Jump to content

All quiet on the West End front


BowenBoys
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are mutterings about the state the club was in when Low ran away.

The new Board of PTFC is in place and keeping its head down.

Nothing posted on the PTFC Trust website since 5 December. They were last visible on Facebook and Twitter, with a pitch update, on 17 December.

As a mere PATG foot soldier, I have no idea whether the PTFC Trust has been in contact with its beneficiaries or whether they have even managed to organise a list of their beneficiaries.

The Board of The Jags Foundation (a democratic organisation whose members will be consulted on where funds will be spent) have donated thousands of pounds to the club both directly (player budget) and indirectly (sponsorship). As a member, I don't disagree with these decisions but why so urgently? Is the need of cash at the club so desperate that there was no time for democratic consultation?

The fact that a Working Group has been established seems to have closed down communication with the fans.

Edited by BowenBoys
rogue apostrophe
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone missed it at the start of the week, there was a joint statement on the progress on the fan ownership situation: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/joint-update-on-future-of-fan-ownership/

Essentially we are waiting for the Trustees to consider and (we hope) ratify the proposed way forward, and for us then to set out collectively the intended timescale and milestones for implementation.

There has been *a lot* of activity behind the scenes at Firhill since the change of board, and I will say this for the Trustees: this has kept several of them fully occupied. They also very clearly recognise that TJF is the primary vehicle for fan engagement, and all going well this will be reflected in the changes made to the fan ownership model.

As for the question about financial contributions, it has always been TJF’s ambition, whatever the Club’s financial situation, to provide direct and indirect financial support to the Club. The decisions made by TJF to use some accumulated funds in this way reflects (a) a change of attitude of the Club Board to us as a source of funding and (b) significant behind the scenes progress to recognise and embrace TJF as the vehicle for fan engagement.

We did want to have a more detailed budget proposal to put to members in the aftermath of our first full trading year. But bluntly, the working assumptions about the role TJF would play at the Club, which necessary underpins that, has changed completely in the space of the last 8 weeks.

Essentially all of the feedback we’ve received from members has been to endorse the recent commitments we’ve made, and they have driven significant membership growth as well. Obviously we want to regularise the influence that our members have over our broader decision making, but with a lot of things not tied down yet about the future ownership and funding model, we think, and I suspect most members will understand, that it’s best to get the chronology on this right.

The Working Group, it should be emphasised, was set up by the Trust, in its capacity as majority shareholder, to improve the ownership model. The group included people across very different segments of the Thistle support. Its purpose was never to have a long and wide consultation exercise, but to get to grips with very obvious deficiencies in the model and to fix them. TJF were at the table because the fans already broadly backed the approach and solutions we were likely to suggest.

Before the end of the season (and I hope much sooner) it will become clear why this stage in Thistle’s journey has involved a lot of work behind the scenes. I entirely understand the clamour for information, but this has to be done the right way.

If it wasn’t, you have my word that TJF directors would be making it abundantly clear at the earliest credible opportunity, just as we have done on so many other matters, not least the Club’s most recent set of accounts.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

We are in a bit of a strange situation in that going by recent activity, communication, etc it appears that TJF are the majority shareholder but the reality is the still silent PTFC Trust are still in charge. I keenly await the mid Feb update we have been promised.

It would still only take a couple of minutes for PTFC Trust directors to acknowledge an email while TJF are by contrast exemplary for doing so.

Almost as though feel a couple on PTFC Trust think they are above having to do this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

It would still only take a couple of minutes for PTFC Trust directors to acknowledge an email while TJF are by contrast exemplary for doing so.

Almost as though feel a couple on PTFC Trust think they are above having to do this

A cynic might ask why would anyone expect the PTFC Trust to start acknowledging e mails? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I am wondering if there is any other club who could turn funding from a Euromillions winner into a financial nightmare?

Will never happen again. If you look at the bottom of lottery tickets there's a box to check to say you're not a supporter of a diddy football club!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

In case anyone missed it at the start of the week, there was a joint statement on the progress on the fan ownership situation: https://thejagsfoundation.co.uk/joint-update-on-future-of-fan-ownership/

Essentially we are waiting for the Trustees to consider and (we hope) ratify the proposed way forward, and for us then to set out collectively the intended timescale and milestones for implementation.

There has been *a lot* of activity behind the scenes at Firhill since the change of board, and I will say this for the Trustees: this has kept several of them fully occupied. They also very clearly recognise that TJF is the primary vehicle for fan engagement, and all going well this will be reflected in the changes made to the fan ownership model.

As for the question about financial contributions, it has always been TJF’s ambition, whatever the Club’s financial situation, to provide direct and indirect financial support to the Club. The decisions made by TJF to use some accumulated funds in this way reflects (a) a change of attitude of the Club Board to us as a source of funding and (b) significant behind the scenes progress to recognise and embrace TJF as the vehicle for fan engagement.

We did want to have a more detailed budget proposal to put to members in the aftermath of our first full trading year. But bluntly, the working assumptions about the role TJF would play at the Club, which necessary underpins that, has changed completely in the space of the last 8 weeks.

Essentially all of the feedback we’ve received from members has been to endorse the recent commitments we’ve made, and they have driven significant membership growth as well. Obviously we want to regularise the influence that our members have over our broader decision making, but with a lot of things not tied down yet about the future ownership and funding model, we think, and I suspect most members will understand, that it’s best to get the chronology on this right.

The Working Group, it should be emphasised, was set up by the Trust, in its capacity as majority shareholder, to improve the ownership model. The group included people across very different segments of the Thistle support. Its purpose was never to have a long and wide consultation exercise, but to get to grips with very obvious deficiencies in the model and to fix them. TJF were at the table because the fans already broadly backed the approach and solutions we were likely to suggest.

Before the end of the season (and I hope much sooner) it will become clear why this stage in Thistle’s journey has involved a lot of work behind the scenes. I entirely understand the clamour for information, but this has to be done the right way.

If it wasn’t, you have my word that TJF directors would be making it abundantly clear at the earliest credible opportunity, just as we have done on so many other matters, not least the Club’s most recent set of accounts.

I appreciate that you might not want to answer or be able to give much detail but I will ask anyway.

When we get this update mid Feb is it going to be a major departure from what was announced as the way forward when the PTFC Trust were announced as the majority shareholder or more of a tweaking of said arrangements?

The reason I ask is because, certainly for me, if we get something that is a few lines of legal speak changed in the Trust Deed (therein become hereby) that will be rather underwhelming. There is an opportunity here for a new approach and hopefully it is taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confident that the Working Group's proposals will be seen as a very significant step forward, with a genuine recognition of the role that fan democracy needs to play. I don't perceive what has been proposed to be a few tweaks. It is quite an imaginative solution given where we are now, and one that (I hope) gets us most of where TJF wanted the Club to be, while providing some important assurances to the existing Trustees that proper custodianship will be in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am confident that the Working Group's proposals will be seen as a very significant step forward, with a genuine recognition of the role that fan democracy needs to play. I don't perceive what has been proposed to be a few tweaks. It is quite an imaginative solution given where we are now, and one that (I hope) gets us most of where TJF wanted the Club to be, while providing some important assurances to the existing Trustees that proper custodianship will be in place.

Thank you, I appreciate you are constrained as to what you can say at the moment.

Onwards and upwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I do hope that the people involved in the behind scenes stuff realise that the more things stagnate on the pitch the more deseparate we become to hear something positive on this front.

Martin, 

You will not have to wait too much longer to hear something - unfortunately I cannot comment for 'on the park'

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jaf said:

Martin, 

You will not have to wait too much longer to hear something - unfortunately I cannot comment for 'on the park'

 

 

 

Thanks Sandy. I do sympathise with those dealing with this side of things as if things on the pitch were a bit better there would be more leeway given here.

Edited by Fawlty Towers
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not getting this "appalling communication" on this occasion. It looks like a bog standard statement that pretty much every club gives out under the same circumstances. You may want to know more for the reasons, but when are they ever given by any club. I do agree that I would have expected more frequent communications from the board and I am very disappointed that they didn't address that after the same criticism was made regarding the previous board. However yesterdays statement is pretty much what I would have expected to hear.

 

edit to add : Motherwell statement (also fan owned)

We have parted company with manager Steven Hammell.

His assistant Brian Kerr will also leave the club.

Stuart Kettlewell has agreed to take interim charge of the first-team until a permanent appointment has been made.

“Steven Hammell is and will forever be a colossus in Motherwell Football Club history,” chairman Jim McMahon said.

“Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, his time in charge hasn’t worked out the way we all really hoped it would.

“Although this decision has been difficult, we feel it is necessary as we look towards the last third of the Premiership season.

“I want to thank Steven and Brian for all their efforts and wish them both all the very best in the future.”

The chairman and non-executive directors have begun the recruitment process to appoint the next manager.

Edited by Dick Dastardly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I'm not getting this "appalling communication" on this occasion. It looks like a bog standard statement that pretty much every club gives out under the same circumstances. You may want to know more for the reasons, but when are they ever given by any club. I do agree that I would have expected more frequent communications from the board and I am very disappointed that they didn't address that after the same criticism was made regarding the previous board. However yesterdays statement is pretty much what I would have expected to hear.

 

edit to add : Motherwell statement (also fan owned)

We have parted company with manager Steven Hammell.

His assistant Brian Kerr will also leave the club.

Stuart Kettlewell has agreed to take interim charge of the first-team until a permanent appointment has been made.

“Steven Hammell is and will forever be a colossus in Motherwell Football Club history,” chairman Jim McMahon said.

“Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, his time in charge hasn’t worked out the way we all really hoped it would.

“Although this decision has been difficult, we feel it is necessary as we look towards the last third of the Premiership season.

“I want to thank Steven and Brian for all their efforts and wish them both all the very best in the future.”

The chairman and non-executive directors have begun the recruitment process to appoint the next manager.

The Motherwell statement is an example of why our Boards statement is so bad.

In Motherwell's statement they have made it clear why they sacked him.  There is no reason given for McCall's sacking in our statement so we are all guessing at the reason. If our board had said results hadn't been what we hoped for or the board no longer felt McCall could secure promotion it would have made it understood what the reason was.

They make it clear Kettlewell is temporary and that they want a permanent appointment. Our statement says Doolan is interim but doesn't say if we are looking at a permanent appointment. Our statement could have said Doolan is in interim charge whilst we review long term arrangements but with what we have put out we don't know if Doolan is there for next week, the next 4 games, the rest of the season or longer.

When you add that Motherwell sacked Hamell after losing to Raith in the cup and after a long run of bad results there statement and thought process is clear to understand. We on the other hand sacked a manager who on face value has us in contention for the playoffs and who almost knocked the holders out of the Scottish cup so our decision making is less clear which in turn demands a clearer statement than what Motherwell had to put out.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, laukat said:

The Motherwell statement is an example of why our Boards statement is so bad.

In Motherwell's statement they have made it clear why they sacked him.  There is no reason given for McCall's sacking in our statement so we are all guessing at the reason. If our board had said results hadn't been what we hoped for or the board no longer felt McCall could secure promotion it would have made it understood what the reason was.

They make it clear Kettlewell is temporary and that they want a permanent appointment. Our statement says Doolan is interim but doesn't say if we are looking at a permanent appointment. Our statement could have said Doolan is in interim charge whilst we review long term arrangements but with what we have put out we don't know if Doolan is there for next week, the next 4 games, the rest of the season or longer.

When you add that Motherwell sacked Hamell after losing to Raith in the cup and after a long run of bad results there statement and thought process is clear to understand. We on the other hand sacked a manager who on face value has us in contention for the playoffs and who almost knocked the holders out of the Scottish cup so our decision making is less clear which in turn demands a clearer statement than what Motherwell had to put out.

 

In this case I think you are looking for complaints. To me they read pretty much the same. It doesn't take away from the fact that communications have been poor in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

In this case I think you are looking for complaints. To me they read pretty much the same. It doesn't take away from the fact that communications have been poor in general.

And in his case I think you are overlooking issues because the outcome was one you desired. 

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...