Disgrace of Dijon.

This. The entire business model of football has changed irreversibly and fundamentally. Looking at the 1950s for inspiration is like the CEO of British Gas reading up on when cave dwellers discovered how to make fire. Probably moderately interesting but completely irrelevant.

The boo boys have started already In Gilet we trust.

I’m not getting carried away but where is the 2025 Champions League final and when will our allocation go on sale?

In Dools we trust.

No that’s not correct because TJF members will be PTFC Trust beneficiaries. But that includes TJF members. Point taken!

Correct. It still needs reviewed. This detail has still to be determined. It is part of the MOU review. If it provides some comfort the Trust were already saying (publicly) before our talks with them in December that they’d be aiming for two Club Board reps for the ownership vehicle. See above. The Chief Executive answers to the Board of Directors of the Football Club. Performance is reviewed under fan ownership in exactly the same way as it is in private ownership.

“Beneficiary decisions) will be defined in whatever Club/Trust agreement is reached (you will see the Memorandum will be reviewed as part of this timeline). Issues about the corporate governance of TJF will remain matters for TJF. The matters specified in our own Articles of Association will determine what our actual members vote on. Same for TJT. No! The organisations don’t “decide what’s relevant to them”. The Club/Trust agreement will decide what counts as a beneficiary vote. Anything else is a matter for members of TJF or TJT (as the case may be). Each individual will not get more than one vote on any given decision. That’s what the data sharing agreement will be for. Specifically to prevent that.

No, you would get one vote. Beneficiaries (ST holders, TJF members, TJT members) get to vote on Trust matters. But these votes will be administered by TJF and TJT, working together. Data sharing arrangements between the Club, TJF and TJT will facilitate these votes taking place, as and where needed. TJF members will get to vote on TJF matters. TJT members will get to vote on TJT matters.