Open Meeting

[Steven H]

So the question to you and every other fan that's interested in the future of the Club is, why are you not a member of the Jags Trust? The Trust have to find out from you and others like you, why you're not joining and try and convince you they are doing what you want them to do.

 

There was a statement made at the end of the meeting from Morag when she said that anyone was free to go and speak to the JTB members about anything concerning the Club or the Trust. This is part of the problem for me with the Trust. The JTB members should be going out and engaging the fans on their way into the ground and trying to get them to join the Trust and also let them know what's happening with the Trust. The Trust need the guys manning the Trust stall in the ground but others should be doing some leg work and raising the Trust's profile and maybe then peoples views of the Trust will change?

 

I agree with this in principle, and if it was to be done it would need to look to the members in general to help out, it's too big a task for the JTB themselves. However, I remember Tom going into the Star last season (and possibly other places too)...not sure on the receptions he recieved but from my experience very few people who are 'anti-Jags Trust' want to talk about it, and when they do their pre-judgements are preventing meaningful discussion. I had a real ding-dong on the way back from Dingwall with my friends over this very thing, it's bang yer heid against the wa' stuff at times...I guess in this case my lack of self-control facilitated things getting heated but it's frustrating as hell when people want to be destructive rather than constructive.

[Hot Shot]

I agree with this in principle, and if it was to be done it would need to look to the members in general to help out, it's too big a task for the JTB themselves. However, I remember Tom going into the Star last season (and possibly other places too)...not sure on the receptions he recieved but from my experience very few people who are 'anti-Jags Trust' want to talk about it, and when they do their pre-judgements are preventing meaningful discussion. I had a real ding-dong on the way back from Dingwall with my friends over this very thing, it's bang yer heid against the wa' stuff at times...I guess in this case my lack of self-control facilitated things getting heated but it's frustrating as hell when people want to be destructive rather than constructive.

 

I think alot of it is bang yer heid against a wall stuff, that's why I don't envy those trying to push the trust forward, I don't even think it's neccesarily that the majority of fans want to be destructive rather than constructive, I think alot just don't give a **** , some because they have an image of the trust they don't care for and some because they just aren't interested in the politics of football.

 

 

Willjag, I wish I could pin my gut feelings down to constructive conversation and relay it to the trust, I don't think I can, I think part of it is I don't want to give up time and effort on something I don't think is working, and I do see the irony in that by reading your post because it's up to me and every other fan to step forward and make the trust something that does work for me and something I would be willing to give up time and effort for, I won't hide behind using my own unexplainable perception of the trust as an excuse though, there is a huge part of me that's more interested in my own life and having fun and that I might just not want to commit myself to anything I can't be arsed with , it's a selfish stance that many will be taking but few will admit to.

[Willjag]

I agree with this in principle, and if it was to be done it would need to look to the members in general to help out, it's too big a task for the JTB themselves. However, I remember Tom going into the Star last season (and possibly other places too)...not sure on the receptions he recieved but from my experience very few people who are 'anti-Jags Trust' want to talk about it, and when they do their pre-judgements are preventing meaningful discussion. I had a real ding-dong on the way back from Dingwall with my friends over this very thing, it's bang yer heid against the wa' stuff at times...I guess in this case my lack of self-control facilitated things getting heated but it's frustrating as hell when people want to be destructive rather than constructive.

You'll have been telling them why they should have been joining the Trust then Steven?

 

What I'm saying is the Trust need to engage the fans and ask why they are not joining. If the Trust are doing something wrong in the eyes of a fan, then they can learn from it. Then again, they might find they have an opportunity to put a fan right on matters the Trust are already doing and that fan might change his mind about the Trust and sign up. It's obvious the fans aren't going to the Trust, so the alternative is that the Trust goes to the fans.

 

You might get one or two new memberships/renewals by saying you've left a pile of forms down the front at a meeting, but I suspect you'd get a whole lot more if you went out and talked to the fans.

 

I'd like to see the Trust carry out a cliboard survey of the fans to find out what the fans want from the Trust and what the fans know of the Trust and their aims at the moment. Final question on the survey, "Would you like an application form to join the Trust?"

[Steven H]

You'll have been telling them why they should have been joining the Trust then Steven?

 

What I'm saying is the Trust need to engage the fans and ask why they are not joining. If the Trust are doing something wrong in the eyes of a fan, then they can learn from it. Then again, they might find they have an opportunity to put a fan right on matters the Trust are already doing and that fan might change his mind about the Trust and sign up. It's obvious the fans aren't going to the Trust, so the alternative is that the Trust goes to the fans.

 

You might get one or two new memberships/renewals by saying you've left a pile of forms down the front at a meeting, but I suspect you'd get a whole lot more if you went out and talked to the fans.

 

I'd like to see the Trust carry out a cliboard survey of the fans to find out what the fans want from the Trust and what the fans know of the Trust and their aims at the moment. Final question on the survey, "Would you like an application form to join the Trust?"

 

No Will we were discussing their reasons for not joining, they gave reasons & I tried to put them right. One friend said he knew nothing about what the Jags Trust do, I explained about the increased communication and where he can find all the info he wants, I tried to explain what the Jags trust done and it descended into a row, he accepted that I knew what I did because I looked for the info but did not think he should HAVE to go and look for it (despite being a media student). Another friend said the JTB were just the Boards puppets even tho he acknowledged the role the Jags Trust played in getting him what he wanted (Cowan, Prentice and Hughes out of the boardroom) and that I was a "Jags Trust apologist". That kind of logic is hard for me to accept at the best of times but full of booze on the way back from Dingwall, well red mist descended.

[Vom Itorium]

I was planning on attending but couldn't make it in the end. I did however manage to listen online and I have to say I was underwhelmed.

 

I thought this meeting was to...

 

TELL YOU about our recent discussions with the club board and their proposed reorganisation

We heard plenty about the Board Rep position and the Club's stance on this but are no clearer as to anything that is going on within the club.

 

TELL YOU about our views on where the Jags Trust fits in to these plans

Again, we're no clearer on this as nothing has been decided on whether to accept a place at the BoD meetings without it being in a Club Board Rep capacity. Why has this not been accepted and then the wrangling about the Board Rep can continue while the Trust has at least a presence at the important meetings that are being held just now?

 

ASK YOU for your views and ideas about what you want out of all of this

From what I heard the meeting became bogged down in issues that we all pretty much knew already and ideas and views were at a minimum.

 

ASK YOU for your help in moving matters forward and achieving results

How can anyone move forward when no-one knows what the end game is?

 

I may sound harsh in my assessment of this but I just really expected more from this meeting to be honest and think that the Board Rep issue should've been kept to a minimum. There is obviously some kind of issue with the choice of Board Rep reading between the lines. I have no idea why this should be the case, but as was pointed out at the meeting the Club have no obligation to even have a Trust Rep on the board so sadly on this one it is their ball and they're obviously not playing.

 

One question I would have liked answered if I could have made it was 'Has the extra shares earned from the Centenary Fund been received by the Trust and if now, why not?' These extra shares will give the Trust a greater shareholding than the 'custodians' who have now snaked away from Firhill and this was a condition of the leap of faith. I dearly hope something like this isn't lost in the political wranglings over a Board rep who at the end of the day may have a voice in the boardroom but it is not, and will not ever be one that can repeat what goes on in there to the masses.

[Willjag]

I think alot of it is bang yer heid against a wall stuff, that's why I don't envy those trying to push the trust forward, I don't even think it's neccesarily that the majority of fans want to be destructive rather than constructive, I think alot just don't give a **** , some because they have an image of the trust they don't care for and some because they just aren't interested in the politics of football.

 

 

Willjag, I wish I could pin my gut feelings down to constructive conversation and relay it to the trust, I don't think I can, I think part of it is I don't want to give up time and effort on something I don't think is working, and I do see the irony in that by reading your post because it's up to me and every other fan to step forward and make the trust something that does work for me and something I would be willing to give up time and effort for, I won't hide behind using my own unexplainable perception of the trust as an excuse though, there is a huge part of me that's more interested in my own life and having fun and that I might just not want to commit myself to anything I can't be arsed with , it's a selfish stance that many will be taking but few will admit to.

You don't have to give up any time or effort to assist the Trust though. They only want the opportunity to represent you. They've got to convince you that they can represent you effectively though.

[Willjag]

Vom, I think everyone was aware that we were getting bogged down on that one issue. I suspect a lesson was learned on that one. Tom and David did try to move the discussion on from that at various points.

 

Like you, I was disappointed that there wasn't more about what difficulties the Club were facing, but I believe that's totally down to timing. The Club gave the Trust no indications of what it was looking for from them, so the Trust cant communicate that. I think the Club have boobed on this score. They've missed a chance to communicate with a reasonable sized number of Jags fans and le them know what they need from the fans and the Trust.

[Hot Shot]

You don't have to give up any time or effort to assist the Trust though. They only want the opportunity to represent you. They've got to convince you that they can represent you effectively though.

 

Without giving up any time or effort to the trust though, even if something as small as attending members meetings or turning up for votes I don't see the difference between joining the trust and donating the membership fee every year.

 

Is just having your name on the list of members that important that it means more to the trust to have it there than to not ,but still receive the donation of a membership fee?

[Hot Shot]

Vom, I think everyone was aware that we were getting bogged down on that one issue. I suspect a lesson was learned on that one. Tom and David did try to move the discussion on from that at various points.

 

Like you, I was disappointed that there wasn't more about what difficulties the Club were facing, but I believe that's totally down to timing. The Club gave the Trust no indications of what it was looking for from them, so the Trust cant communicate that. I think the Club have boobed on this score. They've missed a chance to communicate with a reasonable sized number of Jags fans and le them know what they need from the fans and the Trust.

 

I dare say if they don't know they can't tell them, but I do get the feeling the club aren't willing to tell the trust what they are looking for from them until they themselves have figured out what the trust offers the club as a fans body, not potentially offer but actually offer, it was the most disappointing aspect of the meeting I thought, I thought what little did get discussed was in general positive though.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Hot Shot

[Willjag]

I dare say if they don't know they can't tell them, but I do get the feeling the club aren't willing to tell the trust what they are looking for from them until they themselves have figured out what the trust offers the club as a fans body, not potentially offer but actually offer, it was the most disappointing aspect of the meeting I thought, I thought what little did get discussed was in general positive though.

Is just having your name on the list of members that important that it means more to the trust to have it there than to not ,but still receive the donation of a membership fee?

The bit in bold and the piece quoted from your previous post go hand in hand from my point of view.

[Hot Shot]

The bit in bold and the piece quoted from your previous post go hand in hand from my point of view.

 

 

So i'm guessing you believe that a higher number of members is what the club are looking for from the trust, and then the club will be able to determine what the trust offers, to quote a football term, the club are looking for depth in our squad? I'm still unsure as to what advantage more members brings the trust if only just by being members, and just by being members I don't see the attraction for the club, for me the members need to be many and all need to be interested, then I see the trust being a voice for all fans and the club knowing what it offers.

 

I'll read on 2moro, i'm fecked and off to bed

[Willjag]

So i'm guessing you believe that a higher number of members is what the club are looking for from the trust, and then the club will be able to determine what the trust offers, to quote a football term, the club are looking for depth in our squad? I'm still unsure as to what advantage more members brings the trust if only just by being members, and just by being members I don't see the attraction for the club, for me the members need to be many and all need to be interested, then I see the trust being a voice for all fans and the club knowing what it offers.

 

I'll read on 2moro, i'm fecked and off to bed

I think the Club do take into consideration the size of the Trust Membership, but I also think they want the Trust to contribute to the Club financially by helping the Club raise funds. They probably feel that the Trust don't communicate well enough with the support to bring in a decent amount of cash. So leading on from that, the more members you have, the more opportunities you have for making money.

 

I suspect (I don't know) that the Club have an issue with the Trust running fund-raisers where the money isn't going directly to the Club immediately after the event. Perhaps they just don't want to come out and say it. But when you look at how previous successful fans schemes have been gobbled up by the Club, it certainly looks that way to me.

[stolenscone]

 

Like you, I was disappointed that there wasn't more about what difficulties the Club were facing, but I believe that's totally down to timing. The Club gave the Trust no indications of what it was looking for from them, so the Trust cant communicate that. I think the Club have boobed on this score. They've missed a chance to communicate with a reasonable sized number of Jags fans and le them know what they need from the fans and the Trust.

 

 

Will / Vom - both of your comments are well made. My hope/expectation in calling the meeting in the aftermath of the recent changes at the Club was in part to let you know what happened at the meeting and since, and largely to concentrate on the future, what needs to be done and how you can all help.

 

That the meeting fell below my expectations in the second part of this is largely a matter of timing.

 

I had hoped that there would be more flesh on this coming out of the Club by now, but that hasn't happened yet, and the meeting couldn't really be put off while that is awaited. So yes, I agree if was a bit of a missed opportunity in that respect.

 

For the record, I don't believe that the current lack of info is down to a desire to shut the supporters out, but rather just a question of timing. I could be wrong, of course, but with nobody currently on the "inside" to represent the fans' views, it's difficult to tell.

 

There is a Club board meeting on Friday, so perhaps we'll hear more from that.

 

On a separate matter, while the board rep point perhaps took up a disproportionate amount of time, it remains an issue that does need to be resolved one way or the other. We'll be working on that over the coming weeks, but at present, you know no more than I do on the subject.

[Pie Of The Month]

I was planning on attending but couldn't make it in the end. I did however manage to listen online and I have to say I was underwhelmed.

 

I thought this meeting was to...

 

TELL YOU about our recent discussions with the club board and their proposed reorganisation

We heard plenty about the Board Rep position and the Club's stance on this but are no clearer as to anything that is going on within the club.

 

 

From attending the meeting it was clear that a major part of the recent discussions with the club board were regarding the Board Rep position which is why it was discussed so much. As explained at the meeting David, Morag, Tom and the rest of the Jags Trust board know as much of the rest of us so with many issues they cannot tell us what is going on within the club as they simply do not know.

 

What they did tell us was what was said at the recent discussions with the club board and also what they believe are the plans for proposed reorganisation (i.e nothing major happening until January and wanting the JT Rep sitting in as a non-exec director until then) so I believe they did answer this point.

 

TELL YOU about our views on where the Jags Trust fits in to these plans

Again, we're no clearer on this as nothing has been decided on whether to accept a place at the BoD meetings without it being in a Club Board Rep capacity. Why has this not been accepted and then the wrangling about the Board Rep can continue while the Trust has at least a presence at the important meetings that are being held just now?

 

Again I feel that this was discussed and answered well at the meeting. The Jags Trust does not want to be part of the board with no proper say or voting rights. Someone mentioned that once a decision is made a board level it is extremely difficult to change so if the Trust were to accept their new role within the club board then it could mean not having a say in the running of the club in the long term which isn't good enough. They also discussed that the JT may be expected to fundraise and galvanise the support with regards to the restructuring plans and to plug the gap in cashflow which the club is experiencing. David spoke about this before the questions and then again towards the end when asked what his personal view on effective ways to raise funds.

 

David told us his views on how the Trust fits into these plans, Morag also gave her opinion on the situation (which must have been extremely difficult as I feel for her being told by the board that she isn't what they want when the invitation has been extending from the club to other JT Board Reps in the past). I felt the meeting was more about how the individuals who were speaking thought about where the Trust fit into the plans than any sort of official stannce of the Trust and both members spoke well on this issue.

 

ASK YOU for your views and ideas about what you want out of all of this

From what I heard the meeting became bogged down in issues that we all pretty much knew already and ideas and views were at a minimum.

 

 

It's harsh to criticise on this matter when David and the other JT Board members can only answer the questions put to them. Yes we will all agree the meeting became bogged down in certain issues but that wasn't through a want of the moderator trying to move the discussion onto other issues. There was more than one occasion where the questions did move onto other issues only for certain people to bring the discussion back to the same points.

 

I came away from the meeting with food for thought and considering what I can do to help, if there are others thinking the same and this leads to any sort of actions then I would deem the meeting a huge success. Even just getting the information out there to a wider audience makes this a success. The JT aren't claiming to know everything (as with no board rep they simply can't) but they are telling us what they do know and making the Trust more accessible which can only be a good thing. As one gentleman at the meeting said he doesn't really take interest in the forums and just goes to the games so if people like this get to know information that is generally only made known through online discussions or word of mouth on supporters buses then I feel the meeting served a purpose.

 

 

ASK YOU for your help in moving matters forward and achieving results

How can anyone move forward when no-one knows what the end game is?

 

I feel David and co told us all they knew and spoke honestly. They can't magically have answers when they are not being given the opportunity by the club to ask the questions. For me it felt like the Trust had a choice between calling this meeting and telling us the little that they do know at the moment or continue to say nothing. Out of those 2 choices I feel the meeting is by far the better option and I would make the effort to attend future meetings.

 

 

I may sound harsh in my assessment of this but I just really expected more from this meeting to be honest and think that the Board Rep issue should've been kept to a minimum. There is obviously some kind of issue with the choice of Board Rep reading between the lines. I have no idea why this should be the case, but as was pointed out at the meeting the Club have no obligation to even have a Trust Rep on the board so sadly on this one it is their ball and they're obviously not playing.

 

One question I would have liked answered if I could have made it was 'Has the extra shares earned from the Centenary Fund been received by the Trust and if now, why not?' These extra shares will give the Trust a greater shareholding than the 'custodians' who have now snaked away from Firhill and this was a condition of the leap of faith. I dearly hope something like this isn't lost in the political wranglings over a Board rep who at the end of the day may have a voice in the boardroom but it is not, and will not ever be one that can repeat what goes on in there to the masses.

 

I do feel you are being incredibly harsh. The board rep issue is one which people at the meeting felt strongly enough about the discuss for a great length of time (although I do feel that the conversation was steered that way by other people involved with the Trust in the audience being given the first opportunity to speak and turn the meeting into a rabble by shouting out when they felt like and having their own group applaud each others points). In fairness to the moderator the questions were moved on and then the same people kept trying to bring the conversation back to the same issue. I do however agree with you completely on the matter of not letting political wranglings affect everything else.

 

One thing that I've taken from your post is that for all the effort to involve those who couldn't attend the meeting such as yourself in listening there was no attempt to involve anyone outwith the lecture theatre in creating the discussion. Perhaps in future meetings there should be some sort of mailbox or live chat where whoever is in charge of the stream can pick a few points to read out to those in attendance as it must be incredibly frustrating sitting at home and listening to the meeting going back to the same point over and over again.

[honved]

I agree with Vom Itorium. We had an issue with expectation management last night, in that having resolved to hold a meeting, we were hoping that in the time between that decision and the meeting actually taking place, there would be something more substantial to discuss in terms of the way the club is reorganising. There wasn't, which is a shame, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying to communicate and engage with the fans.

 

The other point that has been picked up on is this circular issue about 550 members being unrepresentative etc. and the need for the Trust to become a visible presence that is seen to be doing stuff that is of tangible benefit and then more folk will become interested and will join. I hope that issue of visibility will change through time and maybe sooner rather than later.

[Jaggernaut]

So the question to you and every other fan that's interested in the future of the Club is, why are you not a member of the Jags Trust? The Trust have to find out from you and others like you, why you're not joining and try and convince you they are doing what you want them to do.

Could I forward one suggestion? It sounds like around two thirds of the meeting last night were devoted to internal JT business (the non-executive rep). If I'd travelled through to Glasgow for the meeting and experienced that, rather than more time spent discussing the multiple serious issues that are facing the club, then I'd probably have second thoughts about attending the next one.

[alx]

I had some thoughts but didn't pipe up at the end. Some people seem to want a trust that is a 'fans representative' or has a 'non-exec' type of role on the board. Or even not on the board. But surely one of the defining features of our particular trust is that it is the custodian of a large number of shares in ptfc (if not prop-co). We are part owners of the club. Other people have bought shares and hence influence, especially with prop-co. Two people said 'the board don't respect the trust'. I learned a long time ago that no-one respects a mug. Especially not the more hard-headed type of business people. This means that the trust must not give FREE MONEY to the club. We should raise money for the trust (I would cancel my centenary fund direct debit and swap it over). We swap the money for something in return. Always. Willjag says the shares are worthless, but still an increase in the percentage of the total of the ptfc shares is better than nothing. There may be other non-share objectives that the trust want from time to time.

[honved]

I had some thoughts but didn't pipe up at the end. Some people seem to want a trust that is a 'fans representative' or has a 'non-exec' type of role on the board. Or even not on the board. But surely one of the defining features of our particular trust is that it is the custodian of a large number of shares in ptfc (if not prop-co). We are part owners of the club. Other people have bought shares and hence influence, especially with prop-co. Two people said 'the board don't respect the trust'. I learned a long time ago that no-one respects a mug. Especially not the more hard-headed type of business people. This means that the trust must not give FREE MONEY to the club. We should raise money for the trust (I would cancel my centenary fund direct debit and swap it over). We swap the money for something in return. Always. Willjag says the shares are worthless, but still an increase in the percentage of the total of the ptfc shares is better than nothing. There may be other non-share objectives that the trust want from time to time.

 

As a Trust board member, the biggest of those is a successful team performing well on the pitch and bringing me endless delight. I can't see how that pipe dream can be achieved without the supporters getting more involved with running the club and the club allowing that to happen. As usual, the whole thing is bogged down in process. It's depressing as hell.

[Vom Itorium]

It seems some folk think I was being harsh with my post last night and others agree to a certain extent. Having re-read it I agree myself there is some harsh bits and I do fully understand that the Trust's hands are tied at the minute.

 

What I really did want to get across is how disappointed with how the meeting went I was and would have been even more so had I attended. This meeting was touted as being the brave new dawn and was nothing of the sort. I can understand why the Trust would not have wanted to have cancelled the meeting but there was no reason why this Board Rep issue could not have been communicated beforehand and kept to a minimum on the night with more time spent on ideas for the Trust and how it can be grown.

 

As Jaggernaut has said, a lot of people may have been put off making the effort again after that, and though I wasn't there, I did take full advantage of the online access and left the meeting feeling as though I wouldn't be doing that again.

 

I did however think the meeting was conducted very well and that everyone on the Trust spoke well and the organisation sounded first class.

 

Process, politicising, electioneering, commiteedom it all bores the tits off me and sadly I think until the Trust rids itself of getting caught up in all these issues and gets down to the nitty gritty the fans in general aren't going to be interested.

 

Also, can anyone on the Trust answer my question regarding shares for the Centenary Fund?

Edited October 7, 2010 by Vom Itorium

[Willjag]

Alx, if I were on the Board, I'd have no problem handing over shares to the Trust. The Property Company hold all the Aces where Partick Thistle are concerned. It'd be much more beneficial for the Trust to have shares in PropCo rather than in Partick Thistle in my view.

[Mediocre Pundit]

I was there last night and thought it was worthwhile, but will echo a few points above - I thought some other JTB members (Fiona, Maggie and Morag) turned it away from being constructive and into a bit of a board bashing session. I must admit to being a little disengaged at some of these parts of the discussion (are we really meant to believe that the Club Board are sexist?), which led to me making the (rather meek) point that I made last night.

 

To stress that point further, I think the JTB is getting bogged down with getting a Director on the board, despite the fact that the position has never worked for the fans in the past. I would much prefer to see a Club Board made up of the best people for the job who can turn the club around - an unqualified fans rep sitting at the table as an equal, bound by confidentiality, wouldn't add value in my opinion. But having a permanant non-exec director (or maybe even two) with the ability to sit in meetings, input the view of the fans, and report back to the fans a (qualified) summary of what's going on, would be better for the Club Board and, I believe, better for the JT.

 

It's not about "respect", it's about having a strong, professional Club Board. We haven't had that for ages, we have a chance of having it now, so let's not get bogged down wanting our piece of the cake when we know that the cake tastes shit anyway.

[alx]

But having a permanant non-exec director (or maybe even two) with the ability to sit in meetings, input the view of the fans, and report back to the fans a (qualified) summary of what's going on, would be better for the Club Board and, I believe, better for the JT.

 

But non-exec directors don't usually* have a massive percentage of the shares in the company that they are non-exec'ing. We are not just a 'supporters social and fundraising society' that gives free money to the club.

 

* caveat: I'm no expert on corporate structures.

[Woodstock Jag]

This meeting was touted as being the brave new dawn and was nothing of the sort.

 

This was absolutely not the intention. As per Tomved's post, this was not supposed to be a major unveiling of a majestic plan, but quite simply an effort to engage with the fan-base, communicate what little we know about the current situation, and canvass to aid a consensus on how we should respond as and when we have a clearer idea of the substance, if there is any, behind the proposed restructuring.

 

I didn't speak at the meeting, largely because the sentiment of anything I had to say was covered rather neatly by David on pretty much all areas. It did get bogged down in the detail of the Board Rep position, which was a little disappointing as the problems at the Club are much deeper rooted than that and it's an ancillary issue. Tom and David did try to steer away from the issue but at the end of the day it is an Open Meeting and the people who turned up had the opportunity to speak about other issues. My own view is that the Board Representative situation is actually an unhelpful road-block in the more general discussion, as it's the only detailed substantive issue to have been properly brought to a head.

 

Towards the end we did tentatively get onto the issue of engagement, and people have their own views about how best to bring this out, but all-too-often it turns into a chicken and egg discussion and apathy breeding apathy. The fundamental problem is best highlighted by Hot Shot's post earlier in the thread: a lot of people don't want anything to do with the Trust, but they can't articulate why (not their fault, I hasten to add) and the Trust struggle to engage with them and form a sort of mandate and clear purpose as a result.

[Pie Of The Month]

I was there last night and thought it was worthwhile, but will echo a few points above - I thought some other JTB members (Fiona, Maggie and Morag) turned it away from being constructive and into a bit of a board bashing session. I must admit to being a little disengaged at some of these parts of the discussion (are we really meant to believe that the Club Board are sexist?)

 

I agree with this and said as much on the way home. The bolded part was a ridiculous comment for them to make. They also seemed to be able to heckle or make comments whenever they seen fit whilst others were told not to shout out. Although it may not have been their intention it certainly made the night a lot less constructive.

[Vom Itorium]

I agree with this and said as much on the way home. The bolded part was a ridiculous comment for them to make. They also seemed to be able to heckle or make comments whenever they seen fit whilst others were told not to shout out. Although it may not have been their intention it certainly made the night a lot less constructive.

Maybe this is something the Club Board don't want? There has to be something that is creating this issue where the club do not want the elected Board Rep. Whatever it is has to be ironed out and the process of moving the Trust and club forward must take precedence.