Jags Trust Announcment

[B.C.G. JAG]

I am sure that people will have a lot of questions and will want to discuss matters, as always I shall be in the Trust kiosk prior to kick off at the Morton game on the 13th of November and would be glad to speak to anyone who wishes to come along.

 

This is a diffcult time for the Trust (I don't deny that) and I hope that you can stick with us whilst we try and gets things sorted.

 

 

Martin, can you and Donald organise an EGM quickly? Otherwise there will be a lot of people withdrawing their support, myself included. The Trust is a dead duck now in the eyes of both the Supporters and the Board. It has nowhere to go now without serious reform and the removal of the certain board members. There was plenty of enthusiasm only weeks ago, which has now turned to anger. It will pretty quickly turn to complete apathy unless you act now. No-one deserves to preside over this amount of resignations a second time without being held accountable for the slow death of the Trust.

 

If an EGM cannot be called in the immediate future I will be withdrawing my membership as I no longer feel that the Trust is capable of representing anyone at any level. It will be time to create a different Association if The Trust cannot act quickly to restore it's credibility with the membership. That would be a very sad day, but unfortunately I can't see any other way.

 

For those who have created this situation again, do the right thing, get out of the way. You may still feel that you are right, but look at the mess you have left the Trust in - it is a disgrace to the support that it's only success is pushing volunteers away. You have no chance now of influencing or intervening in the Club at this critical time and you will not be thanked by anyone for this failure unless you do the right thing for the Club and the Trust and move on. Let others rebuild the shambles before it's too late. Remember, no-one elected you, you have no mandate.

Edited November 2, 2010 by B.C.G. JAG

[Vom Itorium]

It seems the Trust is more like a bickering branch of the Women's Guild now. Shut the door on it as it is nothing but an embarassment to the club and supporters.

[northernsoul]

It seems the Trust is more like a bickering branch of the Women's Guild now. Shut the door on it as it is nothing but an embarassment to the club and supporters.

 

This.

 

How about the folk who David, Tom and Graeme refer to come on here and explain themselves?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Martin, can you and Donald organise an EGM quickly? Otherwise there will be a lot of people withdrawing their support, myself included. The Trust is a dead duck now in the eyes of both the Supporters and the Board. It has nowhere to go now without serious reform and the removal of the certain board members. There was plenty of enthusiasm only weeks ago, which has now turned to anger. It will pretty quickly turn to complete apathy unless you act now. No-one deserves to preside over this amount of resignations a second time without being held accountable for the slow death of the Trust.

 

If an EGM cannot be called in the immediate future I will be withdrawing my membership as I no longer feel that the Trust is capable of representing anyone at any level. It will be time to create a different Association if The Trust cannot act quickly to restore it's credibility with the membership. That would be a very sad day, but unfortunately I can't see any other way.

 

For those who have created this situation again, do the right thing, get out of the way. You may still feel that you are right, but look at the mess you have left the Trust in - it is a disgrace to the support that it's only success is pushing volunteers away. You have no chance now of influencing or intervening in the Club at this critical time and you will not be thanked by anyone for this failure unless you do the right thing for the Club and the Trust and move on. Let others rebuild the shambles before it's too late. Remember, no-one elected you, you have no mandate.

With B.C.G. Jag all the way here.

Does anyone know if members can call an EGM and if so how many members required? I feel the more responsive members of the JT Board owe this to those recently joined/rejoined.

[Fawlty Towers]

I must confess that the document I have attached a link to is not one that I am as familiar with as I should be (however I will be doing a lot of reading). At the moment I have to say that I am unsure as to what the next course of action is - that may not be want people want to hear but I think it is important that you do hear the truth.

 

http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/PTSA-Constitution.pdf

[Tom Hosie]

Does anyone know if members can call an EGM and if so how many members required? I feel the more responsive members of the JT Board owe this to those recently joined/rejoined.

 

"Not less than 20 members or 10% of the membership, whichever figure is the higher." I think.

[Hot Shot]

When these guys stepped up to the Trust Board after the last bout of resignations my immediate thoughts were that they were a bunch do gooders with little clue to what they were doing ,and wouldn't do anything to pick up the pieces. I didn't even know who these guys were and had absolutely no right to make those blind judgements, and i'm honest enough to say it didn't take them long to prove my thoughts wrong by their hard work for the Trust. I still had my reservations about what they could actually achieve but I didn't have a doubt they were up to the task of trying.

 

Double Ugly is correct, there may have been other factors that seen Cowan and Hughes leave the club but there is no doubt in my mind that a Trust driven by these guys done plenty to help push them out. A huge and fundemental change in the future path of PTFC I think you'll all agree? , and now, just like not so long ago the balls of the Trust have been forced to sever themselves from the c*ck.

 

People keep asking me why I never join the Trust, I try and explain, but now, do I really need to do anything else other than give a sarcastic snigger and ask, 'have you been paying attention for the last 20 odd years?' . Once again I had got to a point where I thought the Trust might actually be worth being a part of, once again it's not worth a f**k.

 

Shame you had to give up guys , I thought you were getting places.

 

 

 

P.S, Can I join the new gang (you all know it makes sense ) when it's up and running?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Hot Shot

[Woodstock Jag]

"Not less than 20 members or 10% of the membership, whichever figure is the higher." I think.

 

This is correct. I don't know the current membership figures, but ultimately it means anyone who wanted to pursue this course of action would need the signatures of (I'm going to guess) 40 or so members.

 

Not that I think it will necessarily do much good. I think people are sick enough of procedures and motions as it is.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[jags365]

With B.C.G. Jag all the way here.

Does anyone know if members can call an EGM and if so how many members required? I feel the more responsive members of the JT Board owe this to those recently joined/rejoined.

Looking at the constitution, it looks like at least 10% of members will be required to sign what is in effect a petition to call an SGM. It must state the reason for the the meeting and delivered to the registered offices of the Trust. The meeting then must be held within 28 days of the above being delivered.

 

It's all in the rules folks.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

"Not less than 20 members or 10% of the membership, whichever figure is the higher." I think.

Thanks, Tom.

edited to add and Donald

 

Not that I think it will necessarily do much good. I think people are sick enough of procedures and motions as it is.

Yeh, I know. Was thinking that even when I was asking about an egm. For what it's worth I'd sign an egm request but I feel it's got to be for more than just voting off a few intransigent board members.

Edited November 2, 2010 by lady-isobel-barnett

[Tom Hosie]

How about the folk who David, Tom and Graeme refer to come on here and explain themselves?

 

There are a few things that I would like more information and a bit of clarity on.

 

A few weeks ago on Pie and Bovril one of the three JTB members who resigned today was talking about “something concrete” developing from the last meeting of the JTB with regard to the Trust “looking to make it more accessible to those who do not currently exercise an interest through it”.

 

That was on October 12th.

 

Sounds to me as if something specific has happened in the interim resulting in today’s three resignations. It doesn’t seem credible to me that three individuals decide that they’ve had enough all at the same time unless something has triggered that.

 

If there has been some resistance to a change of agenda from some on the JTB then I would like more detail of what that change in agenda exactly involved.

 

The remaining JTB members are coming in for some fairly robust criticism but until such time as there is more detail as to what caused the split then it is impossible to form an opinion on whether that criticism is justified or not.

 

It would be helpful, therefore, if there could be some comment from the remaining JTB member if not here then on the JT website.

 

More importantly, for me at least, though would be see the reasons for the resignations fleshed out a little.

 

If they felt sufficiently strongly about something to resign is it not worth articulating exactly what that was?

[Fawlty Towers]

There are a few things that I would like more information and a bit of clarity on.

 

A few weeks ago on Pie and Bovril one of the three JTB members who resigned today was talking about “something concrete” developing from the last meeting of the JTB with regard to the Trust “looking to make it more accessible to those who do not currently exercise an interest through it”.

 

That was on October 12th.

 

Sounds to me as if something specific has happened in the interim resulting in today’s three resignations. It doesn’t seem credible to me that three individuals decide that they’ve had enough all at the same time unless something has triggered that.

 

If there has been some resistance to a change of agenda from some on the JTB then I would like more detail of what that change in agenda exactly involved.

 

The remaining JTB members are coming in for some fairly robust criticism but until such time as there is more detail as to what caused the split then it is impossible to form an opinion on whether that criticism is justified or not.

 

It would be helpful, therefore, if there could be some comment from the remaining JTB member if not here then on the JT website.

 

More importantly, for me at least, though would be see the reasons for the resignations fleshed out a little.

 

If they felt sufficiently strongly about something to resign is it not worth articulating exactly what that was?

 

The something concrete would be (I believe) the Trust inviting reps from the supporters' buses to the next Trust Board meeting with a view to co-opting them (these invites have gone out).

 

As for the other stuff I think it would be better for those who resigned to articulate their specific reasons as I, as a remaining member of the Board, would not wish to misrepresent my former colleagues in any way.

[MerryHell]

Man, this is depressing news. Really, just when I thought we could make some progress. I was one of the ones calling for the JT to appraise itself in a similar way to that which the PTFC board is currently doing, but I had hoped for a stronger and more focussed trust to come out of it. Now it just looks dead. At the recent meeting, I thought David (and Tom, sorry Graeme!) articulate and just what you want from a figurehead of a group. I had confidence that David could represent us effectively. I had no idea who anyone else was TBH, but basically we are now left with rabble-rousers. It's no wonder the board don't want one of them in the boardroom.

Be in no doubt, it is these people that hinder the progress of the Trust. This is part of a conversation with a Director talking about the JT board position

"we have an organisation that represents a minority of our fans, the views are that of the JT Committee, they in turn choose from a Group of seven people three of which have shall we say have more than just PTFC in common"

I am in no doubt that fan representation in the boardroom is a given, but I do believe that the PTFC board are keen on ensuring that this person is more representative, and not automatically taken from the JT.

I have no axe to grind with whoever is left. I think we sometimes forget that people like Cowan etc. are, after all is said and done, Thistle supporters. We are indeed a broad support and I have no desire to see the remaining JT board members villified any more than to say, "You've ballsed it up. Thanks for your time. See you at the next game." If i'm being brutally honest, I guess some of them were just filling the void that our collective apathy created.

Anyway, am I reading between the lines too much to see just the hint of something new on the horizon?

[Rid Skwerr]

Really gutted at this news.

 

I don't know any of the three guys personally, but was impressed by their postings on here and positive dealings with the Club.

I therefore re-joined the Trust in the hope that they (and some of the other JT board members) were taking us in the right direction at long last.

Unless I mis-read the signals, it would now appear that the dead hand of a former director is once again clutching at the throat of the Trust, via his three female representatives.

 

I only got my membership stuff through yesterday - think I'll burn it.

[rodmac]

There is no doubt within my mind, that the Jags Trust is now effectively Dead!!!

I have seen too many people,who in my opinion, had the right ideas for progressing the Trust, and making it meaningful,all come and go. In just about every circumstance, they have found it impossible to proceed,or indeed to work with some others on the Trust Board.

I suspect that they all did not have entirely the same reasons for resigning as they did, but I feel that there is enough common denominators between them, to highlight where the problems are.

As things stand, I suspect that the JT will now entirely lose, a very high degree of the membership,and they wont be back!!!

So to all intents and purposes, I would suggest that now is the time to wind the Jags Trust up entirely. There is really no point in its continuing.

I would make a plea to FT and others who were involved in a progressive group for change to resurrect that informal body, and see if it is possible to come up with new solutions.

As a parting shot, no bloody wonder the new club board want nothing to do with having a JT representetive on the Club Board. In their position, to be perfectly frank, I wouldn't want that either!!!

 

Time to reflect, and time to move on. The Jags Trust is a dead duck!!!

[Ma Ba']

I for one was very dissapointed last night reading this thread. My initial reaction was to resign from the JT and send my card back to them, this will still happen unless the JT come out with some very strong ideas for the way forward now. If it's 'more of the same' them the card gets returned and the JT will not get another penny from me.

My sincere thanks to the departing 3, maybe my hopes were just raised too high by the open meeting.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Ma Ba'

[stolenscone]

Despite their years of service to the Club (or perhaps because of it) I was firmly of the belief that the continued presence of Allan Cowan, Tom Hughes and Eddie Prentice on the board of directors was now harming the Club. We said as much in the meeting that we had with the Club directors.

 

I therefore viewed their resignation as a positive step towards reconciling the rift between the Club board and the fans. My hope was that we could use that as the catalyst to move forward into a new phase of co-operation between the Club board, the supporters trust and the fans. The increase in new Trust members seemed to bear that out.

 

It became clear, however, that for some, it is difficult to leave the baggage of the past behind and concentrate on moving forward. You don't have to like or respect someone in order to work with them. But if you can do none of those things (or if you will insist on only working with them on your terms, or not at all), then that is not a recipie for a constructive working relationship, and the result is an endless cycle of talking and hand wringing with little actual progress. I did not feel that to be a useful exercise, nor did I see a realistic prospect of breaking the cycle.

 

When I hear people arguing that the decisions of Messrs Hughes, Cowan and Prentice to stand down might have been a mistake and we were better off as we were, then it's clear to me that we are viewing things from the opposite ends of the spectrum, and that my understanding of what supporters want and what the Club needs is vastly different. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am.

 

The long and short is that the historic baggage, personalities and/or structure of the Trust made for diminishing returns on the effort put in - lots of time and effors with not much practical output. For me, there are more productive ways to offer unconditional support for the football club that I care for, and I hope to pursue those.

 

David

[Ma Ba']

David

I await with interest what you may propose as a 'productive way' to support the club.

All the best

Doug.

[Fellow Traveller]

When I hear people arguing that the decisions of Messrs Hughes, Cowan and Prentice to stand down might have been a mistake and we were better off as we were, then it's clear to me that we are viewing things from the opposite ends of the spectrum, and that my understanding of what supporters want and what the Club needs is vastly different. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am.

 

It's worth just letting that paragraph sink in for a few minutes to fully appreciate the agenda of these people. It's like the parasite alien in The Thing. They will try to take over anything that lets them cling to influence for a bit longer. No principle except self-preservation, no purpose except just to be there on the inside.

[B.C.G. JAG]

Reading between the lines my thoughts are that some elements in the Trust have not responded constructively to the Board Rep problem.

 

I will take David Beattie at his word when he says he wants fan representation back on the Board. But I will also assume that he doesn't want one of Peden's unelected Cabal. This isn't representative of the fans.

 

I'm angry that the BOD removed the Trust Rep's voting rights, but I could also see why they did it. The Trust was being pushed into a position where it needed to reform it's practices and become more accountable to the support. The Trust should have responded by taking a good look at itself and doing what it had to do to become the undisputed voice of the fans with an absolute mandate to represent the fans instead of folding it's arms and demanding a seat at the table for nothing.

 

I have suggested on this forum some boring constitutional changes that would stop the elections being held in such a secretive and undemocratic way. If the only way someone can hold onto power is by dispossessing the rest of the support of it's power then they have no authority. If we reformed the Trust and had an open election system and still got the same person then so be it, I won't complain, but the failure to address the criticisms of the BOD and the Support, and a failure to build on the momentum already gained has ultimately proved destructive.

 

The Trust is going to have to strip itself of it's old baggage now and change to become acceptable to both the support and the BOD. It needs to become more inclusive. That doesn't mean boring everyone to tears with the minutes of committee meetings, but it does mean engaging with a reformed election process.

 

I would like to hear more about why the three resigned but I will guess that a stubborness over the Rep position tipped the balance. We need an EGM and we need a motion of no confidence submitted which should address the Trust's failure to act positively about the Rep position and address the lack of accountability.

 

If anyone wants to put their name to an motion of no confidence then PM me and we'll see if we can't get 40 odd names together.

[honved]

There is no doubt within my mind, that the Jags Trust is now effectively Dead!!!

I have seen too many people,who in my opinion, had the right ideas for progressing the Trust, and making it meaningful,all come and go. In just about every circumstance, they have found it impossible to proceed,or indeed to work with some others on the Trust Board.

I suspect that they all did not have entirely the same reasons for resigning as they did, but I feel that there is enough common denominators between them, to highlight where the problems are.

As things stand, I suspect that the JT will now entirely lose, a very high degree of the membership,and they wont be back!!!

So to all intents and purposes, I would suggest that now is the time to wind the Jags Trust up entirely. There is really no point in its continuing.

I would make a plea to FT and others who were involved in a progressive group for change to resurrect that informal body, and see if it is possible to come up with new solutions.

As a parting shot, no bloody wonder the new club board want nothing to do with having a JT representetive on the Club Board. In their position, to be perfectly frank, I wouldn't want that either!!!

 

Time to reflect, and time to move on. The Jags Trust is a dead duck!!!

 

The common denominator is that there is a fear of change and the consequences which that might bring, all of varying types.

 

The 1876 Club vote was carried on the fear that the club would effectively withdraw the board rep place by placing increasing financial barriers on board membership and the Trust would lose "influence".

 

This latest affair revolves around the fear of altering the structure, habits and practices of the JT because it might endanger the financial viability of the Trust.

 

It might sound strange to those looking in from the outside, but I have no axe to grind with the members of the JT who don't share my opinions and some of the allusions being made on this thread are frankly hysterical nonsense. They are all good people who I get on with personally and who I now consider to be part of my Firhill circle of Jags pals, but for me to serve out a further year until the natural expiry of my term next September, with the prospect of the club board rep spat festering and the best outcome to that a compromise solution that nobody would like, was just too much.

 

There is a fork in the road, one branch of which is to continue onwards, constantly on the back foot, reacting to circumstances outside the control of the Trust, trying to raise numbers, trying to run events and all the while clinging tenaciously to the idea that the million shares and board rep position provide influence and status.

 

The other branch is to kick all of that away and rebuild from the ground up, with a modern perspective, PR led, smoke and mirrors, bright, shiny and evangelistic. That looks to be impossible to deliver from within the Trust, which is why I have resigned.

 

If there are potential converts to this new way, then make yourselves known, send me a PM with your e mail, make a commitment to actually do stuff rather than talk about it and we can maybe see how it pans out.

[Fellow Traveller]

I'm glad to hear you're all still pals, Tom. Does make me wonder, though, if these were merely congenial differences among the JTB members about the future direction of the Trust, if anyone on either side - and I know this is a totally insane idea - thought about putting it to the members to decide.

[Woodstock Jag]

I'm glad to hear you're all still pals, Tom. Does make me wonder, though, if these were merely congenial differences among the JTB members about the future direction of the Trust, if anyone on either side - and I know this is a totally insane idea - thought about putting it to the members to decide.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that would have changed the overall outlook of the JT enough. If the core group (i.e. the JTB) can't unite behind a set of actually quite simple ideas and give the impression of being willing to make it work, it would have just stalled at every minute disagreement in the detail.

[alx]

Surely board members are voted for? Just keep an eye on the voting process and watch out for block votes. The next time we should try and get candidates to declare that they will tough it out for a term of five years. I'm getting fed up with people just chucking it, whatever the reasons are. Why can't people have thicker skins? Have they never had to do hard negotiations or deal with conflict?

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

Surely board members are voted for? Just keep an eye on the voting process and watch out for block votes. The next time we should try and get candidates to declare that they will tough it out for a term of five years. I'm getting fed up with people just chucking it, whatever the reasons are. Why can't people have thicker skins? Have they never had to do hard negotiations or deal with conflict?

 

The last two elections were uncontested as the number of nominees didn't exceed the number of places available. The election before that was contested, but the result of the Club Board Rep position meant that all of those standing for normal board positions were elected automatically, and the Treasurer's position was uncontested last year as well.