The Wrong Type of Democracy

[Albert's Ghost]

Thanks WJ.  Candour appreciated.

[Jaggernaut]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

What should be done ( which I've stated publicly many times ) is that we should run the Club as a Business with a balanced Budget and not rely on Handouts & the Luck of a Cup Draw 

 

So maybe this is the crux of the matter: HOW SHOULD THIS BE DONE?  YOU ARE "GREAT" (well, tenacious) AT CRITICISING, SO TELL US SPECIFICALLY HOW THE CLUB SHOULD BE RUN? NOT JUST CLICHES ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN WITH COSTINGS, PREDICTIONS, AND FALLBACK OPTIONS, BUT REAL, CONCRETE PROPOSALS. Because it seems to me that just about every other club in Scotland is relying on "handouts" (do you mean paying customers and sponsors? Because the latter are doing it to support their own businesses) and also "lucky "(double-edged sword)  cup draws.

You present yourself as somebody who knows all the answers, which if true means that you are truly wasting your talents and time on here. You could be making a fortune for other clubs and for yourself by actioning your message. Actions speak louder than words, but you are all mouth.

Incidentally, and onto another topic: only 8,500 spectators at Killie vs. Celtic, in what looked like a sad, sparsely populated stadium, clearly now too big for the way Scottish football seems to be going. 

[madcapmilkdrinker]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

He who pays the Piper Calls the Tune - TJF have No Power 

 

For someone who resented being called Trumpian a few pages back, responding to a 1200 word treatise on how the different shares are handled with a twelve word slogan shows zero awareness of irony. 

[madcapmilkdrinker]

8 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

So maybe this is the crux of the matter: HOW SHOULD THIS BE DONE?  YOU ARE "GREAT" (well, tenacious) AT CRITICISING, SO TELL US SPECIFICALLY HOW THE CLUB SHOULD BE RUN? NOT JUST CLICHES ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN WITH COSTINGS, PREDICTIONS, AND FALLBACK OPTIONS, BUT REAL, CONCRETE PROPOSALS. 

Previous ideas from this poster for cutting costs included the youth setup and women’s teams because ‘Lambie never had them’ so we’ve no need for them now.

[Jordanhill Jag]

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There was a falling out at Club Board level. His fellow directors took steps to remove him.

In particular, there was a break-down in the relationship between him and another Club Board member.

It played out very publicly as allegation and counter allegation were traded (including by Mr Creevy at other Club Board members, on Facebook - not very edifying).

This situation dragged out as the trustees attempted to mediate between the parties. Eventually it was clear that there was no prospect of Mr Creevy returning to the Club Board without triggering resignations of other Club Board members.

The trustees therefore, reluctantly, exercised their powers formally to remove Mr Creevy, to bring the dispute to an end.

The director he particularly publicly fell out with stepped down from the Club Board a few months later.

As is so often the case at organisations like a football club, the reasons for directors leaving are almost always specific to interpersonal dynamics, and people falling out with one another.

One reflection I have having been a TJF board member for just over 4 years now is that on far too many occasions, the departure of Club Board members has been triggered by them falling out with one another.

Unfortunately, influential as the trustees may be, we can't force people to work with one another. We inhabit a reality where we end up mopping up the tedious interpersonal nonsense of others.

This is also why the ability of people to work collegiately, and to stick the course, is particularly important. It helps explain why we might, for example, want to have a shortlisting exercise for Fan Rep directors, allowing us to interrogate a little someone's suitability for the role and their willingness to put in a 2-year shift. It's also why we might be cautious about appointing people to the Club Board simply because Jim Alexander has recommended them to us and said they're brilliant because they've "run a successful business".

That's last statement is complete bullshit  

I never recommended the Director in Question - the Director in Question was in advanced stages of negotiations with the Club based on the recommendation of the GM ( which you are well aware of ) and was already doing various things for the Club  

I actually had a meeting prior to this~ with the Director being discussed & the then Chairman and he was at that point in discussions with the Club ( nothing to do with me ) 

A Board Director ( who lets be honest TJF were no Fans of ) met with the proposed Director for 10 Minutes before  a Game - spoke about all the things he was doing - not what the proposed Director could bring  - asked very few Questions of the proposed Director - decided he wasn't suitable.

The person contacted me and told me what had happened 

I contacted a former TJF former Board and raised concerns - the person had ran a Business for circa 30 Years - was a member of 71 Club for circa 20 Years - I never recommended him nor said he was brilliant- I said he had Business Experience & Contacts which we all agreed was needed on the Board  - the person had said he would use his former Business Contacts to assist the Club - as I had known him for 25 Years I had no reason not to believe this - you personally met with him and gave it your OK 

Shortly after his appointment due to various actions- I never spoke to him 

So your making things up

Worth noting I convinced Billy Allan to join the Board - strange how you don't mention that when questioning my judgement.

 

 

             

[Jaggernaut]

5 minutes ago, madcapmilkdrinker said:

For someone who resented being called Trumpian a few pages back, responding to a 1200 word treatise on how the different shares are handled with a twelve word slogan shows zero awareness of irony. 

Trump lives for (1) personal profit (2) attention. Narcissism and hubris in the extreme.

ETA: Bordering on affectionless psychopathy.

Edited August 10 by Jaggernaut

[Jordanhill Jag]

30 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There was a falling out at Club Board level. His fellow directors took steps to remove him.

In particular, there was a break-down in the relationship between him and another Club Board member.

It played out very publicly as allegation and counter allegation were traded (including by Mr Creevy at other Club Board members, on Facebook - not very edifying).

This situation dragged out as the trustees attempted to mediate between the parties. Eventually it was clear that there was no prospect of Mr Creevy returning to the Club Board without triggering resignations of other Club Board members.

The trustees therefore, reluctantly, exercised their powers formally to remove Mr Creevy, to bring the dispute to an end.

The director he particularly publicly fell out with stepped down from the Club Board a few months later.

As is so often the case at organisations like a football club, the reasons for directors leaving are almost always specific to interpersonal dynamics, and people falling out with one another.

One reflection I have having been a TJF board member for just over 4 years now is that on far too many occasions, the departure of Club Board members has been triggered by them falling out with one another.

Unfortunately, influential as the trustees may be, we can't force people to work with one another. We inhabit a reality where we end up mopping up the tedious interpersonal nonsense of others.

This is also why the ability of people to work collegiately, and to stick the course, is particularly important. It helps explain why we might, for example, want to have a shortlisting exercise for Fan Rep directors, allowing us to interrogate a little someone's suitability for the role and their willingness to put in a 2-year shift. It's also why we might be cautious about appointing people to the Club Board simply because Jim Alexander has recommended them to us and said they're brilliant because they've "run a successful business".

 

"ability of people to work collegiately"

This from an Organisation who publicly slated the Board Last Summer 😀 resulting in multiple resignations from the TJF & Club Board 

[Albert's Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

That's last statement is complete bullshit  

I never recommended the Director in Question - the Director in Question was in advanced stages of negotiations with the Club based on the recommendation of the GM ( which you are well aware of ) and was already doing various things for the Club  

I actually had a meeting prior to this~ with the Director being discussed & the then Chairman and he was at that point in discussions with the Club ( nothing to do with me ) 

A Board Director ( who lets be honest TJF were no Fans of ) met with the proposed Director for 10 Minutes before  a Game - spoke about all the things he was doing - not what the proposed Director could bring  - asked very few Questions of the proposed Director - decided he wasn't suitable.

The person contacted me and told me what had happened 

I contacted a former TJF former Board and raised concerns - the person had ran a Business for circa 30 Years - was a member of 71 Club for circa 20 Years - I never recommended him nor said he was brilliant- I said he had Business Experience & Contacts which we all agreed was needed on the Board  - the person had said he would use his former Business Contacts to assist the Club - as I had known him for 25 Years I had no reason not to believe this - you personally met with him and gave it your OK 

Shortly after his appointment due to various actions- I never spoke to him 

So your making things up

Worth noting I convinced Billy Allan to join the Board - strange how you don't mention that when questioning my judgement.

 

 

             

Thanks JJ - you've actually added some value here.

[Jordanhill Jag]

7 minutes ago, madcapmilkdrinker said:

Previous ideas from this poster for cutting costs included the youth setup and women’s teams because ‘Lambie never had them’ so we’ve no need for them now.

I've never said "lambie never had them " - Nett Zero approach means you focus on the Core Business - balance the Books than allocate any surplus 

Thats how Business works  

[madcapmilkdrinker]

6 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I actually had a meeting prior to this~ with the Director being discussed & the then Chairman and he was at that point in discussions with the Club ( nothing to do with me ) 

A Board Director ( who lets be honest TJF were no Fans of ) met with the proposed Director for 10 Minutes before  a Game - spoke about all the things he was doing - not what the proposed Director could bring  - asked very few Questions of the proposed Director - decided he wasn't suitable.             

This all sounds very boys club/ bowling committee. Thank the lord there’s a process in place now. 😂😂

Cant wait for the next set of financials to be released, this forum is going to go off. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, madcapmilkdrinker said:

This all sounds very boys club/ bowling committee. Thank the lord there’s a process in place now. 😂😂

Cant wait for the next set of financials to be released, this forum is going to go off. 

the "Process" is for elected Directors - not other Board Directors - we just put someone on the Board with pretty much the same CV as the Director in Question ~ using your description of " boys club/ bowling committee" 

Most organisations have about a 50/50 Hit Rate on successful appointments - no matter the process      

[Woodstock Jag]

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

That's last statement is complete bullshit  

I never recommended the Director in Question - the Director in Question was in advanced stages of negotiations with the Club based on the recommendation of the GM ( which you are well aware of ) and was already doing various things for the Club  

I wasn't talking about any particular director. You're desperate to spill the beans about all the people you've told the trustees they should be appointing. It's a bit unedifying.

I was making a general point that, just because someone comes highly recommended by Jim Alexander because they "ran a successful business", or for that matter by anyone else, doesn't mean that they're suitable for appointment to the Partick Thistle Football Club board of directors.

As with any properly functioning organisation there is a process, and it exists for a reason, and is there to be followed.

Interpersonal relationships are important. The trustees need to be satisfied that any Club Board appointments aren't going to lead to people on the board falling out with one another, and are going to lead to net positive contributions to the work of the Club Board as a whole.

The fan owners would expect nothing less.

[Albert's Ghost]

I just wish I knew who all these feisty people were/are...

[Woodstock Jag]

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

the "Process" is for elected Directors - not other Board Directors - we just put someone on the Board with pretty much the same CV as the Director in Question ~ using your description of " boys club/ bowling committee" 

Most organisations have about a 50/50 Hit Rate on successful appointments - no matter the process      

This is where we fundamentally differ Jim.

I don't think being quite so casual about Club Board appointments as to say just appoint people and "don't worry it doesn't matter what process you use, half of them will be good and half of them will be bad" is right.

I think that, with the right process, you reduce the likelihood of recruiting people that will have a net negative impact. You get better at weeding out people who

• Can't stick out a 2-year term.
• Talk a good game but won't deliver.
• Are going to fall out with everyone.
• Want to be involved for the wrong reasons.
• Are not aligned to the shared goals of the main shareholders and the senior leadership group.

[Jordanhill Jag]

16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is where we fundamentally differ Jim.

I don't think being quite so casual about Club Board appointments as to say just appoint people and "don't worry it doesn't matter what process you use, half of them will be good and half of them will be bad" is right.

I think that, with the right process, you reduce the likelihood of recruiting people that will have a net negative impact. You get better at weeding out people who

• Can't stick out a 2-year term.
• Talk a good game but won't deliver.
• Are going to fall out with everyone.
• Want to be involved for the wrong reasons.
• Are not aligned to the shared goals of the main shareholders and the senior leadership group.

So for the record TJF have signed of the majority if the Board Members for the last few Seasons - it has publicly slagged off a Board that they appointed - most of whom ticked a number of boxes you have stated.

As for the 50/50 - reality is even with the best vetting it ends up like that 

Businesses to tend to appoint people with Hands on Business Experience ~ they do that for a Reason.

As for "falling out" that assumes that those who are already in place are competent ~ and have the basic Skills required to run a Business - something that even TJF have questioned 

 

 

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

42 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I wasn't talking about any particular director. You're desperate to spill the beans about all the people you've told the trustees they should be appointing. It's a bit unedifying.

I was making a general point that, just because someone comes highly recommended by Jim Alexander because they "ran a successful business", or for that matter by anyone else, doesn't mean that they're suitable for appointment to the Partick Thistle Football Club board of directors.

As with any properly functioning organisation there is a process, and it exists for a reason, and is there to be followed.

Interpersonal relationships are important. The trustees need to be satisfied that any Club Board appointments aren't going to lead to people on the board falling out with one another, and are going to lead to net positive contributions to the work of the Club Board as a whole.

The fan owners would expect nothing less.

No I'm not - you have made statements regards my role in appointing a particular Director in the past - which were not true.

I've never said that you have to take Jim Alexanders recommendations - but TJFs Boards to date that they sign off on haven't exactly been a success       

Agreed interpersonal relationships are important - however so is the concept of a self preserving Gang who will close shop around anyone who threatens the status quo . But it seems the person who is attempting to make changes is the person that is removed - meantime massive losses get a pass 

And you make the dangerous assumption the process is correct ~ and not tainted by baise 

people who build & run Businesses are not always collegiate - but if they have survived over the last few decades - then by definition they know what there doing - can balance a budget - manage staff - create revenue.   

The fact that they may have strong personalities removes the prospect of a Single personality dominating - Collegiate can also be simply go along  - challenge nothing - keep your place on the Board    

   

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Jaggernaut said:

So maybe this is the crux of the matter: HOW SHOULD THIS BE DONE?  YOU ARE "GREAT" (well, tenacious) AT CRITICISING, SO TELL US SPECIFICALLY HOW THE CLUB SHOULD BE RUN? NOT JUST CLICHES ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN WITH COSTINGS, PREDICTIONS, AND FALLBACK OPTIONS, BUT REAL, CONCRETE PROPOSALS. Because it seems to me that just about every other club in Scotland is relying on "handouts" (do you mean paying customers and sponsors? Because the latter are doing it to support their own businesses) and also "lucky "(double-edged sword)  cup draws.

You present yourself as somebody who knows all the answers, which if true means that you are truly wasting your talents and time on here. You could be making a fortune for other clubs and for yourself by actioning your message. Actions speak louder than words, but you are all mouth.

Incidentally, and onto another topic: only 8,500 spectators at Killie vs. Celtic, in what looked like a sad, sparsely populated stadium, clearly now too big for the way Scottish football seems to be going. 

Nett Zero Budget - Increase Commercial Revenue - appoint experienced people who can deliver on both 

Handouts are just that - Gifts to the Club - Not Paying Customers & Sponsors etc - Cup Runs you have No Control over - so you cant use it as a basis of Core Finance 

You don't know me - so save your accusation that I'm "all mouth" 

I will repeat - my Views were once shared by most of the Key Influencers at the Club - mines haven't changed     

[lady-isobel-barnett]

2 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

Trump lives for (1) personal profit (2) attention. Narcissism and hubris in the extreme.

ETA: Bordering on affectionless psychopathy.

That's a very simplified prognosis. After much thought the psychiatrist I know drawing on all his expertise says he thinks Trump is a ******* nutter.

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

Trump lives for (1) personal profit (2) attention. Narcissism and hubris in the extreme.

ETA: Bordering on affectionless psychopathy.

There is nothing to say that both WJ statement & my Statement cannot both be correct 

Nor do I fit the mold your describing - the fact that I challenge the accepted ideology that Fan Ownership is the only option & its successful does not make me wrong 

There is a prevalent culture that something run by ordinary fans must be better - the harsh reality is that Fan Ownership is propped up by significant Investments & Donations + selling off Assets  - that position has not changed 

It has no more or no less Politics than previous Boards pre Fan Ownership - its No more Financially Competent than previous Boards

But for stating this your trying to imply there is "personal profit" ? "attention" and "hubris in the extreme" 

As I will repeat for the Hard of Hearing - my views on Finances etc etc were shared by most of the Key Players from TJF   

Personal Profit - I wish 

 

 

[Aliballibee]

As a left field, slightly tongue in cheek comment, it has been mentioned in this thread several times about the appointment of "successful businessmen" to the Board. 

Do you realise the last British Prime Minister, who just might be chair of the most important "Board" in this country, to be a successful "businessman" and actively own and run his own company was Stanley Baldwin in the early 1900's.

All other 20th and 21st century PM's came predominantly from professional backgrounds in law, journalism, traditional politics, civil service, academia, or military service rather than running a private commercial trade. They had the other people, with relevant experience to advise them! 

You can, of course, argue if they made a good or bad job of it but that's a whole new thread! ☺️

[Jordanhill Jag]

42 minutes ago, Aliballibee said:

As a left field, slightly tongue in cheek comment, it has been mentioned in this thread several times about the appointment of "successful businessmen" to the Board. 

Do you realise the last British Prime Minister, who just might be chair of the most important "Board" in this country, to be a successful "businessman" and actively own and run his own company was Stanley Baldwin in the early 1900's.

All other 20th and 21st century PM's came predominantly from professional backgrounds in law, journalism, traditional politics, civil service, academia, or military service rather than running a private commercial trade. They had the other people, with relevant experience to advise them! 

You can, of course, argue if they made a good or bad job of it but that's a whole new thread! ☺️

I think the the Word was experienced - we are a Business not a Government 🤷‍♂️

[allyo]

I've always thought that describing a football club as "a business" is a bit simplistic.

[madcapmilkdrinker]

It’s a wild take ten pages in to be told we’re not a democracy, poor or otherwise, after all. 

[Jaggernaut]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There is nothing to say that both WJ statement & my Statement cannot both be correct 

Nor do I fit the mold your describing - the fact that I challenge the accepted ideology that Fan Ownership is the only option & its successful does not make me wrong 

There is a prevalent culture that something run by ordinary fans must be better - the harsh reality is that Fan Ownership is propped up by significant Investments & Donations + selling off Assets  - that position has not changed 

It has no more or no less Politics than previous Boards pre Fan Ownership - its No more Financially Competent than previous Boards

But for stating this your trying to imply there is "personal profit" ? "attention" and "hubris in the extreme" 

As I will repeat for the Hard of Hearing - my views on Finances etc etc were shared by most of the Key Players from TJF   

Personal Profit - I wish 

 

 

Somebody mentioned Trump, and I wrote about Trump.

JJ: take a deep breath: Not everything is always about you!

[scotty]

If football clubs, like Thistle, were run on business bases they would most likely be merged with their bigger rivals and the grounds sold off to build student flats!