One For The Jags Trust

[McKennan]

While we're here, what benefit has the Trust gained from owning these shares other than having a seat on the board where the Trust Director can't communicate back to the Trust fully when important stuff is happening?

 

A good point. Can someone represent the interests of the fans as ... decided upon by the membership of the trust while at the same time signing up for a business plans that fans won't like? Scratchy beard time.

[Guest Argus]

Debate and new options are always good in my view!

 

To a point, unless the debate is circular, which it seems to be an awful lot of times on here.

 

Doesn't seem to be any willingness for action rather than debate, no matter how well meaning.

[Willjag]

To a point, unless the debate is circular, which it seems to be an awful lot of times on here.

 

Doesn't seem to be any willingness for action rather than debate, no matter how well meaning.

The OP was a proposal though.

[McKennan]

How about setting a precedent and handing back the shares to the Club that were given to the Trust at the time of STJ. I wonder if this would put Hughes and McMaster on the spot with their nil consideration holding?

 

 

So, the club gets a few million shares back from Tom Hughes, the trust and the McMasters. Does it cancel them? Resell them to raise money, thereby opening the door to a predator? To what end?

[Guest Argus]

The OP was a proposal though.

 

OP?

[McKennan]

Original or opening post on a thread.

[Guest Argus]

Original or opening post on a thread.

ahhhh

My point still stands. a proposal comes forward, it gets debated, nothing happens.

No wonder the Board just like to think fans would be unable to run a club.

[Willjag]

So, the club gets a few million shares back from Tom Hughes, the trust and the McMasters. Does it cancel them? Resell them to raise money, thereby opening the door to a predator? To what end?

As far as I am aware there are X million shares kicking around and available at the moment, I'm not aware of any rush to buy those? Perhaps Mr Hughes and Mr McMaster will be willing to put their hands in their collective pockets to buy those shares they've owned for the last ten years or so?

[Woodstock Jag]

As far as I am aware there are X million shares kicking around and available at the moment, I'm not aware of any rush to buy those? Perhaps Mr Hughes and Mr McMaster will be willing to put their hands in their collective pockets to buy those shares they've owned for the last ten years or so?

 

At the Club AGM the issue of the shares was brought up and the cut and thrust is that both McMaster and Hughes think they "earned" the shares because of service to the Club, with Hughes pointing to McMaster working at the Club in a full-time capacity.

 

David Beattie disagreed.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Willjag]

At the Club AGM the issue of the shares was brought up and the cut and thrust is that both McMaster and Hughes think they "earned" the shares because of service to the Club, with Hughes pointing to McMaster working at the Club in a full-time capacity.

 

David Beattie disagreed.

Was this recently, or was this when I asked the question at the AGM two years ago?

[Mediocre Pundit]

The club hasn't handed over any shares for the Centenary Fund yet. Maybe they will sometime. I really don't know. The whole Trust/board/supporters thing is getting a bit surreal from my point of view, but you've been there yourself so you know what it's like. I reckon everyone should try it sometime. It must feel great when you eventually decide that it's too hard and chuck it in.

Honest question, and you can answer by PM if you'd prefer, but how is it so hard?

[Woodstock Jag]

Was this recently, or was this when I asked the question at the AGM two years ago?

 

I'm talking about the AGM that was held this year. I know virtually nothing of what happened at previous Club AGMs. If you take a look here there are the notes the Trust took from the Club AGM where this issue was covered.

[Hot Shot]

Honest question, and you can answer by PM if you'd prefer, but how is it so hard?

 

 

 

I've never done it so I might be wrong, but I think that smiley above explains it as much as any words could.

[Willjag]

I'm talking about the AGM that was held this year. I know virtually nothing of what happened at previous Club AGMs. If you take a look here there are the notes the Trust took from the Club AGM where this issue was covered.

Interesting piece from Tom Hughes where he "Mentions an insistence by Norman Springford that the shares be issued to them at the time as a precondition of his purchase of B shares"

 

So if I win the lottery this weekend, I can invest, what was it, £100k in the Club and insist that my two 'pals' are also given £100k's worth of shares each FOC.

 

As for earning these shares through work done for the Club...... It makes you wonder how much some of these guys are taking from the Club either in cash or in kind? £200k (?) worth of shares to Hughes and McMaster. £25k to Eddie Prentice for 9 months p/t work (plus whatever he earned in the next financial year). No wonder some of these guys don't want to lose their positions on the Board!

Edited August 30, 2010 by Willjag

[honved]

Honest question, and you can answer by PM if you'd prefer, but how is it so hard?

 

It's hard for all sorts of reasons and I will try my best to explain with an example.

 

The Trust board is a group of folk who have one common interest - PTFC. They don't always agree on issues that need to be dealt with and there is a huge back history of failure on a number of fronts which is unfortunate to say the least.

 

The route into and out of the club boardroom is like a labyrinth. For example, we debate the issue about problems with the running of the Centenary Fund and the fact that we are associated with something that is being perceived as not very good by our members and the support at large. We ask the Board Rep to take it to the club board, the club board debate and no tangible decision is made.

 

Our board rep reports this to our next Trust board meeting and we debate whether we should continue to promote the Centenary Fund by manning the booth in the concourse or running promotional events like the one last Xmas. We decide that we will continue to support the CF because the board rep keeps reporting that the club needs the money.

 

All of this takes at least two months, since the club board meetings and the Trust board meetings are monthly.

 

In the meantime our members are quite rightly annoyed that we cannot get the club to computerise the draw, take funds electronically from overseas fans or even have the draw take place on the day that is supposed to and it looks like nothing at all is being done.

 

That's just one example of a number of issues that take ages to try to sort out.

 

I don't expect supporters to be sympathetic because after all, the folk who have put themselves forward to be on the Trust board knew exactly what it could be like, but sometimes it is hard not to just throw your hands up in despair and chuck it. Many people better and more dedicated than me have done that over the last few years.

 

Your earlier post asking specific questions about the club's finances kind of sums up some of the frustration. All supporters are perfectly entitled to ask questions of that type and shareholders even more so. The Trust will ask those questions on your behalf, but the chances of getting an answer are slim. That's frustrating as hell, when a failure of that type is held up as an example of the Trust's inability to do anything and as a reason for not supporting the Trust. It's so distant from the control of the Trust board as to be almost impossible to achieve, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask and nobody should see the failure to obtain that information as anything other than, well, a failure.

 

Hope that helps.

[twinny]

It was my reading of twinny's post not Willjags. I'm not sure what he or she was driving at.

 

As I already said, I wasn't particularly very clear in my post.

 

Tend to agree.

Though I doubt any one would in any case.

 

I was agreeing completely with this.

[Robert Dunn's Potential]

At the Club AGM the issue of the shares was brought up and the cut and thrust is that both McMaster and Hughes think they "earned" the shares because of service to the Club, with Hughes pointing to McMaster working at the Club in a full-time capacity.

 

David Beattie disagreed.

If they believe they earned these shares then did they pay tax on their value? Maybe one of the accountants on here could educate us because I would understand that if you are remunerated with shares that have a definable value (at least in the eyes of the club who sold shares at a specific price during Hughes & McMaster's tenure) then they would have to pay income tax on that value.

 

I would bet that if Hector the Inspector called then neither TH nor BMcM would claim that the shares were earned. They weren't. They were taken as guardians of the club. BMcM is no longer at the club and we no longer need his guardianship. TH has stated his willingness to go if there is someone to replace him so perhaps he could confirm in writing to the other shareholders at the request of a major shareholder like, for example, the Trust, what he intends to do and why. If he claims that he earned the shares then that could be his problem....

[McKennan]

As far as I am aware there are X million shares kicking around and available at the moment, I'm not aware of any rush to buy those? Perhaps Mr Hughes and Mr McMaster will be willing to put their hands in their collective pockets to buy those shares they've owned for the last ten years or so?

 

Sorry if I'm being obtuse Will, but why would someone 'buy' what they already 'own'?

[Mediocre Pundit]

It's hard for all sorts of reasons and I will try my best to explain with an example.

 

The Trust board is a group of folk who have one common interest - PTFC. They don't always agree on issues that need to be dealt with and there is a huge back history of failure on a number of fronts which is unfortunate to say the least.

 

The route into and out of the club boardroom is like a labyrinth. For example, we debate the issue about problems with the running of the Centenary Fund and the fact that we are associated with something that is being perceived as not very good by our members and the support at large. We ask the Board Rep to take it to the club board, the club board debate and no tangible decision is made.

 

Our board rep reports this to our next Trust board meeting and we debate whether we should continue to promote the Centenary Fund by manning the booth in the concourse or running promotional events like the one last Xmas. We decide that we will continue to support the CF because the board rep keeps reporting that the club needs the money.

 

All of this takes at least two months, since the club board meetings and the Trust board meetings are monthly.

 

In the meantime our members are quite rightly annoyed that we cannot get the club to computerise the draw, take funds electronically from overseas fans or even have the draw take place on the day that is supposed to and it looks like nothing at all is being done.

 

That's just one example of a number of issues that take ages to try to sort out.

 

I don't expect supporters to be sympathetic because after all, the folk who have put themselves forward to be on the Trust board knew exactly what it could be like, but sometimes it is hard not to just throw your hands up in despair and chuck it. Many people better and more dedicated than me have done that over the last few years.

 

Your earlier post asking specific questions about the club's finances kind of sums up some of the frustration. All supporters are perfectly entitled to ask questions of that type and shareholders even more so. The Trust will ask those questions on your behalf, but the chances of getting an answer are slim. That's frustrating as hell, when a failure of that type is held up as an example of the Trust's inability to do anything and as a reason for not supporting the Trust. It's so distant from the control of the Trust board as to be almost impossible to achieve, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask and nobody should see the failure to obtain that information as anything other than, well, a failure.

 

Hope that helps.

Thanks honved - a good reply.

 

This leads to my next question. If the failure to get anything done is due to an unwillingness of the club board to enter into dialogue, why not publicise that fact? Hold them to account. Use the JT website to explain what you're trying to do and why you're not managing to do it. At least then the fans would see that you're trying your best for them and that the reasons for a lack of success are not within your control. Surely this would be in line with being an effective voice for the fans?

 

Alternatively if it's due to a vote on the JTB going a certain way then why not publicise this, along with that the voting preference of all JTB members. Again, transparency to the membership can't be a bad thing, it'll open up a bit of the secrecy of the JT (especially for those of us who don't have the ability or the time to attend the meetings) and allow members to vote for new board members on the basis of what action they've taken in their previous spell.

 

Until the JT becomes truly open and democratic, apart from a one a year vote and then noone really knowing what happens until the next year, I can't see it working. It's not about the people - I only know you all from on here but it's plain to see many good people have tried to help the JT in the past. Change the structure, be more open and honest (damningly so, if appropriate) and I think you'll get more fans seeing what you're trying to achieve and wanting to be a part of it. Not that I really know what you're trying to achieve (seriously - and again in my opinion a major hurdle that you have to overcome)

[Steven H]

How about setting a precedent and handing back the shares to the Club that were given to the Trust at the time of STJ. I wonder if this would put Hughes and McMaster on the spot with their nil consideration holding?

 

As an aside, have the Club handed over the agreed amount of shares yet for the Trusts involvement with the Centenary Fund?

 

Would this be seen as step 1 of the disbandment of the JT? Also, does the Trusts agreement to hand back their shares in the event of said disbandment extend to class A shares or is it just the 1mil B shares that need to be returned?

[honved]

Thanks honved - a good reply.

 

This leads to my next question. If the failure to get anything done is due to an unwillingness of the club board to enter into dialogue, why not publicise that fact? Hold them to account. Use the JT website to explain what you're trying to do and why you're not managing to do it. At least then the fans would see that you're trying your best for them and that the reasons for a lack of success are not within your control. Surely this would be in line with being an effective voice for the fans?

 

Alternatively if it's due to a vote on the JTB going a certain way then why not publicise this, along with that the voting preference of all JTB members. Again, transparency to the membership can't be a bad thing, it'll open up a bit of the secrecy of the JT (especially for those of us who don't have the ability or the time to attend the meetings) and allow members to vote for new board members on the basis of what action they've taken in their previous spell.

 

Until the JT becomes truly open and democratic, apart from a one a year vote and then noone really knowing what happens until the next year, I can't see it working. It's not about the people - I only know you all from on here but it's plain to see many good people have tried to help the JT in the past. Change the structure, be more open and honest (damningly so, if appropriate) and I think you'll get more fans seeing what you're trying to achieve and wanting to be a part of it. Not that I really know what you're trying to achieve (seriously - and again in my opinion a major hurdle that you have to overcome)

 

I can't disagree with any of that, but the perspective over the past year and a bit of dealing with the club has been against the backdrop of two key things.

 

One is that the Trust members voted to merge the 1876 club into the Centenary Fund and it was agreed as part of that merger, that the Trust would support and promote the Centenary Fund. It is all in the mists of time now, but at that time, the club board was asking for a £5000 director contribution from every director, the Trust included. That was traded away as part of the merger. I'm sure nobody at that time expected that the club would have problems running the Centenary Fund. The Trust and certain individuals who have been directly involved, has shown probably more patience than it should have. For my own part, although I strongly argued against the merger and voted against it, I thought that the Trust should stick to its promise to help the club run it.

 

The second is that the club has kept briefing that its finances are in a poor way. I can't speak for all of the Trust board, but personally, I took the view that if we eroded the board's position on anything at all, we were playing with fire, since the board could acquire a ready scapegoat for falling attendances. So the Trust have been acquiescent, but not because of any respect for how the club is run.

 

The fans may have been happier with a more belligerent Trust but it's still arguable as to whether the football club (not the board!) would have been. You call it as you see it at the time and to be honest I probably wouldn't change what I felt then. As time has moved on, the perspective changes. I think we are in a very poor state and that some shuffling of the deckchairs will make no difference at all. The silence from the boardroom is deafening.

 

One final point. Everyone should forget the Trust as being an entity in its own right. All it is, is a group of fans trying to do what they think is right by the supporters and the football club. It just so happens that it has a structure and some shares in the club but it gives it no divine right to speak on behalf of the supporters.

[Mediocre Pundit]

I can't disagree with any of that, but the perspective over the past year and a bit of dealing with the club has been against the backdrop of two key things.

 

One is that the Trust members voted to merge the 1876 club into the Centenary Fund and it was agreed as part of that merger, that the Trust would support and promote the Centenary Fund. It is all in the mists of time now, but at that time, the club board was asking for a £5000 director contribution from every director, the Trust included. That was traded away as part of the merger. I'm sure nobody at that time expected that the club would have problems running the Centenary Fund. The Trust and certain individuals who have been directly involved, has shown probably more patience than it should have. For my own part, although I strongly argued against the merger and voted against it, I thought that the Trust should stick to its promise to help the club run it.

 

The second is that the club has kept briefing that its finances are in a poor way. I can't speak for all of the Trust board, but personally, I took the view that if we eroded the board's position on anything at all, we were playing with fire, since the board could acquire a ready scapegoat for falling attendances. So the Trust have been acquiescent, but not because of any respect for how the club is run.

 

The fans may have been happier with a more belligerent Trust but it's still arguable as to whether the football club (not the board!) would have been. You call it as you see it at the time and to be honest I probably wouldn't change what I felt then. As time has moved on, the perspective changes. I think we are in a very poor state and that some shuffling of the deckchairs will make no difference at all. The silence from the boardroom is deafening.

 

One final point. Everyone should forget the Trust as being an entity in its own right. All it is, is a group of fans trying to do what they think is right by the supporters and the football club. It just so happens that it has a structure and some shares in the club but it gives it no divine right to speak on behalf of the supporters.

If the JT can't speak on behalf of the supporters, who can? And maybe if the JT spoke on behalf of the supporters more often, based on the feelings of their membership and the mandate given to them by their election, you would find more people wanting to be a part of it?

 

Regarding an earlier point you made in your post, I also joined the 1876 club and voted against the merger, but upon losing that vote I continued my membership of the Centenary Fund for the good of the club. I'm sure I'm not alone. And this point I think is crucial: for the JT to hold the club board to account on it's decisions and publish their concerns with the running of the club is not an incitement for fans to stop attending games or donating money. A JT line of "we're really frustrated that the board hasn't done this but we urge all our members to join the CF, and the JT, while we continue to fight to get changes made" would be more effective than what we have right now, in my opinion.

 

I fully respect the job you guys try to do. It just seems to me that you only communicate when you get a "win". Maybe if you also communicated the reasons behind why you get a "lose" the fans would better appreciate the work you put in and the problems you face. And who knows, maybe if the fans saw this and felt engaged towards it it could result in less apathy all round, with more fans attending games, joining the JT and pushing towards constructive change?

[jaf]

One final point. Everyone should forget the Trust as being an entity in its own right. All it is, is a group of fans trying to do what they think is right by the supporters and the football club. It just so happens that it has a structure and some shares in the club but it gives it no divine right to speak on behalf of the supporters.

 

I am really surprised at this. Shocked in fact. I know you guys are understandably jaded but not to want to become the standard bearer for the supporters...is this not the raison detre of any supporters organisation?

 

How many times we have been told to fall behind the Trust rather than any other vehicle, despite the Trust often appearing to suffer many of the same problems as the football club board. And some have. And some haven't. But no alternative has been put forward.

 

The Trust SHOULD be a broad church; it should be representative of the fans; it should be seeking to be and striving to be - why send out membership renewal forms to people whilst at same time saying that this body will not be representative of them; it should be engaging with them, an energised supporters body - this is not to criticise because I think it is impossible for the present Jags Trust to be because...........

 

The shares and the faux-Board position are a millstone round the neck of the Trust. Because in addition to the emotional blackmail we have suffered time and time again as supporters from the boardroom, the integrity levels are such in the more recent incarnations of the JTB that conflicts of interest are also noted and account taken of them.....something certain board members are an expert on.

 

There should only be one supporters organisation. It should be a broad church. It should be free to criticise the board without fear of upsetting the applecart. We have tried for so long to be toothless and compliant and co-operative and helpful and we are told that the club may have come tumbling down if we hadn't.....maybe. Or maybe not, perhaps we could have made a positive impact, who knows. But one things for sure, this ain't working and the club is dying anyway in front of all of our eyes.

[erty13]

I think that this thread is getting to the root of the problem. I agree with Jaf's comments on how being on the board does prevent having a strong voice as it is confined to a an enviroment where the agenda and the make up are strictly controled.

 

It must be a lonley place being the jags trust rep on the board knowing that you are just there making up the numbers as you can not influence any of the voting.

 

For me the model that should be explored is the one used by unions. They get the perfect balance of looking out for their members, but ensuring that the long term interests of the company are maintained as its success means employment.

 

They are not scared to speak out when they need to, as they maintain enough distance from the management team to prevent the from being compromised.

 

I would encourage the jags trust to resign from the board, and come up with two engagement plans. one to get the majority of supporters on board, and one to comunicate issues with the board.

[Mediocre Pundit]

For me the model that should be explored is the one used by unions. They get the perfect balance of looking out for their members, but ensuring that the long term interests of the company are maintained as its success means employment.

No they don't (but we can leave that discussion for the General Forum...)

 

I stand by my points above, but would not want to see us relinquish the JT board seat. I can't see any benefit that would come from handing it back.