Shortfall Met?

[mrD]

 

Which bits of truth do you have access to; what the Club Board Rep could not share fully at the time with JTB colleagues? Just wondered mrD.

 

 

Dear, oh dear sandy. Nice of you to besmirch the reputation of a third party in a backhanded non committal way through the medium of innuendo. But there you said it yourself "just keeping your powder dry". Just yet another example of your manly style.

 

Seems thats the only way you can really have a go at people is in a really passive aggressive manner, not just calling a spade a spade. In the last couple of days of being on this forum (essay coming up so this place does for procrastination) one can witness how you put together (rather sycophantic)lists of the favorable ones who can redirect the trust in its hitherto revolutionary direction and thus by the omission one can get a sense of who you think are the bad guys. Then earlier on in this very thread you had to say, "a current person on the JTB" why not just say who they are?

 

Also, this history stuff is quite funny. Clearly it suits your purposes to stamp an authoritative narrative that can explain away some responsibility you held during your tenure on the JTB, thus on this thread we have the bit about how whilst you made the decision with others, you did so as the result of someone doing some crazy jedimindtricks on you before a meeting. What a wonderful way to evade responsibility.

 

Now to be quite frank, i don't really pay much attention to the detail of all the JT stuff. I'm into the broad politics of it all, i.e overall questions of fan ownership, power and whatever. Politics on the grand scales is what interests me, hence about half my posts are usually about stuff going on wider society in scotland and how it interacts with football. But once we get down to the minutae like propco opco and constitutions and shit my eyes glaze over. So, i actually don't really give a shit. But for what its worth, my reading of all the events (based on my limited understanding) is that mistakes get made and sometimes we make judgements on good faith and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Witness for instance, honveds reply to a post i made on another thread - he made a judgement and it didnt work out. I reckon stuff like that has happened at some point to all people involved in JTB including my dad. IMO its better to lick wounds and move on.

 

What doesn't work is innuendo,and other attempts to create a narrative that places absolute responsibility on some participants whilst negating others, especially if surprise surprise the one whom we posit who should have no responsibility is oneself. It just doesn't wash and certainly not going to constitute an authoritative history of what events have taken place. Mind you, if thats ones bag at least say some things explicitly, makes its easier for those of us who are not as good at reading between the cryptic lines as others must be.

 

Another thing that doesn't work (and this isn't just you that does that most of us are guilty of it here to varying extents) is to create false dichotomies within the supporters association body where one camp are the good guys who have the righteous interests of the fan at heart and the bad guys who are plants by the BoD. The recent established fact (pretty historically sound) of the Trust (all those bad guys) is that they had Jim's back when that dodgy vote kicked off in the AGM.

 

It also sucks if half the targets of ones innuendos do not participate in these forums and are not in a position to shape the overall opinion of who they are and what they are about. that kinda tactic is just not cricket.

 

Ultimately, there are very few of us left, by people making insinuations about each other it reduces the ability for people that give a shit to unite. Instead we just see people with nefarious agendas whilst those on the board of directors do not have much in the way of concerted resistance to get on with whatever their agenda is.

 

The best way i think to move beyond a culture of mutual suspicion is to say things to peoples faces, stop the innuendos, stop the passive aggressiveness and be man enough to take on responsibility when there is responsibility to be taken.

Edited February 23, 2011 by mrD

[Steven H]

Keeping my powder dry, Allan. Besides it is a forum after all where comments of the enigmatic variety often occur. Enough people can read between the lines without me having to spell things out.

 

Sandy can you define 'enough people'? I for one have not taken too much to do with the politics of PTFC until after the 1876/CF merger, I've heard bits n bobs about the goings on at that time but for me, as a laymen who can't read between the lines, it seems that the CF is making the Club more money than the 1876 Club. Given the sales pitch at the time I would have voted for the merger on that point alone.

 

All this just muddies the water though so let me ask outright questions in the hope of outright answers, was the merger ratified on a unannimous vote of the JTB (and/or it's members)? Did the JTB decide to go a certain way prior to the vote only for it (or certain members of it) to change it's/their mind on the night/day? Not really questions where answers will provide a means for moving forward but curiosity has gotten the better of me.

 

For what it's worth I think the CF has been a relative success despite the 'amateur hour' way it has been run at times. I think it has the potential to do so much more for the Club if it can broaden the prizes on offer to accommodate non-Thistle fans, but I think the whole issue surrounding the shares not being issued to the JT is shambolic (although lessons should have been learned from the shares situation at the time of the STJ campaign when it comes to getting written clarity on agreements made with the BoD).

 

IMHO this scheme should be put back into the hands of the fans but that means giving it to the JTB and at this point I trust (no pun intended) them only slightly more than I trust the BoD. Which brings me back to my original point, the CF is designed to make money for PTFC so how can it be utilised in order to make as much money as possible? Everything else is just pointless sniping about past decisions, hindsight is a wonderful thing it's just a shame we are not all blessed with that power.

[Vom Itorium]

Sandy can you define 'enough people'? I for one have not taken too much to do with the politics of PTFC until after the 1876/CF merger, I've heard bits n bobs about the goings on at that time but for me, as a laymen who can't read between the lines, it seems that the CF is making the Club more money than the 1876 Club. Given the sales pitch at the time I would have voted for the merger on that point alone.

 

All this just muddies the water though so let me ask outright questions in the hope of outright answers, was the merger ratified on a unannimous vote of the JTB (and/or it's members)? Did the JTB decide to go a certain way prior to the vote only for it (or certain members of it) to change it's/their mind on the night/day? Not really questions where answers will provide a means for moving forward but curiosity has gotten the better of me.

 

For what it's worth I think the CF has been a relative success despite the 'amateur hour' way it has been run at times. I think it has the potential to do so much more for the Club if it can broaden the prizes on offer to accommodate non-Thistle fans, but I think the whole issue surrounding the shares not being issued to the JT is shambolic (although lessons should have been learned from the shares situation at the time of the STJ campaign when it comes to getting written clarity on agreements made with the BoD).

 

IMHO this scheme should be put back into the hands of the fans but that means giving it to the JTB and at this point I trust (no pun intended) them only slightly more than I trust the BoD. Which brings me back to my original point, the CF is designed to make money for PTFC so how can it be utilised in order to make as much money as possible? Everything else is just pointless sniping about past decisions, hindsight is a wonderful thing it's just a shame we are not all blessed with that power.

It's not just shambolic, it's disgusting. A 'leap of faith' was taken for the good of the club on the basis that shares would change hands and to simply rubber this now does nothing for the relationship between fans and club at a time when by all accounts, we are being asked to take another 'leap of faith' into whatever scheme they come up with next.

 

I'm utterly scunnered with the Trust, but likewise with the club and I will be giving whatever leap we are asked to take a bodyswerve until the last one's promises have been fulfilled.

 

In saying all that, giving the Trust more shares equates to what exactly?

[mrD]

It's not just shambolic, it's disgusting. A 'leap of faith' was taken for the good of the club on the basis that shares would change hands and to simply rubber this now does nothing for the relationship between fans and club at a time when by all accounts, we are being asked to take another 'leap of faith' into whatever scheme they come up with next.

 

I'm utterly scunnered with the Trust, but likewise with the club and I will be giving whatever leap we are asked to take a bodyswerve until the last one's promises have been fulfilled.

 

In saying all that, giving the Trust more shares equates to what exactly?

 

well hypothetically if the trust had more shares it would have been able to have the vote in favour of keeping jim in. hell if the trust had all the shares it be a fan owned club that saves scottish football by its sheer dynamism.

 

ok so the trust needs to have unified purpose but it can have all the purpose in the world but if it has no power purpose is of no purpose. so theres the reason for more shares.

 

it is a lot of shite though, ptfc world for the last couple of years has a real sense of bald men fighting over a comb.

[Steven H]

It's not just shambolic, it's disgusting. A 'leap of faith' was taken for the good of the club on the basis that shares would change hands and to simply rubber this now does nothing for the relationship between fans and club at a time when by all accounts, we are being asked to take another 'leap of faith' into whatever scheme they come up with next.

 

I'm utterly scunnered with the Trust, but likewise with the club and I will be giving whatever leap we are asked to take a bodyswerve until the last one's promises have been fulfilled.

 

In saying all that, giving the Trust more shares equates to what exactly?

 

Room for more posturing from those who think having over 1m shares actually means something

 

You're right, disgusting more than covers it when you consider DB has continuously stated he wants the fans and BoD to work together. If they can't stick to an agreement made with the fans representative body (regardless of the effectiveness of it)how can they expect this statement to be taken seriously? When you throw in the treatment of JA at the recent AGM, and the shadowy figure lurking in the background foreground, then taking DB at his word is not something Im too willing to do.

 

Throw in the conflict of interest arising from Propco, the apparent inability of the JT to do anything meaningful in terms of fan representation and the BoD's reluctance to honour the JT Board Rep position, and you really have to wonder what the bloody point is. I fear for the future of our Club, not because of financial issues or conflicts of interest but because we as a fan base can do feck all about it because we're too busy squabbling and talking in riddles to score points.

 

Feckin sick of it all

[mrD]

lol. that is all ive got to say.

 

jags fans are just a microcosm of scottish football fans in general though, i mean look at the state of whats happening in discussions with league reconstruction on that, plenty of people moaning about it but no body to represent the fans that would have to be consulted like they have in england with the football supporter federation.

 

i think the best we can hope for is a total death of scottish football and build something new.

Edited February 23, 2011 by mrD

[Steven H]

well hypothetically if the trust had more shares it would have been able to have the vote in favour of keeping jim in. hell if the trust had all the shares it be a fan owned club that saves scottish football by its sheer dynamism.

 

ok so the trust needs to have unified purpose but it can have all the purpose in the world but if it has no power purpose is of no purpose. so theres the reason for more shares.

 

it is a lot of shite though, ptfc world for the last couple of years has a real sense of bald men fighting over a comb.

 

How many shares are the JTB due thanks to the 1876/CF merger? Even if it trebled the number of share they current have it would still not be enough to make a significant different if the owners of the +5m shares decide to stick together (or vote by proxy). Until the McMaster and Hughes shares are returned to the Club the power lies with them and their cronies, thus rendering the JT shares useless.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Steven H

[mrD]

How many shares are the JTB due thanks to the 1876/CF merger? Even if it trebled the number of share they current have it would still not be enough to make a significant different if the owners of the +5m shares decide to stick together (or vote by proxy). Until the McMaster and Hughes shares are returned to the Club the power lies with them and their cronies, thus rendering the JT shares useless.

 

at this stage yes, no arguments there. in another thread i said we had two sources of power, membership and shares. In the short to medium term the only thing we have real control over is membership numbers to coordinate campaigns against the board. Long term though fan ownership i think is the way to go. Something like that is the best mechanism to ensure that conflicts of interest like prop co cannot arise. that said, reading threads like this and all the other jags trust ones makes you think it would be pretty disasterous if we were fan owned.

 

once upon a time i went to see fcum and believed in what was possible. but such fancies put into this context is just pure utopian ****. sad really.

[mrD]

Maggie and Morag who run the North West supporter's bus, along with Gordon Peden. Out of interest, what do they do, exactly?

 

Peden works for culture and sport if i remember correctly, which might be some evidence for the notion that he is 'satan'. as for the others im afraid i don't know..

Edited February 23, 2011 by mrD

[Junior]

Stop all the snide comments and just post what you think you know, simple as that. If it hits a nerve at the club they will contact the admin to remove it

[Allan Heron]

at this stage yes, no arguments there. in another thread i said we had two sources of power, membership and shares. In the short to medium term the only thing we have real control over is membership numbers to coordinate campaigns against the board. Long term though fan ownership i think is the way to go. Something like that is the best mechanism to ensure that conflicts of interest like prop co cannot arise. that said, reading threads like this and all the other jags trust ones makes you think it would be pretty disasterous if we were fan owned.

 

once upon a time i went to see fcum and believed in what was possible. but such fancies put into this context is just pure utopian ****. sad really.

 

fcum had the advantage of being started from a clean sheet, as did AFC Wimbledon. More interesting and relevant will be how Stirling Albion, Dundee and Clyde work out in the future. A slightly different take is Stenhousemuir who are registered as a community interest company.

 

The negative comments you mention usually seem to work on the premise that a fan-owned club would have decisions made by regular mass meetings. (Can't imagine how "there will be no bevvying" would go down though :-)). This, of course, isnt' the case although there would be a healthy involvement of fans/members in the major decisions that doesn't exist in the current model.

 

Of course, there isn't anything to stop club boards in the current model acting in this way. But the simple fact is that they don't and fans tend to be excluded from such things. Hence the call for supporter representation and involvement which can then lead to fan ownership although that tends to arise as a consequence of chickens coming home to roost as a consequence of the old ways.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Stop all the snide comments and just post what you think you know, simple as that. If it hits a nerve at the club they will contact the admin to remove it

[mrD]

fcum had the advantage of being started from a clean sheet, as did AFC Wimbledon. More interesting and relevant will be how Stirling Albion, Dundee and Clyde work out in the future. A slightly different take is Stenhousemuir who are registered as a community interest company.

 

The negative comments you mention usually seem to work on the premise that a fan-owned club would have decisions made by regular mass meetings. (Can't imagine how "there will be no bevvying" would go down though :-)). This, of course, isnt' the case although there would be a healthy involvement of fans/members in the major decisions that doesn't exist in the current model.

 

Of course, there isn't anything to stop club boards in the current model acting in this way. But the simple fact is that they don't and fans tend to be excluded from such things. Hence the call for supporter representation and involvement which can then lead to fan ownership although that tends to arise as a consequence of chickens coming home to roost as a consequence of the old ways.

 

Yes that is true. The scottish context is dramatically different and i think much more of partick thistles fate is dependant upon the fortunes of scottish football in general rather than on what the board are up to.

 

Hence why my utopian visions are more centered around a total amalgamation between scottish and english football, but i wont rehearse my arguments that football associations should follow nation state soverignty lest that take us way off topic!

Edited February 23, 2011 by mrD

[Jaggernaut]

Yes that is true. The scottish context is dramatically different and i think much more of partick thistles fate is dependant upon the fortunes of scottish football in general rather than on what the board are up to.

 

Hence why my utopian visions are more centered around a total amalgamation between scottish and english football, but i wont rehearse my arguments that football associations should follow nation state soverignty lest that take us way off topic!

Brilliant. Haven't seen that on here for quite some time.