Independent Fans Statement

[sandy]

One aspect the analysis above makes clear is that we have an over-complicated and some might say ‘factioned’ approach to fan representation.

Perhaps in all of this there will be scope to have a single unified fans group with a single clear shareholding. We are a disparate group of supporters, but energy is being wasted surely having multiple ‘Trusts’. 
 

I realise we have the current set-up due to historical factors, but the handover of shares to 3BC looks like a great opportunity to make things simpler, democratic and more effective. 

[Z88]

25 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Everything is possible, but would you say PTFC Trust is fan controlled or even answerable to the fans? It’s not even had elections in timeframe that was meant to happen.

Has anyone had any feedback from the “fans reps” on the board?

I’m certainly not an expert in any of this but reading the summary I think 3BC could argue that although no Trust elections have been held etc,  the Trust is still deemed to represent the fans as beneficiaries.  Assuming there are more than 600 season ticket holders of 2years plus standing (which may well be the case) 3BC could argue that the Trust is more representative of the fans than the Foundation?  I guess also if the shares were gifted to them ,  the Trust could call for or be pressured to hold elections after the event?   

just reading Sandy’s post there. An almagamation of TJF and PTFC Trust to form one fans group  may offer a solution to the current shambles 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Z88
Read a post to add

[sandy]

14 minutes ago, Z88 said:

 

just reading Sandy’s post there. An almagamation of TJF and PTFC Trust to form one fans group  may offer a solution to the current shambles 

No doubt a range of possible options exist. 
 

Speaking personally, it might be cleaner to have TJF as the solution and consign the existing Trusts to history. That may be controversial, but it would at least remove the historical baggage and give us a fresh start on the solid principles that the current ‘independent fans’ are developing. 

[Z88]

22 minutes ago, sandy said:

No doubt a range of possible options exist. 
 

Speaking personally, it might be cleaner to have TJF as the solution and consign the existing Trusts to history. That may be controversial, but it would at least remove the historical baggage and give us a fresh start on the solid principles that the current ‘independent fans’ are developing. 

In an ideal world that would be the way to go I agree. 

[Norgethistle]

53 minutes ago, Z88 said:

I’m certainly not an expert in any of this but reading the summary I think 3BC could argue that although no Trust elections have been held etc,  the Trust is still deemed to represent the fans as beneficiaries.  Assuming there are more than 600 season ticket holders of 2years plus standing (which may well be the case) 3BC could argue that the Trust is more representative of the fans than the Foundation?  I guess also if the shares were gifted to them ,  the Trust could call for or be pressured to hold elections after the event?   

just reading Sandy’s post there. An almagamation of TJF and PTFC Trust to form one fans group  may offer a solution to the current shambles 

PTFC Trust has Gerry Britton as it’s head, that’s the club CEO so not a true fan ownership. It is effectively controlled by the club which in turn is controlled by 3BC, this is a quasi model of fan ownership.

Why have the supporters directors on the board not spoken out or helped towards moving things on towards transfer of shares? In fact where has their representation of the fans voices been over past few years?
 

Let’s also remember that it is the club (not the trust) that is responsible for holding the elections (that they have now missed) so it shows a club not fan control. The trust is also a passive organization as in it doesn’t involve an active decision to get involved (you don’t join, you are added with 3 years or whatever ST) and does not raise funds, it’s database for those eligible is not held by them, it’s held by the clubs season ticket database, so again the demarcation lines become more blurred.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, sandy said:

One aspect the analysis above makes clear is that we have an over-complicated and some might say ‘factioned’ approach to fan representation.

Perhaps in all of this there will be scope to have a single unified fans group with a single clear shareholding. We are a disparate group of supporters, but energy is being wasted surely having multiple ‘Trusts’. 
 

I realise we have the current set-up due to historical factors, but the handover of shares to 3BC looks like a great opportunity to make things simpler, democratic and more effective. 

On this point there is a sense in which “we are where we are”. There is something to be said for a diverse ownership even in fan ownership if you want to protect the long term future of the Club. That’s why post Save the Jags you had a diverse shareholding.

If the PTFC Trust is given the Three Black Cats shares it will control almost 3/4 of the shares in the Club, which is a fundamentally different proposition to any one organisation owning 55%. It exacerbates all the governance problems underpinning PTFC Trust.

Simplicity has a value, but we shouldn’t pursue simplicity at any cost. At the end of the day 55% is enough, more than enough, to give meaningful fan control to Thistle fans given the right vehicle and attitude.

Let simplicity be a post fan ownership problem…

[Norgethistle]

12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

On this point there is a sense in which “we are where we are”. There is something to be said for a diverse ownership even in fan ownership if you want to protect the long term future of the Club. That’s why post Save the Jags you had a diverse shareholding.

If the PTFC Trust is given the Three Black Cats shares it will control almost 3/4 of the shares in the Club, which is a fundamentally different proposition to any one organisation owning 55%. It exacerbates all the governance problems underpinning PTFC Trust.

Simplicity has a value, but we shouldn’t pursue simplicity at any cost. At the end of the day 55% is enough, more than enough, to give meaningful fan control to Thistle fans given the right vehicle and attitude.

Let simplicity be a post fan ownership problem…

Absolutely. I would hope going forward the Jags Trust and PTFC trust would help hold TFE to account as significant shareholders should and vise versa there needs to be checks and balances and a broad spectrum of opinions and inputs to ensure the club is run better, run sustainably and listens to and acts on the wishes of the fans, which without there is no club, no club means no Woman's team, no charitable trust, no junior jags and all the other benefits a wider community gets from a well run football club.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Z88 said:

I’m certainly not an expert in any of this but reading the summary I think 3BC could argue that although no Trust elections have been held etc,  the Trust is still deemed to represent the fans as beneficiaries.  Assuming there are more than 600 season ticket holders of 2years plus standing (which may well be the case) 3BC could argue that the Trust is more representative of the fans than the Foundation?  I guess also if the shares were gifted to them ,  the Trust could call for or be pressured to hold elections after the event?   

just reading Sandy’s post there. An almagamation of TJF and PTFC Trust to form one fans group  may offer a solution to the current shambles 

The PTFC Trust represents a passive membership (a subset of season ticket holders largely unmotivated by its existence), has no meaningful engagement with fans, and depends on the whims of the Club custodians even to decide whether and when it holds elections. It literally cannot run elections without the Club’s cooperation because of how it defines beneficiaries.

The Jags Foundation has an active membership (everyone signs a direct debit or card equivalent), has the backing of fans willing to contribute regardless of season ticket status (therefore brings actual new revenue that the club does not otherwise leverage by default), has actually got a website of its own and communicates with the fans and isn’t controlled by whoever controls the Club Board (rather than vice versa).

To give PTFC Trust the Three Black Cats shares wouldn’t be fan ownership; it would be sham ownership. If it had been Colin Weir’s intention to pursue that he could have done it no bother.

It is instructive that he and others instead set up The Working Group, which later became The Jags Foundation. PTFC Trust having these shares, simply put, wasn’t what was contemplated.

[sandy]

If the opportunity to make things simple is there, I think we should take it. It would be the ideal solution. Make all the changes at once. 
 

PTFC Trust is not the answer as @Norgethistle has alluded to. The elephant in the room is perhaps the JT. If we don’t have a conversation about it then we are accepting it’s role as a second fan group. Plurality of shareholding & representation as you say. 
 

Some may be happy with that, personally I just find it confusing. But then I’m just an ordinary fan. 
 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, sandy said:

If the opportunity to make things simple is there, I think we should take it. It would be the ideal solution. Make all the changes at once. 
 

PTFC Trust is not the answer as @Norgethistle has alluded to. The elephant in the room is perhaps the JT. If we don’t have a conversation about it then we are accepting it’s role as a second fan group. Plurality of shareholding & representation as you say. 
 

Some may be happy with that, personally I just find it confusing. But then I’m just an ordinary fan. 
 

 

In an ideal world you would have one fan controlled fan ownership vehicle, with a proper corporate structure, engaged with and accountable to the fans.

That should be the long term goal. But you also play the cards you are dealt.

It is more important that the majority shareholder is fan controlled and fan owned in a real sense than that the structure is simplified.

Let’s not get lost in the weeds and let the best be the enemy of the good.

What matters here and now is suitability and engagement. The only organisation even remotely close to ticking both boxes is The Jags Foundation. If other organisations want to throw in their lot with a superior corporate structure, a more active revenue raising model, and a more transparent form of fan control, by all means feel free so to do.

But the core priority, and the thing that will actually make a difference to how our Club is run, is where the 55% sits.

[sandy]

We can agree on the 55%  

[Lenziejag]

7 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The PTFC Trust represents a passive membership (a subset of season ticket holders largely unmotivated by its existence), has no meaningful engagement with fans, and depends on the whims of the Club custodians even to decide whether and when it holds elections. It literally cannot run elections without the Club’s cooperation because of how it defines beneficiaries.

The Jags Foundation has an active membership (everyone signs a direct debit or card equivalent), has the backing of fans willing to contribute regardless of season ticket status (therefore brings actual new revenue that the club does not otherwise leverage by default), has actually got a website of its own and communicates with the fans and isn’t controlled by whoever controls the Club Board (rather than vice versa).

To give PTFC Trust the Three Black Cats shares wouldn’t be fan ownership; it would be sham ownership. If it had been Colin Weir’s intention to pursue that he could have done it no bother.

It is instructive that he and others instead set up The Working Group, which later became The Jags Foundation. PTFC Trust having these shares, simply put, wasn’t what was contemplated.

I am going to hazard a guess that the members of the PTFC Trust, The Jags Foundation and the signatories to the open letter are largely the same people. If that is the case, would it be better for Jags Foundation members and open letter signatories to cancel their membership of PTFC Trust to send a clear message that that is not the fan ownership vehicle the fans want ?

[Woodstock Jag]

24 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I am going to hazard a guess that the members of the PTFC Trust, The Jags Foundation and the signatories to the open letter are largely the same people. If that is the case, would it be better for Jags Foundation members and open letter signatories to cancel their membership of PTFC Trust to send a clear message that that is not the fan ownership vehicle the fans want ?

You can’t “cancel” your “membership” of the PTFC Trust without ceasing to be a season ticket holder in the current season (if we are in a season). This is partly my point about passive membership.

For all intents and purposes, the PTFC Trust cannot lose beneficiaries unless there’s a massive season ticket boycott!

Edited April 22, 2022 by Woodstock Jag

[Lenziejag]

6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You can’t “cancel” your “membership” of the PTFC Trust without ceasing to be a season ticket holder in the current season (if we are in a season). This is partly my point about passive membership.

For all intents and purposes, the PTFC Trust cannot lose beneficiaries unless there’s a massive season ticket boycott!

I see - I thought you meant you couldn’t become a member unless you were a ST holder. I am a ST holder and have had zero communication from PTFC Trust ever. I didn’t realise it was automatic(assuming the qualifications).

[sandy]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I see - I thought you meant you couldn’t become a member unless you were a ST holder. I am a ST holder and have had zero communication from PTFC Trust ever. I didn’t realise it was automatic(assuming the qualifications).

At the risk of being pedantic, are there GDPR issues around sharing of ST holder details within the Club and enrolling them into PTFC Trust without their permission? 

[douglas clark]

36 minutes ago, sandy said:

At the risk of being pedantic, are there GDPR issues around sharing of ST holder details within the Club and enrolling them into PTFC Trust without their permission? 

At the risk of being super pendantic. I have held a Thistle Season ticket, sometimes, but not all the time (I am quite old). For several years, my family and I  have 'paid at the gate'.

I do not see myself, nor my family, as lesser supporters because of that.

The people that come through the gate, and the excetera's of extras, are all more than welcome to my Firhill. I frankly don't get this new division of pay at the gate and season ticket holders.

Just out of curiosity, what would the 'gate' be if it was limited to season ticket holders?

That, it seems to me is an unjustifiable snobbery. And, probably a death knell for the club. No growth, no future.

And absolutely no Jag fan should be happy to be called a snob!

 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by douglas clark

[sandy]

Yes @douglas clarkthe criteria to be a member of the PTFC appears arbitrary and divisive. I’ve held season tickets in the past, but not now.

I’ve also sponsored players shirts but that seemingly doesn’t count. I know other fans who have put hundreds of pounds into the Club, but they wouldn’t qualify either. 

I suspect the PTFC Trust was a Club-designed fan body to replace (in their eyes) the Jags Trust. Yet as Norgethistle and Woodside Jag point out, they don’t appear to communicate or operate democratically. 

If JLow announces that 3BC considers them a ‘fit & proper’ fans group, I hate to imagine the reaction. 

[douglas clark]

sandy,

Thanks for replying. There is something wrong with the way that Colin Weir's gift is being dealt with, at least in my opinion. I am not at all convinced that the people who have taken over his estate are acting the way he thought they would.

Could be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

[a f kincaid]

My my. I've been a member (beneficiary?) of the PTFC Trust since it was established. I'm looking forward to receiving my first communication from them!

Ref a point made above on ST holders. Take the average crowd announced at Firhill since we were allowed back in. Deduct the figure for away fans. That leaves, broadly speaking, a core home support.  That calculated figure seems to me to be worryingly close to the number of STs sold this season. Either most ST holders are attending and we are attracting very few PATG supporters or (worse still) were are doing so but it's the ST holders who aren't attending. The latter doesn't bode well for 2022/23.

PS.  Agree no distinction should be made between ST and PATG supporters. We all have (increasing) financial constraints.

 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

I see - I thought you meant you couldn’t become a member unless you were a ST holder. I am a ST holder and have had zero communication from PTFC Trust ever. I didn’t realise it was automatic(assuming the qualifications).

No, to be clear the Trust deed (as amended) defines a "beneficiary" and a "supporter" (the people who have the right to vote in Supporters Trustee elections) as those who hold a season ticket and have done so in the preceding two seasons, who are over the age of 18.

The Club is responsible for the administration of the Supporters Trustee elections (more on which below re sandy's post). Originally this responsibility was supposed to fall to the Supporters Federation (a body which, as I understand it, was to have representation from the supporters buses and all manner of such nonsense) but which was abolished shortly afterwards.

1 hour ago, sandy said:

At the risk of being pedantic, are there GDPR issues around sharing of ST holder details within the Club and enrolling them into PTFC Trust without their permission? 

There isn't any "enrolment". This is (I suspect) part of the reason why they simply got the Club to hold the Supporters Trustee elections: they have the consent to hold the Season Ticket Holder database, and one of the purposes for which they will have permission/legitimate interest to hold/process the data will be for communications (such as they are) from the PTFC Trust and in relation to its activities.

[douglas clark]

What is the fear about us PATG folk? (Pay at the Gate)

I cannot afford season tickets for myself, my two sons and my two grandchildren to cover every game.

We have to budget.

And some weeks we are broke.

Yet we see ourselves as just as strong supporters as our richer friends?

 

 

 

[Norgethistle]

2 hours ago, douglas clark said:

What is the fear about us PATG folk? (Pay at the Gate)

I cannot afford season tickets for myself, my two sons and my two grandchildren to cover every game.

We have to budget.

And some weeks we are broke.

Yet we see ourselves as just as strong supporters as our richer friends?

 

 

 

A true fan ownership model, must be accessible to ALL fans who wish to be part, regardless of financial circumstances or location (We have many Nomads, myself included) who would be excluded under the Partick Thistle trust model as they do not have a season ticket for 2 consecutive seasons. A lot of fans work shifts too which would make season tickets unrealistic to purchase from a money’s worth point of view. 
My view is a fan ownership model should be open to join for all fans, and membership is determined by those who wish to join, not by the club setting the remit and holding and controlling the database of members.

[Aliballibee]

Fan ownership, by its very nature, must involve some kind of financial commitment, probably monthly or annually, to the club. However I don't see the need for this to be tied to the purchase of a season ticket, just a willingness to make a regular contribution. Looking at a recent interview with a "Well Society" member:

Motherwell FC is the first top-flight club in the UK to be owned by their supporters. Every fan has the opportunity to become a member of The Well Society by paying as little as £5 a month and in turn the club is in the hands of those who care most about it.  

Given that we are approaching the end of the season (hopefully a week or two away yet) how easy would it be to "untie" seasons tickets from the Trust?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Aliballibee

[joekea]

"Fan ownership, by its very nature, must involve some kind of financial commitment, probably monthly or annually, to the club."

Why is this the case?  We have been gifted the investment already made by CW.  In Motherwell's case, the monthly payment is to pay back a £1m loan from the former

owner to the fans to buy the club. I can understand the very real need to spend more on the stadium as this will deteriorate and cost more to fix if it isn't maintained properly.

I would not want another £10 per month of my hard earned  going on a players budget when the normal entry, season ticket, advertisement, sponsorship and other income should take care of that on a proper budget.

Any other opinions on the above or ring fencing monthly contributions?

 

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Aliballibee said:

Fan ownership, by its very nature, must involve some kind of financial commitment, probably monthly or annually, to the club. However I don't see the need for this to be tied to the purchase of a season ticket, just a willingness to make a regular contribution. Looking at a recent interview with a "Well Society" member:

Motherwell FC is the first top-flight club in the UK to be owned by their supporters. Every fan has the opportunity to become a member of The Well Society by paying as little as £5 a month and in turn the club is in the hands of those who care most about it.  

Given that we are approaching the end of the season (hopefully a week or two away yet) how easy would it be to "untie" seasons tickets from the Trust?

It is entirely up to the PTFC Trustees (all of which have been either appointed by the Club or co-opted by the Trust by a decision of people appointed by the Club) to decide whether to vary the trust deed of the PTFC Trust. Indeed, to be fair, the definition of a qualifying beneficiary with voting rights was actually relaxed several years ago from the original (to cut the consecutive ST holder requirement by a season).

The fundamental problem with the PTFC Trust model isn’t just that only a subset of season ticket holders can vote in its elections (that’s just the salt in the wound for PATG or Nomads). It’s that the Club can essentially just decide to change the Trust’s rules willy nilly so it doesn’t hold elections. The Club then can stack it, and has stacked it, with whoever it likes, and the Trust doesn’t actually do anything to engage with fans or raise money for the Club. All it does is put whoever is in charge of the Club Board in charge of how its (currently 19%) shareholding votes.

By contrast, The Jags Foundation (and in fairness The Jags Trust too) are independent models in which you make a minimum financial commitment, actively choose to join. That makes you someone with voting rights in the organisation the same as anyone else. It’s active membership, for a clear purpose.

Of those three organisations, we know TJF has about 500 revenue raising active members. We know this because it is public and transparent and engages with the fans about its efforts to recruit and fundraise.

I have absolutely no idea how many beneficiaries the PTFC Trust has (I’d guess it’s over 1000 but I suspect the vast majority of them are oblivious that they are beneficiaries of it and have voting rights).

I have absolutely no idea how many members The Jags Trust currently has, because it’s not disclosed or approximated in any recent public document on its website or filed returns/accounts. When it appears it last filed a set of accounts and annual return with the Financial Conduct Authority some six years ago it said it had 548 members. If you look at the membership figures in the years they filed a return between 2009 and 2016, the membership fluctuated between about 300 and 600 (when I was on its board back in 2009/10 it was about 500-550) .

The Jags Trust model is much less driven by regular contributions, with an annual membership fee of £10. The membership criteria of The Jags Trust is very inclusive (cost wouldn’t be an obstacle for most fans). But at the same time, they would raise about £5kpa off a membership of 500 (assuming no concessions). The Jags Foundation would raise that off just 42 members, and it has about 12 times as many as that (at least).

The issue here is not whether The Jags Trust or PTFC Trust can change their rules to be fairer or more inclusive. The point is (for different reasons) neither of them appears to have the level of engagement with fans to deliver a fan ownership model, and they are plainly not as well placed as The Jags Foundation to do it.

Both of those organisations had the opportunity to be a vehicle for fan influence on the running of our football club. But they haven’t worked.