Open Meeting

[MerryHell]

I'm a member of the Trust, but not the Trust board.

Last night was only ever intended as a 'first step' and as an exercise in communicating with the wider fan base, it has to be seen as being positive. Certainly, when you consider the turnout at a certain Tayside club's meeting last night (60-70 was reported), our turnout (and I include those listening online)for what was essentially an information exchage should also be viewed in a positve light.

I think some of the comments so far have been a little harsh, but nobody is wrong - a frank and honest discussion is what can only make the club and trust stronger.

As far as I understand, the Club Board are currently doing an appraisal exercise whereby they are re-organising the club from top to bottom and trying to highlight shortages, in terms of skills and finance. This should be complete by year end. They have stated their opinion that, in effect, there should be no passengers on the Club board and everyone should bring some skills and expertise to the table. The have also stated that they do not consider Morag to be an appropriate candidate for a full place on the Club board. They have offered the board the oportunity to sit in on board meetings until this process is complete, though i'm unsure if they would accept Morag for even this. Nobody seemed to be clear on what the Club board's objections to Morag are. This may stem from the fact that she was elected unoposed, or may not, this is just a thought and perhaps a reason why more people have to get involved in the Trust - does it lack legitimacy just now? Anyway, I think the Trust have to be part of this process as without any 'outside' involvement the Club board are effectivly appraising themselves and there is nothing to stop them, for example, considering that the Centenary Fund is well organised and run, or likewise the Thistle Juniors scheme, where the passports still haven't been distributed (have they even been printed yet?).

David's last comments were on possible fund raising streams, commenting that there were Trust members with PR businesses that could maybe be called upon to help. This IMO is a strength of the Trust - when the board highlight what skills shortages there are at the club, i'm sure there will be fans and trust members that would maybe be willing to lend a hand if they can. With this in mind, I think that that Trust could possibly argue that the Trust member does not have to fill any skills gap themselves - they are representing a group of people that have the skills the club require and the best interests of the club at heart. After all, as somebody said last night, if someone with money came along, would the Club board say no to them beacause they do not have certain skills/experience that they perceive to currently be required? I guess the biggest problem to resolve is who from the Trust can actually attend these Club board meeting.

Anyway, thanks to David and the rest of the Trust for organising last night.

[Mediocre Pundit]

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.

Yes, but the Jags Trust holds the shares for the fans of Partick Thistle, and a majority of the fans appear indifferent to the aims and/or performance of the Jags Trust.

[Junior]

Interesting meeting last night , not a lot of new information for most people but nice to hear it in one go. IMO some of the trust people spoke to much to the detriment of other fans being able to speak and that was the only bad part.

 

IMO the fundraising needs to be sorted out as a priority. Having multiple fundraisers is not the way forward ,its much easier to concentrate any effort on something like the Centenary Fund and the 50/50 draw and that should be it. Having fragemented schemes to cover such a small amount of people is a waste of resources. We were chatting afterwards about this and mentioned the Morton lottery (Morton Lottery), tickets are sold in local shops and a lot of non Morton fans take part in this, why not do something similar for us ? Put some 50/50 tickets in local businesses , stick a note on the ticket that the winning numbers will be announced at the game and you may get a few extra bodies along , also state that the numbers will be on the website on the Monday after the home game and its up to you to collect your prize if you win.

 

How about the trust approach the club and suggest that a group of fans run all the fundraisers ? They wanted a leap of faith , let them have one in the other way and trust the fans to raise as much money as they can. There are quite a few people who have done this in the past for the trust and club , surely it would be better to get these guys involved and combine everyones ideas and get something that caters for the majority and is clear and simple for everyone ?

 

The board rep thing TBH just turned into a bit of a joke last night , yeah it needs to be sorted and the fans needs someone working with the club but I like the idea of a non-exec director working as a checkpoint but would also counter that with a full director post. So would look for 2 people , 1 to be a full director working for the club (as any director should be) but another non-exec able to report on more things without the constraints of the full director post.

 

I do not think the remaining directors are trying to remove the fans influence from the board given that Jim Alexander was one of the people elected to the first reformed JT board , wouldnt that be a bit hypocritical to go back on his many years of wanting fan involvement ? Cant see that happening and I think they remaining guys need some time to sort out what needs to be done and then work alongside the fans to get it sorted.

[Blackpool Jags]

I've heard enough now to convince me that the Trust is worth rejoining and have just done so.

 

I hope this new direction of democracy and accountability will be sustained and developed further.

[GrantB]

While I can see a lot of progress has been made by the likes of David and Tom, a lot more still needs to be made before I'll rejoin.

[stolenscone]

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

 

It's a bit like herding cats to get suitable times and dates organised for folk to go over the figures and agree on the number of shares to be issued, but that process is in hand and will be concluded shortly.

[Steven H]

While I can see a lot of progress has been made by the likes of David and Tom, a lot more still needs to be made before I'll rejoin.

 

Expanding on that would be beneficial Grant, what will it take for you to rejoin?

[GrantB]

Expanding on that would be beneficial Grant, what will it take for you to rejoin?

 

Less of the board rep stuff which the meeting seemed to be getting bogged down with and the ridiculous accusations of sexism for starters.

[Alan Murray]

Good to see a good number at the meeting, even though I could not make it. Will try my best to make any future meetings.

 

I have just rejoined as well, just got around to it. Would recommend everybody to get behind the trust and join

http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/join-the-trust/

[Steven H]

Less of the board rep stuff which the meeting seemed to be getting bogged down with and the ridiculous accusations of sexism for starters.

 

I agree that both those things where slightly disappointing last night, the sexist comment was made by one person (off mic) and wasn't, as far as I could tell, a consensus of the JTB. If that's your reasons then fair enuf, it's your choice.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Steven H

[RodMcDonaldJag]

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.

 

Absolutely agree 100% The "they just want a man" comment was nothing short of ridiculous and that whole attitude struck me as totally unproductive. Felt there was a degree of grandstanding going on last night that proved to be very off putting. I will be rejoining the Jags Trust as i believe people like David and Tom are doing good work for the right reasons. If i went to last nights meeting without any prior knowledge of the people involved then in not so sure i would be as positive about rejoining the trust.

[stolenscone]

The question of supporter influence to ensure that the football club is properly structured and run as a sustainable business on behalf of the supporters (to break away from the bowling club mentality that riddles Scottish football) is important to my mind. I am personally open to different suggestions about how that might best be achieved, provided it results in meaningful influence and engagement from the top down.

 

I can only apologise if the meeting came across as a procedural exercise in navel gazing. That was never the intention, although as previously mentioned, it is perhaps understandable that the board rep issue was concentrated upon in the absence of further information on the Club's plans for future re-structuring. (Hopefully we will see more information coming out on this over the next few weeks.)

 

So in short, for me, fan influence is important but it must also be viewed in the context of the wider problems facing the football club.

 

I should say that it was a deliberate attempt to bring you personal views last night, allowing all other members of the Trust board to express their own opinions freely and without constraint. I think it made for a more open discussion rather than trying to stick to any party line that might have been agreed in advance. Apart from anything else, I'm not smart enough to stay on script had there been one!

[uberteeb]

What the trust need to do is some sort of relatively brief FAQ thing on their website or something and post the link up.

 

I feel I should at least be a member but I have no idea what the Trust actually want as thier final outcome, is it fan ownership? They should tell fans what they want, how they intend to do it and why getting as many fans as possible to sign up is needed.

 

From the odds and sods I read on this forum and the previous ones it just seems like a group of guys playing politics, divided, full of internal squabbling and with no clear direction on how to go about their business and, more importantly, what the result of their business should be.

[MerryHell]

GrantB - what I hope is clear from the posts on this forum is that everyone is free to express their opinions on the issues affecting the Trust with the ambition that the Trust can become as inclusive and representative of as broad a spectrum of our support as possible. IMO, it would be better for you to help shape the Trust by joining and voicing your opinions from within. You will win some arguements, you will lose some, but your opinion, as a member will never be insignificant.

[Guest fredthecheesecloth]

I attended the meeting yesterday evening, and have various observations, some probably quite radical, about the current state of play and the meeting last night.

 

First of all, David and Tom were excellent as ever. These are 2 guys who really care about the club, and speak very well and clearly, while also being very intelligent people. My question is why is David/Tom not being put forward as board rep. I heard the Rep speak last night, and I was not inspired. While is maybe slightly unfair that she is not being allowed to stand as a vaild representative, I firmly believe there are better/more inspiring candidates right under the JT's nose. If there are circumstances not allowing either of Tom/David standing, or indeed that is their own personal preference, then that is not a problem, I am only making an observation.

 

Secondly, the previous Jags Trust Rep (small lady - I am terrible with names). We need somebody if that stature, to go into the baordroom and stamp their personality and the Jags Trust views on the baord. They need to fight the battles. What I was disappointed in was the other young ladyu, determined on board bashing. That is going to get us absolutely nowhere now. We are in the 'new era' and we should move forward. As David said there is no point in reflecting on the past.

 

Thirdly, I do no understand why there was not more of a reacton to the fact that fans may be asked to make up the shortfall. There was too much focus on this board seat, which in my opinion is a non topic when that kind of bombshell is dropped.

 

Finally, while the little table at the front looked very 'pretty', what was the need for it. I appreciate that we meeting was broadcast, and thats fantastic, but what was the need for people sitting there. Put them in the front row. 2 OF THEM DID NOT EVEN SPEAK!!

[Willjag]

What the trust need to do is some sort of relatively brief FAQ thing on their website or something and post the link up.

 

I feel I should at least be a member but I have no idea what the Trust actually want as thier final outcome, is it fan ownership? They should tell fans what they want, how they intend to do it and why getting as many fans as possible to sign up is needed.

 

From the odds and sods I read on this forum and the previous ones it just seems like a group of guys playing politics, divided, full of internal squabbling and with no clear direction on how to go about their business and, more importantly, what the result of their business should be.

To turn that around Uberteeb, what do you want the Trust to do that would make you join?

[Phoenix]

With regard to the board rep position and looking at it from the club boards point of view what benefits are gained from having a member of the Jags Trust on the board?

In my opinion the JT will still provide the same income to the club regardless of having someone on the board. The same goes for the fans who will always put their hands in their pockets.

The only way to counter this would be to withhold money from the club until the board rep is allowed to take up their position in the boardroom but that would be counter productive.

By the sound of it the JT board are taking some of the credit for the removal of three directors. Looks to me like they have been used as pawns by certain people on the club board.

[GrantB]

GrantB - what I hope is clear from the posts on this forum is that everyone is free to express their opinions on the issues affecting the Trust with the ambition that the Trust can become as inclusive and representative of as broad a spectrum of our support as possible. IMO, it would be better for you to help shape the Trust by joining and voicing your opinions from within. You will win some arguements, you will lose some, but your opinion, as a member will never be insignificant.

 

I was a member for many years and for the most of that, I felt completely insignificant. Things got better thanks in no small part to the likes of Allan Heron bringing the clique that had been passing the board rep position around amongst themselves. However, it then decsended into a squabbling match with people joining the JTB and resigning due to the inability to make any progress. Things are getting better with Stolenscone and Honved on board but there is a lot more than needs to be done before I will feel like it is something I want to become a part of again.

[uberteeb]

To turn that around Uberteeb, what do you want the Trust to do that would make you join?

 

Sack Ian McCall (or more diplomatically, allow myself and fans to have a voice in who manages the club).

 

Stop the destruction of Firhill.

 

Make Thistle a club at the forefront of restructuring Scottish football, put concrete proposals in place rather than the eternal roundabout of nothingness that appears in the media and goes nowhere.

 

Lower prices at Firhill and football in general, links in with increasing crowds.

 

More unrealistically, improve the playing budget.

[Willjag]

Can we just stop beating about the bush and say what everyone is thinking? The Trust have a problem with fans not liking the NW bus representation on the Jags Trust Board. When I speak to people that's what I hear. Perhaps then the Trust should consider a cull as the Club Board have done and remove any unpopular members from their number and allow the Trust and the Club to move on and get us out of any mess we are in. AFter all it should be about Partick Thistle not individuals on the Club Board or the Trust Board.

[Willjag]

Sack Ian McCall (or more diplomatically, allow myself and fans to have a voice in who manages the club).

 

Stop the destruction of Firhill.

 

Make Thistle a club at the forefront of restructuring Scottish football, put concrete proposals in place rather than the eternal roundabout of nothingness that appears in the media and goes nowhere.

 

Lower prices at Firhill and football in general, links in with increasing crowds.

 

More unrealistically, improve the playing budget.

I can't see you joining the Trust any time soon then Ubes. I don't think the Trust (or any fans association) can influence most of those points.

[twinny]

I can't see you joining the Trust any time soon then Ubes. I don't think the Trust (or any fans association) can influence most of those points.

 

A supporters' association should have some sort of influence on these decisions though. The ultimate decisions should perhaps not be in their power without being a fan owned club, but the trust has to have an influence as a major shareholder.

[Mr Scruff]

Well done. On holding the meeting, making sure it was productive and well managed, and enabling its broadcast to those of us who couldn't manage last night. Much more engaging than I was expecting.

 

This issue of the Trust Board Rep is of fundamental importance. The whole idea was that we ordinary fans, through the vehicle of the Trust, would have an actual participant in the board at director level. It is difficult to overstate the importance of that, and actually in that sense I've got some sympathy with the remaining club director's position that the 'candidate' needs to bring more than just a voice to the table, no matter how loud.

 

This cuts to the very essence of what the Trust is for. So it wasn't time wasted. I think the point made by someone (couldn't catch the name) about cautioning against accepting a non-executive observing role and the dangers of precedent are well made.

 

Is there no way to identify the club's real concern about the Trust's current representative?

 

Thanks for a very worthwhile exercise.

[Norgethistle]

A big thank you for last night it may not have been eutopia but it was a big step in the right direction, and for a nomad like myself it was great to listen in from norway, even if the local accents made me homesick

[Trotter]

Can we just stop beating about the bush and say what everyone is thinking? The Trust have a problem with fans not liking the NW bus representation on the Jags Trust Board. When I speak to people that's what I hear. Perhaps then the Trust should consider a cull as the Club Board have done and remove any unpopular members from their number and allow the Trust and the Club to move on and get us out of any mess we are in. AFter all it should be about Partick Thistle not individuals on the Club Board or the Trust Board.

 

I'd agree with all of the above!

 

Unfortunately , I think the problem may be replacing them.