A Couple Of Qs About The Jags Trust Board

[stolenscone]

BCG Jag mentioned in another thread that he is no longer on the Board of the Jags Trust. I wasn't aware of that, but I don't really keep myself up to speed on such matters.

 

Having had a quick look at the Trust's website, I see that it still lists Bob as a co-opted member, and Maggie Forsyth as the Treasurer (I know she stood down from another news item that I found on the website).

 

So, my first question is, who exactly IS on the Board of the Jags Trust?

 

It sounds as though the Trust voted against the Club's proposals at Friday's EGM (I've already said that under the circumstances, this was probably the correct decision), but I can't find anything after the Trust's statement which said that they were taking advice in advance of the EGM and would update supporters shortly. Were we updated?

 

So, am I alone in thinking that:

1) It's not generally known who is currently on the Trust Board;

 

2) The Trust Board has yet to tell members / supporters what advice it got about motions in advance of the EGM, or from whom;

 

3) The Trust Board made an executive decision to vote against the motions without asking its members what they wanted to do; and

 

4) The Trust Board has not yet explained to its members / the supporters why it voted as it did at the EGM (albeit the EGM only took place a few days ago, so we should give them a bit of time to provide this update).

 

Is all that correct?

 

Finally, there was talk prior to the EGM that the Trust Board had struck a deal with certain unpopular former directors of the football club to vote down the motions put forward at the EGM. Although that was flatly denied, there is evidence of at least some contact having been made between (past / present?) Trust Board members and former directors, and clearly the motions were voted down. It may have all been done with the best of intentions, but can we have a detailed explanation of what went on, please? There have been far too many backroom deals done in the past, and all that many of us want to see is a bit of honesty.

 

If possible, it would be nice if we could keep the comments on this thread constructive.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

David

[jags365]

BCG Jag mentioned in another thread that he is no longer on the Board of the Jags Trust. I wasn't aware of that, but I don't really keep myself up to speed on such matters.

 

Having had a quick look at the Trust's website, I see that it still lists Bob as a co-opted member, and Maggie Forsyth as the Treasurer (I know she stood down from another news item that I found on the website).

 

So, my first question is, who exactly IS on the Board of the Jags Trust?

 

It sounds as though the Trust voted against the Club's proposals at Friday's EGM (I've already said that under the circumstances, this was probably the correct decision), but I can't find anything after the Trust's statement which said that they were taking advice in advance of the EGM and would update supporters shortly. Were we updated?

 

So, am I alone in thinking that:

1) It's not generally known who is currently on the Trust Board;

As we only had the Trust AGM on thursday night, it was required to formally approve the new members of the Trust Board. At this point Bob Carey-Grieve and Norman Ferguson stood down from the Trust Board. There will be an update on the website tonight to confirm what went on at the AGM/EGM and we'll be looking to get the new bio pages set up as well.

 

2) The Trust Board has yet to tell members / supporters what advice it got about motions in advance of the EGM, or from whom;

As above, this will be explained in the update. We got our legal advice from the Supporters Direct lawyers and were in discussions with them up until Thursday afternoon before the AGM, meaning that unfortunatley we were unable to put anything out in regards to this - however the advice was there for those able to attend the AGM. Not ideal obviously, but not much else we could have done in this instance.

 

3) The Trust Board made an executive decision to vote against the motions without asking its members what they wanted to do; and

This EGM was discussed with the members attending the AGM and it no-one seemed to be in support of the motions tabled and as you've already mentioned I don't really see how we could have voted for these to pass without any safeguards in place.

 

4) The Trust Board has not yet explained to its members / the supporters why it voted as it did at the EGM (albeit the EGM only took place a few days ago, so we should give them a bit of time to provide this update).

Update to follow tonight.

Is all that correct?

 

Finally, there was talk prior to the EGM that the Trust Board had struck a deal with certain unpopular former directors of the football club to vote down the motions put forward at the EGM. Although that was flatly denied, there is evidence of at least some contact having been made between (past / present?) Trust Board members and former directors, and clearly the motions were voted down. It may have all been done with the best of intentions, but can we have a detailed explanation of what went on, please? There have been far too many backroom deals done in the past, and all that many of us want to see is a bit of honesty.

 

Mr Prentice had given his proxy to Morag McHaffie with a clear direction to vote against the motion as he was unable to attend the EGM in person as he was/is on holiday.

 

If possible, it would be nice if we could keep the comments on this thread constructive.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

David

Just to add that all motions were voted down on a show of hands and it was decided that the poll vote was not neccesary due to direction of proxy votes which had been lodged with Helen Muir, company sec. And there will be a fuller update on the Trust website tonight.

[stolenscone]

Thanks for the clarity, Donald.

[jags365]

Oops, and Maggie has also resigned from the Trust Board having reached her 4 year limit.

[Allan Heron]

Oops, and Maggie has also resigned from the Trust Board having reached her 4 year limit.

 

A pedant would argue that doesn't involve resignation. If you're not able to be a member of something you can't therefore resign from it.

 

I'm not a pedant, of course.

[Julie Ann]

Mr Prentice had given his proxy to Morag McHaffie with a clear direction to vote against the motion as he was unable to attend the EGM in person as he was/is on holiday.

 

so when you posted in the egm thread that there wasn't a hint of truth about the trust having mr prentice's proxy that wasn't really true and there was a kind of hint of truth about it? was it mr peden that had the proxies of 3 million shares and not the trust?

Edited September 5, 2011 by Julie Ann

[Allan Heron]

so when you posted in the egm thread that there wasn't a hint of truth about the trust having mr prentice's proxy that wasn't really true and there was a kind of hint of truth about it? was it mr peden that had the proxies of 3 million shares and not the trust?

 

That wasn't the question that Donald answered as I'm sure you are quite aware. And it was also confirmed by me on Friday that the Trust had the proxy of one major shareholder with an instruction to vote against the resolutions which they had confirmed at the AGM on Thursday evening.

 

So the other proxies were held elsewhere and perhaps not a million miles from where you suggest.

[Julie Ann]

That wasn't the question that Donald answered as I'm sure you are quite aware. And it was also confirmed by me on Friday that the Trust had the proxy of one major shareholder with an instruction to vote against the resolutions which they had confirmed at the AGM on Thursday evening.

 

So the other proxies were held elsewhere and perhaps not a million miles from where you suggest.

now you've got me really confused. the original post that was answered claiming not a hint of truth was:

 

Any truth in the rumour, going round firhill, on Saturday...

 

The Trust have enlisted the proxy votes of some ex Thistle directors, who financially mis managed the Club into it's current state. To pass a vote of no confidence... All on the promise, that should said directors return to power, the Trust will get it's seat on the board back?

 

Or is it just that Maggie and eddie have actually been on an innocent date, together?

 

I don't know what's worse!

 

but its been stated as fact that the trust had mr prentice's proxy. so there was a hint of truth wasn't there albeit the whole post not being 100% accurate? or are we getting into ptfc board speak?

[jags365]

now you've got me really confused. the original post that was answered claiming not a hint of truth was:

 

 

 

but its been stated as fact that the trust had mr prentice's proxy. so there was a hint of truth wasn't there albeit the whole post not being 100% accurate? or are we getting into ptfc board speak?

Just to confirm, I wasn't actually aware we had the Proxy when I made my original post. However, I can certainly confirm that there was no 'deal' of any sort done - and in any case the proxy votes didn't come into play during the course of voting anyway as the motions were voted down by a show of hands.

[Julie Ann]

Just to confirm, I wasn't actually aware we had the Proxy when I made my original post. However, I can certainly confirm that there was no 'deal' of any sort done - and in any case the proxy votes didn't come into play during the course of voting anyway as the motions were voted down by a show of hands.

fair play to you. just certain members of the jt having private chats with ex directors and major shareholders?

[jags365]

Website now updated with round up of the Trust AGM and PTFC LTD EGM.

 

>Here<

 

Edited to add:

 

I'll try to answer any further questions that anyone has but this may not be until tomorrow before I can get back on.

 

Thanks

Donald

Edited September 5, 2011 by jags365

[Junior]

Get whoever is doing your website to learn to format things so people can actually read them. 6pt font is no use

[B.C.G. JAG]

Get whoever is doing your website to learn to format things so people can actually read them. 6pt font is no use

Don't know what Browser you use, but on Firefox you can use the Zoom feature in the View menu.

[Alan Murray]

Font size is controlled by the poster.

 

Think somebody has cut and pasted from word.

[Vom Itorium]

Website now updated with round up of the Trust AGM and PTFC LTD EGM.

 

>Here<

 

Edited to add:

 

I'll try to answer any further questions that anyone has but this may not be until tomorrow before I can get back on.

 

Thanks

Donald

It intrigues me that the Trust has suddenly found the balls it could never muster to take on this Board of Directors yet hardly uttered a squeak towards the previous nonsense that we were inflicted with. Should anything be read into the cosy wee gathering at the back of the room at Friday's EGM or was that just coincidental?

[jags365]

Get whoever is doing your website to learn to format things so people can actually read them. 6pt font is no use

Sorry, this has been changed now.

[jags365]

It intrigues me that the Trust has suddenly found the balls it could never muster to take on this Board of Directors yet hardly uttered a squeak towards the previous nonsense that we were inflicted with. Should anything be read into the cosy wee gathering at the back of the room at Friday's EGM or was that just coincidental?

Well, I was late to the EGM so wasn't party to the wee gathering, as you put it. However I think it was pretty clear from the feedback that we got from our AGM that we couldn't vote in favour of this without any safeguards put in.

[jaf]

It intrigues me that the Trust has suddenly found the balls it could never muster to take on this Board of Directors yet hardly uttered a squeak towards the previous nonsense that we were inflicted with. Should anything be read into the cosy wee gathering at the back of the room at Friday's EGM or was that just coincidental?

 

There is so much baggage with the Trust - why dont they approach the Board and ask that they can transfer the shares to a totally new organisation with Supporters Direct adopted recommended constitution; and encourage everyone to participate and ask the Board from day one to build a 'special relationship' with the new entity?

 

Would that not be a better option for Partick Thistle, as a company, as a club and for the supporters of the club? And after all is that not what the Trust should be concerned with as a priority? It would give the fans something positive to rally round and could very much be a fresh start.

 

I would join in a leap of faith; but never ever would I give a penny again to The Jags Trust. I suspect there are more than just me feel like this.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jaf

[Vom Itorium]

There is so much baggage with the Trust - why dont they approach the Board and ask that they can transfer the shares to a totally new organisation with Supporters Direct adopted recommended constitution; and encourage everyone to participate and ask the Board from day one to build a 'special relationship' with the new entity?

 

Would that not be a better option for Partick Thistle, as a company, as a club and for the supporters of the club? And after all is that not what the Trust should be concerned with as a priority? It would give the fans something positive to rally round and could very much be a fresh start.

 

I would join in a leap of faith; but never ever would I give a penny again to The Jags Trust. I suspect there are more than just me feel like this.

100% with you on that.

[Mediocre Pundit]

The problem with the JT is that not enough people are willing to stand for office to generate debate and actual contested elections. There is no reason to believe that this will change with a new organisation. What the JT needs is a big push at the time of the next elections to have real competition for the available positions. Only then will we get the JT that we deserve. It may still be shit, but at least it will be democratic...

[jaf]

The problem with the JT is that not enough people are willing to stand for office to generate debate and actual contested elections. There is no reason to believe that this will change with a new organisation. What the JT needs is a big push at the time of the next elections to have real competition for the available positions. Only then will we get the JT that we deserve. It may still be shit, but at least it will be democratic...

 

Yes but maybe there are a number of people who would be prepared to do things but just not within the Trust wrapper so I do not think you can say it would not change with a new organisation. Plus a new organisation could be injected with vigour and be seen as something positive and therefore give people something to become enthused about and evangelical about.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Yes but maybe there are a number of people who would be prepared to do things but just not within the Trust wrapper so I do not think you can say it would not change with a new organisation. Plus a new organisation could be injected with vigour and be seen as something positive and therefore give people something to become enthused about and evangelical about.

Ok, batting it back, if there is any interest in a new organisation being established then why has nothing been done?

[twinny]

The problem with the JT is that not enough people are willing to stand for office to generate debate and actual contested elections. There is no reason to believe that this will change with a new organisation. What the JT needs is a big push at the time of the next elections to have real competition for the available positions. Only then will we get the JT that we deserve. It may still be shit, but at least it will be democratic...

 

I agree both with this post and jaf's above. The JT has it's own inner workings that I feel need adapted in order to encourage contested elections, and this might be easier with a new organisation. My main point is that, outside the secretary, club board rep, treasurer and membership secretary I'm not aware of any specific JT board positions, and having more clearly defined roles might encourage people to stand for them. If those wishing to join the board were to stand for positions such as 'fundraising coordinator' 'volunteer recruitment coordinator' or 'events coordinator' (I'm sure better options are available these just came from off the top of my head) with defined job roles, people might realise they have something to offer that they didn't know the JT was looking for. The secretary, board rep and treasurer would act as line managers in this structure I guess.

 

It could be suggested that we already have the JT that we deserve when you consider the apathy found in our support. I try to give the trust a chance but for so long they've been rather silent, and that just encourages the apathy towards the political side of the clubs business.

[Allan Heron]

There is so much baggage with the Trust - why dont they approach the Board and ask that they can transfer the shares to a totally new organisation with Supporters Direct adopted recommended constitution; and encourage everyone to participate and ask the Board from day one to build a 'special relationship' with the new entity?

 

Would that not be a better option for Partick Thistle, as a company, as a club and for the supporters of the club? And after all is that not what the Trust should be concerned with as a priority? It would give the fans something positive to rally round and could very much be a fresh start.

 

I would join in a leap of faith; but never ever would I give a penny again to The Jags Trust. I suspect there are more than just me feel like this.

 

I'm not sure what difference that would make - the constitution that the Trust has is the Supporters Direct constitution - you'd just be swapping apples for apples.

 

It's the people that are involved that are important and really dead easy to ensure that whoever you consider the "right" people to get involved. But no one ever bothers.

 

The simple fact is that most fans would seem to want "something" to happen provided it doesn't involve them having to make any effort. And "something" always seems to be held as a self-evident truth by someone when ultimately it's just one opinion amongst many.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

The problem with the JT is that not enough people are willing to stand for office to generate debate and actual contested elections. There is no reason to believe that this will change with a new organisation. What the JT needs is a big push at the time of the next elections to have real competition for the available positions. Only then will we get the JT that we deserve. It may still be shit, but at least it will be democratic...

This is true and it would be fine if we had a fanbase that regularly regenerated and there was a constant stream of Jags folk with new ideas and the enthusiasm to carry out those ideas. Sadly there's been too many gone before and left the Trust for various reasons mostly all negative. Now there's just too many with the ideas, expertise and enthusiasm outside looking in.

A while back I believed that a re-branding of the JT with a dual purpose (one arm simple fund raising and the other, for want of another word, the "political" arm) would have worked. Now I feel the Trust is just too tarnished.

We've hardly ever been in more need of a unified vibrant supporters association. Clearly the Trust can't give us that unity. Time then to start all over again with a supporters association free of all the baggage.