The Wrong Type of Democracy

[laukat]

19 minutes ago, sandy said:

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.

 

I have much the same feeling.

@Jordanhill Jag has been shown to be proven partially correct with past issues and he has experience in these issues that should be listened to.

However its pretty difficult to keep up on public forum and I'm not sure its the right vehicle for it as it rightly elicits a response from @Woodstock Jag and others that is about correcting the publicly viewable information rather than necessarily addressing the underlying point.

Perhaps the forum should fund a drinking session for JJ and others to discuss and once they've got the terms of a way forward/ peace treaty they could just post that outcome? 

[Jaggernaut]

27 minutes ago, laukat said:

I have much the same feeling.

@Jordanhill Jag has been shown to be proven partially correct with past issues and he has experience in these issues that should be listened to.

However its pretty difficult to keep up on public forum and I'm not sure its the right vehicle for it as it rightly elicits a response from @Woodstock Jag and others that is about correcting the publicly viewable information rather than necessarily addressing the underlying point.

Perhaps the forum should fund a drinking session for JJ and others to discuss and once they've got the terms of a way forward/ peace treaty they could just post that outcome? 

After the drinking session, head for a walk by the canal. You know, just to take in some fresh air.

[Jaggernaut]

Has anyone informed JJ that we won on Saturday? I'm not sure if he's even aware of what actually goes on on the field.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

2 hours ago, sandy said:

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

Are you some sort of speed reader?

[partickthedog]

3 hours ago, sandy said:

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

 

You are an amazingly quick reader! 

PS LIB got there first!

Edited August 3 by partickthedog
Add PS

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, laukat said:

Perhaps the forum should fund a drinking session for JJ and others to discuss and once they've got the terms of a way forward/ peace treaty they could just post that outcome? 

JJ is tee-total, if my memory serves.

[laukat]

27 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

JJ is tee-total, if my memory serves.

So you're saying it'll be a cheap round?

[jagfox]

We should loan Jim to MCT to sort out their fan led club...

[Woodstock Jag]

59 minutes ago, jagfox said:

We should loan Jim to MCT to sort out their fan led club...

Just wait until he finds out how they choose their Fan Rep Directors.

[Jag]

On 8/2/2026 at 2:26 PM, 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.

 

Is there an Audio Books version of this post available?

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jag said:

 

Is there an Audio Books version of this post available?

We're trying to make money for the Football Club. I'm not sure producing something we'd have to pay people to listen to is the silver bullet.

[Norgethistle]

15 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Just wait until he finds out how they choose their Fan Rep Directors.

Are they still having wrestling contests in the Norseman to decide this?

[Jordanhill Jag]

21 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

Has anyone informed JJ that we won on Saturday? I'm not sure if he's even aware of what actually goes on on the field.

I go to Firhill most Home Games - I would have been at Cappielow - but had Tickets for the Athletics at Scotstoun Saturday Evening - so you can save your rubbish  

[Jordanhill Jag]

22 hours ago, laukat said:

I have much the same feeling.

@Jordanhill Jag has been shown to be proven partially correct with past issues and he has experience in these issues that should be listened to.

However its pretty difficult to keep up on public forum and I'm not sure its the right vehicle for it as it rightly elicits a response from @Woodstock Jag and others that is about correcting the publicly viewable information rather than necessarily addressing the underlying point.

Perhaps the forum should fund a drinking session for JJ and others to discuss and once they've got the terms of a way forward/ peace treaty they could just post that outcome? 

The terms are that its TJFs Club and they choose the Board - they sign off the Budgets - they decide on Key Appointments - they decide on Financial Targets 

However 

 Success on the Park is linked to a well run Club Off it 

Heavy Reliance on Single Source Funding puts the Club at risk 

we have squandered over £1MN with nothing to show for it 

Whilst there are plenty of people don't like my posts - simply accepting this position will not take the Club forwards    

[madcapmilkdrinker]

36 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

so you can save your rubbish  

The hearts and minds campaign continues.

One question JJ, do you think the club is in better hands now, controlled by Thistle supporters, or are you still of the view that we would have been better off selling to someone with zero ties to Thistle, Glasgow or Scotland and who would have treated the club as a training ground for bigger clubs? 

Genuine question. 

[ChiThistle]

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Success on the Park is linked to a well run Club Off it 

Heavy Reliance on Single Source Funding puts the Club at risk 

we have squandered over £1MN with nothing to show for it 

None of that seems controversial to me, except I don’t know enough history to say the tranches were entirely squandered.

Where shall we go from here?

[Albert's Ghost]

1 hour ago, ChiThistle said:

Where shall we go from here?

I would rather be anywhere else but here today

[ChiThistle]

19 minutes ago, Albert's Ghost said:

I would rather be anywhere else but here today

You and whose army????  😀

[Norgethistle]

6 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The terms are that its TJFs Club and they choose the Board - they sign off the Budgets - they decide on Key Appointments - they decide on Financial Targets 

However 

 Success on the Park is linked to a well run Club Off it 

Heavy Reliance on Single Source Funding puts the Club at risk 

we have squandered over £1MN with nothing to show for it 

Whilst there are plenty of people don't like my posts - simply accepting this position will not take the Club forwards    

I’d counter the single source funding with over £200k per year “ADDITIONAL” funding comes from 2000 members

[Jordanhill Jag]

6 hours ago, madcapmilkdrinker said:

The hearts and minds campaign continues.

One question JJ, do you think the club is in better hands now, controlled by Thistle supporters, or are you still of the view that we would have been better off selling to someone with zero ties to Thistle, Glasgow or Scotland and who would have treated the club as a training ground for bigger clubs? 

Genuine question. 

Its a Good Question & one worthy of a proper reply - so apologies if it goes on a bit 🙂

OK so we will deal with the original bid from the US Investors a few Years ago ( which I supported ) 

The background was that most of the Board that had gotten us to the Premiership had gone - we were drifting and losing money ~ and no potential investor ( this was pre Colin Weir putting in his bid to buy the Club) a bid came from out of the blue - the potential Buyer gave a presentation to the then major Shareholders ( I was not involved ) they presented a Plan - Investment etc - and as the Club was going nowhere the Shareholders ( vast majority of whom were no longer connected to the Club ) wanted to sell 

Now this is important - what my views of it were irrelevant - if those who own the Club wanted to sell that's there right 

So we move onto Phase 2 - the Jlo Board ( at the time ) were removed & an interim Board put forwards - then the "PR Campaign" for the Fans to own the Club appeared - now this is very important - at this point it was hot air - as they had no money - so it was in effect a Campaign to stop the Shareholders selling.

Now I'm going to be blunt - a number of them - and for the Record I exclude Woodland Jag from this - but various people saw it as an opportunity to take over the running of the Club for Free ~ there was also deals being done with other parties who also wanted to run the Club - that's fine ~ these things happen at Football Clubs 

What was not acceptable was the online personal attacks on David Beattie discussing aspects of his personal life - David Beattie was one of our most successful Chairman & deserves respect 

Now amongst all this in the Background were discussions with Colin Weirs Lawyers & the Shareholders ( and I'm aware of the details ) - a deal was done and Three Black Cats bought the Club - now again I would emphasise - Fan Ownership apart from a vague promise was not on the table 

So we ended up with the Jlo Board MK2 - under it we nearly went bust 

So in essence my view was that this was the direction of Travel of Jlo Board Mk1 - we were running out of Cash & the US Investors promised to put in Money 

No matter the decision we made - we would have pretty much ended in the same place - ie struggling financially as we ended up doing with JLo Board MK2 

So the concept of being a training ground for Bigger Clubs - we already are - always have been - always will be - we sell Players to stay afloat - current strategy is sell players to stay afloat 

If we had an owner who gave us Financial Stability but first dibs on our best Players - its the same end process as we are currently proposing 

So Do I think the Club is in better hands under Thistle Fans - OK the only reason we are not bust is because we sold 20% of the Club the majority of it to US Investors with no connection to PTFC - so its a myth that Thistle Fans saved us from going bust 

The only actual Thistle Fan who stepped up with a large sum of Money was Alastair Creevy who without his six figure unsecured loan - we would have actually gone bust - then we sacked him. 

Now I had taken very little to do with the Politics of the Club for Years ~ I didn't know Alastair - had never met him nor communicated with him - someone put him in touch with me - the more I spoke to him - the more I realised that this "Fan Ownership" was no more than a Bowling Club Culture full of people who should be no where near the place with lots of petty agendas - the fact we sacked Alastair - a Thistle Fan - well respected in the Glasgow Community and replaced him with what exactly 

Fast forwards - exact same Story with Jacqui Mcinnes 

So being controlled by Thistle Fans does not mean we are managed better - £1MN Squandered - sacking  high quality people because they attempted to make changes and were not part of the Gang - stuck in a loop of being hooked on handouts & hoping for a Cup Draw rather than manage the Club properly 

Now for some Clubs - Fan Ownership Works - Motherwell - Falkirk - Hearts - St Mirren - others it didnt - Dundee - Dumbarton  

There are numerous Foreign ( mainly US ) Clubs in Scotland - well run - thriving - some of there owners with fingers in Multiple Clubs 

Whats important is the Financial Stability of the Club ( not the owner ) and the success of the Club 

Until the Culture changes & TJF stop getting rid of decent people on the Board who try and make changes - we are stuck in a loop 

The danger is one Season the Cup Runs don't fall in our favour - the Handouts stop & there is No Plan B

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, ChiThistle said:

None of that seems controversial to me, except I don’t know enough history to say the tranches were entirely squandered.

Where shall we go from here?

No Where - TJF think that by sacking one person all there problems are solved 

But the Club cant generate Revenue so we depend on Cup Runs & Handouts   

[Jordanhill Jag]

38 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I’d counter the single source funding with over £200k per year “ADDITIONAL” funding comes from 2000 members

No it comes from Fans - not TJF - they just so happen to be the conduint

But take away Cup Runs take away the Handouts we don't balance the books   

Tranche 2 Cash Reserves - squandered - that's on TJF   

[ChiThistle]

11 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No Where - TJF think that by sacking one person all there problems are solved

Well, we can’t just go nowhere!  I don’t agree that TJF thinks any problems are solved.  I sure don’t.

Is your end goal sustainability?  Getting promoted and staying there?  Both?

[Lambies Lost Doo]

"David Beattie was one of our most successful Chairman & deserves respect "

Agree with this and also we need business people who know how to run organisations and be tough with financial decisions.

Can we have an amnesty to any wronged parties and invite people to help like Beattie, McCrae, Creevey etc? (Maybe not J Low...)

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, ChiThistle said:

Well, we can’t just go nowhere!  I don’t agree that TJF thinks any problems are solved.  I sure don’t.

Is your end goal sustainability?  Getting promoted and staying there?  Both?

You only have a Sustainable Club if you can generate revenue - you only do that by having experienced people that can do that + control costs 

You don't do it by sticking to your comfort zone 

You don't do that by being hooked on Free Money ( as at some point it stops ) or they demand something in return.

TJF think there problems stopped by removing those they didn't rate - but haven't addressed the core issues that means we are not sustainable