The Wrong Type of Democracy

[jagfox]

Democracy Manifest.

Someone needs a delicious Chinese meal...

[scotty]

As JJ seems to be in a minority (of one?) in his complete disdain for everything TJF do, I wonder why so many people on here engage with him. He says it himself, you don't need to read (or respond).

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, scotty said:

As JJ seems to be in a minority (of one?) in his complete disdain for everything TJF do, I wonder why so many people on here engage with him. He says it himself, you don't need to read (or respond).

For my own part I am genuinely conflicted. There is no point engaging with Jim with a view to trying to change his mind, because he won’t. I also appreciate that a lot of people don’t like it when public discussions descend into combative, wordy and repetitive exchanges about stuff most folk either don’t give a toss about, or don’t care about the detail of.

Although it’s clear most people don’t agree with Jim’s overall position, there are plenty of examples of claims he has made that are either misleading or factually inaccurate.

Not engaging with them means that some of these incorrect claims then get taken as true, or the basis of truth, or part of wider received wisdom by those who don’t comment at the time, or who don’t ask the question themselves of TJF or Club reps to perhaps get the other side of the story. And you see those talking points creep into the views expressed by others, even when it’s completely made-up, contains an inaccuracy or omits crucial context.

The factual errors in the posts, conflating TJF with the Trustees, conflating the actual losses with the budgeted losses, misrepresenting the budget approval process, misrepresenting the financial monitoring available to the trustees, misrepresenting what the trustees did in response to bad financial results, misrepresenting the Fan Rep Director vacancy process, misrepresenting the process for appointment of directors…

It’s genuinely exhausting and like a game of whack-a-mole and there is no way for TJF to emerge out of it looking good, even if and when we decide robustly to defend what we did right or even to acknowledge (as we have done many times) where we didn’t get it right.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Is there an AI version of JJ?

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

For my own part I am genuinely conflicted. There is no point engaging with Jim with a view to trying to change his mind, because he won’t. I also appreciate that a lot of people don’t like it when public discussions descend into combative, wordy and repetitive exchanges about stuff most folk either don’t give a toss about, or don’t care about the detail of.

Although it’s clear most people don’t agree with Jim’s overall position, there are plenty of examples of claims he has made that are either misleading or factually inaccurate.

Not engaging with them means that some of these incorrect claims then get taken as true, or the basis of truth, or part of wider received wisdom by those who don’t comment at the time, or who don’t ask the question themselves of TJF or Club reps to perhaps get the other side of the story. And you see those talking points creep into the views expressed by others, even when it’s completely made-up, contains an inaccuracy or omits crucial context.

The factual errors in the posts, conflating TJF with the Trustees, conflating the actual losses with the budgeted losses, misrepresenting the budget approval process, misrepresenting the financial monitoring available to the trustees, misrepresenting what the trustees did in response to bad financial results, misrepresenting the Fan Rep Director vacancy process, misrepresenting the process for appointment of directors…

It’s genuinely exhausting and like a game of whack-a-mole and there is no way for TJF to emerge out of it looking good, even if and when we decide robustly to defend what we did right or even to acknowledge (as we have done many times) where we didn’t get it right.

Changing my mind ? you mean in the same mode where you argued that I was talking nonsense regards the Finances & the impact of Tranche 2 - was what I said about them "factually incorrect" 

Or the danger on multiple levels of being dependant on  Single Source of Funding - is that factually incorrect 

I am not conflicting "actual losses" with budgeted losses  -TJF allowed a £280,000 budgeted loss without adequate cash reserves to cover it - this should lead to the resignation of all those responsible both on the Club Board & TJF - this is factual - the actual loss was circa £330K mainly due to losses at PTWFC ( despite it being stated multiple times it cost the Club £30K whereas in fact it costs the Club nearer £100K ) TJF sign off the budgets & agree that the Club underwrites PTWFC Trading losses 

Record losses means you make changes & those responsible step down - it doesn't mean that those responsible get to decide who stays or leaves the Board - as they no longer have credibility - the Trustees DID NOT respond to bad results as they didn't resign - nor remove all of those responsible on the Club Board. 

"misrepresenting the Fan Rep Director vacancy process"   - the process is open to abuse - its done in secret - there is no published methodology on how the candidate is deemed suitable or not - there is No right of appeal to an external arbitration process - it leaves open the possibility of the process being tainted with bias - there is no supporting evidence that says there is anything wrong with the current process or major demand for change 

Regards misrepresenting the process for appointing Directors - we have 5 Board Members - Donald McClymont who is independent - the Fan Rep ( who at present is independent) Three Board Members with links to TJF - one who has not ( however there positions are decided by TJF ) 

The idea that its "Trustees" is a nonsense & TJF Hide behind this - The Jags Trust is a moribund organisation & has been for decades - it has zero power or influence - so lets stop pretending who runs the Club 

TJF Sign off every budget - if there wrong or inaccurate - its on them - they get Monthly Reports - there is written Finance Targets - to suggest they have no say in the Finances is not true  

There is "acknowledging" what TJF did not get right & there is taking responsibility - two different things 

We should have very strong Finances given the Cash we have received  - we should have robust well funded CAPEX Budgets for an aging Stadium - we don't - we rely on Cup Runs - League Money & Handouts just to keep our head above water 

That's on TJF - they allowed this to happen 

Good experienced well connected people have joined the Club Board since the Jlo Board with No Skin in the PTFC Past Politics - they were ousted - that again is on TJF 

So if we cant attract & retain good people on the Board  - our Finances are reliant on Cup Draws - League Money & Handouts - maybe just maybe there needs to be change.   

And talking about "Pure Democracy not working " is like something out of 1984 

 

 

 

 

[BowenBoys]

22 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

... something out of 1984 

 

 

 

 

Happy to oblige

https://youtu.be/pO1HC8pHZw0?si=0XLR_Af3VVlXW1up

[Woodstock Jag]

As just one illustration of how sloppily exhausting this is, the Club Board currently has six directors, not five. Really basic stuff.

Whack-a-mole.

[Jordanhill Jag]

18 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

As just one illustration of how sloppily exhausting this is, the Club Board currently has six directors, not five. Really basic stuff.

Whack-a-mole.

Ok - Now do 

"Whack a Mole" on the fact TJF signed off a £280K loss making budget without Cash Reserves to cover it 

"Whack a Mole" on where the £1MN from Tranche 1 & Tranche 2 went - as the Club now relies on getting Cup & League Prize Money + Handouts to balance the Books 

"Whack a Mole" on No CAPEX Budget allowance in our Accounts for the past four Seasons 

"Whack a Mole" that during this period is a merry go round of TJF Board Directors joining the Club Board & half our current Board with direct links to TJF 

"Whack a Mole" on TJF Board Members signing off a massive loss Budget then acting as though it had nothing to do with them when funny enough the massive losses appeared ( and blaming one person ) 

"Whack a Mole" on the Public Denials of the State of our Finances & shutting down debate when it was being pointed out 

"Whack a Mole" on the fact we get outsiders with strong Commercial Track records to join the Board & there ousted - but the same TJF faces remain Year in Year out.

"Whack a Mole" on the dangers of over reliance on large funding chunks from a single source  

Go do "Whack a Mole" on all of that  

Now you want to Control who gets to stand for Fan Elections but you wont be influencing Candidates - aye no bother 

we should have solid Finances - Tranche 1 & 2 should have given us Strong Cash Reserves 

No Cup Runs Last Season - we were in trouble - TJF or "The Trustees" signed off that Budget 

Season in Season out Finances are a mess - Boards Change - but there is a Common Denominator in all of this - the TJF arrogant "Whack a Mole" Culture of anyone that questions it 

I genuinely look at some of the people in essence from outside the PTFC Bubble who joined the Club Board - there Qualifications - Experience - Contacts ~ all of the highest standard - but none of them last longer than a few Months - people most Clubs would be delighted to have on there Board   - so tell me Mr "Whack a Mole" - why don't they?   Why are they forced out ?  

Because without good quality people we rely on Cup Draws & Handouts to finance us 

Or do we just stick with TJF Pals on the Board ? 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

18 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

As just one illustration of how sloppily exhausting this is, the Club Board currently has six directors, not five. Really basic stuff.

Whack-a-mole.

I named all the Directors so I knew how many were on the Board  - it was a simple error in the number I put 

- now tell me how TJF signed off massive loss making Budgets with No Cash Reserves to cover it -as that's "really basic stuff" 

[lady-isobel-barnett]

and here's me thinking whack-a-mole was a Mexican dip.

[Jagged Edge]

I think this debate highlights a number of issues.

Most TJF members don't give a toss about what is going on behind the scenes, whether it is finances or Club Board members or Trustees or TJF Board members. They are only interested in the team on the park. As long as the team is doing well they don't care if the finances are down the drain; they don't care if the stadium is falling down (unless part of it falls on their heads); they don't care about the constant replacement of Club board members. I also bet most TJF members could not tell you what the difference is between TJF and the Trustees.

The fact that the recent appointees to the TJF Board were appointed unopposed should have been ringing alarm bells in TJF - yet there is silence. TJF can slap themselves on the back to congratulate themselves for being the "most democratic" of fan owned clubs, but this is just papering over the cracks. Why do more people not want to stand in the TJF elections? Why do more people not vote in the TJF elections? And please don't come back with TJF elections get a greater percentage voting than other clubs - it just highlights the point raised in my first paragraph.

So why does JJ keep banging the drum, only to be repeatedly put down on this forum, and elsewhere? I know JJ personally, and he genuinely cares about the survival and prosperity of the Club. WJ's post about JJ's constant "misleading" statements was disingenuous. So what if he occasionally makes minor mistakes in his posts - we all do - it is clear what he is intending to say. And he has been factually correct on many occasions. 

TJF are supposed to be monitoring the budgets - so why were the overspends (beyond the budgeted losses - which is an issue in itself) allowed to happen? There has been no accountability for this - a point JJ has made repeatedly. Somebody, or some people, are spending money the Club does not have and are allowed to get away with it.

When Club Board members leave, or are removed, or not re-elected, the usual platitudes are published as to why. But the real reasons are hidden. The turnover in the Club Board over the last few years is concerning.

If TJF wants to grow its member base, it needs to address all of these points and stop hiding behind the democracy tag.

[partickthedog]

2 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

and here's me thinking whack-a-mole was a Mexican dip.

I am more concerned for the health and wellbeing of the local mole population.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - Now do 

"Whack a Mole" on the fact TJF signed off a £280K loss making budget without Cash Reserves to cover it

It was explained publicly at the time why this was done.

In early 2024, the Finance Director presented to shareholders at the AGM a forecast which suggested the Club would breakeven by season 2024-25. TJF's own board indicated in January 2024 that we weren't convinced by the revenue assumptions that underpinned this. In a piece to members we said the following:

"The revenue growth targets for these areas strike us as ambitious. It is clear that there are opportunities for growth in these areas (especially when key sponsorship opportunities come up for renewal/renegotiation). The question will be whether the level of growth projected is deliverable on the timescales envisaged. We will be monitoring progress on this very closely, both with our representative in the Boardroom and in our capacity as a Trustee"

This document made pretty clear that we didn't believe breakeven was achievable in season 2024-25 without making substantial cuts to (among other things) the playing budget (and running various risks associated with that) despite the Club Board's forecasts to the contrary.

This provides essential context to what then happened when the season 2024-25 budget process kicked-off in April 2024. The Club Board acknowledged that their earlier revenue forecasts were over-optimistic, and that a plausible path to breakeven would therefore take longer than the then Finance Director had suggested to shareholders would be the case months earlier at the AGM.

The Club Board prepared and presented us with two budget options. One was premised on a 3rd place finish and keeping the playing budget the same as the previous season (and forecast a loss of c£170k EBITDA), and the other was based on a 5th place finish and cutting it by £200k (and forecast a loss of £180k EBITDA). There was then a third forecast, which was the second scenario but with significantly poorer than forecast outcomes across the whole business, which projected a £284k EBITDA loss.

All scenarios included an assumption that the Club would start providing new financial support to the Youth Academy, and the logic presented to us by the Club Board of allowing a loss to be run was that it would protect strategic assets that would better help the Club to breakeven sustainably in future seasons (e.g. building up commercial capacity, generating revenue from player sales through the Academy, reducing long-term first-team costs by bringing through more Academy players).

We recognised (including against the backdrop of the Club, at that time, being projected to make an EBITDA loss of £181k in the 2023-24 season with a 3rd place finish) that there was a choice to be made.

Either we had to put our trust in the Club Board and let them work within broadly the budget parameters they had proposed, with suggested modifications. Or we were expected to reject out of hand their proposal, start removing directors mere weeks after the Club-Trust Agreement had even come into force and given us budget approval powers, and to potentially jeopardise the inception of a further £500k of investment in the football club via the Tranche 2 process.

We went back to the Club Board, asked them to use the version of the budget that kept the playing budget the same as the previous year, and said it would be prudent to assume a 4th place finish rather than 3rd, given the volatility of the Championship. This meant the forecast was £100k worse than the original. Hindsight shows we were right to insist on this more pessimistic assumption, as 4th place was only achieved even after a subsequent top-up of the playing budget by benefactor donations.

In the event, the Club significantly underperformed their budget. Projected commercial and hospitality revenues did not materialise, the playing budget overspent in the summer (and was only partly clawed back in January). The scale of financial underperformance was not made clear to the trustees until after the season had concluded because of the lack of timely management accounts and significant variations month to month on forecasts). Within 3 months of the end of the season a new Finance Director had been appointed following an open recruitment and within 6 months the former Finance Director was no longer on the Club Board. It wasn't as though there were no consquences.

Legitimate criticisms of the trustees can include that we were too permissive and trusting of the financial information that was put to us in the spring of 2024 and throughout that season. I accept we should have been more robust. But we learned from that experience and it led to a much more robust set of exchanges on the 2025-26 budget, most of which you were privy to as an active participant (at the time) on the Finance Working Group.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" on where the £1MN from Tranche 1 & Tranche 2 went - as the Club now relies on getting Cup & League Prize Money + Handouts to balance the Books 

I agree with you, it has been used to repay liabilities accrued in the 2022-23 season and then has been largely absorbed into a series of annual deficits. The failure of the Club to improve its operating financial position between 2023 and 2025 meant that cash reserves are not as strong as they should be. No one disputes this. Indeed, as the trustees said in their guide to the Tranche 2 investment:

"No one is under any illusion that “tranche 2” is a panacea for Partick Thistle, or for fan ownership. It involves clear trade-offs, and it provides no guarantees, on its own, of long-term sustainability. It has to be accompanied by greater spending discipline and revenue growth at the Club.

Without “tranche 2” the task of building a sustainable football club would be made significantly more difficult. Rejecting it would mean drastically scaling back the Club’s ambitions on the park, and a much longer path to sustainability off it. There are no other credible options on the table to raise the required levels of capital on the required timescales."

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" on No CAPEX Budget allowance in our Accounts for the past four Seasons 

Of the accounts that are in the public domain for the "past four seasons" (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25):

• Two of these completely precede fan ownership
• One relates to a budget set under a board that was in place before TJF even became a trustee of the PTFC Trust
• One of them was set against the backdrop of it being expected that part of the Tranche 2 funds would be used, that season, to fund stadium repairs (and several stadium repairs were in fact brought forwards on the basis of those funds being delivered).

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" that during this period is a merry go round of TJF Board Directors joining the Club Board & half our current Board with direct links to TJF 

It is not true that "half of our current [Club] board" has "direct links" to TJF.

One board member, Sandy Fyfe, has served on TJF's board, is an excellent candidate for FD and has a better understanding of the Club's finances than literally anyone else. We are lucky to have someone in the Thistle support with his skills, experience, time and willingness to serve.

One board member, Caroline Mackie, previously served as a TJF board member before it even held its first set of elections in 2022, and hasn't been on TJF's board for more than 4 years. She is not, despite your perpetual attempts to imply otherwise, a TJF appointment, and her reappointment was appraised in autumn 2025 on exactly the same basis as other independent directors seeking to continue on the Club Board.

Otherwise, there are no "direct links" to TJF. The other four board members have never held office or volunteered for TJF.

• Two of them (Grant Russell and Craig Liddell) are simply individuals that the Club Board recommended for appointment to the trustees, and which the trustees were happy to approve on the basis of their relevant experience and skills
• In Grant Russell's case, he is (by his own admission) not even a Thistle fan (which rather punches a hole in your suggestion that the Club Board excludes outsiders)
• One is Donald McClymont, who has no links to TJF
• And the other, Alistair Gray, was directly elected by the beneficiaries

One out of six, or two out of six if we are being charitable, is not "half". The facts are important.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" on TJF Board Members signing off a massive loss Budget then acting as though it had nothing to do with them when funny enough the massive losses appeared ( and blaming one person ) 

The trustees/TJF have never said that we were blameless. In hindsight, the trustees should not have given the Club Board as much wriggle room in April 2024 as we did. The trustees were presented a budgeted loss on the basis of it being a worst case scenario with room for significant over-performance, and then the Club Board underperformed it, primarily due to well below target commercial and hospitality revenue and a series of significant overspends across the business.

It was clear that the Club's finance function was not operating in a functional and accountable way internally, and that key strategic parts of the business were not functioning properly. This was reflected in the AGM appraisal of directors, and several changes were made to the leadership team.

As TJF also flagged to the fans in the summer of 2025, there were also significant problems with financial reporting at the Club in that season, with management accounts routinely being provided very late, substantial variances in the forecasting and errors being made in the accounting which led to the accounts having to "re-state" previous years.

Speaking personally and with the benefit of hindsight, I think that the financial information being provided to Club Board members was not of an adequate quality at that time, let alone what was being provided to the trustees. I know that you know this was the case because you were receiving similar information as a NDA'd member of the Finance Working Group.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" on the Public Denials of the State of our Finances & shutting down debate when it was being pointed out

Except this didn't happen. There was simply a robust disagreement about whether your framing and presentation of the numbers was completely accurate. In many respects your framing and presentation of the numbers was not accurate (in my opinion).

And we see further examples of this in this very thread. I'll flag two.

You have conflated the figure disclosed as to the Club's subsidy of PTWFC for season 2023-24 (£30k) with the effective cross-subsidy for the following season 2024-25. You know the main reasons behind the increase (they related to how the Club was approaching remuneration of the shared coaching staff, and unexpected additional costs arising out of Petershill being out of action for maintenance works). Neither of these were things the trustees had any control over.

You have suggested that the trustees "signed-off" on the season 2024-25 losses in full, when in fact that losses were significantly bigger than the budgeted loss they consented to.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" on the fact we get outsiders with strong Commercial Track records to join the Board & there ousted - but the same TJF faces remain Year in Year out.

This simply isn't true.

Your complaint here literally seems to amount to "Caroline Mackie is still a director and I don't like her".

Three of the other current Club Board members have been appointed within the last year following a Club Board recommendation and trustee sign-off. By definition they cannot be "the same TJF faces remain[ing] Year in Year out". One is appointed independently of TJF by virtue of their shareholding (Donald), and the other was elected as a Fan Rep by the beneficiaries (Alistair).

Your entire narrative is premised on a false assertion.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

"Whack a Mole" on the dangers of over reliance on large funding chunks from a single source  

You're right that it is a risk when football clubs are heavily dependent on one or two specific sources of funding, there is a risk that those sources will dry up. We are very much alive to this.

But the solution to this is a long-term strategy to broaden and diversify the sources of revenue and to get better value out of existing commercial contracts, and this takes time.

The solution certainly isn't to cut off those sources of funding while they are in place, or to do things that might encourage those people to walk away before alternative funding has been secured. Just as we see the risk at Morton.

What you've done here is identify a legitimate problem, which is generally and broadly acknowledged. But you haven't offered a solution, or explained what the alternative should be.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Go do "Whack a Mole" on all of that 

Done.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Now you want to Control who gets to stand for Fan Elections but you wont be influencing Candidates - aye no bother 

No. This is wrong.

Based on the experience we have had so far with Fan Rep Director elections, and the feedback given to us by various beneficiaries especially following (a) the last set of elections and (b) the premature departure of one of the Fan Reps, we want to make sure that those who are going to put their names forwards are both (a) suitably qualified to serve as effective directors on the Club Board, working with the rest of the leadership group constructively and (b) going to stick it out for their full elected term, to provide the Club Board with stability and continuity.

At fan owned Clubs it has always been in the gift of the majority shareholder to set the rules and process about who is eligible to be a candidate in Fan Rep selection processes. This is the case at Foundation of Hearts, SMiSA, The Well Society, Morton Club Together and the Falkirk Supporters' Society.

You have yet to provide a single example of a fan-owned football club that operated no "sift" on Fan Rep Director candidates. I think that speaks volumes that your concerns are based on an imaginary conception of fan-ownership that no other club subscribes to.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

we should have solid Finances - Tranche 1 & 2 should have given us Strong Cash Reserves 

I remember in spring 2023 the assessment was that to strengthen the Club finances to a point of genuine stability it was likely that £1 million was going to be needed (and that was before soft loans were advanced by various directors to the tune of £250k, all of whom were repaid in full).

So actually no, Tranches 1 & 2 never promised or guaranteed "Strong Cash Reserves". They provided the opportunity for such an outcome only in the event that the Club managed to run sustainably at breakeven from 2024-25. Something that proved to be impossible.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No Cup Runs Last Season - we were in trouble - TJF or "The Trustees" signed off that Budget 

As you know, because you were at that point serving on the Club's Finance Working Group, received detailed financial information about the football club as a consequence, and signed an NDA in relation to it, the budget eventually presented to the trustees for season 2025-26 by the then Finance Director (at the third time of asking) was designed as a breakeven one. This fact was confirmed by the then Finance Director in a public statement in August 2025.

No one involved in that process can credibly suggest that the trustees were not robust in challenging the Club's senior leadership about their financial forecasts and budget proposals.

We of course do not have the financial results for season 2025-26 yet, as the accounts are being prepared for audit at the moment. I therefore won't be commenting on those until the Club Board has done so, which is of course the appropriate course of action.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Season in Season out Finances are a mess - Boards Change - but there is a Common Denominator in all of this - the TJF arrogant "Whack a Mole" Culture of anyone that questions it 

On the contrary, we are happy to engage with good faith, informed and non-hyperbolic criticism. The problem, Jim, is that that is not what you provide.

Your analysis frequently makes basic and fundamental errors which give a misleading picture about what has happened, how bad it is, and who is responsible. That is why you experience push-back. It's not you being silenced. It's you being engaged with, candidly and robustly.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I genuinely look at some of the people in essence from outside the PTFC Bubble who joined the Club Board - there Qualifications - Experience - Contacts ~ all of the highest standard - but none of them last longer than a few Months - people most Clubs would be delighted to have on there Board   - so tell me Mr "Whack a Mole" - why don't they?   Why are they forced out ?

It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on what you're referring to, because it would involve breaching confidences that underpinned the pre-AGM reappointments process.

You cannot have this both ways Jim. On the one hand, you were extremely critical of the Club Board for even confirming the basic fact, when asked, that the trustees had indicated they would not be supportive of Richard Beastall's reappointment (an example of basic transparency and honesty with the support). But then you expect a detailed public running commentary about why the appointment of other directors did not work out. Clearly that's not going to happen. It wouldn't happen at any football club.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Because without good quality people we rely on Cup Draws & Handouts to finance us 

Or do we just stick with TJF Pals on the Board ? 

Again, it's not TJF that nominates people to the Club Board.

It is the Club Board that conducts recruitment processes then recommends to the Trustees that appointments be made. This is what has happened with every single new independent director appointment since January 2024.

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

The fact that the recent appointees to the TJF Board were appointed unopposed should have been ringing alarm bells in TJF - yet there is silence.

While you have a point I don't think this, overall a fair comment. There's two reasons why.

Firstly, there isn't silence. This was explicitly acknowledged and discussed at our AGM in June.

Secondly, the election was uncontested because there were more vacancies than there had been in previous years (four instead of three).

I absolutely agree with you that we need to create the conditions in which more people are willing to stand and serve on TJF's board. This is why there have been changes made in an effort to make this more appealing.

For example, we have moved to 2-year terms instead of 3, so that it isn't seen as as daunting a commitment for those involved. We are also pursuing a consolidation of the fan groups, a proposal partly intended to reduce the duplication of voluntary roles across different organisations. The current structure spreads us too thinly.

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

Why do more people not want to stand in the TJF elections? Why do more people not vote in the TJF elections? And please don't come back with TJF elections get a greater percentage voting than other clubs - it just highlights the point raised in my first paragraph.

But it's true. TJF's democratic exercises consistently display higher levels of engagement, in both relative and absolute terms, than The Well Society's, SMiSA's and Morton Club Together's. We have more people voting in absolute terms and more as a proportion of the membership.

Does that mean there aren't challenges? Of course not. But it is important to start from where we actually are, and to base it on the facts.

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

So why does JJ keep banging the drum, only to be repeatedly put down on this forum, and elsewhere? I know JJ personally, and he genuinely cares about the survival and prosperity of the Club. WJ's post about JJ's constant "misleading" statements was disingenuous. So what if he occasionally makes minor mistakes in his posts - we all do - it is clear what he is intending to say. And he has been factually correct on many occasions. 

I'm afraid I just genuinely disagree with you here. I do not believe that the mistakes are "occasional" and "minor". I believe they are frequent and often significant.

Jim isn't being "put down". He is being engaged with as robustly as he is engaging.

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

TJF are supposed to be monitoring the budgets - so why were the overspends (beyond the budgeted losses - which is an issue in itself) allowed to happen?

The trustees/TJF do not have day-to-day control over the budget. The trustees are provided with retrospective financial information in the form of management accounts, as and when they are produced and circulated by the Club Board.

The management accounts in season 2024-25 were consistently extremely late and contained significant variances and changes to budgeting assumptions. This made it very difficult (in anything remotely approaching real time) to assess the scale of the underperformance and the prospects of it being recovered later in the season.

If (for example) budgeted commercial income does not materialise, that isn't because "the trustees allowed it to happen". It's because the Club failed to generate that revenue, through (e.g.) its commercial operations.

If (for example) budgeted expenditure is exceeded, because the Club spent more money on football players, and failed to get the expected players out on loan in the autumn, that is not something that "the trustees allowed to happen". Indeed, the trustees are specifically excluded from decision-making about playing contracts under the Club-Trust Agreement.

The trustees aren't there to micromanage the implementation of the budget. They are there to provide high-level scrutiny and approval of the original budget and to raise concerns when there are adverse variances. Concerns were raised. Often.

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

There has been no accountability for this - a point JJ has made repeatedly. Somebody, or some people, are spending money the Club does not have and are allowed to get away with it.

The legitimate question is "why weren't there robust consequences for those who failed to deliver on the Club's 2024-25 budget"? To which I'd simply note that there has been significant change in the personnel on the Club Board, including around the Finance function. It would be quite the coincidence if the two things weren't related.

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

When Club Board members leave, or are removed, or not re-elected, the usual platitudes are published as to why. But the real reasons are hidden. The turnover in the Club Board over the last few years is concerning.

I agree with you that the turnover is too high. But this is also why the trustees were reluctant, for example in the period 2023-2025, to enforce changes to personnel that would impact the stability of the senior leadership team.

It is rarely a good idea for there to be public raking over coals behind individual decisions not to resign or to seek re-appointment at AGMs. That sort of situation is precisely what would discourage people from putting themselves forward in the first place.

2 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

If TJF wants to grow its member base, it needs to address all of these points and stop hiding behind the democracy tag.

Our membership is (I'm pleased to say) growing, and is up 6% on this time last year, and monthly pledges are up by 6% over the same period too. There is still much work to be done but I am confident we are headed in the right direction.

[Jordanhill Jag]

20 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It was explained publicly at the time why this was done.

In early 2024, the Finance Director presented to shareholders at the AGM a forecast which suggested the Club would breakeven by season 2024-25. TJF's own board indicated in January 2024 that we weren't convinced by the revenue assumptions that underpinned this. In a piece to members we said the following:

"The revenue growth targets for these areas strike us as ambitious. It is clear that there are opportunities for growth in these areas (especially when key sponsorship opportunities come up for renewal/renegotiation). The question will be whether the level of growth projected is deliverable on the timescales envisaged. We will be monitoring progress on this very closely, both with our representative in the Boardroom and in our capacity as a Trustee"

This document made pretty clear that we didn't believe breakeven was achievable in season 2024-25 without making substantial cuts to (among other things) the playing budget (and running various risks associated with that) despite the Club Board's forecasts to the contrary.

This provides essential context to what then happened when the season 2024-25 budget process kicked-off in April 2024. The Club Board acknowledged that their earlier revenue forecasts were over-optimistic, and that a plausible path to breakeven would therefore take longer than the then Finance Director had suggested to shareholders would be the case months earlier at the AGM.

The Club Board prepared and presented us with two budget options. One was premised on a 3rd place finish and keeping the playing budget the same as the previous season (and forecast a loss of c£170k EBITDA), and the other was based on a 5th place finish and cutting it by £200k (and forecast a loss of £180k EBITDA). There was then a third forecast, which was the second scenario but with significantly poorer than forecast outcomes across the whole business, which projected a £284k EBITDA loss.

All scenarios included an assumption that the Club would start providing new financial support to the Youth Academy, and the logic presented to us by the Club Board of allowing a loss to be run was that it would protect strategic assets that would better help the Club to breakeven sustainably in future seasons (e.g. building up commercial capacity, generating revenue from player sales through the Academy, reducing long-term first-team costs by bringing through more Academy players).

We recognised (including against the backdrop of the Club, at that time, being projected to make an EBITDA loss of £181k in the 2023-24 season with a 3rd place finish) that there was a choice to be made.

Either we had to put our trust in the Club Board and let them work within broadly the budget parameters they had proposed, with suggested modifications. Or we were expected to reject out of hand their proposal, start removing directors mere weeks after the Club-Trust Agreement had even come into force and given us budget approval powers, and to potentially jeopardise the inception of a further £500k of investment in the football club via the Tranche 2 process.

We went back to the Club Board, asked them to use the version of the budget that kept the playing budget the same as the previous year, and said it would be prudent to assume a 4th place finish rather than 3rd, given the volatility of the Championship. This meant the forecast was £100k worse than the original. Hindsight shows we were right to insist on this more pessimistic assumption, as 4th place was only achieved even after a subsequent top-up of the playing budget by benefactor donations.

In the event, the Club significantly underperformed their budget. Projected commercial and hospitality revenues did not materialise, the playing budget overspent in the summer (and was only partly clawed back in January). The scale of financial underperformance was not made clear to the trustees until after the season had concluded because of the lack of timely management accounts and significant variations month to month on forecasts). Within 3 months of the end of the season a new Finance Director had been appointed following an open recruitment and within 6 months the former Finance Director was no longer on the Club Board. It wasn't as though there were no consquences.

Legitimate criticisms of the trustees can include that we were too permissive and trusting of the financial information that was put to us in the spring of 2024 and throughout that season. I accept we should have been more robust. But we learned from that experience and it led to a much more robust set of exchanges on the 2025-26 budget, most of which you were privy to as an active participant (at the time) on the Finance Working Group.

I agree with you, it has been used to repay liabilities accrued in the 2022-23 season and then has been largely absorbed into a series of annual deficits. The failure of the Club to improve its operating financial position between 2023 and 2025 meant that cash reserves are not as strong as they should be. No one disputes this. Indeed, as the trustees said in their guide to the Tranche 2 investment:

"No one is under any illusion that “tranche 2” is a panacea for Partick Thistle, or for fan ownership. It involves clear trade-offs, and it provides no guarantees, on its own, of long-term sustainability. It has to be accompanied by greater spending discipline and revenue growth at the Club.

Without “tranche 2” the task of building a sustainable football club would be made significantly more difficult. Rejecting it would mean drastically scaling back the Club’s ambitions on the park, and a much longer path to sustainability off it. There are no other credible options on the table to raise the required levels of capital on the required timescales."

Of the accounts that are in the public domain for the "past four seasons" (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25):

• Two of these completely precede fan ownership
• One relates to a budget set under a board that was in place before TJF even became a trustee of the PTFC Trust
• One of them was set against the backdrop of it being expected that part of the Tranche 2 funds would be used, that season, to fund stadium repairs (and several stadium repairs were in fact brought forwards on the basis of those funds being delivered).

It is not true that "half of our current [Club] board" has "direct links" to TJF.

One board member, Sandy Fyfe, has served on TJF's board, is an excellent candidate for FD and has a better understanding of the Club's finances than literally anyone else. We are lucky to have someone in the Thistle support with his skills, experience, time and willingness to serve.

One board member, Caroline Mackie, previously served as a TJF board member before it even held its first set of elections in 2022, and hasn't been on TJF's board for more than 4 years. She is not, despite your perpetual attempts to imply otherwise, a TJF appointment, and her reappointment was appraised in autumn 2025 on exactly the same basis as other independent directors seeking to continue on the Club Board.

Otherwise, there are no "direct links" to TJF. The other four board members have never held office or volunteered for TJF.

• Two of them (Grant Russell and Craig Liddell) are simply individuals that the Club Board recommended for appointment to the trustees, and which the trustees were happy to approve on the basis of their relevant experience and skills
• In Grant Russell's case, he is (by his own admission) not even a Thistle fan (which rather punches a hole in your suggestion that the Club Board excludes outsiders)
• One is Donald McClymont, who has no links to TJF
• And the other, Alistair Gray, was directly elected by the beneficiaries

One out of six, or two out of six if we are being charitable, is not "half". The facts are important.

The trustees/TJF have never said that we were blameless. In hindsight, the trustees should not have given the Club Board as much wriggle room in April 2024 as we did. The trustees were presented a budgeted loss on the basis of it being a worst case scenario with room for significant over-performance, and then the Club Board underperformed it, primarily due to well below target commercial and hospitality revenue and a series of significant overspends across the business.

It was clear that the Club's finance function was not operating in a functional and accountable way internally, and that key strategic parts of the business were not functioning properly. This was reflected in the AGM appraisal of directors, and several changes were made to the leadership team.

As TJF also flagged to the fans in the summer of 2025, there were also significant problems with financial reporting at the Club in that season, with management accounts routinely being provided very late, substantial variances in the forecasting and errors being made in the accounting which led to the accounts having to "re-state" previous years.

Speaking personally and with the benefit of hindsight, I think that the financial information being provided to Club Board members was not of an adequate quality at that time, let alone what was being provided to the trustees. I know that you know this was the case because you were receiving similar information as a NDA'd member of the Finance Working Group.

Except this didn't happen. There was simply a robust disagreement about whether your framing and presentation of the numbers was completely accurate. In many respects your framing and presentation of the numbers was not accurate (in my opinion).

And we see further examples of this in this very thread. I'll flag two.

You have conflated the figure disclosed as to the Club's subsidy of PTWFC for season 2023-24 (£30k) with the effective cross-subsidy for the following season 2024-25. You know the main reasons behind the increase (they related to how the Club was approaching remuneration of the shared coaching staff, and unexpected additional costs arising out of Petershill being out of action for maintenance works). Neither of these were things the trustees had any control over.

You have suggested that the trustees "signed-off" on the season 2024-25 losses in full, when in fact that losses were significantly bigger than the budgeted loss they consented to.

This simply isn't true.

Your complaint here literally seems to amount to "Caroline Mackie is still a director and I don't like her".

Three of the other current Club Board members have been appointed within the last year following a Club Board recommendation and trustee sign-off. By definition they cannot be "the same TJF faces remain[ing] Year in Year out". One is appointed independently of TJF by virtue of their shareholding (Donald), and the other was elected as a Fan Rep by the beneficiaries (Alistair).

Your entire narrative is premised on a false assertion.

You're right that it is a risk when football clubs are heavily dependent on one or two specific sources of funding, there is a risk that those sources will dry up. We are very much alive to this.

But the solution to this is a long-term strategy to broaden and diversify the sources of revenue and to get better value out of existing commercial contracts, and this takes time.

The solution certainly isn't to cut off those sources of funding while they are in place, or to do things that might encourage those people to walk away before alternative funding has been secured. Just as we see the risk at Morton.

What you've done here is identify a legitimate problem, which is generally and broadly acknowledged. But you haven't offered a solution, or explained what the alternative should be.

Done.

No. This is wrong.

Based on the experience we have had so far with Fan Rep Director elections, and the feedback given to us by various beneficiaries especially following (a) the last set of elections and (b) the premature departure of one of the Fan Reps, we want to make sure that those who are going to put their names forwards are both (a) suitably qualified to serve as effective directors on the Club Board, working with the rest of the leadership group constructively and (b) going to stick it out for their full elected term, to provide the Club Board with stability and continuity.

At fan owned Clubs it has always been in the gift of the majority shareholder to set the rules and process about who is eligible to be a candidate in Fan Rep selection processes. This is the case at Foundation of Hearts, SMiSA, The Well Society, Morton Club Together and the Falkirk Supporters' Society.

You have yet to provide a single example of a fan-owned football club that operated no "sift" on Fan Rep Director candidates. I think that speaks volumes that your concerns are based on an imaginary conception of fan-ownership that no other club subscribes to.

I remember in spring 2023 the assessment was that to strengthen the Club finances to a point of genuine stability it was likely that £1 million was going to be needed (and that was before soft loans were advanced by various directors to the tune of £250k, all of whom were repaid in full).

So actually no, Tranches 1 & 2 never promised or guaranteed "Strong Cash Reserves". They provided the opportunity for such an outcome only in the event that the Club managed to run sustainably at breakeven from 2024-25. Something that proved to be impossible.

As you know, because you were at that point serving on the Club's Finance Working Group, received detailed financial information about the football club as a consequence, and signed an NDA in relation to it, the budget eventually presented to the trustees for season 2025-26 by the then Finance Director (at the third time of asking) was designed as a breakeven one. This fact was confirmed by the then Finance Director in a public statement in August 2025.

No one involved in that process can credibly suggest that the trustees were not robust in challenging the Club's senior leadership about their financial forecasts and budget proposals.

We of course do not have the financial results for season 2025-26 yet, as the accounts are being prepared for audit at the moment. I therefore won't be commenting on those until the Club Board has done so, which is of course the appropriate course of action.

On the contrary, we are happy to engage with good faith, informed and non-hyperbolic criticism. The problem, Jim, is that that is not what you provide.

Your analysis frequently makes basic and fundamental errors which give a misleading picture about what has happened, how bad it is, and who is responsible. That is why you experience push-back. It's not you being silenced. It's you being engaged with, candidly and robustly.

It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on what you're referring to, because it would involve breaching confidences that underpinned the pre-AGM reappointments process.

You cannot have this both ways Jim. On the one hand, you were extremely critical of the Club Board for even confirming the basic fact, when asked, that the trustees had indicated they would not be supportive of Richard Beastall's reappointment (an example of basic transparency and honesty with the support). But then you expect a detailed public running commentary about why the appointment of other directors did not work out. Clearly that's not going to happen. It wouldn't happen at any football club.

Again, it's not TJF that nominates people to the Club Board.

It is the Club Board that conducts recruitment processes then recommends to the Trustees that appointments be made. This is what has happened with every single new independent director appointment since January 2024.

Ok - we will take the losses - it was being pointed out to you ( by myself ) that the residual debts meant that all of Tranche 2 was going to be swallowed up - the fact that TJF ( with two accountants on its Board ) couldn't understand basic Company Finances is astounding as there were multiple promises on what it would be spent on 

The fact TJF agreed this complete fantasy about how we are going to grow Youth Via the Academy & use this as a method of funding the Club Long Term - again complete nonsense 

It was pointed out that there was at least £100K of overhead savings that would not affect the day to day running of the Club - these savings have now been made as the people left - and were not replaced - the fact it was argued that they couldn't be made - again shows those running the Club and TJF did not have the experience to run it efficiently     

When you are being presented with nonsense you make changes to the people presenting it - otherwise your in trouble - the fact that TJF cant grasp basic Company Operating Strategy is a demonstration our current set up is not fit for purpose 

When you have TJF / Board Directors - then people jumping from TJF to the Board & Visa Versa the concept of independent supervision disappears - which is at the core of our problems & the reason our Fan Ownership Model has failed - you have stated publicly how great Sand Fyffe & Craig Liddle are - yet your supposed to judge there performance without bias as a Trustee. 

TJF - Trustees - call them what you like have singularly failed to appoint people with hands on experience of running trading companies or organisations with multi faceted budget challenges - preferring to stay in there comfort zone & cosy relationships   

The fact they have personal relationships with various Directors on various levels means that there is no proper gap between Shareholders & those running the Club - it seems a remarkable coincidence the number of Directors recommended by the Club Board who were once on the TJF Board ? Strange That  

Since we are being honest - Grant Russell ( to my understanding was recommended to the Board via someone at TJF ) so he does have a link 

As for premature departure of one of the Fan Reps - has it ever occurred to you that the Club Board & how it operates are the issue - as opposed to New People with no previous links joining it - this was a very experienced person with a good business background to suggest that lack of vetting was the issue isn't acceptable  

As for the person you mentioned that I don't like - I don't know them personally so that's not true  - I judge on performance  - if your on a Board of a Company which runs up losses year in year out   - then it runs up Record losses - you don't get to stay on that Board - that's how Business works - the person is replaced by hopefully someone who can address the problems - the fact that doesn't happen at PTFC - again its the Cosy Gang.

The merits or ability of the current Board are obviously down to opinion - however the key to the issue of single source funding is Revenue Growth - may as well be honest - without promotion that's not happening & the fact our finances are hoping for A Cup Draw or a Handout three Seasons after the Jlo Board is down to TJF - our Sales Staff Turnover in any Company is a Red Flag - as it indicates there are Management Problems - yet its swept under the Carpet 

As for Highly Capable Directors only lasting a few Months - again massive Red Flag ( yet the inner circle remain )    

The reason I joined the FWG was a public commitment to Nett Zero by TJF - as it showed that Finances were being taken seriously - despite a lot of analysis of last Seasons Budget   - despite Multiple Reports from the FWG - the Budget was still signed off by TJF and was Short by £130K by September ( as publicly stated by the Club at the time ). The FWG obviously No longer exists so no independent analysis of Finances - again another Red Flag 

As for PTWFC - TJF allowed the Accounts to be merged that means there losses are Club losses - despite them having a separate Board - but they also have a Director on the PTFC Club Board - that's simply ridiculous.

So we will go back to the core issues - a merry go round of TJF Board Directors jumping between Boards - a culture that cannot hold onto very well qualified people on the Club Board - a Culture where Sales people keep leaving the Club - no proper Business Experience of Running a Trading Company at Board level - No Proper Credible Revenue Growth Revenue Strategy - a Shareholder Organisation that is too cosy with various Board Members - a Bullying Culture towards anyone raising legitimate concerns either in an official capacity at the Club or publicly on Social Media - I'm no shrinking Violet but how can a Club allow Family Members of Club Board Directors to abuse someone working for the Club in an Quasi Official Capacity - because they addressed serious H&S Issues - yet nothing happens 

Bullying is totally acceptable on multiple levels as long as your linked to the inner circle - TJF watch this - take no action    

However if I had addressed it Old Skool face to face ~ it would have been used to get me removed from the FWG.    

So nothing will change - Cup Run+ League Prize Money from last Season  & Hand Outs - Bullying that's it  

If the same people keep doing the same thing Year in Year out & we are not moving forwards - then maybe just maybe its time for a change in direction 

Shouting we are Fan Owned is not a Strategy - its a Slogan  

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

While you have a point I don't think this, overall a fair comment. There's two reasons why.

Firstly, there isn't silence. This was explicitly acknowledged and discussed at our AGM in June.

Secondly, the election was uncontested because there were more vacancies than there had been in previous years (four instead of three).

I absolutely agree with you that we need to create the conditions in which more people are willing to stand and serve on TJF's board. This is why there have been changes made in an effort to make this more appealing.

For example, we have moved to 2-year terms instead of 3, so that it isn't seen as as daunting a commitment for those involved. We are also pursuing a consolidation of the fan groups, a proposal partly intended to reduce the duplication of voluntary roles across different organisations. The current structure spreads us too thinly.

But it's true. TJF's democratic exercises consistently display higher levels of engagement, in both relative and absolute terms, than The Well Society's, SMiSA's and Morton Club Together's. We have more people voting in absolute terms and more as a proportion of the membership.

Does that mean there aren't challenges? Of course not. But it is important to start from where we actually are, and to base it on the facts.

I'm afraid I just genuinely disagree with you here. I do not believe that the mistakes are "occasional" and "minor". I believe they are frequent and often significant.

Jim isn't being "put down". He is being engaged with as robustly as he is engaging.

The trustees/TJF do not have day-to-day control over the budget. The trustees are provided with retrospective financial information in the form of management accounts, as and when they are produced and circulated by the Club Board.

The management accounts in season 2024-25 were consistently extremely late and contained significant variances and changes to budgeting assumptions. This made it very difficult (in anything remotely approaching real time) to assess the scale of the underperformance and the prospects of it being recovered later in the season.

If (for example) budgeted commercial income does not materialise, that isn't because "the trustees allowed it to happen". It's because the Club failed to generate that revenue, through (e.g.) its commercial operations.

If (for example) budgeted expenditure is exceeded, because the Club spent more money on football players, and failed to get the expected players out on loan in the autumn, that is not something that "the trustees allowed to happen". Indeed, the trustees are specifically excluded from decision-making about playing contracts under the Club-Trust Agreement.

The trustees aren't there to micromanage the implementation of the budget. They are there to provide high-level scrutiny and approval of the original budget and to raise concerns when there are adverse variances. Concerns were raised. Often.

The legitimate question is "why weren't there robust consequences for those who failed to deliver on the Club's 2024-25 budget"? To which I'd simply note that there has been significant change in the personnel on the Club Board, including around the Finance function. It would be quite the coincidence if the two things weren't related.

I agree with you that the turnover is too high. But this is also why the trustees were reluctant, for example in the period 2023-2025, to enforce changes to personnel that would impact the stability of the senior leadership team.

It is rarely a good idea for there to be public raking over coals behind individual decisions not to resign or to seek re-appointment at AGMs. That sort of situation is precisely what would discourage people from putting themselves forward in the first place.

Our membership is (I'm pleased to say) growing, and is up 6% on this time last year, and monthly pledges are up by 6% over the same period too. There is still much work to be done but I am confident we are headed in the right direction.

Your fast enough to remove people with no links to TJF - funny that 

Only one person relating to the massive losses was removed ( and TJF were not exactly fans from the Jlo days) 

And the FD Function was replaced by a TJF Board Member - shocker  

We actually had an FD who replaced Richard Beastall - as you correctly state - they lasted 3 Months and did not "seek re-election" after there Trustee Assessment 

Funny enough Grant Russell who had been in the post longer than the New FD - did no go through a Trustee Assessment  

 

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - we will take the losses - it was being pointed out to you ( by myself ) that the residual debts meant that all of Tranche 2 was going to be swallowed up - the fact that TJF ( with two accountants on its Board ) couldn't understand basic Company Finances is astounding as there were multiple promises on what it would be spent on 

What you're not grasping is that we were concerned about exactly the same thing and we were doing things about it.

Which was why we made the current ratio and cash targets a condition of the Tranche 2 investment.

It's also why we told the Club Board that, while it was a matter for them to manage the funds once invested into the Club, we did not believe that the finances were strong enough to ring-fence funds for fan projects as they had proposed.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The fact TJF agreed this complete fantasy about how we are going to grow Youth Via the Academy & use this as a method of funding the Club Long Term - again complete nonsense 

We didn't think it was unreasonable for the Club to earmark £45k of funding to support the Youth Academy. In the event, of course, this money wasn't even advanced, because the Academy was able to sustain itself that season without Club funding, owing to the Ceiran Loney transfer to Everton.

If you believe that signing off a budget with that line in it was wrong, fair enough. But you should then be honest about the full implication of what that means. You are effectively saying that the Club should not attempt to sustain a Youth Academy: that the set-up should be shut down. It is only fair that you should own that, own it publicly, and be clear that is what you are judging the Club Board and trustees against.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

When you have TJF / Board Directors - then people jumping from TJF to the Board & Visa Versa the concept of independent supervision disappears - which is at the core of our problems & the reason our Fan Ownership Model has failed - you have stated publicly how great Sand Fyffe & Craig Liddle are - yet your supposed to judge there performance without bias as a Trustee. 

If we didn't think they were good people to have on the Club's senior leadership we wouldn't have consented to their appointments.

Sandy very pointedly stepped down from TJF's board prior to joining the Club Board, because we recognise that holding the two positions at once would, under our governance arrangements, not be appropriate. What matters is that he's the best person for the job and commands the respect and confidence of key stakeholders to be able to work with them and provide solutions to financial challenges. Pointedly not something that we had before.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF - Trustees - call them what you like have singularly failed to appoint people with hands on experience of running trading companies or organisations with multi faceted budget challenges - preferring to stay in there comfort zone & cosy relationships

It's not the trustees' role to appoint people to the Club Board. It's the trustees' role to approve or reject people put forward by the Club Board to join the Club Board.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The fact they have personal relationships with various Directors on various levels means that there is no proper gap between Shareholders & those running the Club - it seems a remarkable coincidence the number of Directors recommended by the Club Board who were once on the TJF Board ? Strange That

So the fact that the Partick Thistle fans serving on the Club Board happen also to be collegiate or friendly with some other Partick Thistle fans is a bad thing?

The number of directors recommended by the Club Board who were once on the TJF board is... one.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Since we are being honest - Grant Russell ( to my understanding was recommended to the Board via someone at TJF ) so he does have a link

This isn't what happened.

Grant Russell directly approached the Club Board offering to help them in the summer of 2025. His initial conversation was with the then Chair of the Football Club. He was not "recommended to the Board via someone at TJF).

We were aware of his existence, as he was someone who had previously worked at Motherwell and he had commented on Twitter about some of Thistle's social media and marketing output. But none of us knew him personally and none of us had ever spoken with him or exchanged any communication whatsoever prior to the Club Board disclosing his approach to Thistle.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The reason I joined the FWG was a public commitment to Nett Zero by TJF - as it showed that Finances were being taken seriously - despite a lot of analysis of last Seasons Budget   - despite Multiple Reports from the FWG - the Budget was still signed off by TJF and was Short by £130K by September ( as publicly stated by the Club at the time ). The FWG obviously No longer exists so no independent analysis of Finances - again another Red Flag

Do you have a source for your assertion that the Club "publicly stated at the time" that its budget "was Short by £130k by September"? Please provide a link for this.

The FWG does still exist. You simply resigned from it. It contains a broad base of several people from both across and beyond the Thistle support, and it has provided constructive analysis and challenge on a number of key projects for the Club Board.

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As for PTWFC - TJF allowed the Accounts to be merged that means there losses are Club losses - despite them having a separate Board - but they also have a Director on the PTFC Club Board - that's simply ridiculous.

Again, untrue. The decision to incept the PTWFC accounting had absolutely nothing to do with TJF and was a decision taken by the Club Board, recognising that in fact the two entities never had separate legal personality in the first place.

PTWFC does not "have a director on the PTFC Club Board". Caroline Mackie is not there as a PTWFC nominee (indeed, if she were, it would undercut your claim that she's a TJF appointment!). She is there as an independent director.

[ChiThistle]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It was explained publicly at the time why this was done.

In early 2024, the Finance Director presented to shareholders at the AGM a forecast which suggested the Club would breakeven by season 2024-25. TJF's own board indicated in January 2024 that we weren't convinced by the revenue assumptions that underpinned this. In a piece to members we said the following:

"The revenue growth targets for these areas strike us as ambitious. It is clear that there are opportunities for growth in these areas (especially when key sponsorship opportunities come up for renewal/renegotiation). The question will be whether the level of growth projected is deliverable on the timescales envisaged. We will be monitoring progress on this very closely, both with our representative in the Boardroom and in our capacity as a Trustee"

This document made pretty clear that we didn't believe breakeven was achievable in season 2024-25 without making substantial cuts to (among other things) the playing budget (and running various risks associated with that) despite the Club Board's forecasts to the contrary.

This provides essential context to what then happened when the season 2024-25 budget process kicked-off in April 2024. The Club Board acknowledged that their earlier revenue forecasts were over-optimistic, and that a plausible path to breakeven would therefore take longer than the then Finance Director had suggested to shareholders would be the case months earlier at the AGM.

The Club Board prepared and presented us with two budget options. One was premised on a 3rd place finish and keeping the playing budget the same as the previous season (and forecast a loss of c£170k EBITDA), and the other was based on a 5th place finish and cutting it by £200k (and forecast a loss of £180k EBITDA). There was then a third forecast, which was the second scenario but with significantly poorer than forecast outcomes across the whole business, which projected a £284k EBITDA loss.

All scenarios included an assumption that the Club would start providing new financial support to the Youth Academy, and the logic presented to us by the Club Board of allowing a loss to be run was that it would protect strategic assets that would better help the Club to breakeven sustainably in future seasons (e.g. building up commercial capacity, generating revenue from player sales through the Academy, reducing long-term first-team costs by bringing through more Academy players).

We recognised (including against the backdrop of the Club, at that time, being projected to make an EBITDA loss of £181k in the 2023-24 season with a 3rd place finish) that there was a choice to be made.

Either we had to put our trust in the Club Board and let them work within broadly the budget parameters they had proposed, with suggested modifications. Or we were expected to reject out of hand their proposal, start removing directors mere weeks after the Club-Trust Agreement had even come into force and given us budget approval powers, and to potentially jeopardise the inception of a further £500k of investment in the football club via the Tranche 2 process.

We went back to the Club Board, asked them to use the version of the budget that kept the playing budget the same as the previous year, and said it would be prudent to assume a 4th place finish rather than 3rd, given the volatility of the Championship. This meant the forecast was £100k worse than the original. Hindsight shows we were right to insist on this more pessimistic assumption, as 4th place was only achieved even after a subsequent top-up of the playing budget by benefactor donations.

In the event, the Club significantly underperformed their budget. Projected commercial and hospitality revenues did not materialise, the playing budget overspent in the summer (and was only partly clawed back in January). The scale of financial underperformance was not made clear to the trustees until after the season had concluded because of the lack of timely management accounts and significant variations month to month on forecasts). Within 3 months of the end of the season a new Finance Director had been appointed following an open recruitment and within 6 months the former Finance Director was no longer on the Club Board. It wasn't as though there were no consquences.

Legitimate criticisms of the trustees can include that we were too permissive and trusting of the financial information that was put to us in the spring of 2024 and throughout that season. I accept we should have been more robust. But we learned from that experience and it led to a much more robust set of exchanges on the 2025-26 budget, most of which you were privy to as an active participant (at the time) on the Finance Working Group.

I agree with you, it has been used to repay liabilities accrued in the 2022-23 season and then has been largely absorbed into a series of annual deficits. The failure of the Club to improve its operating financial position between 2023 and 2025 meant that cash reserves are not as strong as they should be. No one disputes this. Indeed, as the trustees said in their guide to the Tranche 2 investment:

"No one is under any illusion that “tranche 2” is a panacea for Partick Thistle, or for fan ownership. It involves clear trade-offs, and it provides no guarantees, on its own, of long-term sustainability. It has to be accompanied by greater spending discipline and revenue growth at the Club.

Without “tranche 2” the task of building a sustainable football club would be made significantly more difficult. Rejecting it would mean drastically scaling back the Club’s ambitions on the park, and a much longer path to sustainability off it. There are no other credible options on the table to raise the required levels of capital on the required timescales."

Of the accounts that are in the public domain for the "past four seasons" (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25):

• Two of these completely precede fan ownership
• One relates to a budget set under a board that was in place before TJF even became a trustee of the PTFC Trust
• One of them was set against the backdrop of it being expected that part of the Tranche 2 funds would be used, that season, to fund stadium repairs (and several stadium repairs were in fact brought forwards on the basis of those funds being delivered).

It is not true that "half of our current [Club] board" has "direct links" to TJF.

One board member, Sandy Fyfe, has served on TJF's board, is an excellent candidate for FD and has a better understanding of the Club's finances than literally anyone else. We are lucky to have someone in the Thistle support with his skills, experience, time and willingness to serve.

One board member, Caroline Mackie, previously served as a TJF board member before it even held its first set of elections in 2022, and hasn't been on TJF's board for more than 4 years. She is not, despite your perpetual attempts to imply otherwise, a TJF appointment, and her reappointment was appraised in autumn 2025 on exactly the same basis as other independent directors seeking to continue on the Club Board.

Otherwise, there are no "direct links" to TJF. The other four board members have never held office or volunteered for TJF.

• Two of them (Grant Russell and Craig Liddell) are simply individuals that the Club Board recommended for appointment to the trustees, and which the trustees were happy to approve on the basis of their relevant experience and skills
• In Grant Russell's case, he is (by his own admission) not even a Thistle fan (which rather punches a hole in your suggestion that the Club Board excludes outsiders)
• One is Donald McClymont, who has no links to TJF
• And the other, Alistair Gray, was directly elected by the beneficiaries

One out of six, or two out of six if we are being charitable, is not "half". The facts are important.

The trustees/TJF have never said that we were blameless. In hindsight, the trustees should not have given the Club Board as much wriggle room in April 2024 as we did. The trustees were presented a budgeted loss on the basis of it being a worst case scenario with room for significant over-performance, and then the Club Board underperformed it, primarily due to well below target commercial and hospitality revenue and a series of significant overspends across the business.

It was clear that the Club's finance function was not operating in a functional and accountable way internally, and that key strategic parts of the business were not functioning properly. This was reflected in the AGM appraisal of directors, and several changes were made to the leadership team.

As TJF also flagged to the fans in the summer of 2025, there were also significant problems with financial reporting at the Club in that season, with management accounts routinely being provided very late, substantial variances in the forecasting and errors being made in the accounting which led to the accounts having to "re-state" previous years.

Speaking personally and with the benefit of hindsight, I think that the financial information being provided to Club Board members was not of an adequate quality at that time, let alone what was being provided to the trustees. I know that you know this was the case because you were receiving similar information as a NDA'd member of the Finance Working Group.

Except this didn't happen. There was simply a robust disagreement about whether your framing and presentation of the numbers was completely accurate. In many respects your framing and presentation of the numbers was not accurate (in my opinion).

And we see further examples of this in this very thread. I'll flag two.

You have conflated the figure disclosed as to the Club's subsidy of PTWFC for season 2023-24 (£30k) with the effective cross-subsidy for the following season 2024-25. You know the main reasons behind the increase (they related to how the Club was approaching remuneration of the shared coaching staff, and unexpected additional costs arising out of Petershill being out of action for maintenance works). Neither of these were things the trustees had any control over.

You have suggested that the trustees "signed-off" on the season 2024-25 losses in full, when in fact that losses were significantly bigger than the budgeted loss they consented to.

This simply isn't true.

Your complaint here literally seems to amount to "Caroline Mackie is still a director and I don't like her".

Three of the other current Club Board members have been appointed within the last year following a Club Board recommendation and trustee sign-off. By definition they cannot be "the same TJF faces remain[ing] Year in Year out". One is appointed independently of TJF by virtue of their shareholding (Donald), and the other was elected as a Fan Rep by the beneficiaries (Alistair).

Your entire narrative is premised on a false assertion.

You're right that it is a risk when football clubs are heavily dependent on one or two specific sources of funding, there is a risk that those sources will dry up. We are very much alive to this.

But the solution to this is a long-term strategy to broaden and diversify the sources of revenue and to get better value out of existing commercial contracts, and this takes time.

The solution certainly isn't to cut off those sources of funding while they are in place, or to do things that might encourage those people to walk away before alternative funding has been secured. Just as we see the risk at Morton.

What you've done here is identify a legitimate problem, which is generally and broadly acknowledged. But you haven't offered a solution, or explained what the alternative should be.

Done.

No. This is wrong.

Based on the experience we have had so far with Fan Rep Director elections, and the feedback given to us by various beneficiaries especially following (a) the last set of elections and (b) the premature departure of one of the Fan Reps, we want to make sure that those who are going to put their names forwards are both (a) suitably qualified to serve as effective directors on the Club Board, working with the rest of the leadership group constructively and (b) going to stick it out for their full elected term, to provide the Club Board with stability and continuity.

At fan owned Clubs it has always been in the gift of the majority shareholder to set the rules and process about who is eligible to be a candidate in Fan Rep selection processes. This is the case at Foundation of Hearts, SMiSA, The Well Society, Morton Club Together and the Falkirk Supporters' Society.

You have yet to provide a single example of a fan-owned football club that operated no "sift" on Fan Rep Director candidates. I think that speaks volumes that your concerns are based on an imaginary conception of fan-ownership that no other club subscribes to.

I remember in spring 2023 the assessment was that to strengthen the Club finances to a point of genuine stability it was likely that £1 million was going to be needed (and that was before soft loans were advanced by various directors to the tune of £250k, all of whom were repaid in full).

So actually no, Tranches 1 & 2 never promised or guaranteed "Strong Cash Reserves". They provided the opportunity for such an outcome only in the event that the Club managed to run sustainably at breakeven from 2024-25. Something that proved to be impossible.

As you know, because you were at that point serving on the Club's Finance Working Group, received detailed financial information about the football club as a consequence, and signed an NDA in relation to it, the budget eventually presented to the trustees for season 2025-26 by the then Finance Director (at the third time of asking) was designed as a breakeven one. This fact was confirmed by the then Finance Director in a public statement in August 2025.

No one involved in that process can credibly suggest that the trustees were not robust in challenging the Club's senior leadership about their financial forecasts and budget proposals.

We of course do not have the financial results for season 2025-26 yet, as the accounts are being prepared for audit at the moment. I therefore won't be commenting on those until the Club Board has done so, which is of course the appropriate course of action.

On the contrary, we are happy to engage with good faith, informed and non-hyperbolic criticism. The problem, Jim, is that that is not what you provide.

Your analysis frequently makes basic and fundamental errors which give a misleading picture about what has happened, how bad it is, and who is responsible. That is why you experience push-back. It's not you being silenced. It's you being engaged with, candidly and robustly.

It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on what you're referring to, because it would involve breaching confidences that underpinned the pre-AGM reappointments process.

You cannot have this both ways Jim. On the one hand, you were extremely critical of the Club Board for even confirming the basic fact, when asked, that the trustees had indicated they would not be supportive of Richard Beastall's reappointment (an example of basic transparency and honesty with the support). But then you expect a detailed public running commentary about why the appointment of other directors did not work out. Clearly that's not going to happen. It wouldn't happen at any football club.

Again, it's not TJF that nominates people to the Club Board.

It is the Club Board that conducts recruitment processes then recommends to the Trustees that appointments be made. This is what has happened with every single new independent director appointment since January 2024.

Quoting this just to see if it crashes the server.

[Jordanhill Jag]

22 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

What you're not grasping is that we were concerned about exactly the same thing and we were doing things about it.

Which was why we made the current ratio and cash targets a condition of the Tranche 2 investment.

It's also why we told the Club Board that, while it was a matter for them to manage the funds once invested into the Club, we did not believe that the finances were strong enough to ring-fence funds for fan projects as they had proposed.

We didn't think it was unreasonable for the Club to earmark £45k of funding to support the Youth Academy. In the event, of course, this money wasn't even advanced, because the Academy was able to sustain itself that season without Club funding, owing to the Ceiran Loney transfer to Everton.

If you believe that signing off a budget with that line in it was wrong, fair enough. But you should then be honest about the full implication of what that means. You are effectively saying that the Club should not attempt to sustain a Youth Academy: that the set-up should be shut down. It is only fair that you should own that, own it publicly, and be clear that is what you are judging the Club Board and trustees against.

If we didn't think they were good people to have on the Club's senior leadership we wouldn't have consented to their appointments.

Sandy very pointedly stepped down from TJF's board prior to joining the Club Board, because we recognise that holding the two positions at once would, under our governance arrangements, not be appropriate. What matters is that he's the best person for the job and commands the respect and confidence of key stakeholders to be able to work with them and provide solutions to financial challenges. Pointedly not something that we had before.

It's not the trustees' role to appoint people to the Club Board. It's the trustees' role to approve or reject people put forward by the Club Board to join the Club Board.

So the fact that the Partick Thistle fans serving on the Club Board happen also to be collegiate or friendly with some other Partick Thistle fans is a bad thing?

The number of directors recommended by the Club Board who were once on the TJF board is... one.

This isn't what happened.

Grant Russell directly approached the Club Board offering to help them in the summer of 2025. His initial conversation was with the then Chair of the Football Club. He was not "recommended to the Board via someone at TJF).

We were aware of his existence, as he was someone who had previously worked at Motherwell and he had commented on Twitter about some of Thistle's social media and marketing output. But none of us knew him personally and none of us had ever spoken with him or exchanged any communication whatsoever prior to the Club Board disclosing his approach to Thistle.

Do you have a source for your assertion that the Club "publicly stated at the time" that its budget "was Short by £130k by September"? Please provide a link for this.

The FWG does still exist. You simply resigned from it. It contains a broad base of several people from both across and beyond the Thistle support, and it has provided constructive analysis and challenge on a number of key projects for the Club Board.

Again, untrue. The decision to incept the PTWFC accounting had absolutely nothing to do with TJF and was a decision taken by the Club Board, recognising that in fact the two entities never had separate legal personality in the first place.

PTWFC does not "have a director on the PTFC Club Board". Caroline Mackie is not there as a PTWFC nominee (indeed, if she were, it would undercut your claim that she's a TJF appointment!). She is there as an independent director.

The Club stated the value of the revenues from the Cup( circa £130K ) and stated that without it there would have have to have been staff cuts - therefore by extension the Budget was out by roughly that value 

I was told by a Club Director that Grant Russell was recommended by a member of the TJF Board and it was there recommendation.   

FWG was put under the Control of a TJF Board Director - prior to that it acted as an independent provider of Finance analysis to both Club Board & Trustees with a Key Role being Budget analysis  

Caroline Mackie reports ref PTWFC at the AGM - so she is the PTWFC Director on the Club Board 

No you weren't doing anything about the fact that by Tranche 2 we had run out of cash - you allowed the Board to put out a statement saying where it was going to be spent ( despite the fact most of it had been eaten up by residual debt ) - you allowed a statement to go out that had no bearing on reality & were more than happy to attack me for stating it  - you did not tell Fans the true nature of our Finances 

I never stated to close the Academy - I stated that allowing a nonsense strategy that we will grow our own Players as a Funding Mechanism is complete Fantasy  - the Academy in effect was there to produce Players for other Clubs and this was seen as a positive ? 

We will stick with confidence of "key stakeholders" shall we - there has been more than capable people from outside the PTFC Bubble that were removed after a few Months over the past few seasons  - faces fitting - part of the gang etc etc is what you mean by "confidence of key stakeholders 

I've known Sandy for longer than you have -  however we have now had four former TJF Directors who have joined the Board - some of them going straight back to the TJF Board - some of them stepping down from the TJF Board - then co-opted back on - its simply recycling the same faces 

So I will repeat what I said - your not growing Revenue - your relying on last Seasons Cup Money & League Prize Money + Handouts - your not breaking out of this Cycle ( outwith promotion)   

Last Season will look healthier finance wise due to Cup Money & League Prize Money - not due to competent business management so its papering over the cracks 

You cannot keep Sales Staff & remove anyone from the Board who attempts to change the Culture ~ which keeps you hooked on Handouts 

Bullying by those in the inner circle for raising actual concerns  ( and I'm not referring to yourself in this discussion) - but bullying at the Club on multiple levels is commonplace - some of it for raising issues that is instant dismissal in any other walk of life  - and TJF take no action.

Your stuck in a loop - you think by putting in people you like - its going to change - No its not.

 

 

 

[Albert's Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

.Your stuck in a loop - you think by putting in people you like- its going to change - No its not.

Stuck in a loop, did you say?

[Woodstock Jag]

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Club stated the value of the revenues from the Cup( circa £130K ) and stated that without it there would have have to have been staff cuts - therefore by extension the Budget was out by roughly that value 

This does not follow.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I was told by a Club Director that Grant Russell was recommended by a member of the TJF Board and it was there recommendation.

Then you were misinformed.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

FWG was put under the Control of a TJF Board Director - prior to that it acted as an independent provider of Finance analysis to both Club Board & Trustees with a Key Role being Budget analysis

Not correct. The Finance Working Group was, until then, always chaired by the Finance Director of the football club.

It was never independent of the Club. Indeed it could never be. It is a sub-group that is answerable to the Club Board. It included individuals who signed NDAs to provide analysis and expert input into the Club's finance function. This remit didn't change after you left it.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Caroline Mackie reports ref PTWFC at the AGM - so she is the PTWFC Director on the Club Board

This does not follow. Ian Baraclough reports on the football department but he is not on the Club Board.

Caroline Mackie is not on the board by virtue of her involvement in PTWFC.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No you weren't doing anything about the fact that by Tranche 2 we had run out of cash - you allowed the Board to put out a statement saying where it was going to be spent ( despite the fact most of it had been eaten up by residual debt )

The trustees do not "allow" or "prohibit" the Club Board from putting out statements.

We did, however, publicly state in our Fans' Guide to the Tranche 2 investment that we felt their proposed ringfencing was not affordable. And they subsequently, correctly in my view, decided not to do that ringfencing.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- you allowed a statement to go out that had no bearing on reality & were more than happy to attack me for stating it  - you did not tell Fans the true nature of our Finances 

I'm afraid I disagree. We explained the financial position in considerable detail as part of the Fans' Guide to Tranche 2.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I never stated to close the Academy - I stated that allowing a nonsense strategy that we will grow our own Players as a Funding Mechanism is complete Fantasy  - the Academy in effect was there to produce Players for other Clubs and this was seen as a positive ?

Aidan Fitzpatrick and Ben Stanway beg to differ.

9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I've known Sandy for longer than you have -  however we have now had four former TJF Directors who have joined the Board - some of them going straight back to the TJF Board - some of them stepping down from the TJF Board - then co-opted back on - its simply recycling the same faces 

Andrew Holloway and then Stuart Callison were only on the Club Board as part of the transition towards the corporate governance being put in place (CTA and Corporate Governance Manual). They were never intended to be, and were not, permanent appointments. The TJF nominee role was removed from the Club Board shortly thereafter and wasn't replaced.

 

[ChiThistle]

7 hours ago, Jagged Edge said:

I think this debate highlights a number of issues.

Most TJF members don't give a toss about what is going on behind the scenes, whether it is finances or Club Board members or Trustees or TJF Board members. They are only interested in the team on the park. As long as the team is doing well they don't care if the finances are down the drain; they don't care if the stadium is falling down (unless part of it falls on their heads); they don't care about the constant replacement of Club board members. I also bet most TJF members could not tell you what the difference is between TJF and the Trustees.

The fact that the recent appointees to the TJF Board were appointed unopposed should have been ringing alarm bells in TJF - yet there is silence. TJF can slap themselves on the back to congratulate themselves for being the "most democratic" of fan owned clubs, but this is just papering over the cracks. Why do more people not want to stand in the TJF elections? Why do more people not vote in the TJF elections? And please don't come back with TJF elections get a greater percentage voting than other clubs - it just highlights the point raised in my first paragraph.

So why does JJ keep banging the drum, only to be repeatedly put down on this forum, and elsewhere? I know JJ personally, and he genuinely cares about the survival and prosperity of the Club. WJ's post about JJ's constant "misleading" statements was disingenuous. So what if he occasionally makes minor mistakes in his posts - we all do - it is clear what he is intending to say. And he has been factually correct on many occasions. 

TJF are supposed to be monitoring the budgets - so why were the overspends (beyond the budgeted losses - which is an issue in itself) allowed to happen? There has been no accountability for this - a point JJ has made repeatedly. Somebody, or some people, are spending money the Club does not have and are allowed to get away with it.

When Club Board members leave, or are removed, or not re-elected, the usual platitudes are published as to why. But the real reasons are hidden. The turnover in the Club Board over the last few years is concerning.

If TJF wants to grow its member base, it needs to address all of these points and stop hiding behind the democracy tag.

Some thoughts from a new TJF board member….

In some respects, you may have answered your own question about why more people don’t stand for TJF election.  I imagine it’s a number of things:

- As you said, not every member is going to want to be involved in the behind the scenes no matter what you do.  Just not interested.  And that’s ok.

- This can be a very time consuming role.  Some TJF directors (and I presume the Club Board too) spend a lot of time outside regular work and family life to maintain things or move things forward.  For example, the fundraising events and Thistle pins and other offerings don’t organise themselves!  I imagine a number of members aren’t interested in adding another time commitment.

- Some of those interested might be put off by all the legalese and business talk.  Maybe it’s a case of, “I don’t understand all the finer points of budgets and shares and all this - maybe this isn’t for me.”  This is a potential barrier to entry I’m personally trying to work on.

- It might not be clear to some what skill sets are really helpful for being on the TJF board.  Even just people with social media savvy or people who are good with learning basic web applications have value - being successful doesn’t mean a person needs ALL the skill sets.  I’m probably a good example of that.  I’m hampered by geography, so while I’m not much use in event coordinating or posting out orders, there are other ways I can contribute.  This is another gap I’m trying to work on - a breakdown of helpful soft and hard skills.

- I think all parties will agree that some level of drama or conflict is naturally going to happen when you’re dealing with ownership of a football club that is so core to our lives.  People have enough drama/conflict in their own lives; I can understand why they might not be interested in adding more.

You make another very good point - 2025 especially seemed like a tumultuous time with lots of changes at both TJF and Club Board level.  Working towards some level of stability I think will go a long way towards getting more people to stand.  

[delurker]

Out of likes, WJ. Appreciating your dedicated whacking.

[sandy]

I’ve just lost 15mins of my life trying to read & understand this thread.

JJ cares deeply about the Club, I do know that. But the repeated too’ing and fro’ing on largely political issues can’t be helping anyone.

 

[madcapmilkdrinker]

As always, I repeat actual proven facts, that JJ, a man for whom probity and transparency are everything apparently, lobbied insanely hard for the club to be sold to a dodgy hedge fund a few years ago. There is more detail in one of WJ replies than anything that would have come from Chien Lee while he turned us into a feeder club.