The Fan's Representative

[B.C.G. JAG]

In the title 'Partick Thistle Football Club', which of the following definitions of the word 'Club' do you think is the most appropriate?

 

–noun

a group of persons organized for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose.

–verb (used with object)

to unite; combine; join together.

or

to contribute as one's share toward a joint expense; make up by joint contribution (often fol. by up or together): They clubbed their dollars together to buy the expensive present.

 

–verb (used without object)

to combine or join together, as for a common purpose.

 

All sound like the aspirational ideas the Club, and the supporters would dearly love to believe define our football club. So why does this definition of the word Club better represent it.

 

–noun

a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon; a cudgel.

 

Sound more like what we know now? Possibly. We are hearing all the talk of a bright new future, a new joint venture with the fans at the heart of the Club. But in reality we're only getting the walk of that last definition.

 

I've been mulling over the Fans Rep problem today a bit in my head and here are some of my thoughts on the subject. Apologies, but this is going to turn into a bit of an essay.

 

So, a quick catch up if you will bear with me. The Club are currently not extending an invitation to The Trust for a fan's representative on the BOD. They are happy to have an observer but the top table is off limits, at least until they have recruited a full board first and settled on a new working model. In the event that they do eventually allow a fan to sit on the Board, the Club has stated that, for whatever reason, they are unhappy with the legally elected Fan's Rep in Morag, and would rather work with someone else who better fits their ideals – someone who can fill some of the skills gaps on the BOD.

 

Now I'll briefly recap the point I made at the Trust Meeting. I was once elected as the Student's Representative when I was doing my degree. There was about two and half thousand students to represent, so the numbers are fairly similar. I sat on eighty plus committees, up to and including the Board of Governors as a full Governor. I was there to politically represent the student body within the mechanisms of the institution. I was not there to be an accountant, a chief executive, an estates manager or anything else other than simply represent the customers who had paid for their education and who had a stake in how it was delivered. Between myself and the other Governors, there was naturally a mutual distrust. Sometimes, albeit rarely, when they weren't willing to hear what we had to say, we waged war until that changed. But fortunately it was on the whole amicable and friendly and any disagreement was never lightly dismissed as an annoyance or an irrelevance – the opinion of the customer was I believe, truly valued. We were after all serving the same ends, despite the weight we gave to particular priorities being unequal. We disagreed but could respect each others position, and we could work towards a balancing of those priorities to find a compromise that brought optimum use of very limited resources.

 

My point is this. A relationship built on the respect of our separate identities but mutual goals served to benefit all parties. This is not what we have at PTFC, where we are accorded no such respect with a seat at the table, where the 'newish' Board is still characterised by the distrust, suspicion and chauvinism of old towards us, the customer, who parts with his money week in week out, no matter how rubbish the fare on offer. By expecting that to continue without giving us any input into the Club is to view us as complete chumps.

 

The Club is dying on it's arse, so perhaps it's time for the newish Board to stop viewing us as chumps and see if, just possibly, we can do anything to help revive it's flagging fortunes. A healthy Board of any persuasion should always be open to constructive criticism. Surrounding yourself by people who only say what you want to hear is ultimately pointless and bad for business.

 

The Fan's Representative could be providing, free of charge, invaluable customer feedback and market research. The Fan's Representative and their organisation, The Trust, could be co-ordinating fundraising activity. The Fan's Representative and The Trust could be co-ordinating an army of volunteers to help The Club out (something I saw first hand a former Director doing spectacularly badly). The Fan's Representative could be stemming the tide of unenthusiasm from the deathly quiet JHS by bringing those loyal supporters on as equal partners.

 

A good, customer orientated company would surely jump at striking up such a relationship with it's client base. What an opportunity! What a competitive advantage would come from having a relationship where the customer felt as though they had a real stake in the future of the Club and poured their enthusiasm, time, skills and energy as well as their pennies into it. It is a fantastic opportunity for the Club, and we should paint it as such. So why are we just talking about it like an impossible dream?

 

Have we been doing it wrong up til now? Perhaps we haven't got the balance right yet? One thing that we have often heard people ask is 'What is the Fan's Rep actually up to on The Board?' OK, there has to be some confidentiality about sensitive details, but at the same time, we should rightly expect there to be a two way dialogue between The Support and The Board. We should know what they want from us as supporters via our Rep, and they should hear what we think. Don't they want to know what the customers think? No-one has ever canvassed me for my opinion on The Wee Jags scheme or on the Real Scottish Football campaign or the Greaves Merchandise. Don't they want feedback from us or is it a case of stumbling around blindly from one idea to the next, arrogantly indifferent to opinion of The Customer? If they say they don't want our help, our advice or our opinions, then I would argue that they are a Board unfit to hold office. I cannot believe that we are so unvalued. I believe it simply a lack of trust, but that is something they are going to have to get over quickly as we cannot afford to continue like this.

 

My next point is that, if we were to be invited to field a Rep, then I don't think that person can effectively represent us politically, whilst also taking care of their other commitments in life such as a career and-or family, and also be expected to act as a free of charge skilled consultant. We can already see at The Club what happens when we ask people to double up their responsibilities – and it sadly usually translates into half arsed results. Our Representative should be just that, with no expectations for them to be providing additional services. Also, let's face facts, we're a small pool to draw from. The person who might make the best Rep is not necessarily the best legal adviser. Or the best Book-keeping adviser is unlikely to also be the best Rep. Let's not ask someone to be more than they are when they are volunteering ,let's just be thankful that they are giving what they can to The Club and not demand anything more than that eh?

 

If there are skills gaps on The Board, with a bit of a goodwill shown by the BOD, I'm sure The Trust would oblige in helping canvas the support for 'Thistle minded' volunteers who could be co-opted onto the Club Board in a non-exec advisory position to fill those gaps. The Rep doesn't need to provide those skills. The Rep position must, must, must be filled by us without conditions of 'skills' or anything else dictated by The BOD. For them to set preconditions on who is our Representative defeats the entire point of the exercise – it must be our Representative, not theirs, otherwise the position is redundant. For them to refuse to work with Morag, our chosen Representative, is I believe the gravest offence they could make to The Supporters and it must be made explicitly clear that it is so.

 

There is a genuine lack of understanding at Board level as to what a Representative is. They say they want to work with the fans, but that offer cannot come with a condition of their veto as to who we choose. They say they want to put us at the very heart of their plans. Then show some basic respect and common courtesy.

 

Let's have an honest discussion about the benefits our Rep could bring (regular feedback, market research, fund-raising updates, volunteer co-ordination) and let's talk to the BOD about why they feel the relationship hasn't benefited them in the past. That conversation might have to include some discussion on their approach to all Board matters being confidential, because if you don't ask your customers about your ideas, you'll never get to know what they think. And sometimes, just asking the questions might have positive results in itself as the fans begin to feel included again.

 

But, don't tell us that you can't extend new invitations to join the BOD at this time of transition when Jim Alexander has just been given a leg up to the top table. We are the supporters. We financially support The Club with our purchases. We are a major shareholder. We have historically had a Representative and we are more deserving than anyone to have our seat at the table. To snub us as they invite others demonstrates to me exactly how fan orientated this new regime plans to be. Unless that situation changes we should be clear that the Trust, as a shareholder will seek the disapproval of all other appointments they make to that Board without our express consent whilst we remain outside.

 

They will claim they have already taken their 'leap of faith' with the removal of Cowan,Hughes and Prentice, but let's be honest – that wasn't really for our benefit was it? As the two major investors in Propco, Beattie and Allan simply could not afford such financial buffoonery and mismanagement of their money. The Club's finances have been run with outlandish incompetence (a fair appraisal I would say) up til now and it is only good luck that has kept us in business (thank God for Glorious Gary Harkins, it turns out he really was the redeemer!) If any of us invested our money like that into a venture, we would also expect the management of it to be overseen by someone with a proven track record of success. The three monkeys provided them with no such confidence and had to go. This was not a leap of faith, it was practical business.

 

So what do we do? We underline the importance and usefulness of fan representation, we offer help in finding the right people to fill the skills gaps, but we make it abundantly clear that until we are respected as a major shareholder and invited to put our own Rep forward, we will oppose their new Board at every turn, so that anyone they try and co-opt without us will surely regret it. The Rep position is non-negotiable, and it will be the resolution of this matter, or lack of it, that will define the new Board's attitude to us. They want us on board, but not on The Board. Well that's not good enough. It's not your Club. It's our Club. Maybe they should look at the definitions again.

 

 

Edited for some pretty woeful spelling.

Edited October 7, 2010 by B.C.G. JAG

[Kapiti Jag]

If there are skills gaps on The Board, with a bit of a goodwill shown by the BOD, I'm sure The Trust would oblige in helping canvas the support for 'Thistle minded' volunteers who could be co-opted onto the Club Board in a non-exec advisory position to fill those gaps. The Rep doesn't need to provide those skills. The Rep position must, must, must be filled by us without conditions of 'skills' or anything else dictated by The BOD. For them to set preconditions on who is our Representative defeats the entire point of the exercise – it must be our Representative, not theirs, otherwise the position is redundant. For them to refuse to work with Morag, our chosen Representative, is I believe the gravest offence they could make to The Supporters and it must be made explicitly clear that it is so.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter for me, they either accept the Trust's representative or they come clean and bin the whole notion of a fans' rep. on the Club board at all. Dicking about just leads to suspicion. The Trust should deliver this message in clear terms.

[Hot Shot]

 

A good, customer orientated company would surely jump at striking up such a relationship with it's client base. What an opportunity! What a competitive advantage would come from having a relationship where the customer felt as though they had a real stake in the future of the Club and poured their enthusiasm, time, skills and energy as well as their pennies into it. It is a fantastic opportunity for the Club, and we should paint it as such. So why are we just talking about it like an impossible dream?

 

 

 

While I agree with this to an extent I also think we have to remember football is no ordinary company/customer relationship, other companys might not have a customer base that ONLY wants to pay for their product and as a company this is something a football club should be thankful for. On the other hand though it must be hard for the club to engage this vibrant relationship you portray with it's customers when the product they are offering their customers is pretty poor, of course , a properly run football club should be able to work to make that product something they want to pay for, but that's not where our club is at the moment, I can see the clubs point of view in wanting something more from the supporters trust ,but I can obviously see it better from a fans point of view and why I mostly agree with you.

[MerryHell]

As i've said before, i'm a member of the trust and broadly support them but i will not blindly support them. I do feel that in the past too many of us (myself included)have paid our membership and left them to get on with it, without understanding what they actually do. They are natually keen to get more people involved in their running and I sense there are probably more fans interested in this now. However many of us need to catch up on what the JT is.

I asked in the JT Meeting thread if the fact that JT membership is low and that Morag was elected unopposed meant that she lacked legitimacy in some peoples eyes? I'm not sure what other elected posititions there are on the JT board or how the other members of the JT board got their positions, in terms of being elected or not.

Earlier today I agreed with the majority of your post, however I do think it important to get the other side of the story before we can make any progress in my eyes. So ...

After i'd posted my thoughts on last nights meeting, I was PMed by somebody to set the record straight on a few things i'd brought up, so basically all i'm asking is for someone to comment on the following;

It's been suggested that Morag was not elected unopposed as she did not stand for election. She was instead nominated by the JT board. Is there a significant difference in this method of appointment? Is this a common situtation?

It has also been suggested to me that it doesnt say a lot about the importance or respect of the Board Rep position where no one stood to be elected. Again, this will probably depend on the response to the above.

All i'm wanting is a more rounded debate where I can make up my mind, having heard from both sides - I don't think i've been critical of anyone above and I'm not taking sides, I just don't think that I have heard the full story yet.

[Vom Itorium]

How could the JT Board Rep NOT be elected when there is a Trust membership who vote on these things? If it was the case that Morag was the only 'candidate' then surely the JT membership should still have had a yeh/nay say in this? Is it the case that no-one at all wanted to stand for this position?

 

There has to be more to this than meets the eye for the Club Board, which let's not forget, doesn't even now contain Coco and the likes to take such a stance...

Edited October 7, 2010 by Vom Itorium

[Woodstock Jag]

No nominations were received for the Board Representative position when the nomination period during the election cycle closed (IIRC that was back in March). The Trust Constitution then requires the Trust Board to elect someone to that position from within their number, and that appointment, along with all other appointments as a result of the election (with or without a ballot if it's contested/uncontested) are noted at the AGM.

 

There is no "requirement" as such for a vote to be taken endorsing Morag as the Board Rep so to speak, nor indeed is there if we only received one valid nomination during the election cycle. It is lamentable that the past 2 years have seen insufficient numbers standing to force an election even with respect to Ordinary Board Members, let alone in the specific positions of Club Board Rep, Secretary and Treasurer.

 

I know this is a wee bit further along the horizon, but the next set of elections will, I'd imagine, follow a similar timetable to last. If people want to force a debate and to make the Trust truly representative, they should consider standing for any vacant positions. If my maths is right, 3 regular board positions and the Treasurer's position will be open for nominations at the next cycle.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[The Big Man]

I didn't think Morag sounded like she was able to voice the fans opinion during last nights chat and so if she comes accross like that at board meetings then i can understand why she is not taken serious. Maggie Forsyth sounded like she could so get her back in charge.

Edited October 8, 2010 by admin1

[B.C.G. JAG]

I don't think it's so much that Morag lacks legitamacy (that sounds so much worse than I intended) in the eyes of the BOD, but that she lacks the skills they want for other roles. What is important to remember here is that she has the required skill set for the job that we are putting her forward for and is the best (only) candidate to do it. To find someone else who could bring some other skills to another role is to dilute the skills of the candidate and dilute the respect given to that position. They are asking us to put forward someone else who may not be our best candidate. That is not acceptable.

 

There is no reason why the Rep has to fill in for some other vacant Board position as well when another volunteer, perhaps more appropriate to that role, could be found. It's doing everyone a dis-service to not actively seek the best people for each position. What's happening here is the highlighting of their 'them and us' complex (which we can be pretty guilty of too). It suggests that they are only willing to have one person from the Thistle support on their board, and would rather pick from the business community instead. But isn't it possible to have a foot in both camps - aren't the current three BOD members all business men and also Thistle fans? The Thistle support is a broad church, and with a genuine hand of friendship extended to the support then I am sure many people with the required skills would come forward and consider it an honour to help the Club. But don't ask us to dilute the skills we require of our Rep, that is totally unacceptable.

 

I do also think though that we need to have a more thorough debate when 'electing' our Rep, and that no-one should ever be elected unopposed without at least publishing their views, and declaring them before the full Trust before submitting their name to a secret ballot. That ballot paper should also contain the words 're-open nominations' as one option on the form alone can never be described as a choice. That said, I do believe the current Trust Board are open to that wider debate and are genuine about a more inclusive Trust - the recent Open Meeting is testament to that and I believe we are moving in the right direction where the ordinary member has a sense of ownership over their Trust again.

 

So is Morag the right person for the job after all? Yes, absolutely.

 

I don't know her at all but I thought she spoke eloquently enough at the meeting and she certainly appeared passionate about the Club. However, the mere fact that the BOD oppose her works as her greatest endorsement. I want my Rep to question and scrutinize as well as be a liaison to the Support, and if they are in any way concerned about the intensity of the spotlight she will shine on their business then that meets my criteria. If it is simply that they do not like her as a person, then this is where I expect to see the BOD act more professionally, and willing to put their prejudices to the side in the best interests of a better relationship with The Customer and to the benefit of The Club. If they simply think she hasn't got the skills they require for another role they need to fill, then they should be professional enough to respect that she has the skills we look for.

 

If they continue to refuse her a seat, then it is an open declaration that they do not want a partnership with the Support, that they consider it their club and not a club for all of us. It is their declaration that they neither care nor want to know what we as loyal customers think. If that is their vision for the club, they are unprofessional and have no business sense and are unfit to run our Club.

 

So, how about a rousing chorus in front of the Director's Box of "I am Morag!"

Edited October 8, 2010 by B.C.G. JAG

[Steven H]

I don't think it's so much that Morag lacks legitamacy (that sounds so much worse than I intended) in the eyes of the BOD, but that she lacks the skills they want for other roles. What is important to remember here is that she has the required skill set for the job that we are putting her forward for and is the best (only) candidate to do it. To find someone else who could bring some other skills to another role is to dilute the skills of the candidate and dilute the respect given to that position. They are asking us to put forward someone else who may not be our best candidate. That is not acceptable.

 

There is no reason why the Rep has to fill in for some other vacant Board position as well when another volunteer, perhaps more appropriate to that role, could be found. It's doing everyone a dis-service to not actively seek the best people for each position. What's happening here is the highlighting of their 'them and us' complex (which we can be pretty guilty of too). It suggests that they are only willing to have one person from the Thistle support on their board, and would rather pick from the business community instead. But isn't it possible to have a foot in both camps - aren't the current three BOD members all business men and also Thistle fans? The Thistle support is a broad church, and with a genuine hand of friendship extended to the support then I am sure many people with the required skills would come forward and consider it an honour to help the Club. But don't ask us to dilute the skills we require of our Rep, that is totally unacceptable.

 

I do also think though that we need to have a more thorough debate when 'electing' our Rep, and that no-one should ever be elected unopposed without at least publishing their views, and declaring them before the full Trust before submitting their name to a secret ballot. That ballot paper should also contain the words 're-open nominations' as one option on the form alone can never be described as a choice. That said, I do believe the current Trust Board are open to that wider debate and are genuine about a more inclusive Trust - the recent Open Meeting is testament to that and I believe we are moving in the right direction where the ordinary member has a sense of ownership over their Trust again.

 

So is Morag the right person for the job after all? Yes, absolutely.

 

I don't know her at all but I thought she spoke eloquently enough at the meeting and she certainly appeared passionate about the Club. However, the mere fact that the BOD oppose her works as her greatest endorsement. I want my Rep to question and scrutinize as well as be a liaison to the Support, and if they are in any way concerned about the intensity of the spotlight she will shine on their business then that meets my criteria. If it is simply that they do not like her as a person, then this is where I expect to see the BOD act more professionally, and willing to put their prejudices to the side in the best interests of a better relationship with The Customer and to the benefit of The Club. If they simply think she hasn't got the skills they require for another role they need to fill, then they should be professional enough to respect that she has the skills we look for.

 

If they continue to refuse her a seat, then it is an open declaration that they do not want a partnership with the Support, that they consider it their club and not a club for all of us. It is their declaration that they neither care nor want to know what we as loyal customers think. If that is their vision for the club, they are unprofessional and have no business sense and are unfit to run our Club.

 

So, how about a rousing chorus in front of the Director's Box of "I am Morag!"

 

Having listened to you speak at the meeting, and reading your posts in this thread, would you be able to take on the role of Fan Rep? I know, Morag is the constitutionally elected Rep right now, but it's clear there are some issues there (although those issues are unclear) and change may well be needed. If it comes to that then you would appear to be an ideal candidate, you have a lot of ideas that I agree with and you have transferable skills from your days as student rep. I know this is a bit like asking a football manager if he'd take a job when another guy was still in that position but, if the Fan Rep position became available, would you stand? You wouldn't even need to write a manifesto as you can get it from what you've written here

[B.C.G. JAG]

Having listened to you speak at the meeting, and reading your posts in this thread, would you be able to take on the role of Fan Rep? I know, Morag is the constitutionally elected Rep right now, but it's clear there are some issues there (although those issues are unclear) and change may well be needed. If it comes to that then you would appear to be an ideal candidate, you have a lot of ideas that I agree with and you have transferable skills from your days as student rep. I know this is a bit like asking a football manager if he'd take a job when another guy was still in that position but, if the Fan Rep position became available, would you stand? You wouldn't even need to write a manifesto as you can get it from what you've written here

 

Och it's affy nice of you to suggest it, but I think this is an issue where we have to surround Morag in our support. The issue to me here is whether or not The Club are willing to show some basic respect to the fans - a major shareholder at that (other shareholders take heed). There is a bit of big principle here at stake. I'd happily stand as a candidate with a "Don't vote for me, vote for Morag" platform if we ever felt cornered into having another election for the post this year - but I sincerely hope we don't get pushed down that road. No, the election process hasn't been ideal, and I don't think anyone disputes that, but we do have a legally elected Representative and if there is a problem with that person holding the office, it should be a matter solely for the fans and nothing to do with the BOD.

 

Besides, I think Woody blow a gasket and we'd just spend all our time arguing politics!

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Off on a slight tangent here but I'm sure it's been clear to many of us that the skill set that's been most absent from the Board for so long has been in public relations. We're now spared the utterances of Cowan & Hughes (as often as not contradictory) so that in itself is a PR coup but what we're now left with is a spokesman said void. Step forward someone from the Trust with exceptional PR & customer service skills and we could be on a winner.

Of course ideally from the Board's point of view said person with these skills would also be a lousy board rep, a poacher turned gamekeeper, unable or unwilling to represent the fanbase and liaise with the Trust Board .

[Woodstock Jag]

Besides, I think Woody blow a gasket and we'd just spend all our time arguing politics!

 

[MerryHell]

No nominations were received for the Board Representative position when the nomination period during the election cycle closed (IIRC that was back in March). The Trust Constitution then requires the Trust Board to elect someone to that position from within their number, and that appointment, along with all other appointments as a result of the election (with or without a ballot if it's contested/uncontested) are noted at the AGM.There is no "requirement" as such for a vote to be taken endorsing Morag as the Board Rep so to speak, nor indeed is there if we only received one valid nomination during the election cycle. It is lamentable that the past 2 years have seen insufficient numbers standing to force an election even with respect to Ordinary Board Members, let alone in the specific positions of Club Board Rep, Secretary and Treasurer.I know this is a wee bit further along the horizon, but the next set of elections will, I'd imagine, follow a similar timetable to last. If people want to force a debate and to make the Trust truly representative, they should consider standing for any vacant positions. If my maths is right, 3 regular board positions and the Treasurer's position will be open for nominations at the next cycle.

 

 

I do also think though that we need to have a more thorough debate when 'electing' our Rep, and that no-one should ever be elected unopposed without at least publishing their views, and declaring them before the full Trust before submitting their name to a secret ballot. That ballot paper should also contain the words 're-open nominations' as one option on the form alone can never be described as a choice. That said, I do believe the current Trust Board are open to that wider debate and are genuine about a more inclusive Trust - the recent Open Meeting is testament to that and I believe we are moving in the right direction where the ordinary member has a sense of ownership over their Trust again.

 

I belive that Fan Representation on the Club Board is a given, and supported by the Club board in principal.

However, we all have to take responsibility for the fact that for all our posts on forums like this, and a Trust membership of 550, not one person put their name forward to be the Club Board Rep. I believe it is that fact, and that fact alone that is causing the problem with the Board. We may have somebody that has been constitutionally nominated into the position, but I can see where the board are coming from in their stance.

I was elected unopposed to the Student Council at my Uni, but I had to register my intention to stand, have my views published for all students to see, and appear on a voting slip before it was officially ratified. I understand that this is probably down to differences in the constitutions.

God knows, I don't want the trust to get bogged down in having to revalutate their constitution, so the only other option is for more people to become actively involed.

[Allan Heron]

I think it remains to be seen that "Fan Representation on the Club Board is a given, and supported by the Club board in principal"

 

Some of our previous reps have been elected/selected by less above-board means without question by the club board. Indeed, I have an e-mail from our departed Chairman that confirms that the Board would be happy to accept whoever was selected by the JagsTrust through the proper process. Morag passes that test however unsatisfactory not having a contest made it - as it happens, the incumbent at the time didn't but the Club Board did not want to get directly involved which was actually the correct line for them to take.

 

Where I believe the Trust Board have gone wrong (and I was a member of said Board at the time so am equally culpable) was that there was no great attempt made in ensuring that would have at least one candidate in place to succeed Kieron when we did know that he was going to stand down at this Annual General Meeting in any event. This applies especially to the Board Rep position given its' nature - there is a need to make sure you have someone capable of carrying out the role and I'd certainly support changes of the type described by David on Wednesday night.

 

Having said that, and to broaden this out to the comments that have been reported from the board, the way the Trust Board rep has worked (or not worked) in the past has been largely shaped as a direct result of the way these boards have operated. They have largely sought to keep them marginalised even to the extent that the Trust is a standard and seperate agenda item as if our interest is something that can be covered in that way. It isn't and shouldn't be - we should be a fundamental part of setting the strategic direction of the club. If the present members of the club board think that's not how they'd like it to work then that's fine but they are not exactly lacking reponsibility for the situation.

 

Which leads me on to my main aim out of this review. I want to see that we have some kind of plan that does genuinely represent a good strategic direction for the club that will help to maintain stability in the longer term. We haven't anything in recent years that would pass this test. Indeed, we've been stumbling along from year to year with no clear direction whatsoever.

 

In addition to that, we also need a Club Board that is united in seeking to follow that direction. What has long been clear is that past boardrooms have been divided. I've also long believed that the whole focus on confidentiality has been a smokescreen to cover the fact that the people round that table both had their own agendas and wouldn't trust their colleagues any further than they could throw them. That attitude has been a corrosive feature of the past number of years and needs to stop. Otherwise, those remaining will continue to be part of the problem. My one concern over some of what we are currently hearing is that it smacks precisely of that approach.

 

Finally, I am extremely pessimistic that there is much opportunity for significant increases in attendances. I think the world has changed and, for better or worse, football is not so central to younger people's lives as it was to us. Any future plans that are based on waving some kind of magic wand which will increase attendances by a significant factor will be doomed to failure imo. The focus needs to be much more on ensuring that we can retain those who find a Saturday visit to the football slipping down their priorities. I wouldn't rule out being able to increase crowds (and the best way of doing this is by getting results on the pitch) but I can't help but feel this is likely to be of more marginal impact in the medium to long term.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Allan Heron

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

It's a largely symbolic position, anyway.

[Hot Shot]

 

Finally, I am extremely pessimistic that there is much opportunity for significant increases in attendances. I think the world has changed and, for better or worse, football is not so central to younger people's lives as it was to us. Any future plans that are based on waving some kind of magic wand which will increase attendances by a significant factor will be doomed to failure imo. The focus needs to be much more on ensuring that we can retain those who find a Saturday visit to the football slipping down their priorities. I wouldn't rule out being able to increase crowds (and the best way of doing this is by getting results on the pitch) but I can't help but feel this is likely to be of more marginal impact in the medium to long term.

 

 

While I think you make very good points in all of your post ,I totally agree with this part of it, I was going to post something very similar but feel you have done so clearly and in far less words than I could have, things have changed in peoples lives, the reason i'm so pessimistic is simply because I myself am football daft, raised in a football loving family it's been my passion all my life, i'm still like that but when it comes to missing out on attending the match on a saturday, i'm hardly emotionally effected at all these days,and by 4.45pm i've either came to terms with missing out on a victory and just glad we got the win, or i'm glad I didn't waste any precious cash to watch us get pumped again, knowing the way I feel about football, if i'm finding it easier to stay away the I don't think we've got much chance of convincing others to significantly increase our attendances, we do have a very realistic 1500-2000 people that WILL come back, but as your bit in brackets suggests, only the on pitch product will get them back. I believe it would be an almost impossible and futile task for the jags trust to work towards significantly increasing attendances.

[McKennan]

Step forward someone from the Trust with exceptional PR & customer service skills and we could be on a winner.

 

Such people have been stepping forward for ages and offering their help to the club. I can think of half a dozen people, a least half of whom are/have been trust members.

[McKennan]

It's a largely symbolic position, anyway.

 

It is. Underestimate the importance of symbolism at wurr peril, Adam. It's not the symbol, it's the idea behind it.

[McKennan]

I don't think it's so much that Morag lacks legitamacy (that sounds so much worse than I intended) in the eyes of the BOD, but that she lacks the skills they want for other roles.

 

 

That is it in a nutshell. What does the club want from a trust rep and, indeed, is the club in any position to demand the trust change its processes to suit the club's board? If so, quid pro quo? Will there be a scenario where the club knocks back a trust rep because he/she doesn't have a degree in business from Harvard? (I exaggerate this point.)

[Mr Scruff]

That is it in a nutshell. What does the club want from a trust rep and, indeed, is the club in any position to demand the trust change its processes to suit the club's board? If so, quid pro quo? Will there be a scenario where the club knocks back a trust rep because he/she doesn't have a degree in business from Harvard? (I exaggerate this point.)

But consider the reverse. These are difficult times for many businesses and it's times like these you really need a boost from director's performances. Somebody without the right skills or experience could be damaging (worth reading the Dundee forum and their thoughts on their own equivalent in this position).

 

If the director appointed through the Trust is simply a spokesperson on behalf of the fans then this speaks to me as a different thing than a director who is going to 'role their sleeves up' and actively participate in the future strength of the club. If it's a spokesperson that the fans want, then maybe a non-executive 'consultant' would be a better fit?

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Scruff

[Steven H]

Och it's affy nice of you to suggest it, but I think this is an issue where we have to surround Morag in our support. The issue to me here is whether or not The Club are willing to show some basic respect to the fans - a major shareholder at that (other shareholders take heed). There is a bit of big principle here at stake. I'd happily stand as a candidate with a "Don't vote for me, vote for Morag" platform if we ever felt cornered into having another election for the post this year - but I sincerely hope we don't get pushed down that road. No, the election process hasn't been ideal, and I don't think anyone disputes that, but we do have a legally elected Representative and if there is a problem with that person holding the office, it should be a matter solely for the fans and nothing to do with the BOD.

 

Besides, I think Woody blow a gasket and we'd just spend all our time arguing politics!

 

Fair play and I understand, particularly your very last sentence . Im not advocating the removal of Morag from her position, there's been enough bowing to demands made by the Club board. However I do feel something will have to give in this area, I'm not certain that Morag would have been elected to the position if others stood and we had a proper election, if that is the case (and Im only speculating) and the Club board are also not convinced she is the best person for this position then we could find ourselves between a rock and a hard place.

 

Due to the nature if this discussion it might appear that I am not in favour of Morag being in the position she is, that's not the case and sorry to Morag if that's what's coming across. In truth I have no clue what makes Morag less viable than any other fan, as far as Im concerned she is the JT Rep (whether that be on merit or by default) and what she brings to the table individually should be taken into account IN ADDITION TO what the Jags Trust brings as an organisation (hope that bit makes sense).

[Hot Shot]

That is it in a nutshell. What does the club want from a trust rep and, indeed, is the club in any position to demand the trust change its processes to suit the club's board? If so, quid pro quo? Will there be a scenario where the club knocks back a trust rep because he/she doesn't have a degree in business from Harvard? (I exaggerate this point.)

 

I find myself agreeing with both sides on this matter(there I go making it us V them again) , fans on this forum and outwith are always making strong noises about how we are major shareholders and should have a place on the board, and indeed the main point of this thread's original post is that the supporters trust should have someone to represent them, with his/her only qualification is that they are capable to represent.

 

This is fair enough, I find it hard to disagree with the principal, but also, as a major shareholder I think the Trust has a duty to bring something to the table from a professional aspect.

 

All of this suggests to me that there should be two electable positions within the Trust Board to sit at the top table of the Club Board, one as a full director representing the Trust as a major shareholder with a C.V acceptable to provide relevant input on that level , and another who is there in a non-exec capacity who's only qualities and reasons for being there is to speak for the fans as a whole and relay back to them what the Club Board have said in return.

[B.C.G. JAG]

 

 

All of this suggests to me that there should be two electable positions within the Trust Board to sit at the top table of the Club Board, one as a full director representing the Trust as a major shareholder with a C.V acceptable to provide relevant input on that level , and another who is there in a non-exec capacity who's only qualities and reasons for being there is to speak for the fans as a whole and relay back to them what the Club Board have said in return.

I like your thinking. I doubt the BOD would, but I do!

[Hot Shot]

I like your thinking. I doubt the BOD would, but I do!

 

I suppose it doesn't have to be quite as black and white, a bit of fine tuning to the idea wouldn't take much thought, off the top of my head a full director coming from the trust to benefit the club professionally would also be there on behalf of the trust, the non-exec position would only really need to be kept up to date and may only need to attend certain board meetings in order to fight the fans corner, allowing a fans director free from that fighting role and able to concentrate their efforts in helping the club become what the fans want, rather than having to fight the club verbally for what the fans want.

 

I really don't see why the club wouldn't want something along those lines as in my own limited mind it seems like a perfect solution that suits everyone.