Jags Trust Announcment (Part Two)

[stolenscone]

David, you stepped down before you could answer the Q&A questions submitted via the forum, but maybe you could do one for old times. Kieron stated at the Trust AGM that an agreement to a free place on the board in perpetuity was one of the great achievements of the Trust, gained in return for giving up the 1876 Club. I wanted to know if that agreement was ever secured in writing and, if so, could the Trust make its wording available to the members as it obviously has a bearing on the Trust's argument now about Morag. You can't personally make it available, but you should be able to confirm whether or not it exists. Everyone's been very evasive on this one so far.

 

 

This pre-dated my time on the Trust Board. As I understand it, however, a form of wording was proposed by the Trust board and put to the Club Board to enshrine the agreement, but that was never followed through and no agreement was ever signed with the Club Board to regulate this. That's my understanding, although I am prepared to be proven wrong.

[stolenscone]

Does anyone know the total membership number of the JT so we know what 10% is? I appreciate that I could email the membership secretary but it's too early in the morning for satire.

 

 

My recollection from a month or so ago is that active membership was somewhere bewteen 350 and 400, although it could have grown since then. I expect that somewhere between 40 and 50 people would make up 10%.

[Fellow Traveller]

Thanks, David. That pretty much confirms my own suspicions. Bit of a flimsy achievement in that case. As I've said before, they sold out for a handful of beans and then they never even got the beans. Masterful.

[honved]

Maybe it's time to have a debate about the beans/shares...

 

In my opinion they are a millstone around the neck of the Trust and they are of no tangible use. They have been cited as the reason why there is an entitlement to fans representation on the club board on numerous occasions in the recent past, but other than being a bit of paper, what can they be used for in practical terms? The Trust is prohibited from selling them, so they are worthless. Arguably, the percentage shareholding entitles the Trust to certain safeguards under company law, like being able to call a meeting, but the timescales for demanding a meeting and the club holding one are so prolonged as to make this a fruitless exercise.

 

What about using them against the board at an AGM? Well, yes, theoretically, if you could get some of the other big shareholders on board, they could be used to vote against adoption of the accounts or re election of directors and so on, but again, I question why you would want to do something like that.

 

As for the rest of this baloney, you've all read what David Beattie has said about wanting the fans involved, so let's get involved - still time to send him an e mail.

[stolenscone]

My view on the shares? Yes, I think they have been a millstone, but it's difficult to know if that's the reason or an excuse for the difficulties facing the Trust.

 

I do think it's useful for a fans' body to have a large shareholding if the numbers are such that the shareholding could be used to block a takeover of the club by those who don't have its best interests at heart, but without doing the maths, I'm not convinced that is the case in any event.

 

Time to move on and do stuff instead of talking about it.

 

Totally off topic for a moment, many thanks to those who volunteered with the 50/50 draw at the Morton game. If any other folk want to get involved at the QoTs match, then please let me / honved know.

[Robert Dunn's Potential]

I don't think the shares have been a millstone - I think they're a really important protection should the worst come to the worst (again). I think it's our general apathy that has been the millstone as a support. Where there are plastic titles to be had, a certain type of person goes looking for them. These people are really the folk at the front of the queue when there's real work to be done.

 

If a group of active, positive fans were willing to step forward and force a real election with at least 50% more candidates than positions then I think the Trust is worth one last effort. As it stands, it doesn't need to be the voice of the fans. This forum has a better claim to represent the supporters than the Trust Board as it sits.

[Milo]

Who needs CVs, Here they are...

 

They look hot! I'd go out with any one of those stunners.

 

Must go now....time for my medication.

[The Devil's Point]

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of reaction to this statement to be honest. You may not agree with the Jags Trust Board, but surely they should be allowed a response to the fairly strong comments made in the programme.

 

I can't say I'm seeing anything particularly inflammatory in this statement and surely the Trust Board have little choice but to try and act in line with the Constitution.

 

[stolenscone]

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of reaction to this statement to be honest. You may not agree with the Jags Trust Board, but surely they should be allowed a response to the fairly strong comments made in the programme.

 

I can't say I'm seeing anything particularly inflammatory in this statement and surely the Trust Board have little choice but to try and act in line with the Constitution.

 

 

 

For my part, I'm not esp surprised by the Trust's response, and as an entity, it is certainly entitled to respond as it sees fit. My question is whether the response was constructive.

 

Other than blowing off steam, I'm not sure what it could have hoped to achieve, however. Is the net result that the Trust ends up being even more marginalised by the Club Board? To my mind, probably yes. Is that a good thing? Probably not, unless there is a unifying plan to support the football club without going through the Club Board, and I'm not sure how that would be achieved, short of wholesale revolution.

[lennythistle]

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of reaction to this statement to be honest. You may not agree with the Jags Trust Board, but surely they should be allowed a response to the fairly strong comments made in the programme.

 

I can't say I'm seeing anything particularly inflammatory in this statement and surely the Trust Board have little choice but to try and act in line with the Constitution.

 

 

May be they could have obtained views from it's members before issuing such a statement. May be involve it's members in decision making instead of the current "love in" that seems to exist ?

 

The a number of years the fans have had major issues with the BOD. They have at least started to make some (all be it long long way to go) effort in re connecting with the support. Seems the JTB are doing their best to ruin that and cause more unrest with the fans.

 

Currently feel the £20 quid family membership i paid was a waste of time.

 

Certainly don't feel i'm being represented !!

[GrantB]

May be they could have obtained views from it's members before issuing such a statement. May be involve it's members in decision making instead of the current "love in" that seems to exist ?

 

The a number of years the fans have had major issues with the BOD. They have at least started to make some (all be it long long way to go) effort in re connecting with the support. Seems the JTB are doing their best to ruin that and cause more unrest with the fans.

 

Currently feel the £20 quid family membership i paid was a waste of time.

 

Certainly don't feel i'm being represented !!

 

Get your name on to BCG Jag's list.

 

I think Beattie has been a breath of fresh air in his dealings with the support compared to years of being spoken down to by the likes of Cowan and Hughes. For the wee clique in the Trust board to try and undermine the bridges that have been built between the BOD and the support is extremely unwelcome and not representitive of the people they claim to represent.

 

For the trust to have any credability whatsoever, they need to be removed ASAP.

[lennythistle]

Get your name on to BCG Jag's list.

 

I think Beattie has been a breath of fresh air in his dealings with the support compared to years of being spoken down to by the likes of Cowan and Hughes. For the wee clique in the Trust board to try and undermine the bridges that have been built between the BOD and the support is extremely unwelcome and not representitive of the people they claim to represent.

 

For the trust to have any credability whatsoever, they need to be removed ASAP.

 

Oh did better than that.....gave him mine and Mrs Lennythistle's !!

[honved]

I don't think the shares have been a millstone - I think they're a really important protection should the worst come to the worst (again). I think it's our general apathy that has been the millstone as a support. Where there are plastic titles to be had, a certain type of person goes looking for them. These people are really the folk at the front of the queue when there's real work to be done.

 

If a group of active, positive fans were willing to step forward and force a real election with at least 50% more candidates than positions then I think the Trust is worth one last effort. As it stands, it doesn't need to be the voice of the fans. This forum has a better claim to represent the supporters than the Trust Board as it sits.

 

Is there a typo in there...last sentence, first paragraph?

 

Anyway, I've just been pondering this whole shares/board rep thing whilst sitting on a 15A bus and I have a stolen Willjag's suggestion.

 

Can we not just leave the Trust alone to look after the shares until they are needed? It would be like the final bit of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where the old knight who has looked after the Holy Grail is all covered in cobwebs and so on.

 

In the meantime, anyone who is interested in doing stuff other than going to games, can involve themselves in some other way.

Edited November 18, 2010 by honved

[B.C.G. JAG]

BCG Jag - could you share with us who specifically invited you on to the JTB and what reasoning they gave you as to why you should accept? (For the record, I think it was a horrible mistake, but totally accept your good motives in doing it.)

 

I met with Donald on Tuesday to discuss it after he contacted me. I think you're probably right in the assessment of the situation however, as I've mentioned, the list for an EGM is short, and shouting from the outside isn't get much of a response. There does need to be an overhaul of the Trust, but it can't wait until August. If I can help that process then that's something although I do feel a bit uncomfortable about being unelected myself...

 

 

 

If all else fails, I've got a good idea for a fundraiser and will be pursuing it regardless.

[GrantB]

Oh did better than that.....gave him mine and Mrs Lennythistle's !!

 

Good man. I advise as many Trust members as possible to get their names on it.

[Pie Of The Month]

BCG Jag how many names do you need and how many do you have?

[B.C.G. JAG]

BCG Jag how many names do you need and how many do you have?

18 names on the list. At least double that required.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

May be they could have obtained views from it's members before issuing such a statement. May be involve it's members in decision making instead of the current "love in" that seems to exist ?

 

The a number of years the fans have had major issues with the BOD. They have at least started to make some (all be it long long way to go) effort in re connecting with the support. Seems the JTB are doing their best to ruin that and cause more unrest with the fans.

 

Currently feel the £20 quid family membership i paid was a waste of time.

 

Certainly don't feel i'm being represented !!

I'm broadly in agreement with much of your post. However I don't want a Jags Trust board that has to consult its membership at every turn. I want a Jags Trust board that's trusted by its membership to both make correct decisions and act on them. Further to that I want the directors on the main Jags Board to know the Trust representation is a true reflection on its membership.

Sadly that's all now hypothetical as my confidence was by and large with those that have resigned from the Jags Trust board both recently and not so recently.

[Willjag]

 

 

Anyway, I've just been pondering this whole shares/board rep thing whilst sitting on a 15A bus and I have a suggestion.

 

Can we not just leave the Trust alone to look after the shares until they are needed?

Hoi! Get your own ideas!!!

[ifu03340]

Just read the JT's response to David Beattie - That is feking embarrassing. I recently rejoined the JT after the departure of Cowan & Hughes as I thought they were making great strides but that response disgusts me & is quite frankly amateurish.

 

David Beattie was spot-on with what he said. Disarray is an understatement.

[honved]

Hoi! Get your own ideas!!!

 

Great minds...

 

...steal others ideas

[Robert Dunn's Potential]

Is there a typo in there...last sentence, first paragraph?

Haha - definite typo. Meant to say "rarely".

 

The short version is that shares aren't the problem, people are. We have and have had for too long, the wrong people holding the balance of power in the Trust and using that power to create total stagnation at best.

[alx]

Jings, just read this thread for the first time. Everyone should get their name on the EGM list. We need an election. The manifestos would make very interesting reading.

 

I have a question for the resigning members; nobody has ever honestly told us why so many people are chucking it. Let's hear it, people thinking of standing next time need a heads up for what they are up against. My working theory is that some people just don't have the stomach for conflict as they haven't had much experience of this in their professional lives. I could of course be way off the mark, but we're forced to make wild guesses.

[stolenscone]

By and large, I've shied away from expressing my views about the Trust since my departure. It didn't seem to be appropriate to kick folk who elect to stay on and do their best for the supporters when I have effectively cut and run, but after a few glasses of wine, I'm feeling a bit more cavalier:

 

The relationship between the Club Board and the supporters was broken after years of condescending proclaimations and petty insults. The little things stack up and people find it hard to forget. I genuinely thought that the departure of Mr Cowan, Mr Hughes and Mr Prentice would give the supporters an opportunity to re-connect with the people who run their Club. I'm not having a pop at those three gents - it's just that after 10+ years, we all needed a change and that could only be effected if they agreed to step aside.

 

David Beattie has since stepped forward to be the face of the Board. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but his style in the programme notes and other public statements is much more honest and direct, and that is welcome. It should form the basis for a more healthy relationship between Club board and fans.

 

Having seen the Club board take the 1st steps towards change, I hoped that the Trust board could shake off the torpor of the last few years and enter into a new era of engagement with the Club board. Sadly, I was wrong. What happened was a continuance of the mistrust and resultant anguished inaction that has plagued the JT for years. The constant handwringing over the Board Rep issue was as paralyzing as it was poisonous to progress, and really, in nobody's interest.

 

I felt that after years of inaction, the Trust had to re-earn it's place at the top table. Kieron concentrated on the community side,but largely worked in isolation of both Club and Trust boards. Aside from his work, it's hard to see what the results Trust has actually produced over the last 5 or 6 years - let's be honest, the Club board never made it easy for them, but you can't blame the Club for all the past failures of the Trust. Against that backdrop, I had some sympathy for the Club's position on the Board Rep, even if I don't think it's a particularly helpful approach to take for the Club/fan relationship.

 

Folk can point to funding the loan signings of McNamara and Hardie, but the truth is that if any supporters' association worth its salt has money in the bank and is asked for help to fund signings, why on earth would they say no (and you have no idea what a struggle it was to get a positive response to these relatively simple requests). The revisionism to claim credit for these decisions from the same folk who strongly opposed them is hard for me to take.

 

So, if the supporters' association fundamentally doesn't trust the Club board, to the extent that it is unwilling to pass any money over to the Club (or that it wants to stamp its foot and demand to get (for example) board representation in exchange for a few thousand pounds now and again) then to me, there is something fundamentally wrong with the relationship. There is a severe lack of commercial awareness on display if you stamp your foot, are told "no" and your only response is to stamp your foot again. It's ineffectual and pointless and anyone with an ounce of sense can see it for what it is.

 

David Beattie seems to be doing a fair job of building bridges direct with the support. If this thread (and others) is anything to go by, the Trust has become seriously disconnected from what the supporters want.

 

I'm a practical person. As a supporter, I want to see a vibrent and effective supporters' association. Is it that hard to achieve? I thought not when I joined the Trust board, but at the end of the day, I achieved the square round of sod all in my time. The same probably goes for Greig Forbes, Colin Quinn, Raymond Rose, Tom Hogg, Graeme Cowie ... You get the point. (I excuse Martin Towers from this, since his constant plugging away at the Centenary Fund probably has had a lasting, if limited, effect.)

 

Honved suggests letting the Trust drift along, being the custodian of 1m shares, but really playing little role apart from that. In short, a practical irrelevance. The idea has some appeal since it's doing a pretty good job of that already.

 

At the moment, it's the only show in town, but why does that need to be the case? The constant cycle of self destruction and hand wringing is tiresome in the extreme. So why not break the cycle?

 

All it needs is a few dozen energetic fans who want nothing more than to support the Club without question or condition. Add to that a few hundred passive fans who pitch up once a month at well organised, entertaining events, and you've got the makings a robust supporters' association that is already a million miles ahead of where we are right now. In my 18 months on the Trust board, there was no sign of those few dozen active participants, and certainly nothing like a couple of hundred passive attendees at Trust events.

 

So the reality is that the baggage of the Trust weighs heavily; the politics is a huge turn off; it wouldn't be too difficult to make a clean break and do something different; but the truth is that without the support and active involvement of a reasonable number of fans, then it's never going to work, and we end up with the kind of disfunctional supporters' association that we deserve.

 

What's the answer? Well whatever it is, it doesn't involve another round of hand wringing and angst filled forum threads, but little real action...

 

Nite, nite.

[stolenscone]

I have a question for the resigning members; nobody has ever honestly told us why so many people are chucking it.My working theory is that some people just don't have the stomach for conflict as they haven't had much experience of this in their professional lives.

 

Off the mark, I'm afraid, Alx. I don't seek out conflict, but I get paid to negotiate contentious commercial deals for clients, so "conflict" is what I deal with, day in, day out.

 

As I've said before, I resigned because I saw no substantive progress being made within the Trust, and no realistic prospect of ever effecting the change necessary to make that progress.