Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Springburnjag

Fan Ownership Working Group

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Pinhead said:

Basically the ones running it, It is the Jags Trust in a whole new guise and once it happens i look forward to coming back to you within hmm i will be over generous and say 10 years and say i told you so that it would be an abject failure. Christ the initial funding promised donations only reached a couple of hundred and that is when there was momentum and we had Chen Lee sniffing around. There is little to no appetite for being fan owned and the way the working group have faffed around since the start and got nowhere and lied about Lowe & Rough never returning, to then champion it with trumpets does not fill with optimism one bit. 

A disaster in the waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if nobody gets involved we get the statue quo. Like it or not the controlling share holding is passing to the fan's group. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen latest update mainly the below points

 

In the response to what you would like to see from a fan owned Partick Thistle there were some recurring themes namely:

  • An elected Board of Directors rather than directors being appointed to their position on the Board
  • A Board of Directors more reflective of society as whole with an increase in women directors and overall younger in age
  • The Club should be run on a not for profit basis
  • The Club should become a living wage employer
  • The club should set a target for becoming carbon neutral and should aim to reduce overall waste

 

Not for profit organization? How to we build, grow, compete? 
 

If this is the plan I’m out, this is a charity at best, a bowling club at worst.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becoming carbon neutral should be the least of our worries, I mean ffs, it's no the country we're running here. That has to be a wind up surely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MonehJags said:

Ive read it. I must admit that I was all for the fan ownership but surely the ultimate goal must be to have a successful football team, no worry aboot climate change

Exactly. Knew this would be an absolute farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh sounds like we have a snowflake in charge of the working group, surprised vegan pies and a bicycle park have not been announced as priorities as well!

 

  • An elected Board of Directors rather than directors being appointed to their position on the Board - (Ok as long as there are business minds who actually want to be involved and have the time to be involved)
  • A Board of Directors more reflective of society as whole with an increase in women directors and overall younger in age (Ok as long as people are there on merit and not just a tick box exercise)
  • The Club should be run on a not for profit basis (Eh? What? Of course we should be run for profit and the more of it the better)
  • The Club should become a living wage employer (Fair enough)
  • The club should set a target for becoming carbon neutral and should aim to reduce overall waste (A nice to have but let's get the team successful first and the club making money)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were already doing our bit to reduce waste by recycling has-beens and rejects from other clubs. But at the same time we are definitely producing more than average amounts of garbage on the pitch.

So, that's a difficult one for the working group to address*, but the non-profit-making aim is surely a joke. Partick Thistle? Make a profit? Have they seen where we are and the "crowds" we now get? Hahaha!

*Maybe no more hot water for the players. 75% of floodlight bulbs removed. Only cold Bovril and pies. There are endless ways to save the planet at Firhill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

I thought we were already doing our bit to reduce waste by recycling has-beens and rejects from other clubs. But at the same time we are definitely producing more than average amounts of garbage on the pitch.

So, that's a difficult one for the working group to address*, but the non-profit-making aim is surely a joke. Partick Thistle? Make a profit? Have they seen where we are and the "crowds" we now get? Hahaha!

*Maybe no more hot water for the players. 75% of floodlight bulbs removed. Only cold Bovril and pies. There are endless ways to save the planet at Firhill!

Remove the undersoil heating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Just seen latest update mainly the below points

 

In the response to what you would like to see from a fan owned Partick Thistle there were some recurring themes namely:

  • An elected Board of Directors rather than directors being appointed to their position on the Board
  • A Board of Directors more reflective of society as whole with an increase in women directors and overall younger in age
  • The Club should be run on a not for profit basis
  • The Club should become a living wage employer
  • The club should set a target for becoming carbon neutral and should aim to reduce overall waste

 

Not for profit organization? How to we build, grow, compete? 
 

If this is the plan I’m out, this is a charity at best, a bowling club at worst.

"Some recurring themes".....aye right! 

More likely the majority of opinion would be along the lines of:

  • Look to compete again at a higher level or compete in the latter stages of cups
  • Get a winning team on the park
  • Play exciting, entertaining and enterprising football
  • Upgrade the stadium/facilities for better matchday experience
  • Increase the number of fans  
  • etc. etc.

Never thought I would say this but if this is a serious plan...I'm out too (after 40 years +)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH the "values" they have put are ok in isolation but if we dont have a winning team on the park then its all just a bit useless IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is painful reading - but completely consistent with Jacqui Thistle Football Club. Using the club as a vehicle for whatever social issue is the flavour of the month. 

 

So here is the inconvenient reality for the working group. Unless every single person interviewed was a tofu-eating non-binary vegan, this is not what football fans want! Like it or lump it, >75% of our paying core-support will still be working class men between 18-65 who don't care about this utter sh!te! They just want a team on the park that will win games of football. They want to see the most competent people in the boardroom regardless of whether they are diverse or not. They want to see the club make money so we can compete in the Premiership again. So if the working group really think this is a good idea, they should go join Greenpeace or something, but this isn't a business plan for a successful football club. But then again, I don't think they really want to be a successful football club. 

 

I don't think I have ever been so close to just chucking it with Thistle; and this garbage doesn't help. With Jacqui and Roughy back at the top of the management structure, we should just knock the fan ownership thing on the head. Was a nice idea, but these things always seem to be co-opted by the zoomers and ideologues. 

Edited by Yellow & Redneck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement is too vague,  but although I may be well off beam, does not for profit mean not giving a dividend to directors, and reinvesting any profit back into the club?

An elected board of directors. Yes but how do you avoid cliques taking over? Do the fans control board member remuneration and/or staff salaries?

The lack of any comment on creating a winning team seems to me to be a notable omission. 

Hearts have massive investment in their fan ownership group, an owner actively trying to achieve this aim, but despite all of the goodwill, seem to me to be limping towards fan ownership.  Representative boards and all of the stuff in the article are all very good and well, but should a simple working model  not be a more modest but achievable aim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The statement is too vague,  but although I may be well off beam, does not for profit mean not giving a dividend to directors, and reinvesting any profit back into the club?

An elected board of directors. Yes but how do you avoid cliques taking over? Do the fans control board member remuneration and/or staff salaries?

The lack of any comment on creating a winning team seems to me to be a notable omission. 

Hearts have massive investment in their fan ownership group, an owner actively trying to achieve this aim, but despite all of the goodwill, seem to me to be limping towards fan ownership.  Representative boards and all of the stuff in the article are all very good and well, but should a simple working model  not be a more modest but achievable aim?

A good point EKJ. If it does mean as you say then why don't they just say so?  Agree with most of what has been said in the last few posts. Too few people working their own agendas methinks as they enjoy their 15 mins of fame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yellow & Redneck said:

This is painful reading - but completely consistent with Jacqui Thistle Football Club. Using the club as a vehicle for whatever social issue is the flavour of the month. 

 

So here is the inconvenient reality for the working group. Unless every single person interviewed was a tofu-eating non-binary vegan, this is not what football fans want! Like it or lump it, >75% of our paying core-support will still be working class men between 18-65 who don't care about this utter sh!te! They just want a team on the park that will win games of football. They want to see the most competent people in the boardroom regardless of whether they are diverse or not. They want to see the club make money so we can compete in the Premiership again. So if the working group really think this is a good idea, they should go join Greenpeace or something, but this isn't a business plan for a successful football club. But then again, I don't think they really want to be a successful football club. 

 

I don't think I have ever been so close to just chucking it with Thistle; and this garbage doesn't help. With Jacqui and Roughy back at the top of the management structure, we should just knock the fan ownership thing on the head. Was a nice idea, but these things always seem to be co-opted by the zoomers and ideologues. 

Think you’ve nailed it , the red herring of non profit is a nonsense, we’re not a business who are charity listed but a limited Company whose aim should be a Company making Profit , ideally to have some sort of contingency reserves as well to be there whenever needed , the basic plan for any sustainable business is to make Profit, whether you intend to reinvest some of that Profit on the Team/ Stadium is down to the BOD but you’ve got to make money first of all

Coming out with non profit is worrying and ambiguous as well .

What happens if they make a mess of it and lose money ?

Would rather they came out with a statement saying what their template was as you say for a successful  football team .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of us on the forum were involved in these "small Fan Consultation Zoom meetings"?

and how many actually voiced the opinion that "The club should set a target for becoming carbon neutral and should aim to reduce overall waste" as a major concern?

As Yellow and Redneck has already stated, don't think he's the only one thinking of chucking it! We just seem to be walking blindfold into the next crisis/relegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of recurring themes is just a number of aspirational aims. Not for profit can, as recent posts have shown, mean any number of things,  & should have been properly outlined.

The diversity of any future board, and becoming carbon neutral  are peripheral issues, & just detract from reality and the prime function of the club, ie. to be successful on the pitch.

If someone thinks its a good wheeze to put out this rubbish & the success is having issues "discussed", then they don't realise that we're fast running out of time to escape from League 1, and short term success is much more relevant at this time.  Whoever has written this , my reply is  simply "grow up now!"

I should have added that the whole statement comes across as an exercise in intellectual arrogance.

Edited by East Kent Jag II
Intellectual arrogance
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for profit just means that shareholders don’t get a dividend.

Any excess of income over expenditure will go to reserves. Of all the things in the list I think this is the one which we should all agree on

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I am putting my head above the parapet here.

Myself and one other WG member are facilitating  these Zoom calls. These will shortly be replaced by something designed to reach a wider audience more quickly.

We have really welcomed the feedback that we have received on these calls to date, which goes far beyond what is mentioned in the programme.  The programme works to a very early deadline, and another WG member has responsibility for that and so updates from those sessions have not all filtered through yet.

The next calls are likely to be next week (with invites to go out shortly), and if anyone wishes to be included, I would be very happy to add you to the invite list. (PM me on here or send the WG email address an email).  All are genuinely welcome - and I can promise carbon neutrality, not for profit, and board diversity are unlikely to be mentioned unless they are a burning issue for you!

I know there is a scepticism about all of this for many reasons but this is a genuine reaching out to attempt to share the plans of substance with you, and I hope you can engage with it. The point of the consultation is to get the input of you all. Some of us are seriously passionate about that. Finally, I am sure there are  many many more enjoyable ways to find that 15 mins of fame, AFK, I can assure you!

Sandy

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jaf
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jaf said:

Hi all

I am putting my head above the parapet here.

Myself and one other WG member are facilitating  these Zoom calls. These will shortly be replaced by something designed to reach a wider audience more quickly.

We have really welcomed the feedback that we have received on these calls to date, which goes far beyond what is mentioned in the programme.  The programme works to a very early deadline, and another WG member has responsibility for that and so updates from those sessions have not all filtered through yet.

The next calls are likely to be next week (with invites to go out shortly), and if anyone wishes to be included, I would be very happy to add you to the invite list. (PM me on here or send the WG email address an email).  All are genuinely welcome - and I can promise carbon neutrality, not for profit, and board diversity are unlikely to be mentioned unless they are a burning issue for you!

I know there is a scepticism about all of this for many reasons but this is a genuine reaching out to attempt to share the plans of substance with you, and I hope you can engage with it. The point of the consultation is to get the input of you all. Some of us are seriously passionate about that. Finally, I am sure there are  many many more enjoyable ways to find that 15 mins of fame, AFK, I can assure you!

Sandy

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Not for profit just means that shareholders don’t get a dividend.

Any excess of income over expenditure will go to reserves. Of all the things in the list I think this is the one which we should all agree on

Not sure there has been dividends for shareholders anyway, if the new Board’s aspirations are to break even, then we’re going to be in trouble .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Not sure there has been dividends for shareholders anyway, if the new Board’s aspirations are to break even, then we’re going to be in trouble .

We must have been making some excess revenue to have built up the reserves which we previously had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×