Jags For Change

[javeajag]

33 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?

All good questions which reinforce my point that you don’t actually know but are speculating and at no point did I mention TJF fundraising being a concern.

my point still stands you don’t know the clubs business model indeed wasn’t your demand for due diligence exactly to find that out ?!

[Woodstock Jag]

14 minutes ago, javeajag said:

All good questions which reinforce my point that you don’t actually know but are speculating and at no point did I mention TJF fundraising being a concern.

my point still stands you don’t know the clubs business model indeed wasn’t your demand for due diligence exactly to find that out ?!

You're making my point for me.

If reasonable answers exist to these questions, they should have been offered up to TJF long before October 2021, when 3BC and the Club agreed (with no one forcing them) to setting a timetable for transferring the shares by June 2022.

Given reasonable answers have not been provided, and the means to work out the answers has been denied, we are entitled to draw an adverse inference. We can do so based on publicly available information, which includes a significant reduction in cash reserves according to the publicly available accounts of the company that owns 55% of the Football Club.

The other poster erty13 suggested that the recent cooperation floundered because of the level of revenue TJF was raising.

Either that's not true (because TJF, in raising amounts comparable to previous Boards of Directors, is no less well placed to fund the Club than any previous custodians).

Or it is true, in which case it's because the current owners are providing a higher level of financial support, in which case (given that 3BC is not a revenue-raising company) any prudent person would ask "where's that money coming from and how long will it last?"

And the absence of answers on that front is troubling.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Woodstock Jag

[javeajag]

8 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You're making my point for me.

If reasonable answers exist to these questions, they should have been offered up to TJF long before October 2021, when 3BC and the Club agreed (with no one forcing them) to setting a timetable for transferring the shares by June 2022.

Given reasonable answers have not been provided, and the means to work out the answers has been denied, we are entitled to draw an adverse inference. We can do so based on publicly available information, which includes a significant reduction in cash reserves according to the publicly available accounts of the company that owns 55% of the Football Club.

The other poster erty13 suggested that the recent cooperation floundered because of the level of revenue TJF was raising.

Either that's not true (because TJF, in raising amounts comparable to previous Boards of Directors, is no less well placed to fund the Club than any previous custodians).

Or it is true, in which case it's because the current owners are providing a higher level of financial support, in which case (given that 3BC is not a revenue-raising company) any prudent person would ask "where's that money coming from and how long will it last?"

And the absence of answers on that front is troubling.

Ok I don’t know what was said between the club and TJF because both parties have refused to tell us, therefore I don’t if any answers are reasonable or not.

and my point still stands you don’t actually KNOW but are speculating.

[Lenziejag]

7 hours 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. 

Homing in on the number isn’t the right thing to do, I don’t think. The members aren’t committed for life, so the day after the shares are transferred that number could drop or it could increase ?  
If it’s the numbers that 3BC are using as their justification,that’s a smokescreen.

[sandy]

The season is over, the smoke will have cleared. Now 3BC have no excuses not to respond to the open letter. 
 

 

[jaf]

6 hours ago, javeajag said:

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.

Running a slate gives voting members a little more meat on the bones of what they are voting for.  
it also means that after an inordinate amount of time so far , if elected, that group can “hit the ground running”, and won’t spend time arguing with themselves over initial steps. There is I think some merit to that.  But everyone is entitled to their opinion. 
Ultimately, it’s firstly for the members to decide when they vote, and secondly for TBC to decide whether to engage with whoever the new TJF comprises of.  Every member is entitled to stand. Every member is entitled to vote. 

[erty13]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

Homing in on the number isn’t the right thing to do, I don’t think. The members aren’t committed for life, so the day after the shares are transferred that number could drop or it could increase ?  
If it’s the numbers that 3BC are using as their justification,that’s a smokescreen.

Numbers are important.  The size and financial viability is what gives an organisation credibility. 

If the Jags Foundation does not increase the numbers it represents, it will fail in any negotiation with the board.

The focus should be on building its voice and gain the consensus of the newly elected board to represent all the fans, rather that try to load the election in favour of a group with predetermined views.

[Dick Dastardly]

I am reminded of a quote from Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

[jaf]

5 minutes ago, erty13 said:

Numbers are important.  The size and financial viability is what gives an organisation credibility. 

If the Jags Foundation does not increase the numbers it represents, it will fail in any negotiation with the board.

The focus should be on building its voice and gain the consensus of the newly elected board to represent all the fans, rather that try to load the election in favour of a group with predetermined views.

My predetermined view is aligned to yours.  We need to increase numbers.  I don’t think you will find disagreement to that among any of the group standing. Nor indeed any of the group standing down I suspect. 
Its hard to sell something to sceptical people when you don’t know what you are actually selling.  That’s why there have been the demands for clarity on what criteria would make TBC engage with a fans organisation, something we do not yet know after two and a half years. 

[Norgethistle]

25 minutes ago, erty13 said:

Numbers are important.  The size and financial viability is what gives an organisation credibility. 

If the Jags Foundation does not increase the numbers it represents, it will fail in any negotiation with the board.

The focus should be on building its voice and gain the consensus of the newly elected board to represent all the fans, rather that try to load the election in favour of a group with predetermined views.

Morning Erty13
 

One of the points we are standing on is to drop the £10 a month to £5 a year to ensure every fan that wants to join regardless of financial situation is able to. The bigger the membership the stronger it’s position.

As within the common platform the main points we see as crucial we believe are key to moving forward, which were also highlighted in the initial open letter.

- What reasonable model would be acceptable to 3BC seeing as the tried and tested model used by Motherwell, Hearts and Exeter amongst others was rejected.

- What definition of “fit & proper” is being used by 3BC? As the previous board were shockingly classed as not meeting that, even though they have successful careers and been involved in raising significant cash towards the club.

Step 1 is to determine the rules of the game we need to play, as the previous foundation  board were hindered on never getting this set out and tied down by 3BC.

This is a democratic process and different people with different backgrounds and varying ideas can all stand for election on whatever mandate they see fit, it’s up to members to decide what initial route forward the board takes by voting a board in with whatever views the membership selects. 
 

Not every member will necessarily get the exact board they wish for, as 500 people will have slightly or massively differing views on what is important, but if elected we aim to ensure we are approachable to all members, answerable and accountable to the full membership. This includes importantly improving the communication and engagement going forward, whether good news or bad news, the elected board is there to represent the membership first and foremost to drive forward fan ownership. 
 

 

[erty13]

2 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Morning Erty13
 

One of the points we are standing on is to drop the £10 a month to £5 a year to ensure every fan that wants to join regardless of financial situation is able to. The bigger the membership the stronger it’s position.

As within the common platform the main points we see as crucial we believe are key to moving forward, which were also highlighted in the initial open letter.

- What reasonable model would be acceptable to 3BC seeing as the tried and tested model used by Motherwell, Hearts and Exeter amongst others was rejected.

- What definition of “fit & proper” is being used by 3BC? As the previous board were shockingly classed as not meeting that, even though they have successful careers and been involved in raising significant cash towards the club.

Step 1 is to determine the rules of the game we need to play, as the previous foundation  board were hindered on never getting this set out and tied down by 3BC.

This is a democratic process and different people with different backgrounds and varying ideas can all stand for election on whatever mandate they see fit, it’s up to members to decide what initial route forward the board takes by voting a board in with whatever views the membership selects. 
 

Not every member will necessarily get the exact board they wish for, as 500 people will have slightly or massively differing views on what is important, but if elected we aim to ensure we are approachable to all members, answerable and accountable to the full membership. This includes importantly improving the communication and engagement going forward, whether good news or bad news, the elected board is there to represent the membership first and foremost to drive forward fan ownership. 
 

 

Good afternoonNorgethistle.

It is fair to say we agree on many things, my only concern is the approach that has been taken.

By Jags for Change putting up candidates under one banner, this might put other members, with the skillset that is needed, from nominating themselves.  They could think that the election is either a foregone outcome, or that even if you were elected you would be up against a group who would dominate and only want their own point of view.

You group has articulated the issues really well, however the hard bit is working out what change can be achieved and how this should be navigated. This is always the challenging part in any negotiation. If the same approach is taken , we will get the same outcome.

For me that is why you elect the best candidates (not group) and they work out the solution together and gain real concensus. 

This is the first election open to any member, but it feels like a group are pushing it in one direction. 

Erty13 

 

 

 

[Norgethistle]

11 minutes ago, erty13 said:

Good afternoonNorgethistle.

It is fair to say we agree on many things, my only concern is the approach that has been taken.

By Jags for Change putting up candidates under one banner, this might put other members, with the skillset that is needed, from nominating themselves.  They could think that the election is either a foregone outcome, or that even if you were elected you would be up against a group who would dominate and only want their own point of view.

You group has articulated the issues really well, however the hard bit is working out what change can be achieved and how this should be navigated. This is always the challenging part in any negotiation. If the same approach is taken , we will get the same outcome.

For me that is why you elect the best candidates (not group) and they work out the solution together and gain real concensus. 

This is the first election open to any member, but it feels like a group are pushing it in one direction. 

Erty13 

 

 

 

I’ve no idea whether 8 or 80 are standing for elections so I’m hopeful there is choice for members to decide who fits their ideas of how we should go forward. 
The common platform published is for us to start with transparency prior to even the nominations closing as to who we are and what we see as important (including transparency) with as much time as possible for members to make their minds up, contact us or even stand with us or stand with apposing views. Deliberately we waited till after the play off game on Friday so not to be seen as a distraction. 
It is not a matter of vote for 1 of us vote for all of us, it’s 8 individual nominations who are standing with common views. Some may choose to back all of us, some may choose to back some of us, others may choose to not back any of us. That’s democracy and it’s welcomed and overdue. 
 

If you’ve any questions either drop them on here or DM me and I’ll be happy to answer as best as I can, but we currently are only nominees so don’t have access to inner workings of the Foundation so will not be able to answer on their current status or stance. 

[Woodstock Jag]

The other thing I’d add is that the Common Platform is about transparency on our part every bit as much as it is about seeking transparency from the Club/3BC.

We’re putting our heads above the parapet, each of us individually, but also as a group, because we share a vision for the Foundation and the Club and we think that vision has a stronger prospect of being realised through organised cooperation and engagement rather than us working individually.

It’s worth pointing out that we are, so far, the only candidates to have publicly declared and made ourselves available for scrutiny. I for one hope that changes in the next 24 hours, not least because we want to see a full complement on the 9 person board.

Equally, if there are problems with the prospectus we have set out, I want to see robust challenge of that, and for that to happen during the election, not when it’s too late and things have moved on. There’s skills and experience beyond the Jags for Change group core which will be vital to making a success of the Foundation.

But ultimately we are standing up to be counted because if we don’t, and if everyone takes an individual approach to the elections, we end up with a tragedy of the commons: where everyone holds back and doesn’t offer themselves because they assume others will step up to the plate.

[Lenziejag]

5 hours ago, erty13 said:

Numbers are important.  The size and financial viability is what gives an organisation credibility. 

If the Jags Foundation does not increase the numbers it represents, it will fail in any negotiation with the board.

The focus should be on building its voice and gain the consensus of the newly elected board to represent all the fans, rather that try to load the election in favour of a group with predetermined views.

You misunderstand me. If 3BC use the membership of the Jags Foundation as a reason for not transferring shares, it is a smokescreen. 
The Financial viability of PTFC is increased with the transfer of shares to the jags foundation even if it only has 1 member, as that is investment the current directors aren’t making.

[Lenziejag]

5 hours ago, jaf said:

My predetermined view is aligned to yours.  We need to increase numbers.  I don’t think you will find disagreement to that among any of the group standing. Nor indeed any of the group standing down I suspect. 
Its hard to sell something to sceptical people when you don’t know what you are actually selling.  That’s why there have been the demands for clarity on what criteria would make TBC engage with a fans organisation, something we do not yet know after two and a half years. 

Yes - ideally in the future best interest of PTFC, but it isn’t necessary prior to the transfer of shares.

[erty13]

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

You misunderstand me. If 3BC use the membership of the Jags Foundation as a reason for not transferring shares, it is a smokescreen. 
The Financial viability of PTFC is increased with the transfer of shares to the jags foundation even if it only has 1 member, as that is investment the current directors aren’t making.

I think this might also be one of the differences of opinions.

Whether you like or dislike Jaquie Low, her influence  with Colin Weir, played a big part of him buying the shares and buying out propco. If a previous board had generated the level of third party funding that has been delivered in the last 2 years, we would be celebrating their achievement, and would be looking to work with them.

I may be reading too much into the previous Jags Foundation boards views, but it comes across as the current ptfc directors, don't contribute anything, so let's get the shares transferred and get rid of them.

This was never going to succeed.

 

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, erty13 said:

I think this might also be one of the differences of opinions.

Whether you like or dislike Jaquie Low, her influence  with Colin Weir, played a big part of him buying the shares and buying out propco. If a previous board had generated the level of third party funding that has been delivered in the last 2 years, we would be celebrating their achievement, and would be looking to work with them.

I may be reading too much into the previous Jags Foundation boards views, but it comes across as the current ptfc directors, don't contribute anything, so let's get the shares transferred and get rid of them.

This was never going to succeed.

No one, absolutely no one, especially not any of Jags For Change suggesting anything other than that Colin Weir has been extremely generous to the Club. Happy to set that record straight.

The man quite literally wiped out a large six figure debt with the bank.

He funded a youth academy that otherwise simply wouldn't exist (whatever you think of how well it's worked).

He ensured that there was an alternative to the Lee/Conway deal that (if the experience of Barnsley and Nice fans is anything to go by) would have been a bad move for the long-term future of our Club.

Those were his decisions and we are incredibly grateful that he was willing to make those things happen.

There are concerns, however, that that level of (unconditional) support is exceptional in character. While it meets the Club's immediate spending needs, it does not strengthen the underlying business in the way that other activities generating similar kinds of funds would. That's why I mentioned the Directors' Fee arrangement earlier: it was an established model of revenue raising from directors that depended on more than ad hoc generosity. It created an incentive for people to join and to stay on the Thistle Board only if they could bring something to the table, and therefore incentivised them to leverage (for example) their business connections for the benefit of the Club, improving sponsorship, facilities and services.

There are reasonable question marks about how sustainable the Club is in the long term (under any owner, be they a fan ownership vehicle or a private individual or company) once the Three Black Cats funding is exhausted. Unless we are told otherwise, the reasonable working assumption is that there is no "new" money going into Three Black Cats, a business that has significantly less cash reserves now than it did two years ago, and which (notionally at least) has a substantial negative balance sheet because it is funded by a soft loan from Colin Weir's Estate.

It's not going to be much comfort, say, in 3-5 years time that Thistle fully owns the Main Stand and City End again if we have to take out loans with the bank, secured against the ground, because the Club has been budgeting to spend beyond its means.

At the heart of the desire for a due diligence exercise is an attempt to get a clear picture about Thistle's recent budgets, and to understand the level of fan fundraising and commercial activity necessary to fill any gap left when Three Black Cats ceases to advance further cash.

Perhaps the current directors of the football Club have a plan to put some of their own money into the Club? Perhaps they have a plan to encourage investment from other third parties? Perhaps they've got a plan to increase sponsorship and matchday revenues? If so, we'd like to hear more about it.

Not least because a lot of these plans and opportunities, presumably, could be pursued by whoever owns the Club. Unless there is something unique about the current Board of Directors that means they and they alone are able to leverage those opportunities?

[ChiThistle]

19 minutes ago, erty13 said:

I may be reading too much into the previous Jags Foundation boards views, but it comes across as the current ptfc directors, don't contribute anything, so let's get the shares transferred and get rid of them.

Would seem shortsighted if true.  I’d think someone like Duncan Smillie, who runs a professional sports team (what would be an “alternative” sport in Scotland), would be a valuable board member in terms of marketing strategy/advice even if he never put any of his personal wealth in.

I figure their attendances are probably comparable?

[sandy]

I suppose any normal decent person, business-experienced or otherwise, would be good for us. Provided they had Thistle as a genuine key interest - and the time to do the role(s) justice.

They need to be authentic. That’s more important than living in Scotland or being  Scottish - as the Nomads have already shown. 

On the election list that’s published, it would be great to have a healthy number of candidates who were fans before the Save the Jags days. They may not be TJF members today, but they have the collective memory to pilot the ship after the 3BC row ashore. 

After that metaphor, I’ve forgotten how I was going to finish this post. That’s what age does to you, eh Lady Isobel? 

 

[Norgethistle]

27 minutes ago, sandy said:

I suppose any normal decent person, business-experienced or otherwise, would be good for us. Provided they had Thistle as a genuine key interest - and the time to do the role(s) justice.

They need to be authentic. That’s more important than living in Scotland or being  Scottish - as the Nomads have already shown. 

On the election list that’s published, it would be great to have a healthy number of candidates who were fans before the Save the Jags days. They may not be TJF members today, but they have the collective memory to pilot the ship after the 3BC row ashore. 

After that metaphor, I’ve forgotten how I was going to finish this post. That’s what age does to you, eh Lady Isobel? 

 

Anyone on the candidate list will need to be a member of TJF, as by nature you can’t be elected to a board of an organization your not part of.

I fully understand what your saying about the Save The Jags era and how important it is to not only remember what happened but also to learn from it, but with that being 24 years ago that’s effectively ruling out good candidates under 30/35 who were too young to appreciate what was actually going on then and how close we were to not having a football club today.

[erty13]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No one, absolutely no one, especially not any of Jags For Change suggesting anything other than that Colin Weir has been extremely generous to the Club. Happy to set that record straight.

The man quite literally wiped out a large six figure debt with the bank.

He funded a youth academy that otherwise simply wouldn't exist (whatever you think of how well it's worked).

He ensured that there was an alternative to the Lee/Conway deal that (if the experience of Barnsley and Nice fans is anything to go by) would have been a bad move for the long-term future of our Club.

Those were his decisions and we are incredibly grateful that he was willing to make those things happen.

There are concerns, however, that that level of (unconditional) support is exceptional in character. While it meets the Club's immediate spending needs, it does not strengthen the underlying business in the way that other activities generating similar kinds of funds would. That's why I mentioned the Directors' Fee arrangement earlier: it was an established model of revenue raising from directors that depended on more than ad hoc generosity. It created an incentive for people to join and to stay on the Thistle Board only if they could bring something to the table, and therefore incentivised them to leverage (for example) their business connections for the benefit of the Club, improving sponsorship, facilities and services.

There are reasonable question marks about how sustainable the Club is in the long term (under any owner, be they a fan ownership vehicle or a private individual or company) once the Three Black Cats funding is exhausted. Unless we are told otherwise, the reasonable working assumption is that there is no "new" money going into Three Black Cats, a business that has significantly less cash reserves now than it did two years ago, and which (notionally at least) has a substantial negative balance sheet because it is funded by a soft loan from Colin Weir's Estate.

It's not going to be much comfort, say, in 3-5 years time that Thistle fully owns the Main Stand and City End again if we have to take out loans with the bank, secured against the ground, because the Club has been budgeting to spend beyond its means.

At the heart of the desire for a due diligence exercise is an attempt to get a clear picture about Thistle's recent budgets, and to understand the level of fan fundraising and commercial activity necessary to fill any gap left when Three Black Cats ceases to advance further cash.

Perhaps the current directors of the football Club have a plan to put some of their own money into the Club? Perhaps they have a plan to encourage investment from other third parties? Perhaps they've got a plan to increase sponsorship and matchday revenues? If so, we'd like to hear more about it.

Not least because a lot of these plans and opportunities, presumably, could be pursued by whoever owns the Club. Unless there is something unique about the current Board of Directors that means they and they alone are able to leverage those opportunities?

Two questions from me.

1. Did Jaquie Low play any part in getting Colin Weir  to put the vast sum of money into the club. 

2. In your response there is a lot of talk about the finantial challenges that the club have. Which one of the Jags For Change candidates has the skills / experience to do a significantly better job.

[Woodstock Jag]

40 minutes ago, erty13 said:

Two questions from me.

1. Did Jaquie Low play any part in getting Colin Weir  to put the vast sum of money into the club. 

2. In your response there is a lot of talk about the finantial challenges that the club have. Which one of the Jags For Change candidates has the skills / experience to do a significantly better job.

1. You’d have to ask her what her role was (I’m not about to pretend to know what did or did not motivate Colin Weir). Obviously she was someone he trusted because he effectively made her his representative on the Board when he made the major financial contribution to clear our debt and made her a director of Three Black Cats.

2. Three of our candidates (Andrew, Sandy and Stuart C) are chartered accountants with decades of experience between them, of whom one is the CEO of a multimillion pound revenue charity. We aren’t throwing amateurs at this.

But that is slightly besides the point. The purpose of the Foundation is not to offer all of the personnel to sit on the Club Board on a day-to-day basis. It is to offer a governing body to provide guardianship of the majority stakeholding in the Club (to replace 3BC, not Jacqui Low).

Under the fan ownership model, if people like those on the existing board bring skills, experience or even investment to the table, they are eligible for appointment to the Club Board, in exactly the same way as they are at Motherwell and Hearts.

And of course, let’s not forget, that the group dismissed as “not fit and proper” on the current TJF Board included a businesswoman who is the director of a successful company and sponsor of the club, who raised a substantial seven figure sum through Help the Jags during the pandemic: money that literally helped to keep our Club alive.

There is no shortage of skilled business people in the Thistle support. But one can hardly complain that they’re not stepping forward given how some of them have been treated at various points in the last few years.

[sandy]

18 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Anyone on the candidate list will need to be a member of TJF, as by nature you can’t be elected to a board of an organization your not part of.

I fully understand what your saying about the Save The Jags era and how important it is to not only remember what happened but also to learn from it, but with that being 24 years ago that’s effectively ruling out good candidates under 30/35 who were too young to appreciate what was actually going on then and how close we were to not having a football club today.

Fair point caller, I wasn’t sure about the member rules. I’d also want a proper spread of ages, so if it sounded like I didn’t then I’m sorry.

I’d imagine a fan who is 27/28 will just about remember it and/or may have slightly older siblings who would have talked about it. Supporters younger than that will more than likely have absorbed memories of it from other family members or older relatives. They’ll also bring a fresh perspective untainted by recent politics. 

Although I was alive well before STJ, I’d fail an exam on it. I’d probably struggle to remember the 2013 squad. That’s what age does to you 

 

 

 

[javeajag]

56 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

1. You’d have to ask her what her role was (I’m not about to pretend to know what did or did not motivate Colin Weir). Obviously she was someone he trusted because he effectively made her his representative on the Board when he made the major financial contribution to clear our debt and made her a director of Three Black Cats.

2. Three of our candidates (Andrew, Sandy and Stuart C) are chartered accountants with decades of experience between them, of whom one is the CEO of a multimillion pound revenue charity. We aren’t throwing amateurs at this.

But that is slightly besides the point. The purpose of the Foundation is not to offer all of the personnel to sit on the Club Board on a day-to-day basis. It is to offer a governing body to provide guardianship of the majority stakeholding in the Club (to replace 3BC, not Jacqui Low).

Under the fan ownership model, if people like those on the existing board bring skills, experience or even investment to the table, they are eligible for appointment to the Club Board, in exactly the same way as they are at Motherwell and Hearts.

And of course, let’s not forget, that the group dismissed as “not fit and proper” on the current TJF Board included a businesswoman who is the director of a successful company and sponsor of the club, who raised a substantial seven figure sum through Help the Jags during the pandemic: money that literally helped to keep our Club alive.

There is no shortage of skilled business people in the Thistle support. But one can hardly complain that they’re not stepping forward given how some of them have been treated at various points in the last few years.

However it is likely that some of  TJF executive will be in the Board and maybe all - we don’t know - and it’s not clear who the non TJF members in the Board would be.

and Board experience is light on the candidates so far. Being on a company Board has wider responsibilities and accountabilities than you reference. I’m not sure any of the candidates have been on a commercial board.

[Woodstock Jag]

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

However it is likely that some of  TJF executive will be in the Board and maybe all - we don’t know - and it’s not clear who the non TJF members in the Board would be.

This does not follow. Those are decisions that can only be taken, or even frankly meaningfully discussed, if there is first a common understanding that the Foundation is going to have the power to nominate individuals to the Club Board in the first place.

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

and Board experience is light on the candidates so far. Being on a company Board has wider responsibilities and accountabilities than you reference. I’m not sure any of the candidates have been on a commercial board.

It probably doesn’t help, in terms of encouraging candidates of that kind to come forward, that when individuals who have been on commercial boards and run their own successful companies (like Caroline Mackie) are dismissed collectively by the majority shareholder as not demonstrating that they are fit and proper.

The way the Foundation, and indeed any fan ownership vehicle is treated by the Club and its custodians is self fulfilling.