Jump to content

The Jags Foundation Elections


Norgethistle
 Share

Recommended Posts

A German student where I used to work told me there are only 3 laws of football in Germany,

The ball is round.  A game lasts 90 minutes.  Bayer Leverkusen must never win the league.

She told me they were hated for selling out their birthright to chemical company.  The same may now apply to RB Leipzig.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I read an article in a football magazine, ‘When Saturday Comes’ that RB Leipzig are not well-liked in Germany by some fans, because of their corporate (Red Bull) connection/image.

Were they originally Lokomotive Leipzig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I read an article in a football magazine, ‘When Saturday Comes’ that RB Leipzig are not well-liked in Germany by some fans, because of their corporate (Red Bull) connection/image.

See below. 

1 hour ago, fifexile said:

Thanks for clarifying GJ. In practice do you feel that the two ex-works teams you name have an advantage by not being included in the 50+1 rule? Trophies and titles would indicate not but that's a narrow view of success!

Leverkusen have won next to nothing, Wolfsburg in the last 15 years have had their only BL, DFB-Pokal, plus Super Cup successes. Both clubs have modern 30.000 capacity stadiums, but struggle to get fans along, especially in Wolfsburgs case. Unfortunately in Germany, there are now so many Munich & Dortmund ‚fans‘ / gloryhunters, with no geographical links to either team and only ever see them on Sky/DAZN. 

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

A German student where I used to work told me there are only 3 laws of football in Germany,

The ball is round.  A game lasts 90 minutes.  Bayer Leverkusen must never win the league.

She told me they were hated for selling out their birthright to chemical company.  The same may now apply to RB Leipzig.

 

They were formed in 1904 as a works team, hence their nickname Werkself. Totally different situation to RB Leipzig. 

24 minutes ago, jaggy said:

Were they originally Lokomotive Leipzig?

 

8 minutes ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

No. Locomotive Leipzig still exist in a Northern Regional League. RB Leipzig were only formed in 2009.

 

6 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I am unsure. Leipzig is in East Germany and I think most of the football ‘power’ has been in the west eg Bayern Munich (particularly) and Borussia Dortmund. The article was about a smaller East German team which had just made it up to the top tier-but I can’t recall its name. But, it was clear from the piece the writer loathed RBL and that was a feeling shared with others. Maybe it’s because they are seen as ‘Johnny-come-latelys’ and  ‘corporate/glamorous’ with no real history.

Red Bulls headquarters are in Salzburg, hence their initial activities in football being the takeover of SV Austria Salzburg, with subsequent renaming, rebranding etc. 

After that they wanted to get a foothold in Germany, and initiated talks with Fortuna Düsseldorf, St. Pauli & 1860 Munich who all told them to p!ss off. They then purchased the licence of 5th tier SSV Markranstädt, and basically „fairy taled“ their way through to the Bundesliga with industrial amounts of money. The traditional Leipzig clubs, Chemie & Lokomotiv, were on a low ebb at that time and were also anti any Red Bull involvement, so in reality Leipzig a 500.000 city had no team in the top league which was probably the deciding factor.
 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/election-results/

Quote

 

The election for a new Jags Foundation Board closed at 23:59 on Wednesday 25th May and I am pleased to declare that votes were cast as follows;-

Stuart Callison            221

Graeme Cowie            214

Sandy Fyfe                  207

Heather Iona Holloway      205

Andrew Holloway         187

Ian Mackinnon            187

Dr Gary Tanner            182

Allan McGraw            179

Stuart Goldie             143

Iain Brand                 139

Tim Huntingford       127

The following people will therefore be appointed as directors of The Jags Foundation for the terms noted:

Three Years – Stuart Callison, Graeme Cowie, Sandy Fyfe

Two Years – Heather Iona Holloway, Andrew Holloway, Ian Mackinnon

One Year – Dr Gary Tanner, Allan McGraw, Stuart Goldie.

John McConnell was on the ballot paper but indicated after these were issued that he wanted to withdraw.  He was excluded from the count and any votes for him disregarded.

318 votes were submitted from a total electorate of 488, making the turnout 65.2%

Congratulations to all the successful candidates and commiserations to those who did not get elected.

The current board of The Jags Foundation will meet this evening to formally appoint the new directors and to resign from their positions.  I am sure you will join with me in wishing the new board the very best of luck in their endeavours.

Allan Heron

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Thanks to everyone who voted. Delighted to be selected and looking forward to to working with the rest of the board

It was like the Eurovision Song Contest with Norway represented by your good self ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone who voted. I'm really excited to work with the other 8 new board members and to try and make a difference to this process. It's also heartening to know that people are engaged with the Foundation and want it to succeed.

We have still to be formally appointed (that will happen later today) but I hope we are in a position to share some information about concrete action and positive developments in the coming days.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly opening a can of worms here, but were voters notified about the candidate who withdrew so they would not vote for that candidate?  Or that those who did vote for him could change their vote?

Or was it stated going in that if a candidate withdraws, any votes for that candidate would just be discarded?

Seems like simply discarding had potential to change the results, given the count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

Possibly opening a can of worms here, but were voters notified about the candidate who withdrew so they would not vote for that candidate?  Or that those who did vote for him could change their vote?

Or was it stated going in that if a candidate withdraws, any votes for that candidate would just be discarded?

Seems like simply discarding had potential to change the results, given the count.

8 of the 9 candidates who received my vote were elected. John was the one who missed out & I was unaware that he had withdrawn until today, although I may have missed the communication to this effect. Whilst unfortunate I see no reason to get bent out of shape as I don't think this dramatically affected the outcome. Congrats to the 'Firhill 9' who can rely on my full support. Sincerely hope all the fan base follows suit & that this support is as visible as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

Possibly opening a can of worms here, but were voters notified about the candidate who withdrew so they would not vote for that candidate?  Or that those who did vote for him could change their vote?

Or was it stated going in that if a candidate withdraws, any votes for that candidate would just be discarded?

Seems like simply discarding had potential to change the results, given the count.

You have a point caller, but in the greater scheme of things perhaps it’s just a procedure thing that got missed. 

I think the best thing we can all do is get behind the new TJF Board - they have a significant agenda to pick up and run with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sandy said:

You have a point caller, but in the greater scheme of things perhaps it’s just a procedure thing that got missed. 

I think the best thing we can all do is get behind the new TJF Board - they have a significant agenda to pick up and run with. 

Yeah I’m behind the board as well - just calling this out as a gap that probably needs to be addressed - especially if TJF is trying to demonstrate its legitimacy as the preferred vehicle for share transfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChiThistle said:

Yeah I’m behind the board as well - just calling this out as a gap that probably needs to be addressed - especially if TJF is trying to demonstrate its legitimacy as the preferred vehicle for share transfer.

Agreed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a formal board meeting this evening to confirm the hand-over from the old board to the new board.

We are in the process of carrying out the admin associated with the handover.

Obviously we want the opportunity to meet as a new group and we have arranged our initial meeting for this weekend.

Once we've had a chance to talk through our next steps we will of course communicate as much of that as we can.

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...