admin

I can't see any sign of your original post. Or of it being deleted via any moderator action. Can't say that I'm personally very keen on Taylor's view on things and disagree entirely with his views on BLM but his comments strike me as a legitimate subject for debate. Providing everyone can vere away from the type of comment that has already prompted one post to be reported and subsequently deleted.

Sorry for the problems with the site this week. We are now back but you will need to access, at least for now, the site via www.wearethistle.net/forums/ If you are reading this then you must already have done so! Hopefully you should be able to use the old co.uk domain in the near future. Nothing else has changed. All content remains as it was before , cough, Lockdown but you will need to log back in to post. Thanks for your patience and if you can help spread the word that would be much appreciated.

I don't think a club(s) should be punished if a player contracts Covid-19 and as a consequence can't fulfil a fixture providing they can demonstrate that all appropriate protocols were followed. A club(s) should be punished, however, if they are unable to fulfil a fixture due to breaches in Covid protocol by their player(s) irrespective of whether any player(s) subsequently contracts Covid-19 or not. It's not unreasonable to expect clubs to be responsible for the actions of their players.

There might be value in everyone drawing breath for a second. Woodstock Jag is not responsible for Thistle sitting bottom of the league when the league was called. He's not responsible for the failure to reconstruct the leagues, the failure to win in the Court of Session or the fact that arbitration didn't go our way. He stated, forcefully and repeatedly (boy did he repeat his view) that our legal approach was destined to fail. He was proven right. A lot of the anger right now is misplaced in his direction. Meantime Woodstock Jag could perhaps give thought to how he is coming across right now. Is this the right place and time for this apparent level of triumphalism? That might be the reason for the vitriol coming his way.

Any excuse to post some classic Harrison.

Yeah, so everyone could try and stay away from anything that could possibly be considered defamatory that would be nice. Cheers.

It's great that so many people felt that they could forego the offer a refund on their season tickets but nobody should be criticised for accepting the offer. Thread Locked.

Now done. Let me know if you want to changed back.

As is the case with discussion sites things can become heated at times. Inevitably there will be personality clashes. Such is life Over the course of the last few months, however, a number of Reports have been made to Admin that have been, IMO, threatening in nature. There has been a further couple over the last 24 hours which is what has prompted this post. For the avoidance of doubt zero tolerance will be exhibited towards a repeat. On a similar, and not unrelated, subject there has been repeated references to Personal Messages of unsavoury nature being sent. The very nature of Personal Messages makes it extremely difficult to corroborate their existence. Again for the avoidance of doubt zero tolerance will be exhibited to anyone who is demonstrated to have sent such messages. Equally zero tolerance will be exhibited to anyone who can be demonstrated to have made false accusation of the above. In the meantime please continue to debate the affairs of Partick Thistle, on and off the pitch, with the same vigour and passion that you always have. Try and do it in as civil a manner as you can but above all else please be mindful of the above. Thanks for reading.

I could check registered email addresses and IP addresses if I had the inclination to do so. I don't. To be clear I find the desire to provide an actual name to an internet pseudonym quite unsettling and I'm aware that you know who I am. Personally I'd prefer if we all posted under our actual names but that's not the nature of the beast on these kind of things. I'm as 'guilty' as others in that respect. I'd much prefer that people didn't have multiple logins, if indeed they do, but provided they stay within acceptable limits then as strange as having multiple user names is then I'm relatively relaxed about it. Each to their own. What I have a degree of difficulty about is people trying to 'out' posters. To be absolutely clear if we are happy for people to post under pseudonyms, and we clearly are, then I will protect anyone's desire for anonymity provided they follow the fairly relaxed rules of the forum. Regardless of what any given poster's position is on any given subject I refuse to indulge any conspiracy theory. Your request has been useful as it has provided me with a opportunity to draw attention to something. Any attempt to try and provide a name to an otherwise anonymous account will be viewed less than favourably. I'd urge posters to post under one user name and one user name only but I will not get embroiled in dealing with accusations of people posting under multiple user names. I have zero knowledge of anyone actually doing so and I'd rather not have to spend time investigating that further. It's that kind of thing that makes me more and more inclined to delete this forum altogether.

Definitely the first option.

There might be space behind the 5 aside pitches. Basically where the old Petershill Park pitch was. No idea of the logistics involved in turning that but of ground into a decent standard of training pitch. Or whether Petershill Park is even an option being explored.

This thread will now be locked. Had my holiday interrupted, again, this time from a poster making a threat against this site all because a few individuals can't stop acting like fannies.

Who will fund the Club under fan ownership we're being asked. The Club will surely continue to be funded precisely as it currently is via: Gate Money/Season Ticket Sales Sponsorship (internal and external) Prize Money/TV Transfer Income The challenge will be, as it for all Boards in all ownership models, in finding additional/new revenue streams. The BoD will be appointed in much the same way all BoDs are appointed. Those with the requisite skills set will be sought to fill positions. Nothing radical there. The difference within this structure would seem to be with the creation of the fans board to provide oversight of the Club Board. Making that work, credible and truly representative of the fan base will be, I imagine, a real challenge. IMO people are viewing this in the short term and are continuing to fight old squabbles rather than viewing the bigger picture. If you are ideogically supportive of fan ownership this is excellent news for our Club. Don't get bogged down in history but see it as a chance to create a positive future for Thistle. Anyway, I'm off on holiday. Play nice in my absence.

Meaning what precisely? I didn't see this comment when it was first posted but my attention has subsequently been drawn to it. You are in very dangerous waters here.

I'm surprised there have been no conspiracy theories about the site being down given the nature of some of the contributions from the thread's more prolific posters.

Are we back?

But are you now or have ever been in the past a member of the Communist Party, sorry, Thistle Forever?

But are you now or have ever been in the past a member of the Communist Party, sorry, Thistle Forever?

Sigh. How clear do I have to be about things to satisfy some? I have NO involvement with TfE aside from having made my modest pledge. Re communications I provided my email address when making my pledge and have received a couple of generic, global emails since then. I've met Paul Goodwin once when he was invited (not by me) to travel on the Jordanhill Bus to Montrose. I asked one question and posed for a photo with their Thistle Forever placard. I received one message from a individual from TfE, who I know socially, who asked me; in my capacity as Admin here, to approve a member request for this site. I may have commented on social media postings of his on the subject of TfE and vice versa. I genuinely don't recall. And that's it. TfE haven't asked me to be involved with them. Why would they? And I haven't asked to be involved. Of the names provided as being involved in TfE only one would I claim to know socially. I recognise some other names - I think I follow one on twitter. Others are completely new to me. Is that clear enough for you? I don't see why it is important anyway. I've formed an opinion, was actually swayed the other way for a bit but am now firmly a supporter of the TfE initiative. I reserve the right to change my mind at any point. Am I trying to influence the debate. No more or no less than anyone does who is trying to promote a particular line. That's how debate works is it not? Oh and in case you just skip past bits, I have No involvement with TfE.

I assume you are claiming I'm lying then? Please provide evidence of my involvement with TfE aside from having made a pledge. If you can't remove your post or retract your allegation. You'll not find any evidence of my involvement TfE because there is none. I have no involvement with them. That might not suit the your agenda but it happens to be the truth.

They don't have to come from TfE. I've offered a personal view of what I would like to see should TfE share purchase be completed not a summary of what will happen. I can't be clearer. I am not a part of TfE. Should that happen then an interim board would be appointed. I'm suggesting that for the benefit of continuity and experience the current Board should form a large part of that interim board. It would seem sensible to co-opt TfE representatives to that interim board. My personal view is that the interim board should be in place for a period of not less than 12 months. That would allow TfE to formalise, with consultation with all interested fan groups, their fan led model and process leading to election of the fans board. This is a process that won't and shouldn't be completed in haste. You've said elsewhere that TfE are stating that only those that are part of the TfE project will sit on the Club Board (interim and moving forward I assume). They have said nothing of the sort. Please check before you make these assertions. It doesn't help people get an informed sense of what is happening. I'm in favour of the TfE led takeover. I don't see it as the end game but the start of a new exciting era. I'm not fooled into thinking it is perfect or it will be easy. I have questions that I would like to see TfE provide more detail on. Don't confuse me with being part of TfE itself. I'm not. I can't answer for them. Merely provide my thinking.

I have now provided a response to your previous post. The Club would be owned by the supporters but to what degree and the mechanics of that I would agree need to be better articulated by TfE.

I'm a little frustrated that TfE haven't been more proactive in outlining things like that. I can't answer your query. That would need to come from TfE and they did promise an open meeting with supporters. There may be good reason why that hasn't been scheduled but I would urge them to articulate that if that is the case. Not related to your post I know but this might be a good point to outline what I would like to see happen if TfE do complete the purchase of shares. TfE hold an Open Meeting with supporters ASAP as well as making themselves visible for less formal interaction on match days. They were invited to travel to Montrose on the Jordanhill Bus to explain their plans and answer questions. Doing similar at future away games and having a visible presence at home games for the same purpose would be useful.. As per the plans outlined by TfE an interim Board would be appointed. I had serious misgivings about the current BoD motives in instigating the Boardroom coup. I still do but actions speak louder than words. Some of what they have done since has impressed me. Not least the change in football management. I would like to see the current Board continue as the interim Board for a period of not less than 12 months with two co-opted TfE members. This allows for continuity and experience at a vital level of the Club's structure while TfE formalise their plans which won't happen overnight. Indeed I wouldn't be adverse for some of the current BoD to continue to serve on the new Club Board indefinitely. This is a personal view and I don't know if it mirrors the view of TfE at all. A number of supporters have expressed a preference for the status quo neither convinced by the consortium or TfE. What I have tried to demonstrate over the last couple of days is that how the club is funded and Board appointed would differ little, or at all, under fan ownership. It isn't the fans suddenly taking up the reigns and making all the decisions. Nor is it a small cabal taking control as some would like you to believe . It's about placing the ownership of the club in the hands of the supporters. The ownership of the Club changes but how the club is run and funded is much closer to the status quo than people realise. Especially if the skill set of those currently in post is utilised. Disclaimer:, I have no involvement with TfE.

I have no involvement with TfE aside from having made a modest pledge. Just for clarity in case you didn't get that, first, and then second time around, I have no involvement with TfE. So my posts don't 'sum up the quality' of TfE in any way, shape or form. I personally see it as an opportunity that we as fans of Partick Thistle should embrace. I get and respect that some feel differently providing they are judging things on their merits and not on the basis of personality. Of course I have offered opinion. Is that not what a debate involves. What have I presented as fact that is in fact opinion? That pledges would represent new and additional income?. That the Club would continue to be funded as it presently is? That the Club Board would be appointed as it currently is? I of course have no idea of the actual composition of the Board just the rationale for appointments as outlined by TfE.