Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Allan, are JTB members recallable? Yes - members can remove people from the Trust Board but you do need to get enough support to call an EGM and then get the support of two-thirds of those present. And oyu do need an alternative as well otherwise it's just seen as a negative tactic and more easily defeated I recall through a haze of misty nostalgia that's what happened in the good old days (Edited to add - the membership has very wide powers if they choose to exercise the,. The Trust Board can be instructed on what they should do and they have no alternative but to follow this. However, this does require participation to make this happen. Some of the motions I've moved at AGM's have included the provision that any changes can only be made by members in a general meeting e.g. our affiliation to Supporters Direct.) Edited February 21, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) sounds like there is sufficient provision within the constitution to ensure accountablity amongst the JTB. The other side of accountablity is a critical fanbase, this we most certainly seem to have but it seems to go mainly on the forum. I wonder what steps could be taken to make our powers of critique have more bearing on the Trust Board making it operate more in line with fans wishes. If we could work on getting the accountability side of things sorted then i think we will be well on the way to having a credible organisation on the go. so what needs to change? Edited February 21, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved 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. Well it's lucky that the fans aren't that stupid. It's blindingly obvious from the fans survey, that the club are lining up some kind of membership scheme as a way of circumventing the Trust. That was put to me by someone on the club board over a year ago, as a scheme to reinvigorate the fans, at the time when the board decided not to invite the Trust representative to join them. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now and I told them so at the time. It's fair to say that the more open approach around October/November from David Beattie was seen by me (and probably others but they can speak for themselves) as a positive step. Let's face it, anything would have been positive after the passive-aggressive ramblings of the previous author of the programme notes. However, it soon became clear that the distance between the board and the fans showed no sign of becoming any smaller. This "don't worry, we sorted it, but now it's your turn" business is just the latest manifestation of them just not getting it. The final nail in the coffin was of course the knife in Jim Alexander's back and the complicity evident from what has been said (or not said) since (metaphor overload - sorry) but that's at least revealed the hollowness of the latest incarnation of the shadowy figures running the club. Maybe I shouldn't have thrown in the JTB towel when I did, but I felt that I had something interesting and radical to offer and when it was met with, at best, an apathetic response within that particular group, I got the distinct impression that I was the one that was "off message". As far as the Trust shares are concerned, it seems that for some, they hold a talismanic quality way above what they have actually ever been useful for. To me they are a sheet anchor that weighs down the chance of there ever being an effective supporters group that actually does stuff that the fans would be interested in, like expressing a view on league reconstruction, or organising a co ordinated protest against cheating in the Dundee style, or campaigning for standing areas at all grounds, or even just trying to get the Aitken Suite kept open until ten minutes before kick off. Those million shares owned by the Trust haven't made one iota of difference to propco, the custodian shares baloney or the latest shareholder revolution, but instead they allowed the Trust to become a craven, enfeebled organisation, scared to upset the club board for fear of upsetting its own members (and I include myself in that character assassination). All of that sets in context any short lived ideas that I may have had for there being a "third way". For the avoidance of doubt though, I'll still be helping to sell calendars next year so if anyone wants to put their name down to secure a prime pitch on the South Drive, just let me know. edited for spelling Edited February 21, 2011 by honved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 sounds like there is sufficient provision within the constitution to ensure accountablity amongst the JTB. The other side of accountablity is a critical fanbase, this we most certainly seem to have but it seems to go mainly on the forum. I wonder what steps could be taken to make our powers of critique have more bearing on the Trust Board making it operate more in line with fans wishes. If we could work on getting the accountability side of things sorted then i think we will be well on the way to having a credible organisation on the go. so what needs to change? Well, forum users need to recognise that this is a great medium for sharing information and opinions but it's not a great medium for allowing that to be progressed to any kind of action which distils all or most of the opinions on offer. That needs more direct involvement. I've always been an advocate for the Trust having regular meetings and have often suggested having quarterly meetings. The downside of this is that when we've had such meeting that they've been poorly attended (including the one prior to the critical PropCo meeting with the club which staggered me given the fury being vented on here) but I think they need to be continued with regardless to have an ongoing two-way communication. But at least the water is there, even if the horse remains a bit reluctant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Maybe I shouldn't have thrown in the JTB towel when I did, but I felt that I had something interesting and radical to offer and when it was met with, at best, an apathetic response within that particular group, I got the distinct impression that I was the one that was "off message". To be honest, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that you were "detatched" from the others on the Trust Board and then dumped. Or is that me being too paranoid? Begin equally honest, I thought at the time that there was seemed to be little substantive basis for the resignations. Yes, there was a difference in preferred approach from people on the Trust Board but that was always resolvable one way or the other by involving the members. And doing that would also serve to strengthen the position with the club imo. Edited February 21, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 In that respect, The Trust is stronger than before - and more credible....I'm not sure it's The Trust's credibility that's most in question. BCG Jag, there's a nice aroma of freshly roasted coffee beans wafting over Firhill. Double Ugly shoots and scores: I'd be highly mistrustful of any proposed changes emanating from those quarters when what needs to change is the attitude, not the structure. Elections this summer are vital to create a new world order, else this particular mallard will have quacked it last Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 To be honest, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that you were "detatched" from the others on the Trust Board and then dumped. Or is that me being too paranoid? Begin equally honest, I thought at the time that there was seemed to be little substantive basis for the resignations. Yes, there was a difference in preferred approach from people on the Trust Board but that was always resolvable one way or the other by involving the members. And doing that would also serve to strengthen the position with the club imo. That is too paranoid. Going back to the original question...no, the Trust is not credible at the moment and everyone at Firhill is culpable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) That is too paranoid. Going back to the original question...no, the Trust is not credible at the moment and everyone at Firhill is culpable. Ah well, I'll need to search out some other conspiracy theory then!! I do strongly agree with your view that everyone at Firhill is culpable. The club has meen as a contributor to the Trust's position as they have themselves. The appropriate thing to have done at the end of last year should have been a wiping clear of the slate and having a fresh start. Wasn't to be though. Edited February 21, 2011 by Allan Heron 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.