Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, erty13 said:

Jaf

It is really hard to ground anything on facts when no real information has come out of the Jags Foundation. It would have been good if the minutes you referred to were shared with all members, rather than information held by a select few.

If you look at other post on here about registration of titles, there is a cynical view of this process and Jacqui Low by people who are far closer involved in the inner workings of the Jags Foundation.

Cynical? Never!

Puzzled as to why a transfer of ownership of land/buildings has not yet been given effect in the usual way through registration of the transferee's title in the Land Register of Scotland? Totally!

Would be happy to receive a satisfactory explanation or even better to see the title registered? Absolutely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jaf said:

I know you won’t believe me, and that’s why I suggested @tom hosie should pop on and verify this so we can move on from your erroneous unfair speculation.  Tom had a desire to put facts out there on this thread and you respected and accepted his version of events.  You are speculating entirely wrongly.  Tom can confirm you are and I hope he does so we can move on.  You could perhaps even proactively  PM him to validate what I am saying? 

Just looking through the previous exchange. 

If I'm picking this up correctly, amid the baked goods discussion, then jaf is 100% correct. 

The focus and motivation of the previous Jags Foundation Board was entirely on facilitating the transfer of the majority shareholding.  

There was no discussion about Boardroom changes upon that transfer. The one doesn't necessarily lead to the other in any case. Reading the candidate statements it reads to me that that focus and motivation would remain unchanged irrespective of who is elected. 

To offer a personal view, I don't think that immediate and wholesale Boardroom change upon the eventual transfer of that shareholding would be a good thing for the stability of the football club. 

Edited by Tom Hosie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day we are, as some have put it, playing with Three Black Cat’s ball, albeit they only have that ball on the understanding that it will, at the suitable point in time, become the ball of a fan-owned, fan controlled entity.

Tom is absolutely right that some degree of continuity is important. There was already enough uncertainty in 2019 when different groups of people who’d already been on the Club Board in different capacities were replacing one another wholesale.

At the same time, one of the great advantages of fan ownership is that we can begin to move away from the Club Board being dependent on individual figures and their specific networks (or as some might pejoratively put it, cliques) and focus a bit more explicitly on what skills and experience people bring to running the Club.

There are a lot of very able people in the Thistle support, including many sponsors of the Club, who could bring plenty of business and related professional experience. At the moment, some of them wouldn’t dream of joining the Board given the small p politics involved while the ownership question is up in the air. Clarity is important because it lets them know what they’d be committing to as well.

Longer term, a bit of churn at the top will be healthy, bringing new ideas and energy to the Club and finding new ways to engage fans and sponsors. But it seems sensible to me that you’d want at least a bit of overlap, even if just to ensure a smooth handover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2022 at 6:14 PM, 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.

 

Jaf

Quite a few pages of responses. This is all i said on the issue, as well as thanking Tom for sharing some information. I never said it was a fact, i was speculation trying to find answers. 

I am a very straightforward person, the only response I needed was a no this was not the case. I am very surprised at the level of response.

The former Jags Foundation Board who are standing for election, have with the inner knowedge of why there was a complete breakdown between the parties, the members outside the board dont  have this level of detail.

What I and many others who were not previous board members are trying to assess is what went wrong and how can it be done differently. What are the issues that got us to this posistion. Is there a different approach that can be taken. What will make the outcome different this time around

Unless these questions are are answered then the new board will come against the same challenges.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

But, if it was ‘later’ discovered (at some hypothetical point) that member(s) of the PTFC board were actively, openly or quietly working ‘against’  TJF/the supporters  (who had majority shareholding in the club) then this person(s) position would surely become untenable and they should be replaced by someone else who might be/not be connected with TJF. TJF purports to be a democratic  organisation, with an accountable leadership. It can’t be ignored after the supporters gain that shareholding that the situation has changed. (If it hadn’t what is the point of majority supporter ownership of a football club?) The previous board will no longer have a complete free hand to do what it  wants as before. They will have to listen to and take account of the majority ie the supporters. The hope is there will be much agreement between the board and TJF, but this reality cannot be ignored. To have a majority means to SOMETIMES go against the wishes of the minority, with their consent. This is the basis of democracy. 

I'm not really wanting to be dragged into huge debates, especially when we are talking hypotheticals, but seeing as I decided to post, and add other replies, the other day then I guess I've only myself to blame. 

Just for the avoidance of doubt, TJF doesn't "purport" to be a democratic organisation. It IS a democratic organisation. The clue is the election process that is currently ongoing. 

I think part of the problem the previous Jags Foundation Board had in terms of accountability is that it wasn't elected. It couldn't be as the organisation itself didn't exist and was created essentially be those that were, for want of a better word, selected to sit on the original Working Group. 

That's all history though. This election process is a good thing. Whether you personally support those that will be elected or not they will have been elected to their positions and will have a clear mandate from TJF membership. 

As I see it upon the transfer of the shareholding the Club will continue to operate as it did previously with the Board of Directors tasked with the running of the Club. What will change is that TJF membership, through TJF Board they elect, can shape and influence the direction that the Club takes which the Club Board will be tasked on following. 

I can't pretend to understand all the legal practicalities of it so somebody please intervene if I'm talking nonsense here but as I understand it there exists a mechanism for directors to be removed from a Board at an organisation's AGM upon a vote of the shareholders.  As the majority shareholder then it wouldn't be too difficult a task for them to remove any director(s) not acting as they see fit. 

If TJF members don't like what their Board are doing on their behalf they can stand or vote against those that come up for election. 

For whatever faults TJF might have it isn't a lack of democracy. 

Sorry, the above post could all have been worded better. Not enough time to properly articulate my points. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, erty13 said:

Jaf

Quite a few pages of responses. This is all i said on the issue, as well as thanking Tom for sharing some information. I never said it was a fact, i was speculation trying to find answers. 

I am a very straightforward person, the only response I needed was a no this was not the case. I am very surprised at the level of response.

The former Jags Foundation Board who are standing for election, have with the inner knowedge of why there was a complete breakdown between the parties, the members outside the board dont  have this level of detail.

What I and many others who were not previous board members are trying to assess is what went wrong and how can it be done differently. What are the issues that got us to this posistion. Is there a different approach that can be taken. What will make the outcome different this time around

Unless these questions are are answered then the new board will come against the same challenges.

 

 

 

I think the phrase you were grasping for there was "I apologise unreservedly for falsely accusing the entire previous TJF Board of a confrontational stance with absolutely no basis or backup". 

Are you standing for TJF Board erty? If so, it's an interesting strategy to spend that campaign period wildly and incorrectly speculating at the conduct and viewpoints of previous TJF board-members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, erty13 said:

What I and many others who were not previous board members are trying to assess is what went wrong and how can it be done differently. What are the issues that got us to this posistion. Is there a different approach that can be taken. What will make the outcome different this time around

Unless these questions are are answered then the new board will come against the same challenges.

 

 

 

The bit I've placed in Bold is important. 

I don't think those challenges aren't insurmountable but there will need to be some softening of positions taken, at least on one (either) side otherwise we will find ourselves in exactly the same position in 6+ months time than we do now. 

This election process is hugely important in terms TJF's credibility and accountability. I don't believe it can truly be considered a fans/members organisation until it has gone through its first election cycle. I don't think though, and I want to be wrong, that this election is going to take us any closer to a fan owned Partick Thistle. I think the journey has some ways to go until its anywhere near its end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Ghost said:

I think the phrase you were grasping for there was "I apologise unreservedly for falsely accusing the entire previous TJF Board of a confrontational stance with absolutely no basis or backup". 

Are you standing for TJF Board erty? If so, it's an interesting strategy to spend that campaign period wildly and incorrectly speculating at the conduct and viewpoints of previous TJF board-members.

Certainly not the phrase i was looking for. 

I have put myself forward for election, however it does appear that if you are outside of the Jags for Change group you will be subject to a difficult process as anything said will be subject to several responses opperating in tandem. 

One post where i said  I might be reading too much in to this and you have got me down as spending all my time  wildly speculation.  It is as if other voices can not be heard.

I will reiterate, that until we understand why Jaquie Low walked away from the process, we will never resolve the transfer of shares. In the abscence of information as i am not part of the inner circle you have to piece together sparse information. 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, erty13 said:

Certainly not the phrase i was looking for. 

I have put myself forward for election, however it does appear that if you are outside of the Jags for Change group you will be subject to a difficult process as anything said will be subject to several responses opperating in tandem. 

One post where i said  I might be reading too much in to this and you have got me down as spending all my time  wildly speculation.  It is as if other voices can not be heard.

I will reiterate, that until we understand why Jaquie Low walked away from the process, we will never resolve the transfer of shares. In the abscence of information as i am not part of the inner circle you have to piece together sparse information. 

John

There's a lot to unpack here. 

Thanks for clarifying that despite making corrected (by both Tom and jaf) claims about the conduct and approach of the previous TJF Board, you're standing by them. 

I'm not standing for TJF and never have, but I am supporting the Jags for Change candidates. I'm open to supporting any candidates. The reason I took your bait is that you made incorrect and unfair claims about the previous TJF Board. I don't agree with everything that the board did (and I don't know anything of the inner workings), but I know that their approach was not to bin the current board and was not confrontational.

"you have got me down as spending all my time wildly speculation (sic)."  No I didn't. I said that you were doing that whilst in an election campaign. And you are.

Finally, in terms of your point about why JL walked away from the process, none of us know. The Jags for Change letters were primarily focused on the fact that 3BC and the club have not provided clarity on what their criteria are to deliver fan ownership, nor their honest reasons for pulling the plug on the process. In terms of an "inner circle", the answers need to come from 3BC and the club. Attempting to divert blame for this morass towards the previous TJF Board or any individual or group of fans would be mistaken in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tom Hosie said:

I wonder if this thread is almost an unofficial hustings whether there is any value in any poster whose is standing to indicate that in their posts? 

Some are obvious but others less so. 

Not all of the Jags for Change candidates are regular posters on here (some of them have lives and are far too sensible for that!) but I’m sure those of us who are will be more than happy to make clear who we are.

For my own part, in the unlikely event that anyone was in any doubt, I am Graeme Cowie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Tom Hosie said:

I wonder if this thread is almost an unofficial hustings whether there is any value in any poster whose is standing to indicate that in their posts? 

Some are obvious but others less so. 

Think most know who I am, and as I’ve been sharing a lot of the Jags For Change most knew I was on it, but for those that don’t know me.

Stuart Goldie. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Hosie said:

Just looking through the previous exchange. 

If I'm picking this up correctly, amid the baked goods discussion, then jaf is 100% correct. 

The focus and motivation of the previous Jags Foundation Board was entirely on facilitating the transfer of the majority shareholding.  

There was no discussion about Boardroom changes upon that transfer. The one doesn't necessarily lead to the other in any case. Reading the candidate statements it reads to me that that focus and motivation would remain unchanged irrespective of who is elected. 

To offer a personal view, I don't think that immediate and wholesale Boardroom change upon the eventual transfer of that shareholding would be a good thing for the stability of the football club. 

Thank you Tom 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t get an email as I cancelled my direct debit at the end of March which apparently cancelled my membership, even though I sent an email at the time saying I was only stopping further payments as nothing seemed to be happening. So no votes for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Ghost said:

There's a lot to unpack here. 

Thanks for clarifying that despite making corrected (by both Tom and jaf) claims about the conduct and approach of the previous TJF Board, you're standing by them. 

I'm not standing for TJF and never have, but I am supporting the Jags for Change candidates. I'm open to supporting any candidates. The reason I took your bait is that you made incorrect and unfair claims about the previous TJF Board. I don't agree with everything that the board did (and I don't know anything of the inner workings), but I know that their approach was not to bin the current board and was not confrontational.

"you have got me down as spending all my time wildly speculation (sic)."  No I didn't. I said that you were doing that whilst in an election campaign. And you are.

Finally, in terms of your point about why JL walked away from the process, none of us know. The Jags for Change letters were primarily focused on the fact that 3BC and the club have not provided clarity on what their criteria are to deliver fan ownership, nor their honest reasons for pulling the plug on the process. In terms of an "inner circle", the answers need to come from 3BC and the club. Attempting to divert blame for this morass towards the previous TJF Board or any individual or group of fans would be mistaken in my opinion.

1. Look at the date of my post, it was before the candidates were announced. 

2. I did not state it as a fact. 

3. It is fairly obvious what the intentions of your exchange with me are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

At the end of the day we are, as some have put it, playing with Three Black Cat’s ball, albeit they only have that ball on the understanding that it will, at the suitable point in time, become the ball of a fan-owned, fan controlled entity.

Tom is absolutely right that some degree of continuity is important. There was already enough uncertainty in 2019 when different groups of people who’d already been on the Club Board in different capacities were replacing one another wholesale.

At the same time, one of the great advantages of fan ownership is that we can begin to move away from the Club Board being dependent on individual figures and their specific networks (or as some might pejoratively put it, cliques) and focus a bit more explicitly on what skills and experience people bring to running the Club.

There are a lot of very able people in the Thistle support, including many sponsors of the Club, who could bring plenty of business and related professional experience. At the moment, some of them wouldn’t dream of joining the Board given the small p politics involved while the ownership question is up in the air. Clarity is important because it lets them know what they’d be committing to as well.

Longer term, a bit of churn at the top will be healthy, bringing new ideas and energy to the Club and finding new ways to engage fans and sponsors. But it seems sensible to me that you’d want at least a bit of overlap, even if just to ensure a smooth handover.

Out of curiosity, how do you know this for a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, erty13 said:

1. Look at the date of my post, it was before the candidates were announced. 

2. I did not state it as a fact. 

3. It is fairly obvious what the intentions of your exchange with me are.

Sorry forgot to say thank you to the people on here who have messaged me on here giving me support on this exchange of views.

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this seems to be conflict of interest disclosure time, I should say that I am Alan Holloway, father of Andrew Holloway and Heather Holloway, both of whom are standing on the Jags for Change platform. They are their own people and make their own decisions on all matters (including choosing to follow Thistle!), but of course have my full support, as indeed do all the Jags for Change candidates.

In my other life, I am a solicitor specialising in conveyancing (for churches and charities), which is why I have taken a particular interest in matters relating to the registration of title to the Main Stand/Bing at Firhill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, erty13 said:

1. Look at the date of my post, it was before the candidates were announced. 

2. I did not state it as a fact. 

3. It is fairly obvious what the intentions of your exchange with me are.

1. I'm not sure the relevance. This isn't about a slur on the candidates - it's a slur you made towards the entire previous TJF board. The date doesn't matter.

2. You stated it as your speculation and you've been corrected by two former members of TJF's board. You've still not apologised.

3. Fantastic, I'd love to hear your latest speculation. For what it's worth, my intentions were that whether I agree with everything that the previous TJF board did or not, they are all Thistle fans who were trying to do the right thing by the support. They have been insulted by 3BC (not fit and proper) and don't deserve to be subject of false speculation by candidates for the new Board. If you'd just held your hands up and apologised when Tom corrected you then I wouldn't have bothered.  That was my intention. There's still time for you to do that.

TJF's board needs to be accountable and subject to scrutiny from the fans (as does the club's) so if you don't like being called out on making false speculation then don't make false speculation.

Finally, I'd just like to thank the hundreds of messages of support and bewilderment I've had from people regarding this exchange. It's wrong to single folk out but special mention to David Hasselhoff, the people of Metz, Peter Andre and two of the Beach Boys

  • Like 1
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...