Jump to content

Options for action against the board


MarciaBlaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/11/2022 at 10:30 AM, javeajag said:

The danger with this approach is you don’t really care who owns the club till the PT Trust have a majority shareholding and can literally do what they want with it …. Like sell it but by then it’s too late 

Maybe so and I hope your point doesn't come true.

Again though, and I won't pretend to know all of the details but I feel the following is happening;

  • 3BC have rejected TJF
  • 3BC have yet to announce the alternative
  • TJF and some others on this forum, are crying foul as TJF were seen as some kind of shoe in
  • In reaction to this, we're attempting to punish the Club by withholding 'money' and cancelling payments that are needed by the Club 

Many of those that follow the above sentiment will never rejoin the schemes they've cancelled and some might not visit Firhill again, if they stop now

I may stand corrected when I hear / understand what 3BC have decided to do, but for now, I feel more hostile towards those that are leading this 'blind' charge and potentially damaging the Club

If, and I'm being careful with my use of the word 'IF', TJF are in any way supporting these damaging actions, they will in no way get my support, ever.

I would in no way want to be represented by a fans group that chose to damage the Club they represent, should they not get their own way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CotterJag said:

Maybe so and I hope your point doesn't come true.

Again though, and I won't pretend to know all of the details but I feel the following is happening;

  • 3BC have rejected TJF
  • 3BC have yet to announce the alternative
  • TJF and some others on this forum, are crying foul as TJF were seen as some kind of shoe in
  • In reaction to this, we're attempting to punish the Club by withholding 'money' and cancelling payments that are needed by the Club 

Many of those that follow the above sentiment will never rejoin the schemes they've cancelled and some might not visit Firhill again, if they stop now

I may stand corrected when I hear / understand what 3BC have decided to do, but for now, I feel more hostile towards those that are leading this 'blind' charge and potentially damaging the Club

If, and I'm being careful with my use of the word 'IF', TJF are in any way supporting these damaging actions, they will in no way get my support, ever.

I would in no way want to be represented by a fans group that chose to damage the Club they represent, should they not get their own way. 

Let’s see who Jacqui Low decides to give the shares to , what that entity’s relationship to the fans are ( and indeed you as an individual ) and see if it passes the threshold of fan ownership as most people would understand.

we all know that the people owning football clubs do not always behave in the best interest of the club as opposed to themselves 

Edited by javeajag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, CotterJag said:

Maybe so and I hope your point doesn't come true.

Again though, and I won't pretend to know all of the details but I feel the following is happening;

  • 3BC have rejected TJF
  • 3BC have yet to announce the alternative
  • TJF and some others on this forum, are crying foul as TJF were seen as some kind of shoe in
  • In reaction to this, we're attempting to punish the Club by withholding 'money' and cancelling payments that are needed by the Club 

Many of those that follow the above sentiment will never rejoin the schemes they've cancelled and some might not visit Firhill again, if they stop now

I may stand corrected when I hear / understand what 3BC have decided to do, but for now, I feel more hostile towards those that are leading this 'blind' charge and potentially damaging the Club

If, and I'm being careful with my use of the word 'IF', TJF are in any way supporting these damaging actions, they will in no way get my support, ever.

I would in no way want to be represented by a fans group that chose to damage the Club they represent, should they not get their own way. 

If anyone saw TJF as a 'shoe-in', & this was clearly not the case if you followed developments over the last couple of months, it was simply because no other fan group has engaged with the support. I appreciate & understand that a large number of fans believe fan ownership is secondary to a successful team on the pitch. That is a challenge for TJF.

The decision taken by TBC may prove to be the right one for the club in the long term, but the way you do things is important. I believe that TBC failed that test.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CotterJag said:

Maybe so and I hope your point doesn't come true.

Again though, and I won't pretend to know all of the details but I feel the following is happening;

  • 3BC have rejected TJF
  • 3BC have yet to announce the alternative
  • TJF and some others on this forum, are crying foul as TJF were seen as some kind of shoe in
  • In reaction to this, we're attempting to punish the Club by withholding 'money' and cancelling payments that are needed by the Club 

Many of those that follow the above sentiment will never rejoin the schemes they've cancelled and some might not visit Firhill again, if they stop now

I may stand corrected when I hear / understand what 3BC have decided to do, but for now, I feel more hostile towards those that are leading this 'blind' charge and potentially damaging the Club

If, and I'm being careful with my use of the word 'IF', TJF are in any way supporting these damaging actions, they will in no way get my support, ever.

I would in no way want to be represented by a fans group that chose to damage the Club they represent, should they not get their own way. 

It is ultimately up to individuals how they spend their own money. The Club has no god-given right to the money of the fans, least of all during a cost of living crisis.

You will notice that TJF has actively encouraged, throughout this process, people to continue to back the team and to attend matches. That remains unchanged, not least because match-days are an opportunity for us to engage with fans face-to-face and we want to engage with every single Thistle fan possible. That is something this mysterious alternative group has done precisely zero of since this process started.

TJF has not encouraged anyone to withhold money from the Club, but respects the individual decisions people take either way.

Indeed, earlier in this thread I specifically said that people should not do things that are liable to intimidate or irritate sponsors, because they are not at fault for the way TJF, its board and its members have been mistreated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

If anyone saw TJF as a 'shoe-in', & this was clearly not the case if you followed developments over the last couple of months, it was simply because no other fan group has engaged with the support. I appreciate & understand that a large number of fans believe fan ownership is secondary to a successful team on the pitch. That is a challenge for TJF.

The decision taken by TBC may prove to be the right one for the club in the long term, but the way you do things is important. I believe that TBC failed that test.

Just to add to this, we never said, implied or thought we were a "shoe-in".

We were very explicit in our updates to members that we had no exclusivity or preferential status in this process. Indeed, 3BC's representatives never stopped reminding us of that whenever we alluded to the need to communicate effectively with our members.

But the criteria we were told we would be judged against, "engagement" is something that it is objectively impossible for another group, let alone an undisclosed one to have performed better at.

If I am proved wrong and the organisation unveiled next Friday at the Inverness game has engaged in proactive communications, engagement and membership recruitment, I will of course come back and admit I got this wrong.

Remember, 3BC told us they didn't want or need the fan ownership vehicle to be a fundraising vehicle for the Club. They obviously aren't that desperate for the money of ordinary fans, so what else is there to assess a vehicle against, one wonders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Just to add to this, we never said, implied or thought we were a "shoe-in".

We were very explicit in our updates to members that we had no exclusivity or preferential status in this process. Indeed, 3BC's representatives never stopped reminding us of that whenever we alluded to the need to communicate effectively with our members.

But the criteria we were told we would be judged against, "engagement" is something that it is objectively impossible for another group, let alone an undisclosed one to have performed better at.

If I am proved wrong and the organisation unveiled next Friday at the Inverness game has engaged in proactive communications, engagement and membership recruitment, I will of course come back and admit I got this wrong.

Remember, 3BC told us they didn't want or need the fan ownership vehicle to be a fundraising vehicle for the Club. They obviously aren't that desperate for the money of ordinary fans, so what else is there to assess a vehicle against, one wonders?

I wish folk wouldn't use these rhetorical questions! I am so tempted to answer. B)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Just to add to this, we never said, implied or thought we were a "shoe-in".

We were very explicit in our updates to members that we had no exclusivity or preferential status in this process. Indeed, 3BC's representatives never stopped reminding us of that whenever we alluded to the need to communicate effectively with our members.

But the criteria we were told we would be judged against, "engagement" is something that it is objectively impossible for another group, let alone an undisclosed one to have performed better at.

If I am proved wrong and the organisation unveiled next Friday at the Inverness game has engaged in proactive communications, engagement and membership recruitment, I will of course come back and admit I got this wrong.

Remember, 3BC told us they didn't want or need the fan ownership vehicle to be a fundraising vehicle for the Club. They obviously aren't that desperate for the money of ordinary fans, so what else is there to assess a vehicle against, one wonders?

Just to play devils advocate, a group representing season ticket holders could be argued to have more members than TJF. It is not my idea of what was required for engagement, but it could be argued that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jaggy1967 said:

Sandy I feel your statement regarding the TJF 'nine'  board is quite wrong and disrespectful,  the current board have gotten no further in reality than the previous board did.

Correct me if I am wrong ?

Yes membership now at 700 when it was around 600 previously increased massively since put down to a pound which I think is a masterstroke and should swell the numbers :)

Disrespect was not intentional. The previous TJF Board members tried really hard to work with 3BC but ultimately they were undermined. Both iterations of the TJF Board were more pro-active than the Jags Trust and the PTFC Trust.

I was more emphasising the amount of energy and engagement on this Forum from the current TJF Board. I sense they have more wavering fans behind them now, ones like me who admittedly were not sure that fan ownership was the right route.

Edited by sandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Just to play devils advocate, a group representing season ticket holders could be argued to have more members than TJF. It is not my idea of what was required for engagement, but it could be argued that way.

It could also be argued that a group of fans who hed been to Firhill once in their lives also fitted the bill as there was just as much consultation with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dick Dastardly said:

Just to play devils advocate, a group representing season ticket holders could be argued to have more members than TJF. It is not my idea of what was required for engagement, but it could be argued that way.

Okay, let's entertain this hypothetical.

If you simply decide that all season-ticket holders should be "members" without actively making a decision to join the fan ownership vehicle's legal entity in some way, what is the significance of that?

Unless those individuals are already proactively engaged in some way, they are "members" in name only. Having 1500 members, of which half don't engage with you at all isn't really any better than having 750 active members, paying in regularly, is it?

Under the TJF model, and indeed every single other fan ownership model in the UK they adopt an active membership model. This involves people proactively choosing to join because the organisation has engaged with them. It isn't some passive byproduct of paying to attend the football. It's something you chose to do.

But also, if season ticket holders is such an important criteria, why wouldn't 3BC just suggest to the vehicle that is already engaging lots of others who aren't season ticket holders that some sort of special membership arrangement be made for season ticket holders?

On a related note, we actually did propose to give season ticket holders a vote in any decision by TJF to dispose of all or part of its shareholding (we set this out in our 22-page document).

3BC's representatives said that conferring 3rd party rights in this way would present "practical challenges" and was unreceptive to it.

Except of course... we know that this isn't a problem at all because the Club literally runs the PTFC Trust elections, which (when they are ever actually held) lets people of three seasons-standing as a season ticket-holder to vote in them).

So any argument that an organisation is bigger if it automatically gives membership to season ticket holders is one made in bad faith, does not accord with reality, and could only be delivered under a model that is largely passive rather than revenue raising. That is an inferior arrangement for the Club by every objective measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Okay, let's entertain this hypothetical.

If you simply decide that all season-ticket holders should be "members" without actively making a decision to join the fan ownership vehicle's legal entity in some way, what is the significance of that?

Unless those individuals are already proactively engaged in some way, they are "members" in name only. Having 1500 members, of which half don't engage with you at all isn't really any better than having 750 active members, paying in regularly, is it?

Under the TJF model, and indeed every single other fan ownership model in the UK they adopt an active membership model. This involves people proactively choosing to join because the organisation has engaged with them. It isn't some passive byproduct of paying to attend the football. It's something you chose to do.

But also, if season ticket holders is such an important criteria, why wouldn't 3BC just suggest to the vehicle that is already engaging lots of others who aren't season ticket holders that some sort of special membership arrangement be made for season ticket holders?

On a related note, we actually did propose to give season ticket holders a vote in any decision by TJF to dispose of all or part of its shareholding (we set this out in our 22-page document).

3BC's representatives said that conferring 3rd party rights in this way would present "practical challenges" and was unreceptive to it.

Except of course... we know that this isn't a problem at all because the Club literally runs the PTFC Trust elections, which (when they are ever actually held) lets people of three seasons-standing as a season ticket-holder to vote in them).

So any argument that an organisation is bigger if it automatically gives membership to season ticket holders is one made in bad faith, does not accord with reality, and could only be delivered under a model that is largely passive rather than revenue raising. That is an inferior arrangement for the Club by every objective measure.

I don’t disagree with any of that, but it is an argument that someone could make that they have twice the membership and in straight numbers, looking at nothing else, that is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points @Woodstock Jag.

The PTFC Trust only has ‘members’ by default. I bet you half of the regular ST holders don’t know they are actually ‘members’. It’s passive membership of a passive group who don’t seem to hold elections. Some might venture as far as to say they are puppets with the current Chair holding the strings.

All fans need a voice & representation. The move by TJF to have a low cost route to active membership is to be applauded. The numbers of TJF members will rise and we should see a coalescing of most types of fans under a TJF banner.

As I have mentioned on another post, I have been a regular player sponsor. Already this season I have contributed £600. The actual figure is irrelevant as I’m sure some fans put in a lot more into the Club. My point is I contribute above the level of a Season Ticket yet do not meet the criteria to be considered a ‘member’ of the PTFC Trust. 

Mind you, I don’t think I’m missing out on any membership perks. But what I would miss out on, if TJF didn’t exist, is having a voice within a democratic fans organisation. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I don’t disagree with any of that, but it is an argument that someone could make that they have twice the membership and in straight numbers, looking at nothing else, that is a fact.

You have a point caller. But the gap in numbers is closing. It would be even narrower if existing ST holders were given a choice about leaving the PTFC Trust or remaining within it’s deemed ‘membership’ numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sandy said:

Good points @Woodstock Jag.

The PTFC Trust only has ‘members’ by default. I bet you half of the regular ST holders don’t know they are actually ‘members’. It’s passive membership of a passive group who don’t seem to hold elections. Some might venture as far as to say they are puppets with the current Chair holding the strings.

All fans need a voice & representation. The move by TJF to have a low cost route to active membership is to be applauded. The numbers of TJF members will rise and we should see a coalescing of most types of fans under a TJF banner.

As I have mentioned on another post, I have been a regular player sponsor. Already this season I have contributed £600. The actual figure is irrelevant as I’m sure some fans put in a lot more into the Club. My point is I contribute above the level of a Season Ticket yet do not meet the criteria to be considered a ‘member’ of the PTFC Trust. 

Mind you, I don’t think I’m missing out on any membership perks. But what I would miss out on, if TJF didn’t exist, is having a voice within a democratic fans organisation. 

I'm in a similar position to you Sandy. I sponsor Brian Graham's boots. I attend every game I can when I get up to Scotland. I buy a home top every year, and sometimes an away top too. Before they abolished it I would buy a programme at every game I went to. I've been to hospitality on occasion. All of these activities contribute to the financial wellbeing of the club, and are part of the fan experience. None of these activities qualify or qualified me to vote for the Supporter Trustees in the PTFC Trust's only election in 2018, because I've not held a season ticket since I moved away from Glasgow in 2017. Before that I held a season ticket 8 years on the trot.

It makes far more sense for a fan representative body to represent fans that actively choose to be represented and to be part of the journey. That is the only way you get a reliable sense of engagement.

Any body that proposes for season ticket holders to be members of it, or to have voting rights in respect of it, must secure cooperation from the Club because of GDPR and how season ticket holder data is collected.

If that courtesy is extended to whatever group is announced at the Inverness game, ask yourself why Three Black Cats said to TJF that there were "practical challenges" to sharing that information for a more limited purpose with TJF.

That answer will, I suspect, be very revealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree WJ. But your closing comments make me shudder ahead of the actual 3BC announcement next week. 

They have 7 days to finesse their communication to the point where we all believe them.

If they read the Forum, they’d be struggling to know where to start!

Edited by sandy
ach just cos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda hope that, whatever comes out of this, that Colin Weirs hopes and wishes are fulfilled. I am not at all convinced that his hopes and wishes are at the heart of any of this fracas. It seems to me that somewhat lesser folk have decided what he meant. He must be birling in his grave!

This is all decending into a Victorian novel about who gets what once the hero is dead. It is pretty sickening, to be honest.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Douglas, I agree. It’s not what Colin would have wanted, all this fuss. 

I spoke briefly to Colin & Chris at the end of season players dinner one year. They both seemed normal folk who wanted to help the Jags in a low key, normal way. 

3BC seem to have turned it into a Victorian farce 

Edited by sandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sandy,

Thanks for that. I am quite astonished at the secrecy surrounding their 'preferred recipients' of his share in the club. If it is kosher then they ought  to have announced it immediately. In other words, we could all have stood back in amazement that we hadn't thought of it first!

It is, frankly terrible Public Relations!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, douglas clark said:

sandy,

Thanks for that. I am quite astonished at the secrecy surrounding their 'preferred recipients' of his share in the club. If it is kosher then they ought  to have announced it immediately. In other words, we could all have stood back in amazement that we hadn't thought of it first!

It is, frankly terrible Public Relations!

 

Maybe there’s some sort of confidentiality clause in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, douglas clark said:

sandy,

Thanks for that. I am quite astonished at the secrecy surrounding their 'preferred recipients' of his share in the club. If it is kosher then they ought  to have announced it immediately. In other words, we could all have stood back in amazement that we hadn't thought of it first!

It is, frankly terrible Public Relations!

 

I'm sure that she will think that she has handled the situation rather well. She kept TJF dangling until over 2,000 season tickets were sold. Now she's keeping us all in the dark until the eve of the next home game to minimise chances of organised protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jaggy said:

Maybe there’s some sort of confidentiality clause in place?

Difficult to see what purpose such a clause would serve.

I found it very interesting that the 3BC statement said:

"We are now in final discussions with them to conclude certain legal aspects before they begin planned communications with fans before the next home game, to coincide with 3BC announcing who they are."

For at least two reasons.

Firstly, it was suggested to us by 3BC representatives that the only binding legal document necessary to give effect to the share transfer was a stock transfer form. This does not take two weeks to prepare. So that suggests that this body, whatever it is, either needs legal work carried out over and above that before it is a suitable vehicle to accept the shares, or 3BC is actually engaging in a more involved legal relationship with this entity than it was prepared to consider in its discussions with TJF. That should give pause for thought.

Secondly, it's very interesting that this group supposedly had "planned communications" for the Inverness game as of 8:48pm on Monday evening, when 3BC claimed to our Negotiations team on Monday evening (at a meeting that started at 5:00pm) that when they sent us the agenda for our Monday meeting (at 10:47am that morning) they had not yet decided to eliminate us from the process. That's a very quick turn-around on "planned communications" for something that wasn't premeditated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, scotty said:

So the 3BC/the club are waiting to tell fans what they are planning to do in their name. Are they also going to tell us how much we should like what they are proposing?

Yes. That bit is being crafted this weekend. They are just waiting for a few more ST sales.

(just how did I get so cynical?)

Edited by sandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BowenBoys said:

I'm sure that she will think that she has handled the situation rather well. She kept TJF dangling until over 2,000 season tickets were sold. Now she's keeping us all in the dark until the eve of the next home game to minimise chances of organised protest.

Yeah, they will be thinking it’s all blown over. Not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Secondly, it's very interesting that this group supposedly had "planned communications" for the Inverness game as of 8:48pm on Monday evening, when 3BC claimed to our Negotiations team on Monday evening (at a meeting that started at 5:00pm) that when they sent us the agenda for our Monday meeting (at 10:47am that morning) they had not yet decided to eliminate us from the process. That's a very quick turn-around on "planned communications" for something that wasn't premeditated.

It smells more fishy than the langoustines that I saw landed at Pittenweem harbour yesterday morning.

80F0D776-D856-4610-8EE7-2018744E6F9A.jpeg

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...