One For The Jags Trust

[Phoenix]

Here's the weird thing though Junior. Folk that have had the enthusiasm knocked out of them still come on here and post, not because they want to moan and get things off their chest (which is quite understandable) but because they care. Imagine if all of those folk hadn't had their enthusiasm wrung out of them by the weirdly efficient mental torture that the club hierarchy exerts. We might actually be able to do stuff.

Not just the board to blame. I know a few people who were involved with the Jags Trust who just got fed up with a certain group of Trust members who seemed incapable of saying or doing anything that would upset the BOD. Most of this group are still heavily involved with the Trust hence why membership numbers are falling.

 

Might as well give the shares back.

[honved]

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.

 

I maybe didn't make myself entirely clear. I'm not speaking for anyone else. There are no "guys" saying what I said above - just me. All that I was clumsily saying is that Trust is not the only game in town as far as supporters groups are concerned - that it doesn't need to be the Trust.

[yoda-jag]

Taking a few points from various posts:

 

I'm sure nobody at that time expected that the club would have problems running the Centenary Fund.

 

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.

 

On your first point......ermm, if i recall there was actually a few rumblings of discontent and belief amongst at least some people I know and those who posted on the jagsforumdotnet, who were of the opinion the club/board of directors couldn't run previous fundraisers properly and would ultimately feck it up or not maximise its potential and thus they consequently would have problems running the CF to its maximum potential and return.

 

On your second point, the fact it does have a structure, is the "representative" (for want of a better word) of the largest official group of supporters (unless one of the supporters buses organisations have more, which I doubt), and does have shares in the club, puts it at the forefront or at least is the prime candidate to reflect the supporters views and correspondingly could be the vehicle for all Thistle supporters to air their views (unless some other fans group can pool the weight of the majority of Thistle fans behind them and can subsequently make the noises, problems, help that the fans are crying out for).

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

3 very good points from MP.

 

 

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.

 

^^^In a nutshell^^^

 

 

a certain group of Trust members who seemed incapable of saying or doing anything that would upset the BOD. Most of this group are still heavily involved with the Trust hence why membership numbers are falling.

 

Might as well give the shares back.

 

First point is spot on. Lots of people haven't joined the JT because of certain people and how they run the JT, and whom seem to do nothing proactive or through their bluster or silence or inactivity they engender no reason to join or back the JT (likes of Tomved, Stolenscone are not part of that list btw)

 

As for the shares (and seat on the board), I don't believe we should relinquish these, may not be worth a lot in the current scheme of things, but who can say for sure how valuable they may be in the coming months and years? And unless some other supporters group uprising gains the backing of the majority, we need someone on the inside of the boardroom, regardless of the confidentiality guff (which should be got around some way or the other wink wink)

 

 

I maybe didn't make myself entirely clear. I'm not speaking for anyone else. There are no "guys" saying what I said above - just me. All that I was clumsily saying is that Trust is not the only game in town as far as supporters groups are concerned - that it doesn't need to be the Trust.

 

Tomved, see my reply to your 2:18pm post above.

 

In addition, as has been said already, the JT can (and should) help the board and club where the circumstances are right, but equally should also be strong enough within itself to stand up to these boardroom duds and speak out when there are things being proposed or done which the JT and its majority of membership opposes or disagrees with. Jaf's comment earlier about it being a broad church encapsulates that. The JT should back and work with the board on proposals and plans which are to the benefit of the club should these be wise and correct in the eyes of the support, but it should also be the loudest, biggest and most annoying pain in the arse to the board when they come up with ideas and changes which are at direct opposites to what the JT and its membership wish for or believe. The JT is, through it's size, structure, shares and boardroom member, the most obvious and best bet for supportive help as well as outright resistance to the boardroom duds on a case by case basis. It just has to make itself clearly this to all Jags supporters.

[honved]

Thanks to everyone who has expressed their views on this thread. I guess that it's no big surprise from what I have posted above that I am more than a little disillusioned with things at present. The common thread that runs through all of the posts is that people expect to be dealt with honestly, so that is a message that is heard, loud and clear.

[Vom Itorium]

Was there anything put in writing re the shares the Trust would earn from the merger of the 1876 and Centenary Fund?

 

People signed up for the CF on the basis that the Trust would be increasing it's shareholding by ticking that box. To find out that this has not been fulfilled when the leap of faith was taken in what was going to be a professionally run, non amateur hour operation is utterly disgusting and another slight on the supporters of the club by the powers that be.

 

If this doesn't make the JT realise that it's only function SHOULD be tackling the disgraceful treatment of the supporters of the club by the club then I don't know what will. The time has come to ditch this nicey, nicey approach and realise that the pish is being well and truly taken.

[stolenscone]

Was there anything put in writing re the shares the Trust would earn from the merger of the 1876 and Centenary Fund?

 

People signed up for the CF on the basis that the Trust would be increasing it's shareholding by ticking that box. To find out that this has not been fulfilled when the leap of faith was taken in what was going to be a professionally run, non amateur hour operation is utterly disgusting and another slight on the supporters of the club by the powers that be.

 

If this doesn't make the JT realise that it's only function SHOULD be tackling the disgraceful treatment of the supporters of the club by the club then I don't know what will. The time has come to ditch this nicey, nicey approach and realise that the pish is being well and truly taken.

 

 

This issue is also on the agenda for the meeting referred to in the other thread. The outcome of that meeting will be reported on in full, but in the meantime, I would prefer not to pre-judge the meeting by my comments on here. Clearly if the meeting does not take place within a reasonably short space of time, then the position changes.

[The Auld Man]

Part of the agreement was for the Jagstrust to benefit via club shares. The other part was that the Jagstrust would not run fundraisers in competition with the club. No shares equals broken agreement and allows the Jagstrust to run its own fundraisers. The club should be made aware of the potential of cancelled standing orders if this is not resolved.

[stolenscone]

Part of the agreement was for the Jagstrust to benefit via club shares. The other part was that the Jagstrust would not run fundraisers in competition with the club. No shares equals broken agreement and allows the Jagstrust to run its own fundraisers. The club should be made aware of the potential of cancelled standing orders if this is not resolved.

 

 

We are aware of this ... ... ...

[lady-isobel-barnett]

This issue is also on the agenda for the meeting referred to in the other thread. The outcome of that meeting will be reported on in full, but in the meantime, I would prefer not to pre-judge the meeting by my comments on here. Clearly if the meeting does not take place within a reasonably short space of time, then the position changes.

That seems a very sensible approach.

[Steven H]

Part of the agreement was for the Jagstrust to benefit via club shares. The other part was that the Jagstrust would not run fundraisers in competition with the club. No shares equals broken agreement and allows the Jagstrust to run its own fundraisers. The club should be made aware of the potential of cancelled standing orders if this is not resolved.

 

Mine for one . The way the CF has been run since the merger has been pretty shambolic at times and now this issues makes it ten times worse. The CF may well be making more money then the 1876 Club did (or it might not be ) but you can be sure if there's a way out of this agreement that will fall drastically. This will likely be offset by an increase in the money made by the JT (through a new 1876 Club for eg), that money would be in the hands of the fans to determine when and how it goes into Partick Thistle...I'd rather have that than what we have right now and that is also an area where fans can regain a bit of leverage with a BoD that seem set on treating us with contempt!

Edited August 31, 2010 by Steven H

[mrD]

 

 

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)

 

Whats interesting is that the 'structure' of the jags trust is exactly the same as FCUM and AFC Wimbledon - yet they are lauded as examples of fan democracy in action. Maybe there is another problem?