Jump to content

The Jags Foundation


Norgethistle
 Share

Recommended Posts

There should be as close to 75% of the board seats nominated by the PTFC trust as possible not having one guaranteed is a joke.

It does seem they are saying exactly what 3BC want to hear to make sure the shares transfer to them, hopefully they plan to then propose then transfer the shares to the Jags foundation... and stick 2 fingers up to 3BC ...  i wont hold my breath

the summary is something else ...

Summary
We reiterate that we believe that Partick Thistle Football Club is well run and that we trust in the
current Board of Directors. We also understand that all responsibility for the day-to-day running of the
club lies with the Club Board and their appointed staff.


It is also understood that the Board of Directors of Partick Thistle Football Club retain responsibility for
the financial viability of Partick Thistle Football Club.


It is important to note that the fans, as major shareholders, would not ‘run the club’. The fans’ majority
shareholding exists, under Colin Weir’s wishes, to safeguard the ownership of the football club to
ensure stability and security, including not selling the majority shareholding to a third party.


The purpose of the PTFC Trust is to act as the conduit between fans, as major shareholders, and the
Board of Directors of Partick Thistle Football Club, and ultimately as guardians of the club. As the
conduit, our role is to ensure that communication between fans and the club, is as efficient, as honest
and open as can be.

They might have well have said, Yes Jacqui , No Jacqui, 3 Bags Full Jacqui ..

Edited by jaggymct
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, fifexile said:

As I recall  the St Mirren board operates with 6 board members with 3 from their Trust. If the PTFC Trust have any aspirations it should be this!

St Mirren's Board has four SMISA representatives, and two from Kibble, the only other major (but minority) shareholder. In theory I think they could co-opt further board members, but it would likely be linked to a major change in the shareholding of the company as all the other shares are held by very small shareholdings and (from their shareholders' agreement summary) I think both SMISA and Kibble would have to agree to the appointment of Directors other than the default six.

ETA: All members of The Jags Foundation can of course come along to our EGM on Thursday, and find out from two of the people who helped deliver the SMISA deal how they did it and what was important for them and their fans!

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not had time to read this properly. Just trying to make some sense of current and future trustee appointments and stand downs.

The unelected and unaccountable "Famous Five" will be the sole trustees until the share transfer is completed, so no opportunity for anyone else to influence the terms of that transfer. Gradual election of other trustees and eventual step down of the 5, but by my quick calculation the 5 will have majority control until at least 2024. Accordingly no possibility of the 5's control being weakened for at least 2 years, by which time it will be well nigh impossible to turn the clock back.

That is based on a quick skim and therefore may not be accurate. Obviously there is much more besides that could be said.

Edited by partickthedog
Spelling!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, partickthedog said:

Not had time to read this properly. Just trying to make some sense of current and future trustee appointments and stand downs.

The unelected and unaccountable "Famous Five" will be the sole trustees until the share transfer is completed, so no opportunity for anyone else to influence the terms of that transfer. Gradual election of other trustees and eventual step down of the 5, but by my quick calculation the 5 will have majority control until at least 2024. Accordingly no possibility of the 5's control being weakened for at least 2 years, by which time it will be well nigh impossible to turn the clock back.

That is based on a quick skim and therefore may not be accurate. Obviously there is much more besides that could be said.

I think that's my reading of the explanation on elections too, PTD, though I struggled to parse it the first time of reading. Under this proposal, the trustees will not be fully elected until at least May 2025. By which time, of course, TJF would have held its fourth set of elections.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

St Mirren's Board has four SMISA representatives, and two from Kibble, the only other major (but minority) shareholder. In theory I think they could co-opt further board members, but it would likely be linked to a major change in the shareholding of the company as all the other shares are held by very small shareholdings and (from their shareholders' agreement summary) I think both SMISA and Kibble would have to agree to the appointment of Directors other than the default six.

ETA: All members of The Jags Foundation can of course come along to our EGM on Thursday, and find out from two of the people who helped deliver the SMISA deal how they did it and what was important for them and their fans!

Thanks for the clarification WJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, partickthedog said:

Just randomly reacting to bits that I read.

Members (beneficiaries) have a right to vote on matters put to them by the Trustees.

I could perhaps have used some of Denis' capital letters! In other words the Trustees retain control and edit the choices.

PTD -  that's pretty much how trusts operate.  I'm not criticising trust structures as a point of principle,  but I would seriously question whether it is an appropriate structure for this purpose.  It doesn't lend itself easily to dynamic interaction with supporters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is good that the document has been published as it helps focus on the real issue.

It's not the board, or three black cats, it is the five individuals who would agree to this document and short change all Thistle fans. 

I keep asking myself why they are acting in this way. I don't doubt that they are all fans and some people on this forum will probably know them, but the secretive way they have done this is very surprising for individuals who all claim to be successful. 

Is it about ego, fame, wearing a Thistle blazer. I genuinely do not know.

These "successful" individuals are not as successful as many Thistle fans who they claim to represent. We can do better.

If / when they mess this up, none of them will be able personally financially support the club. This will fall back on to the fans, who would have had no say or able to challenge their actions.

Let's hold the new trustees accountable for their actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spend too much of my working day reading legal documents to do any more than skim through the Trust Proposals, I may be missing something but it looks like a cut and paste job of good intentions from a group of people who have agreed to take something on without having had the chance or foresight to assess the situation and formulate a coherent plan.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've bit the bullet and downloaded the statement. It is so full of half truths and worse. In the background section they state that Colin Weir wished that his shareholding was passed to the fans in the event of his death. Re-writing history? I wonder what Colin Weir's family think of this?

It goes downhill from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, scotty said:

I've bit the bullet and downloaded the statement. It is so full of half truths and worse. In the background section they state that Colin Weir wished that his shareholding was passed to the fans in the event of his death. Re-writing history? I wonder what Colin Weir's family think of this?

It goes downhill from there.

Yeah it’s fairly middling to shite 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, erty13 said:

It is good that the document has been published as it helps focus on the real issue.

It's not the board, or three black cats, it is the five individuals who would agree to this document and short change all Thistle fans. 

I keep asking myself why they are acting in this way. I don't doubt that they are all fans and some people on this forum will probably know them, but the secretive way they have done this is very surprising for individuals who all claim to be successful. 

Is it about ego, fame, wearing a Thistle blazer. I genuinely do not know.

These "successful" individuals are not as successful as many Thistle fans who they claim to represent. We can do better.

If / when they mess this up, none of them will be able personally financially support the club. This will fall back on to the fans, who would have had no say or able to challenge their actions.

Let's hold the new trustees accountable for their actions.

 

The sad fact it’s that they are just 5 pawns in a bigger game.


The Club Board retain control unchanged at a time when it should be re-constituted along the St Mirren lines with fan reps.

I think we could do with a fresh Chair too; there’s too much baggage with 3BC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sandy said:

The sad fact it’s that they are just 5 pawns in a bigger game.


The Club Board retain control unchanged at a time when it should be re-constituted along the St Mirren lines with fan reps.

I think we could do with a fresh Chair too; there’s too much baggage with 3BC. 

Without the pawns, it can not go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shocking possibility that genuine fans' representatives might bring a constructive perspective on the operational running of the club is to be resisted at all costs. Indeed the Trust (allegedly on our behalf and in our interests) will happily undertake not to interfere with the perfect way in which the club is already being run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, partickthedog said:

The mask slips slightly in the statement on the club website.

However, this must not be seen as an exercise in tokenism or lacking in substance.

Is not this suggestion a tacit admission that the point is indeed well made?

Nobody likes to be taken for an idiot.  Anyone can plainly see that the statement is lacking in substance.  That is precisely the point.  I can't see a single point of any substance in the document. 

Saying that black is white doesn't make it so. It's disrespectful to think that supporters can plainly see what is right in front of them. 

  • Like 2
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...