beep0608 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) A relatively simple question. Fire away folks. Edited February 19, 2011 by beep0608 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 What's your detailed opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 At this moment in time, no. But come the AGM and if a new board is democratically elected and are actually representative of the membership then there is hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 It could have been, but isn't. Wholesale change would have to occur before it could ever be considered credible again, but that's unlikely ever to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 A great big fat no. In it's current state, an embarassment to the good name of Partick Thistle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't think it is credible but that is 90% down to us the fans. If we want atrust that represents us then we have to get involved, not sit on the sidelines and winge winge over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't think it is credible but that is 90% down to us the fans. If we want atrust that represents us then we have to get involved, not sit on the sidelines and winge winge over I agree, in part. For those that are genuinely interested, take a look at the Trust's constitutional documents. They're saved on the website. I'd be surprised if you find anything there which gives even the suggestion of being a barrier to a successful, pro-active and well supported supporters' association. So what's the problem? It's twofold: a complete lack of any leadership willing to take the initiative and drive things forward, coupled with an overwhelming sense of apathy from its members and other supporters. I used to think that if you could build something, then people would come and join in. Well, for whatever reason, it proved to be very difficult to build anything, and nobody came anyway. After a while, it begins to look like a monumental waste of time. Life's too short, and I've got other more interesting things to get on with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Where's the deid duck option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beep0608 Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Where's the deid duck option? Filed under No. I'd have listed it separately but you wouldn't want me to split the No vote would you? It's looking conclusive so far, but let's give it a week to give folk a proper chance. For the nos and maybes there may be another simple poll to follow. Something like, what's the alternative? Personally, I think it's pointless. Disband the Trust, form some new supporters body, and it will be the same story all over again. Deja vu. Limits our credibility really, except as individuals. I'm interested in the future of the Jags but I don't have enough time to go to all their games, let alone try to organise things better. I'm thankful for those who try, whether I agree with what they do or not. In fact I'm getting a bit bored with the whole subject, as well as disappointed. Sad, innit? Edited February 20, 2011 by beep0608 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I've gone for maybe. I do think a lot depends on the next elections - though even some of those that are happy to be on the board just now have said they won't stand, and they aren't the ones that most people seem to think are the problem. One thing's for sure, membership will be down. I personally am not going to re-join until ive seen who is elected and they've arranged an open night like last years, which I feel was benefitial in that it put faces to the names and opinions (for better or worse) and generally enthused us all about the future of the Trust. I'm sure im not alone. I still wouldn't put it past the current Club Board to create a mechanism that bypasses the trust and I don't think there would be too many decenting voices, if there was to be greater club-fan relationship through this new channel. There is the matter of the 1m shares, but I dont see that being too big an issue to the common fan, who just wants to turn up on a Saturday, and see his/her team do well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I've gone for Maybe but that's because I'm assuming 'maybe' and 'could be' are the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I've gone for Maybe but that's because I'm assuming 'maybe' and 'could be' are the same thing. Maybe you're right but then again you could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I don't think it is credible but that is 90% down to us the fans. If we want atrust that represents us then we have to get involved, not sit on the sidelines and winge winge over Spot on - maybe the 90% should be higher though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Personally speaking... The question is bit open to interpretation but I'll give it a go. Membership this year is up whilst ironically gate receipts are down. In that respect, The Trust is stronger than before - and more credible. Of course, much of that increase is probably down the perception of The Trust have influenced the boardroom changes a few months ago and the open meeting. Since much of that Trust Board resigned, does that make The Trust less credible? Whatever your opinion there, since then, it does appear that some of those changes haven't really amounted to much - is that a reflection on The Trust or The Club? And perhaps looking at the recent AGM, I'm not sure it's The Trust's credibility that's most in question. Obviously those resignations hurt The Trust and there I think is where the credibility or legitimacy of The Trust is questionable. However, there was no real popular move to force new elections and the Trust simply went about it's business of filling vacancies in a legal and legitimate way. Having been personally hopeful of seeing early elections and been disappointed by the lack of interest in it I would say that the credibility of us all as a motivated and enthusiastic, involved fanbase is questionable as well. To repeat what others have said, we only get what we deserve. Some of the old guard are coming to the end of their tenure at the next elections. Some of the new guard won't be staying either. There will be holes to be filled and the people who come forward to fill them will have to face the whole credibility argument again. However, I am hopeful that we will have some constitutional recommendations to put before the membership which will address some of the criticisms. I am hopeful that the Trust's Board will be more representative of the wider Thistle community which should restore some credibility and place more of an emphasis on the responsibility we all have. Sadly, if you read this forum you will probably by now be put off ever coming forward and then as Supporters we collectively take another step backwards in what may well prove to be a massively important and decisive chapter in the future (or lack of it) of Partick Thistle. Some suggest setting up another Supporter's Association. I'm hopeful that The Trust can become an umbrella organisation for all the sub sets of fan groupings we have, including users of this forum, and that the Board will reflect that diversity. But if you question the credibility of The Trust with it's shareholding and 400 or so members, then I think there is naturally going to questions of legitimacy and credibility if another organisation claims to be more representative. Love it or hate it, The Trust carries with it a sizeable weight of fan representation which is currently being ignored by The Club and I think that there are real credibility issues there too. There are plenty of critics on this forum, but even just looking at the numbers voting in this poll, its suggests that whilst voices are loud, there is little appetite amongst the wider membership for revolution. Yet. Whatever happens at the next elections, it's going different faces. But if you want a different Trust, then don't be a spectator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) It'll be fascinating to see what constitutional changes the JTB have cooked up. When we moved away from the old format to the new constitution, it was done by whipping up some interest and decent numbers to take part in the vote. Looks like this will be done following a prolonged deadening process of demotivating people to participate. As others have said, there is all the scope in the world within the current Trust constitution to make it a vibrant and credible organisation. The problem has always been the point blank refusal of a significant group within the JTB to allow this to happen. Throw in a few asskissers who want to do anything the club tell them (sorry to be so blunt about it) and you're pretty much snookered when it comes to having an independent voice. I'd be highly mistrustful of any proposed changes emanating from those quarters when what needs to change is the attitude, not the structure. Edited February 21, 2011 by Double Ugly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) It'll be fascinating to see what constitutional changes the JTB have cooked up. When we moved away from the old format to the new constitution, it was done by whipping up some interest and decent numbers to take part in the vote. Looks like this will be done following a prolonged deadening process of demotivating people to participate. As others have said, there is all the scope in the world within the current Trust constitution to make it a vibrant and credible organisation. The problem has always been the point blank refusal of a significant group within the JTB to allow this to happen. Throw in a few asskissers who want to do anything the club tell them (sorry to be so blunt about it) and you're pretty much snookered when it comes to having an independent voice. I'd be highly mistrustful of any proposed changes emanating from those quarters when what needs to change is the attitude, not the structure. What I've seen about the suggested changes would lead me to conclude that any such changes might invalidate the Trust's status as an IPS. So I hope that the appropriate representations are being made so that we don't get into a situation where any changes passed by the members are not accepted by the FSA when they are registered with them (and thus are invalidated). The rules do not permit any rule changes which will invalidate ongoing approval as an IPS. The status of IPS is critical to allow shares to be held collectively in a legally secure manner. But I agree that the whole issue is more to do with what the Trust Board does, rather than anything to do with the constitution. (And I think there's more than enough leeway within the existing rules to do all of the things that BCG is outlining). At the end of the day though, the constitution simply defines what the Trust can and can't do in a legal sense. Credibility is derived by the actions that are taken, and not the words in the rules. Edited February 21, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 If the changes have been drafted with the same precision and care they used when copying my name and email address from my application, we can look forward to pissing away another 6 months on legal challenges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) I still wouldn't put it past the current Club Board to create a mechanism that bypasses the trust and I don't think there would be too many decenting voices, if there was to be greater club-fan relationship through this new channel. Yeah, that seemed to be the discourse on offer by some of the people that left the jags trust not that long ago who felt that the trust was inept and that david beatie by virtue of writing a column on the programme was as bush described blair 'a stand up guy'. These voices it appears to be taking a different tone re the club board now. Fickle bunch thistle fans, and maybe therin lies the problem. Edited February 21, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Some suggest setting up another Supporter's Association. I'm hopeful that The Trust can become an umbrella organisation for all the sub sets of fan groupings we have, including users of this forum, and that the Board will reflect that diversity. But if you question the credibility of The Trust with it's shareholding and 400 or so members, then I think there is naturally going to questions of legitimacy and credibility if another organisation claims to be more representative. Love it or hate it, The Trust carries with it a sizeable weight of fan representation which is currently being ignored by The Club and I think that there are real credibility issues there too. There are plenty of critics on this forum, but even just looking at the numbers voting in this poll, its suggests that whilst voices are loud, there is little appetite amongst the wider membership for revolution. Yet. . The seperate supporters association as a bulwark against the 'old guard' (whoever that is?) is the daftest argument that has been doing the rounds for the past couple of years. If the jags trust has a democratic mechanism and the only people that are using it to gain ascendancy are the 'old guard' then presumably if an alternative democratic organisation is formed and it gains some clout then presumably the same 'old guard' will use those mechanisms to gain dominance. Unless of course the new organisation is not democratic to prevent such a counter revolution happening. Just out of interest, who is this vanguard amongst our fanbase that can steer us to the promised land? Ultimately, its down to the fans to get involved in the democratic process of our supporters organisation. If there is some truth that there is an 'old guard' that are not acting in the interests of the fans as a whole but are acting in thier own intersts then the only way that can be mitigated is to get as many fans involved to dilute that influence. That would be the same regardless of whether it is the old jags trust or the new funky jags trust - if of course the latter is democratic. Further, i queiry this polemical notion of their being an old guard. This is of course in referance to the north west bus right? (see the problem with inferring stuff which is popular round here is that its difficult to really get a grip of what the problem is). At the end of the day, this is just a section of the fans acting out their intrests. The way people talk its as if there are no other groupings in operation, but thats just the nature of football club fanbases with different supporters buses etc. I mean, seems that in every guise of the jags trust there has been a heavy influence of EOS jags but no one has concluded any nefarious intentions on their part, but clearly there is a representation there. Same goes for the NOMADs, was there not people saying they should have representation (if i remember correctly there was someone on the JTB who claimed to be acting as a delegate on their behalf?) So, clearly the NW bunch are just a natural outcome of being football supporters that go on different buses and have their own social settings right? So what makes them so specially malevolant, should i get David Icke to conduct an investigation? Edited February 21, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I must admit to scratching my head when I see (usually the same few) people bemoaning the performance of the Jags Trust, saying that it's useless (or deid, or both), and making vague comments about the need for an alternative, but actually doing nothing. And let's be absolutely clear, whatever alternative emerged, there would be differences of opinion, indeed probably different factions with quite different views about how "to take things forward". And what exactly does "take things forward" mean? Gaining greater influence on big decisions that get made at Firhill? Well, how can this be done, given that the dream of buying massive amounts of shares to become a (or the) dominant influence will never become reality. Does it mean generating income for the club? Well, it clearly does that with various events that get organized. Of course there are other possible ways of doing this, but it's not clear (or even necessary) that this has to be done via the Jags Trust. There's really nothing to stop any individual supporter or group of supporters organizing something to raise money for the club. But then I do ask myself, what is the point of joining the Jags Trust? I'm a member, but I basically consider my fee just to be yet another donation to the club. That's fair enough. So what would be the point of joining some alternative grouping, even if one was to appear rather than remaining a figment of some people's imagination? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) The point i think is to build upon the shares already owned by the trust and increase the power of a representative body of the fans onto the running of the club. No taxation without representation kinda thing. That principle IMO is sound. There are bascilly two sources of power the fans can have. 1)collective shareowning (i.e the trust) 2)an organised entity of members of fans which can coordinate campaigns actions of the fans to make the club listen. (i.e the trust) Thus, the power of the fans via the trust increases if we both gain shares and gain members. All this can only work though if our representatives can work in a unified manner to a clearly stated purpose that represents the agreed interests of the fans. This is where the problem has laid for the last few years. But that i think can be worked on. The stupidity of setting up an alternative organisation is that it immediately diminishes those 2 sources of power. Indeed, it would be in the interests of the club to have such instutionalised splits which i think is an important point to consider when noises about setting up an alternative fans group eminated from those who had just left the jags trust whilst lauding the virtues of the board on the basis of programme columns, calendars and drinks invitations. The BOD took us for mugs and nearly suceeded in instituationalising a non reversable split upon the fans. All this is now in disary since jims been chucked of the BOD, but thankfully we do not have a situation where we have an institutialised split in the fanbase. Heres hoping that idea is dead now. Like it or not, the only game in town is the Jags Trust, and if its credibility is in question then we need to change those things that make it uncredible. But setting in stone an arrangement that irrevesibly weakens the power of the fans is not the way to go about it. Edited February 21, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I'm just jumping in to agree with all of that because the chance doesn't come round too often with us, D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) haha brilliant i was a bit scared when i saw you were looking at this thread. i was like oh shit im defiantely not gonna get this essay done! Edited February 21, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I must admit to scratching my head when I see (usually the same few) people bemoaning the performance of the Jags Trust, saying that it's useless (or deid, or both), and making vague comments about the need for an alternative, but actually doing nothing. And let's be absolutely clear, whatever alternative emerged, there would be differences of opinion, indeed probably different factions with quite different views about how "to take things forward". And what exactly does "take things forward" mean? Gaining greater influence on big decisions that get made at Firhill? Well, how can this be done, given that the dream of buying massive amounts of shares to become a (or the) dominant influence will never become reality. Does it mean generating income for the club? Well, it clearly does that with various events that get organized. Of course there are other possible ways of doing this, but it's not clear (or even necessary) that this has to be done via the Jags Trust. There's really nothing to stop any individual supporter or group of supporters organizing something to raise money for the club. But then I do ask myself, what is the point of joining the Jags Trust? I'm a member, but I basically consider my fee just to be yet another donation to the club. That's fair enough. So what would be the point of joining some alternative grouping, even if one was to appear rather than remaining a figment of some people's imagination? What the JagsTrust (and any supporters trust) is and should be about is the involvement of the fans in the running of the club. Joining the Trust should be an affirmation that you share that belief. It isn't a donation to the club - it's more of a contribution towards the running of the Trust in caryring out it's obligations to its' members. Having said that, you do make a valid point. Many of the criticisms that have been made of the Trust over the years seem to be based on the premise that there is a clear and obvious answer to what's in the best interests of the members/fans in dealing with the Club. That's not and has never been the case - the Trust Boards that I have served on have always had a mixture of people with differing views. At the end of the day what they need to do is to work together to find a satisfactory way forward and, if that doesn't prove possible, to involve the wider membership for a decision. In some instances, the decision may be important enough that it should be put to the members in any event. But that does mean that there are always going to be situations where the Trust doesn't do what you would prefer - it's very much a question of win some/lose some. In that context, I'd expect that the primary obligation of any member of the Trust Board should be to represent the fans as best as they are able as a factor overriding their personal views on any individual matter. What that is happening or has happened is a matter of conjecture but the basis principle holds good imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Allan, are JTB members recallable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.