Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Your being criticised for not sticking to your agreement -and your Director not stepping down after direct elections - you clearly admit it was a temporary arrangement

 its not up to your members - you had a deal with the Club - try sticking to it - or are TJF members now the Club -and they speak for us all -we have Elected Reps from the Trusts why should TJF have there own “ special rep” on the Board 

just shows that the Board do as TJF tell them to do ( Hows the Beer and Sandwiches these days ) 

As for “ smoke filled rooms” and “ pals” tell me how exactly did you recruit the two directors that were not from the Trusts at the last AGM ? 

Did they have to “ apply” ? Go through an interview process ? 

The simple fact is that if you want quality you approach them - they don't approach you

as for “ one” ideally “two” 

So read as - TJF are supporting all current Board members to stay in there place ( unless they have decided to step down personally ) 

We have Tranche 2 - the Status Quo remains 

and when I tapped up people to join the Board -they balanced the books and got us top six in the Premier - suggest you remember that

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

For the avoidance of doubt, there was no "agreement" that TJF's director would step down once directly elected fan representatives were in place.

Indeed, such an "agreement" would be impossible.

The transitional nature of the board appointed in the summer of 2023 was precisely because there were not yet any agreed rules about how Club Board members would be appointed.

At most there can be said to have been an expectation that board appointments made between November 2022 and January 2024 were a stop-gap, until permanent arrangements for (a) democratic and (b) skills-based recruitment had been put into place, via a fully-functioning Club-Trust Agreement and Corporate Governance Manual.

There was no Club-Trust Agreement until February 2024.

There was no mechanism to hold fan rep elections until the Club-Trust Agreement existed.

The Corporate Governance Manual was only adopted in October 2024 and is not yet fully operationalised as regards either skills-based appointments or working groups.

When the Club Board proposed the first draft of the Corporate Governance Manual, its own draft assumed that TJF's presence on the Club Board would become permanent.

I personally, on behalf of the Trustees, requested changes to the text to make clear that the arrangement of having a TJF rep might not continue indefinitely. That is why paragraph 2.4.1 includes the words "if nominated".

Those are the facts.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Woodstock Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

34 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

For the avoidance of doubt, there was no "agreement" that TJF's director would step down once directly elected fan representatives were in place.

Indeed, such an "agreement" would be impossible.

The transitional nature of the board appointed in the summer of 2023 was precisely because there were not yet any agreed rules about how Club Board members would be appointed.

At most there can be said to have been an expectation that board appointments made between November 2022 and January 2024 were a stop-gap, until permanent arrangements for (a) democratic and (b) skills-based recruitment had been put into place, via a fully-functioning Club-Trust Agreement and Corporate Governance Manual.

There was no Club-Trust Agreement until February 2024.

There was no mechanism to hold fan rep elections until the Club-Trust Agreement existed.

The Corporate Governance Manual was only adopted in October 2024 and is not yet fully operationalised as regards either skills-based appointments or working groups.

When the Club Board proposed the first draft of the Corporate Governance Manual, its own draft assumed that TJF's presence on the Club Board would become permanent.

I personally, on behalf of the Trustees, requested changes to the text to make clear that the arrangement of having a TJF rep might not continue indefinitely. That is why paragraph 2.4.1 includes the words "if nominated".

Those are the facts.

And on Social Media and in conversations with TJF Directors -we kept getting told how the Board was temporary

So we have Elected Trust Reps who are voted by TJF members and all other Trust Beneficiaries - but TJF are so important they get there own wee Special Rep on the Board - because well - just because -and don't dare question it - we are TJF -we are in charge 

as for skills based recruitment 

lets get this right - we have Seven  Directors - one of which was recruited for his Skills - one of which due to investment -all others were via the Trust Route ( two actually elected ) 

So three Directors  neither elected nor Skill based recruitment as - simply Trust Nominees - so why are they still on the Board ? 

and your going on about pals and smoke filled rooms - unbelievable 

or are you saying no Thistle Fans are out there with the required skills 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

I broke my rule.

Sorry folks.

If anyone other than JJ has questions about

(a) the move towards skills-based appointments

(b) the context, circumstances and consultation on the future of TJF's board rep

I am happy to answer them here or you can email TJF at [email protected].

I will not engage with bad faith questioning from someone who clearly has no intention of recognising when they're wrong.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Woodstock Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

10 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I broke my rule.

Sorry folks.

If anyone other than JJ has questions about

(a) the move towards skills-based appointments

(b) the context, circumstances and consultation on the future of TJF's board rep

I am happy to answer them here or you can email TJF at [email protected].

I will not engage with bad faith questioning from someone who clearly has no intention of recognising when they're wrong.

“ bad faith” no problem - funny how every opportunity if its the Board Budget or Temporary Board Positions -TJF manage to use it to increase there grip on the Club 

As for move towards “ Skills based “ Board - your wee “ Nominee gang” will still be there -and TJF will ensure anyone interviewed fully complies with there views 

TJF are the Club - the Board are merely a front 

[allyo]

19 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I broke my rule.

Sorry folks.

If anyone other than JJ has questions about

(a) the move towards skills-based appointments

(b) the context, circumstances and consultation on the future of TJF's board rep

I am happy to answer them here or you can email TJF at [email protected].

I will not engage with bad faith questioning from someone who clearly has no intention of recognising when they're wrong.

Okay thanks.

My question would be, does TJF envisage itself and its members being capable of raising sufficient funds to keep the club sustainable and competitive, over and above normal "football reated" turnover? Is there currently any detailed understanding of how much money this is likely to be, and how does this compare with what TJF has been able to raise to date?

[Jordanhill Jag]

20 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I broke my rule.

Sorry folks.

If anyone other than JJ has questions about

(a) the move towards skills-based appointments

(b) the context, circumstances and consultation on the future of TJF's board rep

I am happy to answer them here or you can email TJF at [email protected].

I will not engage with bad faith questioning from someone who clearly has no intention of recognising when they're wrong.

Its also worth noting that Todays Statement from TJF Chair stated how we would operate in the future regards Finances - what the Future Club Board would look like - the mix between those with Commercial Experience and Trust Nominees - how those with Commercial Experience would be recruited to the Board 

However - this all came from TJF - not from the Club 

TJF are now stopping pretending that the Club Board have any Power whatsover - they have taken the Tranche 2 Vote as an endorsement of there position to run PTFC by Proxy 

Any pretence that we now operate a Shadow Board has been dropped 

A Proper Club Board would resign - but since the Board in the main came via the Trusts - its one in the same thing as TJF 

Tranche 2 simply solidified TJF Power to decide on the future of PTFC 

Its there Club - lets see how they run it   

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Jordanhill Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

29 minutes ago, allyo said:

Okay thanks.

My question would be, does TJF envisage itself and its members being capable of raising sufficient funds to keep the club sustainable and competitive, over and above normal "football reated" turnover? Is there currently any detailed understanding of how much money this is likely to be, and how does this compare with what TJF has been able to raise to date?

So as things stand the Club receives £150kpa from TJF. Guaranteed.

Over and above that, TJF raises £24kpa for the Academy and £5kpa for the Women’s team. These three pledges are now (roughly) paid for from monthly membership subs and donations.

And this is topped-up by TJF taking out a full hospitality day, worth another £20k or so to the Club, and essentially paid for through tickets and other fundraising throughout the year.

So we are essentially a £200kpa revenue-raising vehicle for the Club, with our current model also enabling activities that enhance the fan experience to take place.

There are fan owned football clubs that don’t depend on a regular contribution like ours. For example, St Mirren’s fans group SMISA is able to bank about half of their member income and puts most of the rest into their Youth Academy and community projects.

If you were to try to rely exclusively or predominantly on fan revenue to close the gap at Thistle it wouldn’t be possible on the sort of timescales we are talking about. You’d need to find a way to almost treble TJF’s commitment to the Club.

No one is suggesting that the gap would be closed through fan fundraising alone, though there is room to grow TJF’s contribution if more people join up. At its peak I think The Well Society was raising about £300k in some years, though their fanbase is a bit bigger.

But do I think it’s viable for Thistle to get to break-even with £150kpa of fan contributions via TJF? Absolutely. Delivering that outcome would depend on better cost controls, commercial revenue improvements, and the delivery of a fan acquisition strategy to grow attendances.

Thistle has always depended, to some extent, on the financial support of key shareholders, directors and other benefactors. Without TJF’s support, the kind of changes you’d need to get to breakeven would be essentially impossible on realistic timescales.

With it, I think it’s achievable, provided you have the right people and strategy in place.

[javeajag]

24 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Its also worth noting that Todays Statement from TJF Chair stated how we would operate in the future regards Finances - what the Future Club Board would look like - the mix between those with Commercial Experience and Trust Nominees - how those with Commercial Experience would be recruited to the Board 

However - this all came from TJF - not from the Club 

TJF are now stopping pretending that the Club Board have any Power whatsover - they have taken the Tranche 2 Vote as an endorsement of there position to run PTFC by Proxy 

Any pretence that we now operate a Shadow Board has been dropped 

A Proper Club Board would resign - but since the Board in the main came via the Trusts - its one in the same thing as TJF 

Tranche 2 simply solidified TJF Power to decide on the future of PTFC 

Its there Club - lets see how they run it   

 

I might be missing something but essentially the Trusts- TJF, Ptfc trust , jags trust - own the club

they nominate some board members ( through internal elections ) and the board appoints others based on their skills eg commercial, finance etc 

the club board run the club day to day but are answerable to their owners the Trusts/fans

im struggling to work out what your unhappy about 

[allyo]

Great. Thanks.

If it's okay I have a few follow up questions...

Where does TJF get the guaranteed 150k from? Is this a sustainable fund?

If closing the gap means trebling TJF commitment (from £200k to 600k?), how would £150k of fan contribution get us to break-even?

Is the ability of the club to rely on the financial support of key stakeholders, directors and other benefactors (presumably from outside of TJF) in any way compromised by 60% of the club being owned by TJF?

[Woodstock Jag]

6 minutes ago, allyo said:

Great. Thanks.

If it's okay I have a few follow up questions...

Where does TJF get the guaranteed 150k from? Is this a sustainable fund?

Membership fees and donations.

Members currently pledge about £15.5kpm.

Obviously not all of that goes into the pledges, because we have payment processing fees and administration costs associated with running the Foundation and the PTFC Trust (membership software, web hosting, webmail client, accounting software, elections software) and we support other events and community activities.

But at current income levels, we meet our pledges and other fundraising enables us to do all the other stuff.

6 minutes ago, allyo said:

If closing the gap means trebling TJF commitment (from £200k to 600k?), how would £150k of fan contribution get us to break-even?

Trebling it (in the near term) is fantasy and won’t happen.

What I’m saying is that the Club Board should be able to find a way to prepare an deliver breakeven budgets in future seasons with only £150k of TJF donations in any given season.

6 minutes ago, allyo said:

Is the ability of the club to rely on the financial support of key stakeholders, directors and other benefactors (presumably from outside of TJF) in any way compromised by 60% of the club being owned by TJF?

The reason the Club is losing money has nothing to do with fan ownership. The financial difficulties the Club faced in early 2023 were from a period in which the Club was privately owned!

And this season we’ve seen other benefactors contribute over £300k to the playing budget.

[allyo]

Thanks for that. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Membership fees and donations.

Members currently pledge about £15.5kpm.

Obviously not all of that goes into the pledges, because we have payment processing fees and administration costs associated with running the Foundation and the PTFC Trust (membership software, web hosting, webmail client, accounting software, elections software) and we support other events and community activities.

But at current income levels, we meet our pledges and other fundraising enables us to do all the other stuff.

Trebling it (in the near term) is fantasy and won’t happen.

What I’m saying is that the Club Board should be able to find a way to prepare an deliver breakeven budgets in future seasons with only £150k of TJF donations in any given season.

The reason the Club is losing money has nothing to do with fan ownership. The financial difficulties the Club faced in early 2023 were from a period in which the Club was privately owned!

And this season we’ve seen other benefactors contribute over £300k to the playing budget.

At the Q&A when asked why the Board budgeted for a £280K loss they replied that they had “ taken a punt on promotion” 

there was no mention of financial difficulties from 2023 

So who do we believe - TJF or the Board ? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

I might be missing something but essentially the Trusts- TJF, Ptfc trust , jags trust - own the club

they nominate some board members ( through internal elections ) and the board appoints others based on their skills eg commercial, finance etc 

the club board run the club day to day but are answerable to their owners the Trusts/fans

im struggling to work out what your unhappy about 

Three of the board of Seven are

“ nominees” from the Trusts - they were not elected to the Board nor were chosen for there specific skills 

Club Boards do not answer to there Shareholders on every issue and consult them for there OK on every decision - there is no separation of power  

[javeajag]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Three of the board of Seven are

“ nominees” from the Trusts - they were not elected to the Board nor were chosen for there specific skills 

Club Boards do not answer to there Shareholders on every issue and consult them for there OK on every decision - there is no separation of power  

I still don’t see the issue…..a majority of the board are not from the ‘trusts’

there is separation of power just not in the form you prefer as you never liked/wanted fan ownership

i think fundamentally you can’t get your head around the fact that a fan owned business has differences in governance from a commercial business just like a co-operative or partnership.

[Jordanhill Jag]

8 hours ago, javeajag said:

I still don’t see the issue…..a majority of the board are not from the ‘trusts’

there is separation of power just not in the form you prefer as you never liked/wanted fan ownership

i think fundamentally you can’t get your head around the fact that a fan owned business has differences in governance from a commercial business just like a co-operative or partnership.

There are Seven Directors - three Trust " Nominees" two Elected Trust Reps - one Investment Director - one Skills based Director - TJF have made it clear that they will decide on the Board Mix - how many Directors with Commercial Experience & how they are recruited / Vetted - the Statement on this came from TJF Chair - not the Club Board   

Same with Finances - TJF Chair stated how they would be run in the Future - not the Club Board  

TJF stated there three Year Target Plan to Breakeven - not the Club Board 

TJF stated the requirement of levels of Cash Reserves - not the Club Board 

We are a Commercial Business - not a Co-operative - until such times as the legal structure of the Club Changes - the Club Board run the Club - we are Fan Owned - Not Fan Run 

If we want to go down the Co-operative Route - I'm sure TJF would be more than Happy to expand there "Three Year Breakeven Plan" and along with the current proposed 9 Committees - we can add a Sub Committee to the Secretive "Football Committee" for the Five Year Agricultural Plan - with Workers Communal Farm Targets for Wheat Production on the Bing - in Fairness the TJF NKVD Hit Squads already effectively Target any potential Fan Ownership dissidents online 

Fan Ownership is not the issue - TJF Controlling every aspect of the Club and Controlling Board Decisions is the issue ( and hence why we are in a mess )   

So we are either Fan Owned - with an experienced Board Running the Club - as a Sustainable Business Model - or we are Fan Run ( as we are now ) pandering to the various Agendas of the Multiple Pressure Groups & TJF making key announcements as to our future direction ( rather than the Club Board )  

 

 

[dl1971]

5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There are Seven Directors - three Trust " Nominees" two Elected Trust Reps - one Investment Director - one Skills based Director - TJF have made it clear that they will decide on the Board Mix - how many Directors with Commercial Experience & how they are recruited / Vetted - the Statement on this came from TJF Chair - not the Club Board   

Same with Finances - TJF Chair stated how they would be run in the Future - not the Club Board  

TJF stated there three Year Target Plan to Breakeven - not the Club Board 

TJF stated the requirement of levels of Cash Reserves - not the Club Board 

We are a Commercial Business - not a Co-operative - until such times as the legal structure of the Club Changes - the Club Board run the Club - we are Fan Owned - Not Fan Run 

If we want to go down the Co-operative Route - I'm sure TJF would be more than Happy to expand there "Three Year Breakeven Plan" and along with the current proposed 9 Committees - we can add a Sub Committee to the Secretive "Football Committee" for the Five Year Agricultural Plan - with Workers Communal Farm Targets for Wheat Production on the Bing - in Fairness the TJF NKVD Hit Squads already effectively Target any potential Fan Ownership dissidents online 

Fan Ownership is not the issue - TJF Controlling every aspect of the Club and Controlling Board Decisions is the issue ( and hence why we are in a mess )   

So we are either Fan Owned - with an experienced Board Running the Club - as a Sustainable Business Model - or we are Fan Run ( as we are now ) pandering to the various Agendas of the Multiple Pressure Groups & TJF making key announcements as to our future direction ( rather than the Club Board )  

 

 

Word soup. 

[dl1971]

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There are Seven Directors - three Trust " Nominees" two Elected Trust Reps - one Investment Director - one Skills based Director - TJF have made it clear that they will decide on the Board Mix - how many Directors with Commercial Experience & how they are recruited / Vetted - the Statement on this came from TJF Chair - not the Club Board   

Same with Finances - TJF Chair stated how they would be run in the Future - not the Club Board  

TJF stated there three Year Target Plan to Breakeven - not the Club Board 

TJF stated the requirement of levels of Cash Reserves - not the Club Board 

We are a Commercial Business - not a Co-operative - until such times as the legal structure of the Club Changes - the Club Board run the Club - we are Fan Owned - Not Fan Run 

If we want to go down the Co-operative Route - I'm sure TJF would be more than Happy to expand there "Three Year Breakeven Plan" and along with the current proposed 9 Committees - we can add a Sub Committee to the Secretive "Football Committee" for the Five Year Agricultural Plan - with Workers Communal Farm Targets for Wheat Production on the Bing - in Fairness the TJF NKVD Hit Squads already effectively Target any potential Fan Ownership dissidents online 

Fan Ownership is not the issue - TJF Controlling every aspect of the Club and Controlling Board Decisions is the issue ( and hence why we are in a mess )   

So we are either Fan Owned - with an experienced Board Running the Club - as a Sustainable Business Model - or we are Fan Run ( as we are now ) pandering to the various Agendas of the Multiple Pressure Groups & TJF making key announcements as to our future direction ( rather than the Club Board )  

 

 

Interesting you commented on the bing. A mess that was created by all those Directors, with their respective skill sets and capability. Well done chaps. Good job. 

[javeajag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There are Seven Directors - three Trust " Nominees" two Elected Trust Reps - one Investment Director - one Skills based Director - TJF have made it clear that they will decide on the Board Mix - how many Directors with Commercial Experience & how they are recruited / Vetted - the Statement on this came from TJF Chair - not the Club Board   

Same with Finances - TJF Chair stated how they would be run in the Future - not the Club Board  

TJF stated there three Year Target Plan to Breakeven - not the Club Board 

TJF stated the requirement of levels of Cash Reserves - not the Club Board 

We are a Commercial Business - not a Co-operative - until such times as the legal structure of the Club Changes - the Club Board run the Club - we are Fan Owned - Not Fan Run 

If we want to go down the Co-operative Route - I'm sure TJF would be more than Happy to expand there "Three Year Breakeven Plan" and along with the current proposed 9 Committees - we can add a Sub Committee to the Secretive "Football Committee" for the Five Year Agricultural Plan - with Workers Communal Farm Targets for Wheat Production on the Bing - in Fairness the TJF NKVD Hit Squads already effectively Target any potential Fan Ownership dissidents online 

Fan Ownership is not the issue - TJF Controlling every aspect of the Club and Controlling Board Decisions is the issue ( and hence why we are in a mess )   

So we are either Fan Owned - with an experienced Board Running the Club - as a Sustainable Business Model - or we are Fan Run ( as we are now ) pandering to the various Agendas of the Multiple Pressure Groups & TJF making key announcements as to our future direction ( rather than the Club Board )  

 

 

I think you’re kind of making my point…..co- operatives, partnerships and fan owned businesses are similar but not identical. They are commercial but are organised and run slightly differently. I’m not sure you get the subtlety.

1 the owners of a business can decide on board composition and other issues connected with that organisation. That is something you agree with so I’m not sure what your point is.

2 TJF are entitled to have a view , as indeed are you , what the Board actually does and how the business owners react to that are two separate questions.

3 I’m not sure anyone disagrees that we are fan owned but not fan run.your understanding of what that means is the issue. Blackrock may own or be a large investor in a business but they also set targets, appoint the board and outline what’s expected. That’s normal.

4 TJF expressing a view and communicating it to the board is what shareholders of Barclays do every day. Nothing unusual here.

5 if your you going to make sweeping generalizations you should have some examples beyond ‘TJF said….’

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I think you’re kind of making my point…..co- operatives, partnerships and fan owned businesses are similar but not identical. They are commercial but are organised and run slightly differently. I’m not sure you get the subtlety.

1 the owners of a business can decide on board composition and other issues connected with that organisation. That is something you agree with so I’m not sure what your point is.

2 TJF are entitled to have a view , as indeed are you , what the Board actually does and how the business owners react to that are two separate questions.

3 I’m not sure anyone disagrees that we are fan owned but not fan run.your understanding of what that means is the issue. Blackrock may own or be a large investor in a business but they also set targets, appoint the board and outline what’s expected. That’s normal.

4 TJF expressing a view and communicating it to the board is what shareholders of Barclays do every day. Nothing unusual here.

5 if your you going to make sweeping generalizations you should have some examples beyond ‘TJF said….’

If TJF are going to exert there authority over all aspects of the Club - if there going to make Public announcements about Board Composition - Recruitment - Future Club Direction - whats the point of having a Club Board of Directors - why not replace the Board with Management Roles 

If the Club goes Bankrupt  its the Directors who personally carry the can not TJF - the Club Board Directors are the legal entity of all aspects of PTFC - Not TJF 

There is actually no legal structure for a "Fan Owned Business " we are a Commercial Company - not a co- operative, partnership or Charity 

If it goes Pear Shaped TJF will blame the Board  

 

[javeajag]

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If TJF are going to exert there authority over all aspects of the Club - if there going to make Public announcements about Board Composition - Recruitment - Future Club Direction - whats the point of having a Club Board of Directors - why not replace the Board with Management Roles 

If the Club goes Bankrupt  its the Directors who personally carry the can not TJF - the Club Board Directors are the legal entity of all aspects of PTFC - Not TJF 

There is actually no legal structure for a "Fan Owned Business " we are a Commercial Company - not a co- operative, partnership or Charity 

If it goes Pear Shaped TJF will blame the Board  

 

1. Making statements on board composition is fine , as they are on Board recruitment and club direction. I really don’t get why this worries you. 

2. Yes Directors should br aware of their responsibilities and liabilities. And as far as I know they are and if they are concerned they can step down.

3. In fact co -operatives can have different legal structures but the point is a fan owned business can operate slightly differently than a commercial one even within the current  legal structure. 
 
yes the board should run the club day to day and the trusts should not interfere on every detail. No one is disagreeing.
 

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, javeajag said:

3. In fact co -operatives can have different legal structures but the point is a fan owned business can operate slightly differently than a commercial one even within the current  legal structure. 

Indeed. For example, you might have a Club-Trust Agreement saying:

Quote

The Club shall not take any action nor pass any resolution without the prior written consent of the Trustees in any matter that pertains or relates to... the approval of the recommendations for the appointment or removal of Club Board members (Directors)

And the Club Board might adopt a Corporate Governance Manual saying:

Quote

The board must satisfy itself that plans are in place for orderly succession for appointments to the Board... so as to maintain an appropriate and ongoing level of skills and experience within the Club.

Appointments to the Board will be based on a skills-based assessment of needs. Appointments will be managed by an appointments panel, selected by the board, comprising; at least one director, a subject matter expert and an HR Professional.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Woodstock Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

1. Making statements on board composition is fine , as they are on Board recruitment and club direction. I really don’t get why this worries you. 

2. Yes Directors should br aware of their responsibilities and liabilities. And as far as I know they are and if they are concerned they can step down.

3. In fact co -operatives can have different legal structures but the point is a fan owned business can operate slightly differently than a commercial one even within the current  legal structure. 
 
yes the board should run the club day to day and the trusts should not interfere on every detail. No one is disagreeing.
 

The level of interfering in your last paragraph remains to be seen and is at the heart of the problem  

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Indeed. For example, you might have a Club-Trust Agreement saying:

And the Club Board might adopt a Corporate Governance Manual saying:

Its your Club - you make all the key decisions 

you decide who sits on the Board - you decide who leaves it 

the Board report to TJF - they seek there OK on every decision 

there only alternative is to resign ( and as most of them came via the Trusts- they wont go against TJF ) 

So TJF control the Club - its on them 

But - No serious person with Business Experience will work under a Committee thats not accountable to anyone but there members 

Nor are TJF accountable under the Companies Act nor any other organisation  which Football Clubs adhere to

So we have Power without responsibility - if it goes wrong -TJF will blame the Board 

Well TJF are in charge - lets see how that goes - lets see how there decisions dig us out of our debt spiral 

lets see how they negotiate these wonderful Commercial deals that will clear our debts 

lets see the Directors with lots of experience and high level contacts they recruit

lets see where the priorities are - who calls the shots at PTFC - the Board or TJF 

Its on TJF - no one else - PTFC are now TJF in everything but name - good luck with that 

 

[allyo]

Some of the concerns regarding sustainability I get. But I feel i asked reasonably straight questions on that, and got reasonably straight answers. Your arguments seem to go off in lots of directions and I tend to lose the thread.

But when it comes down to it, is this really about structure and responsibility,  or is it about you not having faith in the "types" of people currently in key positions? Because if that is the case, it's quite a personal argument and not one I really feel any need to engage with.

I'm on the Board of a local housing association. It is accountable to its members, who are also its key stakeholders. It has "serious business people" on the Board (not me). They do it because they believe in it, and want to see it succeed. I'm not saying the situation is the same, but do similar principles not apply?

Edited December 18, 2024 by allyo