Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Following on from the joint letter signed roughly 700 fans. Several of the original signatures have decided to stand for election for the Jags Foundation board under a “Common Platform” with the aim of bringing the club into fan ownership using the only viable vehicle of The Jags Foundation.

More details can be found in the link, showing who we are, and what we stand for. 
 

We would gratefully appreciate any votes for us if you believe in the same as us.

 

https://jagsforchange.wordpress.com

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s been an absolute pleasure to come together with other fans from a range of different backgrounds in recent weeks, united by a desire to see progress on this.

Thistle and success come together when everyone pulls in the same direction. I hope we’ve shown in our short campaign our ability to unite and mobilise the support behind a common goal and that you’ll back us, and send a clear message that fan ownership must happen, and must happen with The Jags Foundation.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree with your broader sentiment DenisMcQuadeno.

This is exactly why the first pillar of The Common Platform is a call for clarity.

If The Jags Foundation elects The Common Platform candidates to be on their new Board, the agenda item on day one is to renew our demands for an explanation why the original plan was not allowed to progress, and for Three Black Cats to state publicly what its criteria are for a fit and proper fan-ownership vehicle.

We’ve had no response from the Club yet to The Open Letter, but we hope having some fresh faces in post will allow for a bit of a reset in relations. That was, after all, why the existing board decided to step down in the first place.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I agree with your aim and the sentiments of what you’re saying, but until 3BC, the Chair (one and the same!), the PTFC board  make clearly known exactly what the criteria is, (as they see it) to be regarded as “Fit and Proper” (ie what they said the previous TJF leadership/directors WERE NOT) how do we know a new TJF leadership/directors would be any more acceptable than the first one?!! I would still like to know what exactly  were the reasons for the previous leadership to be rejected. We haven’t been told, only a few very vague words were offered. The official statement DIDN’T say, they accepted TJF but they rejected the leadership. It REJECTED TJF! WHY? I think the next step is for Jacqui LOW to finally come out and do some talking, be clear, explaining and offering up some transparency BEFORE the TJF elect a new leadership. I don’t know anything about the first leadership to be honest. And, I don’t totally understand why they offered to stand down. Jacqui Low and not one single member of the board is standing down. My point is, without knowing much, much more, electing a new TJF leadership may only be wasting time, and make (to TJF/PTFC board) not a jot of difference. We need to know what we’re not being told and then act. Eg If 3BC/ PTFC do not much care for a TJF which they cannot control and want people in the leadership who will always defer to Jacqui Low, that wouldn’t be acceptable to me and many, many others I would say. I and others want an independent leadership of TJF, accountable to the Thistle supporter fanbase first, and not beholden to 3BC, the Chair or anyone else.

I don't think that we, as fans or a fans's group, should wait to be dictated to by 3BC on what fan representation or who is elected as representatives. Even if the organisation we have developing is not what JL wants it is what the fans want.

TJF should continue to organise (and in my view gather donations) to put pressure on the board and 3BC to listen to the fans echoing what Colin Weir wanted when he bought a majority of shares in our club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotty said:

I've not being paying much attention lately due to family issues but is there a timescale for the elections?

The process was set out by TJF in its election communication to members but basically the three key dates are:

Tuesday 10th May (nominations deadline)

Ballots issued by Tuesday 17th May

Votes must be cast by Monday 30th May

And they hope to announce results by Tuesday 31 May

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I agree with your aim and the sentiments of what you’re saying, but until 3BC, the Chair (one and the same!), the PTFC board  make clearly known exactly what the criteria is, (as they see it) to be regarded as “Fit and Proper” (ie what they said the previous TJF leadership/directors WERE NOT) how do we know a new TJF leadership/directors would be any more acceptable than the first one?!! I would still like to know what exactly  were the reasons for the previous leadership to be rejected. We haven’t been told, only a few very vague words were offered. The official statement DIDN’T say, they accepted TJF but they rejected the leadership. It REJECTED TJF! WHY? I think the next step is for Jacqui LOW to finally come out and do some talking, be clear, explaining and offering up some transparency BEFORE the TJF elect a new leadership. I don’t know anything about the first leadership to be honest. And, I don’t totally understand why they offered to stand down. Jacqui Low and not one single member of the board is standing down. My point is, without knowing much, much more, electing a new TJF leadership may only be wasting time, and make (to TJF/PTFC board) not a jot of difference. We need to know what we’re not being told and then act. Eg If 3BC/ PTFC do not much care for a TJF which they cannot control and want people in the leadership who will always defer to Jacqui Low, that wouldn’t be acceptable to me and many, many others I would say. I and others want an independent leadership of TJF, accountable to the Thistle supporter fanbase first, and not beholden to 3BC, the Chair or anyone else.

I recognise much of this, and we cannot MAKE TBC engage with the next TJF board. But by making TJF a stronger and stronger members organisation, we increase the opportunity for engagement with them.

The 'Common Platform'  also means that the next TJF board could be aligned and have unity. This will help accelerate options, and the group has been an ideas factory so far, and so I have high hopes that there are lots of ways we can move this forward - if elected.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I agree with your aim and the sentiments of what you’re saying, but until 3BC, the Chair (one and the same!), the PTFC board  make clearly known exactly what the criteria is, (as they see it) to be regarded as “Fit and Proper” (ie what they said the previous TJF leadership/directors WERE NOT) how do we know a new TJF leadership/directors would be any more acceptable than the first one?!! I would still like to know what exactly  were the reasons for the previous leadership to be rejected. We haven’t been told, only a few very vague words were offered. The official statement DIDN’T say, they accepted TJF but they rejected the leadership. It REJECTED TJF! WHY? I think the next step is for Jacqui LOW to finally come out and do some talking, be clear, explaining and offering up some transparency BEFORE the TJF elect a new leadership. I don’t know anything about the first leadership to be honest. And, I don’t totally understand why they offered to stand down. Jacqui Low and not one single member of the board is standing down. My point is, without knowing much, much more, electing a new TJF leadership may only be wasting time, and make (to TJF/PTFC board) not a jot of difference. We need to know what we’re not being told and then act. Eg If 3BC/ PTFC do not much care for a TJF which they cannot control and want people in the leadership who will always defer to Jacqui Low, that wouldn’t be acceptable to me and many, many others I would say. I and others want an independent leadership of TJF, accountable to the Thistle supporter fanbase first, and not beholden to 3BC, the Chair or anyone else.

Why allow Low to define the criteria for "Fit and Proper" when a financial industry definition is available, commonly used and universally accepted.  We should be more proactive and seek legal counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I’d love to know what point I’ve missed. Surely, we need to know EXACTLY where 3BC, Jacqui Low, PTFC board stand, in order to organise a response. That is my point, what’s yours?

If I’m reading this correctly, I think you’re both making good points.  And I think it’s best if they are executed in order:

1) Establish/identify reasonableness for “fit and proper” from a generally accepted legal point of view (so much the better if attorney input is available)

2) Ensure TJF gets to that baseline

3) Demonstrate this to 3BC/Low, understand where/why this falls short of their expectation.  Because ultimately it’s 3BC’s ball and 3BC can go home if it wants to

I think a full reset is required, including “good faith” discussions and assumptions that:

- Jacqui Low/3BC is trying to do the right thing by ensuring the entity to which the shares are handed over is a sound, legitimate going concern (for the club’s sake)

- Jacqui Low understands that TJF is trying to do the right things to demonstrate they are fit for this purpose

- Getting into anything remotely combative is going to end in the same result

Not saying that prior TJF didn’t do this - or attempt to do this - but something clearly went wrong.  The very first thing the new TJF board should do is seek separate meetings with the prior incarnation of TJF, as well as 3BC, to understand past history in order to make a clean slate and attempt to move forward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, just what we need is another splinter fan group.

The elections were meant to pull the fans together. What you have done is create a group, that will try to control the Jags Foundation.

What was wrong with having the elections, and then all the board work out together what the common platform is.

The new Jags Foundation board need to be unified, and not have a group within a board, that could have a block vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What went wrong between the club board and the Jags Foundation?

I think Jackie Low had concerns about handing the shares over to an organisation, that only had 460 members, that would raise on an annual basis just over £50k based on members monthly subscriptions..

Across the world there must be 5000 Jags fans, so less than 10% is too small a number to give it credibility. 

More time should have been spent building up the Jags Foundation numbers, and less on arguments about due diligence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Two things stand out for me here:

Firstly, “-Getting into anything remotely combative is going to end in the same result.”

Secondly, “…but something clearly went wrong.”

This is obviously true, but WHAT EXACTLY? We, the supporters need to know. The website statement of 09/04/22 was vague and unspecific.

In point 1, I only meant that the end of the former TJF/3BC relationship got a bit finger-pointy, to the extent of ending the relationship - and that I hope that next incarnation doesn’t make the same error.  There have been some comments on here suggesting a near-nefarious agenda on Jacqui Low’s part.  As representatives of the fans, I’m just saying TJF should ensure they steer clear of this view for fear of the same end.

Point 2 - agree fully.  It’s why I mentioned the first thing new TJF must do is understand what went south with the former TJF/3BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, erty13 said:

What went wrong between the club board and the Jags Foundation?

I think Jackie Low had concerns about handing the shares over to an organisation, that only had 460 members, that would raise on an annual basis just over £50k based on members monthly subscriptions..

Across the world there must be 5000 Jags fans, so less than 10% is too small a number to give it credibility. 

More time should have been spent building up the Jags Foundation numbers, and less on arguments about due diligence. 

£50kpa is roughly equivalent to how much Directors used to raise by way of the Directors fees each year, when David Beattie was chair.

At the moment, we don’t know how much money 3BC contributes to the Club on an annual basis, because they wouldn’t disclose any meaningful financial information to TJF.

If it’s less than £50k, and our accounts are showing break even (as they did for 2020-21), then actually, TJF doesn’t need to raise much more ongoing revenue. It’s just replacing what is already there.

If it’s a lot more than £50k, that means that the Club has actually been making really big losses once you strip out 3BC support. A cursory glance at the 3BC Annual Return to Companies House suggests that its cash reserves reduced quite significantly (we’re talking about half a million) in the latest financial year.

If that money went into PTFC, then on the one hand 3BC is providing generous support to the Club, and thank goodness for that. But on the other hand, how sustainable is that in the long-term? The cash reserves of 3BC almost certainly cannot do that for more than maybe another year before they run out. So what’s the plan after that? Where’s the new money coming from?

Our financial problems don’t go away if we don’t have fan ownership. They just rest with a company that doesn’t have any revenue streams, which has a £5million loan from Colin Weir’s estate.

I don’t think the 5000 figure is a credible baseline against which to judge engagement. Against that criteria, I doubt that Hearts or Motherwell, for example, can lay claim to much more than 1 in 10 membership of their respective fan ownership vehicles.

It’s also a lot harder to recruit members when the Club/3BC won’t help the Foundation be clear with fans how much needs to be raised and what they’re raising it for. As I understand it, there was a constant reluctance on the Club/3BC’s part to put a number on it that a fan-ownership vehicle could then be expected to chase down.

Frankly, if there is a number, one has to ask why the Club/3BC set a target, back in October, for a transfer of shares by June, if it was apparent that TJF had no realistic prospect of getting near to it. Why get this far on in the process if it was going to need, say, 1000 fans making regular contributions, a figure that (proportionally) is a good deal higher relative to our home support than other clubs have had when they moved to fan ownership?

Due diligence is a means to an end. It provides the framework through which a fan owned vehicle can set itself and the fans targets, and pursue a fundraising strategy to meet it. It is, quite literally, how a new owner demonstrates that they are fit and proper to run the Club sustainably. If the Club/3BC aren’t supportive of developing that framework, people are entitled to ask the question why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, erty13 said:

Great, just what we need is another splinter fan group.

The elections were meant to pull the fans together. What you have done is create a group, that will try to control the Jags Foundation.

What was wrong with having the elections, and then all the board work out together what the common platform is.

The new Jags Foundation board need to be unified, and not have a group within a board, that could have a block vote.

We are not a splinter group. We are paying members of TJF who have a clear shared vision for what should happen next, who have already taken important steps to engage and unite the support (more than 700 fans signing our open letter).

We don’t want to waste time, starting to come up with a plan of action post elections in June, by which time two months will have passed since the cooperation broke down. This process has already taken 2.5 years. We are offering a clear prospectus and plan of action that TJF can pursue from day one. I strongly suspect that others who are standing or have thought about standing will be sympathetic to our proposed approach.

If the membership is not sympathetic to our approach, it is of course entirely open to other candidates to stand and to explain why they oppose our platform. We welcome an honest airing of views as to what the members want TJF to do next. We just think our approach is the right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also a paying member of the Jags Foundation and signed the letter as it was the correct message to give to the club.

My signature on the letter was not a mandate for the people who wrote the letter, to be used for the election of the Jags Foundation. There was never any mention of that.

What I would like to see is the best people elected, and I believe that by forming the group you are distorting this process. Some of your group were board members of the Jags Foundation, and quite frankly communication from the Jags Foundation, to its members was awful.

Let's not live in the past quoting £50k from the Beatie board to justify the numbers for the Jags Foundation. Talking of numbers, I have never seen how much money the Jags Foundation have raised. Is it sitting in the bank somewhere or has it been spent, of did we give any to the manager to support the team.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmm……I’m not sure that having a ‘slate’ of like minded individuals which looks very much like another ‘grouping’ was the best way to go but that’s your call.

looking at the group as a whole to me it’s a little lightweight to be running what is a business after all …..being a fan is not enough 

hopefully more candidates with more experience will come forward , if they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, erty13 said:

I am also a paying member of the Jags Foundation and signed the letter as it was the correct message to give to the club.

My signature on the letter was not a mandate for the people who wrote the letter, to be used for the election of the Jags Foundation. There was never any mention of that.

The letter said:

"We want to ensure that suitable candidates – real fans with decades of experience of supporting the Jags – come forward to fill the vacant Board positions, and that the organisation is able to meet any reasonable requirements in a short space of time."

We are not claiming that the letter is a mandate for our plan. That is why the election is taking place and we are asking TJF's members to back it. The election will be the mandate for whoever ends up on the TJF Board. But our letter was clear in its core calls:

  • Clarity as to the criteria for a "fit and proper" fan-ownership vehicle
  • Re-iterating the call for the Club to accept "proper financial checks"
  • An explanation for why the Motherwell model was "rejected out of hand" and what corporate structure is therefore acceptable to 3BC
Quote

What I would like to see is the best people elected, and I believe that by forming the group you are distorting this process.

I'm afraid I disagree. If the membership of TJF genuinely don't agree with our platform, or only support some of our candidates, the process leaves it entirely open to them to stand other candidates and not to vote for some or all of the Jags for Change candidates.

Obviously I would encourage people to vote for all of our candidates. I will be voting for all of our candidates, because I have seen their passion for this process, and their determination to get things done in a prompt and professional manner.

Quote

Some of your group were board members of the Jags Foundation, and quite frankly communication from the Jags Foundation, to its members was awful.

Two of the group were board members. Both of them, I am sure, will be happy to account for their role on the board in the past.

There is no question that the TJF Board could have done things better in the past. Much of the lack of publicity was because there, frankly, wasn't very much to report to members.

Quote

Let's not live in the past quoting £50k from the Beatie board to justify the numbers for the Jags Foundation.

But it's important. You're saying that the Foundation can't raise enough money as things stand to fund the Club.

Either our Club's business model is one that isn't heavily dependent on subsidy of major shareholders/Directors (in which case the Foundation is raising plenty money already).

Or the Club's business model is one that is heavily dependent on subsidy of major shareholders/Directors (in which case the current funding model isn't sustainable regardless of who owns the Club).

Which is it?

Quote

Talking of numbers, I have never seen how much money the Jags Foundation have raised. Is it sitting in the bank somewhere or has it been spent, of did we give any to the manager to support the team.

My understanding is that TJF has had negligible outgoings, because the primary purpose of its fundraising was to build up a balance and a stream of revenue that it could use to support the Club as and when it became its majority shareholder and therefore responsible for deciding how it should be run.

It would, in my opinion, be a complete fool's errand simply to funnel this money directly into the Club without requisite assurances about the fan-ownership programme being delivered.

Without dragging up old history, this is exactly the situation The Jags Trust found itself in over a decade ago: where the Club started questioning why it was raising money independently of the Club. It culminated in TJT giving up its own lottery, in exchange for a promise of further shares that were never, in the end, issued. And in the space of a couple of years, the Club had the begging bowl out asking for a small four figure sum to replace a broken physio's trolley, only for the money to be spent towards getting Martin Hardie on loan from St Johnstone for a month instead.

A fan-ownership vehicle cannot, on the one hand, be told that it is not suitable because it doesn't raise enough independent revenue, and then be told on the other hand that it should unconditionally funnel every penny it raises into the Club, for nothing in return.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Either our Club's business model is one that isn't heavily dependent on subsidy of major shareholders/Directors (in which case the Foundation is raising plenty money already).

Or the Club's business model is one that is heavily dependent on subsidy of major shareholders/Directors (in which case the current funding model isn't sustainable regardless of who owns the Club).

It’s a good tactic with a long history to posit two forced choices as though they are the only two views or facts available. They are not and not in this case either.

you actually don’t know what the clubs business model is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It’s a good tactic with a long history to posit two forced choices as though they are the only two views or facts available. They are not and not in this case either.

you actually don’t know what the clubs business model is.

What is your plausible third explanation?

If the Club's business model is heavily dependent on the subsidy of major shareholders/Directors, but it is sustainable then what is it? Where is that money coming from? Who is providing it? How much? Subject to what conditions?

If the Club's business model is not heavily dependent on the subsidy of major shareholders/Directors, why is TJF's existing fundraising level a cause for concern for the Club's long-term sustainability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

What is your plausible third explanation?

If the Club's business model is heavily dependent on the subsidy of major shareholders/Directors, but it is sustainable then what is it? Where is that money coming from? Who is providing it? How much? Subject to what conditions?

If the Club's business model is not heavily dependent on the subsidy of major shareholders/Directors, why is TJF's existing fundraising level a cause for concern for the Club's long-term sustainability?

There is a third explanation for 3BC rejecting the TJF model of ownership which has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with the control over that organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotty said:

There is a third explanation for 3BC rejecting the TJF model of ownership which has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with the control over that organisation.

Precisely.

And as we said in The Open Letter:

"We do not consider it reasonable that the form of fan ownership which is in place at every other fan owned club in the UK (including Motherwell, which was the example that Colin Weir originally hoped to follow) should be “rejected out of hand” as the outgoing TJF Board reports. This model has not only been adopted at other clubs but has been seen to work, so in what way is Partick Thistle different in this aspect?

And we absolutely do not consider it reasonable or acceptable for ownership of Colin Weir’s shares to be transferred to any group of so-called fan representation who have been hand-picked by the current Board or Chair."

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...