Douglas Rimmer

[McKennan]

Are we? I support the idea of fan involvement at board level, but one of the issues that I had latterally on the Trust was the unwillingness to stand full square behind the very simple idea of passing money raised over to the Club unless and until the board rep issue was resolved to the Trust's liking.

 

 

I am curious about the board rep issue. How is it that the trust, which holds a million Thistle shares, gets bumped off the board yet Billy Allan, who I understand holds none, is welcome on the board?

 

Does Billy Allan hold Thistle shares?

 

It's also interesting to watch the recent shift in attitudes towards the trust's shareholding. Since Tom, David and Graeme departed there seems to be veiled hostility towards the trust both holding shares and participating at board level. I do not ascribe this to Tom, David and Graeme. I don't know what prompted their departures other than the internal dynamics of the trust.

 

Regardless of the politics of the situation, the fans' perception of the trust as a 'deid duck' and those involved, I have to say I think the decision to exclude the trust, the club's second-largest shareholder, stinks to high heavens.

 

Eternal cynic that I am, I worry there's something so corrosive coming down the pipeline that even the 'deid duck' needs to be removed from the picture.

[Tom Hosie]

How is it that the trust, which holds a million Thistle shares, gets bumped off the board yet Billy Allan, who I understand holds none, is welcome on the board?

 

The Trust didn’t get “bumped” from the Board.

 

The Board Rep resigned their position.

 

Nobody put their name forward to fill the vacancy. At that point, IMO, the Trust should have taken time to examine why that was the case rather than push forward from their number someone who didn’t stand for the position in the first place.

 

Personally I don’t subscribe to the view that there is a powerful all female cabal from the North West Bus dominating the Trust. These people are Thistle fans of long standing and I don’t question for a second their commitment to Partick Thistle.

 

I am, however, deeply frustrated that so much time and energy has been devoted to the position of Board Rep when quite frankly I want my supporters’ association to be doing something altogether more positive.

 

It’s not going to matter one bit whether the JT have a seat on the Board or not if we wake up one morning and find the gates to Firhill padlocked for ever.

 

The Jags Trust should right now be active in making sure that horrible scenario never happens.

 

Finally, it’s the value you bring to the Board that should earn you a seat round the Boardroom table rather than the number of shares that they have. I would imagine that the individual financial contribution made by those on the BoD far outstrips the financial contribution made by the Jags Trust to the Club.

[Fellow Traveller]

Finally, it’s the value you bring to the Board that should earn you a seat round the Boardroom table rather than the number of shares that they have. I would imagine that the individual financial contribution made by those on the BoD far outstrips the financial contribution made by the Jags Trust to the Club.

 

Although I think you might agree, Tom, that money isn't everything and one of the great values of the Trust should be that it brings to the chemistry of the boardroom discussions a credible representation of the views of the support, without whom we are nothing. Sadly, that's been an even bigger failure, but if someone could hit on the right formula to engage the fans in the Trust (or something similar) that would be a massively worthwhile contribution in itself, quite apart from any financial benefit it might also produce.

[Tom Hosie]

Although I think you might agree, Tom, that money isn't everything and one of the great values of the Trust should be that it brings to the chemistry of the boardroom discussions a credible representation of the views of the support, without whom we are nothing. Sadly, that's been an even bigger failure, but if someone could hit on the right formula to engage the fans in the Trust (or something similar) that would be a massively worthwhile contribution in itself, quite apart from any financial benefit it might also produce.

 

Wouldn't disagree with a word of that.

 

I just find the whole thing so frustrating.

 

I would love nothing better than to get my hands dirty supporting a fans' organisation that was active in trying to safeguard the future of a football club that is such a big part of my life in so many respects. It's now even a big part of Alison's life and she still doesn't like football and rarely watches more than a few minutes of a game.

[B.C.G. JAG]

 

Finally, it’s the value you bring to the Board that should earn you a seat round the Boardroom table rather than the number of shares that they have. I would imagine that the individual financial contribution made by those on the BoD far outstrips the financial contribution made by the Jags Trust to the Club.

I don't want to get too hung up on the Rep thing just now. However, I'll say this, when the previous Rep stood down, that shouldn't have resulted in the Club removing the seat altogether - the position should have remained open to be filled by a new person. It wasn't.

 

Yes, the Trust should have been a lot more vocal and active in looking to replace Kieron with a popular and democratically elected Representative, however, the Club should not have simply pulled the chair away either.

 

The Trust does represent about 400 paid up members and a significant shareholding. It's all very well saying that it's what individuals bring to the table but it's also what they represent. The Trust is unlikely to ever raise the same as other Board members, but they carry the weight of a large shareholding and a large membership. That should be enough. Who decided it was no longer enough and what was their reasons? What do other Directors bring to the table instead? What is the value of a seat at the table?

 

It puzzles me that a small company such as Thistle would not want to strike up an open and productive relationship with it's client base when surely when we're all pulling together we can achieve better things?

 

The question has to be asked, why has the Rep's seat been removed and what will it take to get it back again? These are things the BOD need to answer. I don't subscribe to some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories out there, but whilst the BOD acts without explaining itself then it leaves a gap that people will fill with their own ideas, right or wrong.

 

I agree that ideally the Trust should get it's seat back by being a valuable partner, however, we as fans should also reserve the right to be critical. The BOD acted unilaterally over removing the fan's rep position at a time when there is concerns over conflicts of interests with Propco and that surely should ring alarm bells. Yes the Trust should be there to support the Club, but it should also be there for the fans first and to protect the long term future of the Club for the supporters it represents. Supporting doesn't mean cheerleading.

 

I'd like the Trust to get on with the business of raising some money for the club, however, there are a lot of unanswered questions hanging about out there. Some of them might never get answered, but it would certainly help if we knew what changes might get a fans rep back in the boardroom - that would at least be something.

[Tom Hosie]

I don't want to get too hung up on the Rep thing just now. However, I'll say this, when the previous Rep stood down, that shouldn't have resulted in the Club removing the seat altogether - the position should have remained open to be filled by a new person. It wasn't.

 

Yes, the Trust should have been a lot more vocal and active in looking to replace Kieron with a popular and democratically elected Representative, however, the Club should not have simply pulled the chair away either.

 

The Trust does represent about 400 paid up members and a significant shareholding. It's all very well saying that it's what individuals bring to the table but it's also what they represent. The Trust is unlikely to ever raise the same as other Board members, but they carry the weight of a large shareholding and a large membership. That should be enough. Who decided it was no longer enough and what was their reasons? What do other Directors bring to the table instead? What is the value of a seat at the table?

 

It puzzles me that a small company such as Thistle would not want to strike up an open and productive relationship with it's client base when surely when we're all pulling together we can achieve better things?

 

The question has to be asked, why has the Rep's seat been removed and what will it take to get it back again? These are things the BOD need to answer. I don't subscribe to some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories out there, but whilst the BOD acts without explaining itself then it leaves a gap that people will fill with their own ideas, right or wrong.

 

I agree that ideally the Trust should get it's seat back by being a valuable partner, however, we as fans should also reserve the right to be critical. The BOD acted unilaterally over removing the fan's rep position at a time when there is concerns over conflicts of interests with Propco and that surely should ring alarm bells. Yes the Trust should be there to support the Club, but it should also be there for the fans first and to protect the long term future of the Club for the supporters it represents. Supporting doesn't mean cheerleading.

 

I'd like the Trust to get on with the business of raising some money for the club, however, there are a lot of unanswered questions hanging about out there. Some of them might never get answered, but it would certainly help if we knew what changes might get a fans rep back in the boardroom - that would at least be something.

 

Look it’s not that I disagree with you. There’s bits of your last post I agree with and bits that I don’t. That doesn’t make me right or you wrong.

 

There is value in the argument that the JT should have, by right, a place on the Board. I believed that myself once but I don’t any more.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that the JT became complacent. A kind of “We’ve got a seat on the Board because the fans saved the Club back in 1997” attitude. Somewhere along the line they (we) forgot that you need to offer more than that.

 

To be blunt my frustration is over the stamping the feet, temper tantrum type attitude that has followed the Board’s decision not to rubber stamp the Jags Trust Board’s choice as Board Rep. This should have brought about a degree of self awareness that something was wrong here. That the JT had to shape up if they wanted to play an active role in shaping the future of our football club.

 

Anyway, I find trying to argue my point on here difficult and hope it doesn’t come across as me simply being argumentative .

[Allan Heron]

The Trust didn’t get “bumped” from the Board.

 

The Board Rep resigned their position.

 

Nobody put their name forward to fill the vacancy. At that point, IMO, the Trust should have taken time to examine why that was the case rather than push forward from their number someone who didn’t stand for the position in the first place.

 

Tom

 

Just to point out that Kieron's early resignation is actually irrelevant to this whole issue. By the time that he resigned the nomination process to succeed him had already taken place and elicited no nominations - the same process and likely outcome would have happened had he continued until the beginning of September when the AGM took place. See http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/elections-to-the-trust-board/ for more information on the timing of this for the current year.

 

However, it is worth repeating again that the selection of Morag (regardless of what anyone may think about her) was entirely legitimate and in keeping with the rules of the Trust. It might even be at this point that I mention that I did receive an e-mail from Allan Cowan during the period when the Trust was being run incorrectly, that the Club Board would invite whosoever was selected by the Trust through their proper processes. Morag meets that requirement.

 

If the Trust is to be criticised in relation to this matter then it is largely on the basis of failing to engage seriously in any form of succession planning. Although the position is there to be subject to election by the members, it is clearly not one which can appear daunting - an element of sweet-talking and hand holding will often be needed to fill such roles.

 

It would certainly have put them in a stronger position had Morag entered a nomination as part of the process rather than waiting until the default requirement kicked in but, to be honest, I don't think the outcome would have been any different as there is as much paranoia on the board about the NW Bus as there is on here. Having said that, I can't say that the reaction would have been more welcoming had there been another candidate entirely.

 

As far as having any level of trust (sic) in the current club board I must say that I am more than sceptical. I wouldn't know Billy Allan but remain deeply suspicous of the fact that he owns a shareholding in PropCo but is on the PTFC board without any shares. And as for David Beattie, given what we went through at the time of the 1876 Club debate and the assurances he gave then it's hard not to conclude that any assurances of responses he provides needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Which is not to say that they won't collectively do good things for the club, but it does mean that I'll be keeping a critical eye on what's happening.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Allan Heron

[B.C.G. JAG]

Look it’s not that I disagree with you. There’s bits of your last post I agree with and bits that I don’t. That doesn’t make me right or you wrong.

 

There is value in the argument that the JT should have, by right, a place on the Board. I believed that myself once but I don’t any more.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that the JT became complacent. A kind of “We’ve got a seat on the Board because the fans saved the Club back in 1997” attitude. Somewhere along the line they (we) forgot that you need to offer more than that.

 

To be blunt my frustration is over the stamping the feet, temper tantrum type attitude that has followed the Board’s decision not to rubber stamp the Jags Trust Board’s choice as Board Rep. This should have brought about a degree of self awareness that something was wrong here. That the JT had to shape up if they wanted to play an active role in shaping the future of our football club.

 

Anyway, I find trying to argue my point on here difficult and hope it doesn’t come across as me simply being argumentative .

 

I think we're actually quite close on agreement. When the Rep seat was removed, I think the Trust should have instinctively realised that it had failed to engage with the membership over the Rep issue. It's fine to say Morag has been legally 'elected' but only if you see it as an emergency stopgap and look to getting a properly elected Rep as soon as possible. I don't think there was any great call for candidates and there was certainly no debate. It was, as you say, complacent. Having 400 members is one thing, but you can only truly represent them if you occasionally consult them or ask them if they want to be involved.

 

I hope we can have a proper election sooner rather than later and that we can all engage with it. I hope others come forward when the call goes out.

[sandy]

 

I rejoined the Trust on Nov 5th. As of Sunday, Dec 5th, still haven't heard a peep out of them, had an acknowledgement by post or email nor a member pack. Zilch. Only an email from PayPal to prove it wasn't all a weird dream. Even within their incredibly limited scope of current operations, the duck is dead.

 

 

Double Ugly, sadly I've had exactly the same experience. Rejoined the Trust, paypal payment confirmed, but still no membership pack despite several chaser emails to membership secretary and the last one copied to secretary. What's going on?

[jags365]

Anyone who's not recieved their membership pack please email me at [email protected] and I'll make sure that the packs are issued by Fiona asap.

[Dr.D]

And this mob are still shouting about being denied a PTFC Board Rep position

[MerryHell]

Out of curiosity, what would make the Trust more palatable to people? A Board representing different fans (st holders, buses, forums?), more regular feedback from the Trust - say a quaterly newsletter? Innovative fundraising ideas? What do people want to specifically see? This should be an easy question to answer but the unhappiness with The Trust manifests itself in different ways and there doesn't seem to be much consensus as to what would move it forward from here.

 

I'm not one of these people that subscribes to the 'NW mafia' arguement, and I agree even less with whoever it was that stated that there are '3 women ruining the trust'. That just brings the arguement down to the level of the membership secretary's assertion that Morag is not on the board 'because she is a woman'. The fans could be represented by anyone, as long as they were truely representative.

 

It seems to me just now that comunication is a one way street, and once on the JT board, they just do whatever the five/six/seven of them want to do, regardless of what the greater fanbase/membership think. How would your quarterly newsletter differ from the JT column in the matchday program? It's still a one-way communication.

 

Just now they are so out of touch with the membership it's unreal. The vast majority of people have welcomed the recent boardroom programme notes as perhaps a new dawn in communication between the club and the fans. The JT board just decide to snipe. Even DR's column on his first 5 days on the JT board, says how he was optimistic until he read the boardroom column. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Progresive people resign from the JT board, to be replaced by people with views similar to those held by whoever was left. When the JT board had positions to fill, did they say to the membership, we've now got four positions and seek volunteers? No, they got together and decided who to invite onto the board.

 

The JT meeting recently was viewed as a step forward. I was impressed with David, thought Tom did his best to control the proceedings, and that Maggie was also a strong voice with her heart in the right place. Morag almost single handedly demonstrated to me why she wasn't a credible candidate for the PTFC board position, and Fiona made an arse of herself with one stupid comment. When two of the people I felt came across well left, and the rest just seem to argue about how Morag simply must be on the board, I just don't feel that their views are mine.

 

BCG Jag - I perhaps overreacted when you decided to take up their invitation, but I cannot see how you think you are so different to those that have resigned over the years, or that your views will be taken on board/acted upon. It might be a vicious circle, but i would never stand for a place on the JT board, because I don't want to be in a position where I am wasting my time fighting against the entrenched positions of other board members.

 

It's also not me playing politics, but if the Business Club run an event, i'm more likely to attend that in order to raise money for the club than anything the JT board put their name to. To me that is the only way I can give a vote of no confidence in the trust, and at the same time keep giving to the club. Given the reported turnout at the St. Andrews night event, I doubt i'm alone.

[potty trained]

Was Paul Devine not also part of the Arthur/Peden Trust Board that was thrown out for being run in an incorrect manner, or did he just turn up to the meetings with them?

[McKennan]

I am, however, deeply frustrated that so much time and energy has been devoted to the position of Board Rep when quite frankly I want my supporters’ association to be doing something altogether more positive.

 

 

Like organising the occasional swally so we can connect with other fans again, perhaps?

 

Events of the past 12 hours have answered a great of deal of my questions and thanks for the responses on the trust.

 

Meanwhile, the invisible man remains just that.

[B.C.G. JAG]

 

 

BCG Jag - I perhaps overreacted when you decided to take up their invitation, but I cannot see how you think you are so different to those that have resigned over the years, or that your views will be taken on board/acted upon. It might be a vicious circle, but i would never stand for a place on the JT board, because I don't want to be in a position where I am wasting my time fighting against the entrenched positions of other board members.

 

It's also not me playing politics, but if the Business Club run an event, i'm more likely to attend that in order to raise money for the club than anything the JT board put their name to. To me that is the only way I can give a vote of no confidence in the trust, and at the same time keep giving to the club. Given the reported turnout at the St. Andrews night event, I doubt i'm alone.

 

The main points I'm going to take from your post are that the Trust doesn't consult it's membership enough and isn't democratically elected. I agree.

 

The problem for the Trust is that it's kinda stuck in 1st gear in those terms and probably isn't going to get out of it for a while yet. The current Board needs to be ratified by the membership and given the authority to go forward as caretakers to try and pave the way for more inclusive and hopefully better contested elections. I'm interested in trying to get some reforms and a better relationship with the club & fans in place to make those elections viable and from there others can take the Trust forward. That's as far as my contribution to this process will go.

 

That probably means a whole lot of frustration for folk as the Trust disappears into another period of navel gazing to sort itself out. I don't think anything is going to happen overnight, but if everyone with ideas pitches in, then there should hopefully be a number of decent proposals on the table for the membership to look at that will strengthen the Trust. Some ideas might get floated on here for people to feedback on, but as you say, communication can't be a one way street, so the process also requires others to come up with ideas. I agree - don't leave it all to us, flood the Trust with your ideas! Those six or seven people have no mandate to act on their own, but the alternatives take time, but hopefully we can all put some proposals together. If anyone thinks that they are absolved of responsibility because they're not on the Trust Board, then just remember, we are the supporters and it's our Association. It is what we make it. If enough people decide just to ignore it, then the Trust will become weaker and we as a community of supporters will only have succeeded in making ourselves and the Club we love weaker.

 

As for the newsletter, well I'm just floating ideas out there. You say it's just another extension of the programme page, but it could also be used to gauge ideas, get feedback, consult. I haven't got the answers, but I think it's a pretty sorry affair if Partick Thistle supporters can't get their act together to form the Association they want. However, it's all doomed to failure if everyone sits back with their arms folded and expects someone else to come up with all the ideas for change. There is plenty of criticism on this forum, a lot of which I agree with. So now I'm putting it back - what actual changes do people want to see? Let's stop dealing in abstracts and deal with specifics.

 

I said earlier that I hope people support the Club through whatever events they can. If you want to support business club events then that's great. But, IF the Trust put on an event that did sound interesting to you, then for Gawd's sake don't dinghy it and deprive the Club of funds. If the Trust isn't doing enough to support the Club, then it's not going to do any better if people deliberately spite anything positive that it does try.