ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

Perhaps the most striking contradiction on my first reading was that the author who assumes the title "Rev." makes criticism of newco for "the use of religiously-charged words like “parish” ....

To clearly gauge public opinion on a single issue. No. Calls for another referendum were not exclusively from one political party or movement. They did. They suggested a referendum. I agree referenda are unnecessary and costly.

"Look we know your opinion by now - can you just please f**k off this thread and allow those of us who want to have a sensible debate to do so." - Barney Rubble

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." "There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..." - Jean Monnet ... Cognac Dealer, Banker and politcal advisor to Governments. "At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point." "only when plans for uniting Europe take a federal form that we cannot take part, because we cannot subordinate ourselves or the control of British policy to federal authorities" - Winston Churchill ... Elected representative and Member of Parliament for Oldham, Manchester North West, Dundee, Epping and Woodford.

It raises some pertinent issues. It is clearly a self proclaimed agenda driven comment. It contains some major contradictions, prejudicial generalisations, factual inaccuracies and discriminative errors which could be argued are unfair. As well as comment on the incident, It also discusses the aftermath, making comment on reactions. This broadens the discussion and draws attention away from the practical analysis of fact and points focus on opinion. It offers nothing new in suggestion of improvement. No alternative to the unsatisfactory, tried and failed status quo.

There were other offences. If you did invade the pitch when the jags win the cup, there's a very good chance I'll be either right behind or in front of you. Neither of us would be complying with "the rules" and our actions might strengthen the resolve of those who would prevent us. Holding faith in a particular creed, doctrine or religious sect is not necessarily and obstacle or contradiction to following the Jags. What I hope makes us different form some others is that being a Jag is an independent choice made predominantly on sporting grounds, comradeship and community, not an extension of one's existing personal beliefs or a vehicle to promote or preach about them. No jag should feel they have to defend their faith or be shamed for it.

Aye, the "CCS", hibs "firm", might even still lay claim to being "top boys in Europe." .... And have clashed with rangers "ICF" many times over the years. Probably re-ignited in the lower leagues, with no sheep tamering riggers to play tig with or old firm family reunions, and there is a video of what looks like a pretty serious arranged 30-40ish aside "meet" between the two in Glasgow central dated a couple of years back with comments claiming involvement of thugs from englandshire drafted into the mix. Pretty sure though that the "CCS", or at least the older ones have something to do with the big green white and black "union flag" that was seen the other day hung over the top tier of Hampdens south stand. Can't say there weren't "casuals" from either side on the pitch, but i imagine even the neds have a brain rattlin aboot their thick heids and will reckon it's "cool" to keep a low profile if your "up for it" at the football and wanna be a "top boy" these days so... Anyhoo... this clip [media] [madia/] Might suggest that, for the mindless minority it was all just good old fashioned "Scottish" political/sectarian/nationalistic bigotry about other countries. Newco and likesay, pure radge wee celtic, ken?

Only middle aged? Quit the beer, tabs and pills. Eat more fruit and porridge. Keep the faith and... Roll on 2021!

It's a tough one. I know it's an American strap line, but perhaps a sentiment we brits could learn from, "To protect and to serve". We possibly react to quickly like the newco yesterday, or in outrage like the media looking for the most controversial or shocking story, when things go tits up and are driven to prevention rather than more acceptable practice. It's been said already, it's difficult, costly and unlikely to be uniformly enforceable attempting to stop thousands of jubilant hibees venting 114 years of frustration and denial being finally overcome, just as it is similarly impractical to police large gatherings singing whatever they want. I understand laws of incitement, but there is an argument that in telling people they can't, it only increases their determination to do. In effect the law incites. Going from memory, when our fans invaded the pitch at almondvale it was to get to the goal scorer and share the moment. Yes there was some eejuts who went on to taunt the Queens fan, however would they have got that far and cause damage getting there had Gentleman Kris Doolan had not taken heed of the recommendations for players to avoid such things and just vaulted the ad hordings and gone to greet his adoring followers? Mibbees aye mibbeez naw. It should also be said that our ramsden's cup celebrations were during the match, yesterday's were after the important business of the day had been concluded. As much as I can understand the rejoicing, and desire for a memento it's hard to soberly condone the vandalism of ripping up turf and tearing down goalposts. But I just wonder, would it have have been such a race to grab what they could if they knew there might be a better organised, fairer alternative. Incursions onto the field of play are not the sole practice of the association game. Cricket, rugby, motor sport and others all deal with them better. They have all dealt with the problem by co-ordinating rather than preventing spectator invasions. Perhaps the traditional distant presentation and half-lap of honour by Hampden Champs would better replaced by allowing fans to gather on the pitch to be closer to their heros and maybe better view of seeing their team lift a trophy? We might have more than our fair share of ugly hooligan thug supporters. We also seam to have more than our fair share of authoritarian, thoughtless, punitive numpties running the show. eta... sorry ... at ma tea here... the protect and to serve was of course angled at the polis..... instead of failing with rugby tackling the hibbees behind the goals they would have maybe have looked less foolish and had more success putting their focus on protecting and escorting the players from the field.

My last 6 posts have clearly aired the opinions of others. Many of which I do not agree with. You may consider asking me to "f**k off" constructive. While some may agree with your opinion, others may not. I suggest the truth of the matter is nearer it being yours that is the more unnecessary and irrelevant post in relation to the intended theme of this thread. However, I hope we can avoid starting a debate on that and begin on the EU referendum. My posts are not excessively frequent, and are only so prominent here because no one is challenging their content, or offering alternate opinion or issues for discussion. Fortunately, the floor remains open for anyone to share their views or draw attention to the views of others on the topic of this thread. It happened earlier in the thread and there is no reason apparent to me, nor reason that can put as my doing, for that not to occur again. The thread ain't dead.... long live the Thread!!!

[media] [media/]

Tend to agree. Good and joyous things tend to occur when people display a less grave or somber disposition. However, handing over £6 grand in donations is not to be sniffed at.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEPyQEBZDlc[media/]

I already posted about the value and potential of this site... I use it like you use it, but others make much better use of it than us.

Watch yer motor mister?

Why would the bank be so eager for it?

My concern is that they do not recognise that working with the fans is not the same as controlling or incorporating them into club business.

That's me finished with Betfred! Calling a company incorporated in 2012 "New" is appropriate. Never trust a bookie who fudges the numbers!

I fully support the motion as reported and would praise my MP (not as the article has it MSP) for drawing attention to the contribution of the club in the constituency and wider fields for acknowledgement. As for being a disgruntled unionist and prattling on.... well.... I guess republicans who are elected to parliament who take their seat and salary, and wish to make contributions might rationalize their oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, in that it is done "according to law", and that they will remain loyal but hope for change in the law rather than work to that end. Or perhaps, like Tony Banks, former Minister for Sport in 1997 the solution of crossed fingers behind one's back is sufficient to rest their conscious. For many, doubts in the sincerity of such individuals will understandably remain. Humble apologies... But it was cued.

Nowt else?

^ Much appreciated report and opinion LLD 15 or so is a bit of a disappointment, and I plead guilty to absence. So much obliged to ya for your summary. However, as far as a reflection on "us", I do take your point but ask, in relation to the club wanting to get to "know the supporters and get info to help improve their experience and also to help get more fans" (and I appreciate here that you are not quoting directly), was "wearethistle" mentioned?

Fairy nuff... re-negotiate. ....Wasn't the old "trust" an integral part of something at some time ..... Seriously though, I just think it's unnecessary .. but if it pleases someone or some people... Go for it... Impress me.... and the people your point suggests are insisting you do it. I have my doubts is all and am suggesting perhaps a better part could be parcelled up in the deal that would make it better all round.

.... In truth, coz like I say the new regime are not above critique, I would advise them to scrap this new "trust". I know they are allegedly financially stable, and the start up costs for this venture may be minimal.... but I would suggest that, with the consent of the "trustees", "moderators" or owners of this site, club funds and effort might be better used printing up 100 "wearethistle.co.uk" branded t-shirts, hoodies or pants and selling them (i suspect quite easily and quickly) in the club shop for profit. This would, return tangible financial gain, show the club as willing to support and share mutual responsibility, respect and trust with their fan base, and promote and benefit two independent establishments with a strong mutual interest. However.... Good luck answering all Morag's questions and appeasing all of the "old" trusts members past and present that all their good work over the years was nice but .... Carry on

The thing about this "new trust" thing for me is... see how it pans out. It's a club led initiative so.... over to you guys. I think with the perfect example of Bowen Boys led fundraising, the continuation of this site is far more important in building capable, productive, deep and strong support for our club. I would assert it is its' independence from the club which is its' reason for success and feeling of pride for those who contribute in whichever way it's existence provides. Posting, organising, questioning, co-ordinating, informing, advertising, fund raising, bring together fans from across the globe.... This site is prime evidence, though absolutely not the sole example, that the JAGS have a decent, proud, passionate, able, creative, generous and willing support base. We don't need another "trust"... but fair play... carry on. Wearethistle... we chip in when we want!

The crucial point we must not forget and the one which PT raises is that the club have a "historical" record for at times letting the side down. While I think it right that the present board acknowledge the short-comings and offer an apology to the fans on behalf of the institution, we must be careful to give them fair chance in office and not hold them accountable for everything that has gone before. The boardroom is evolving and we should be careful who we now point fingers at or label as the prawn sandwich munchers, blazers or sheepskin coats. It would be concerning if the incumbent board dismissed the history, or long standing directors thought new ones brought a clean sheet for them to hid their previous imprudences behind. If they felt old mistakes were simply all wrong, and their new plans were right. Indeed it would be concerning if they dismissed the past and felt their was nothing to learn. It would be disrespectful and naive if they thought their predecessors mere simple incompetent numpties, and they now had all the right answers. For example, some past failings were genuinely good ideas put forward with best intention, but perhaps just over ambitious for our club to execute well at the time. The numpties at least left us something, however one may view it's state of repair, on which to build. I think occasionally we can all be guilty of being driven by the passion of wanting greatness for all things PTFC and forget where we are starting from. Fortunately, I perceive and air of genuine self analysis going on with the current board. A perhaps more sober, businesslike and more independently minded approach, which is leading to more responsible management and stronger foundations on which to build. New directors, with applicable talents are being sought and apparently found. While I don't approve of things like diversity quotas, we should celebrate and be proud to make a bit of a show of the broadening cultural experiences we now have. I'm sure Ajay Chopra (is he still a director?) is a very busy man, and wouldn't want anyone uncomfortable in the spotlight being forced on stage, but it would be encouraging and perhaps beneficial to see him "flying the flag" publicly, prominently and ,to my mind so far, productively as Jacqui Low. A director's role is one of leadership and there is I think an requirement to be seen to lead from the front. Over the past 5 years or so, despite the inarguable successes , there have been things I would have done differently and believe could have been done better. In short, my view is, remain vigilant and scrupulously critical, however, I think the board have earned the right to be viewed a little less cynicism when calling for all hands to the pump now. Mon eh Board! edited from "sceptically".... f**king english .... c*nt of a subtle language....