Chairmans Page

[Auld Jag]

I am a bit suprised that no one else has mentioned this.But after reading David Beatties programme page yesterday there are a few things that i am unsure about.Our chairman now says that he knew of the break out clause with the Warriors but as we had not heard anything from the Warriors he didnt want to cause speculation.Why did he not say yes there is a break out clause but we have heard nothing from the Warriors? He also says that this will cause a hole in our budget of about £200K i thought the figure was about £100k ? Anybody else got any toughts on theese points?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

As I understand the loss of income will be £100K a year with two years remaining of the contract therefore where the £200K comes from.

What I'm not clear about is whether the Club knew the 5 year contract was never going to be renewed. If they were well aware it wasn't to be renewed then the break off with two years remaining, tho' still a shock to the system, wouldn't quite be the bombshell that would hit us if we tentatively believed the Warriors would be here for a sixth or seventh year.

[northernsoul]

The £200k is including the money we make from the bar, during the rugby games and the cost to hire a groundsman/maintain the pitch.

[Guest fredthecheesecloth]

Some people will find anything to gripe about. The chairmans page was exactly what was necessary in the situation, upfront honesty, transparency etc. Previous regimes would have swept it under the carpet. EVERYTHING in his programme notes made sense, surprised the Jags Trust haven't started drumbeating mind you.

[Auld Jag]

Some people will find anything to gripe about. The chairmans page was exactly what was necessary in the situation, upfront honesty, transparency etc. Previous regimes would have swept it under the carpet. EVERYTHING in his programme notes made sense, surprised the Jags Trust haven't started drumbeating mind you.

I am not griping merely asking what others thought.As he says himself the answer he gave at the meet the board night wasnt accurate.Imo he could have answered the question accuratly.

[Steven H]

Some people will find anything to gripe about. The chairmans page was exactly what was necessary in the situation, upfront honesty, transparency etc. Previous regimes would have swept it under the carpet. EVERYTHING in his programme notes made sense, surprised the Jags Trust haven't started drumbeating mind you.

 

Then as one of the 5 who he mentions (and I hope it was the JTB sniping from the sidelines rather than the 5 people who turned up), let me be the first . By the way, at least 2 of the 5 would have no problem in mucking in with any new fans association, please remember that as you read what I have to say

 

I agree with what he had to say in the programe notes, whether it was the right place to say it (or the right person to say it) I'm not so sure. I STILL fail to see how we cannot have what we want under the umbrella of the Jags Trust, in fact I think it could be better that way. The JT in it's current guise could provide the 'political' wing (but I accept it would need different people on the board of that wing, and a different approach to working with the Club), while the fundraising wing could be provided by another section. 2 wings, 2 boards (smaller number of Board Members tho), both angles covered. As two wings of the same flying machine, one will know what the other is doing, board meetings would be unified etc, but the fundraising board would not need to gain approval from the political board in order to give funds to the club. A bit of overlapping at board level will be needed but the membership as a whole can get involved as much as they like in 1 or both wings.

 

Why should we? Well I believe ANY fans association should be responsible for holding the Club to account whenever the need arises (as well as fundraising for the Club, where the money is going to the Club without the 'what's in it for us' attitude, i.e. how many shares can will it get us). An association that just promotes the political agenda (like the JT current appears to do, and do badly) isn't doing enough, and an association that just promotes fundraising isn't doing enough. The structures are all in place with the Jags Trust already, it's the cogs which make the chains move that need to be changed...IMO of course.

 

A question, do the fans owe it to the JT to make the JT a success, or does the JT owe it to the fans to make the JT a success? Clue: without one, we can't have the other.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Steven H

[Dunfermline Jag]

Some people will find anything to gripe about. The chairmans page was exactly what was necessary in the situation, upfront honesty, transparency etc. Previous regimes would have swept it under the carpet. EVERYTHING in his programme notes made sense, surprised the Jags Trust haven't started drumbeating mind you.

 

Except it wasn't upfront honesty, was it? It was an admission that, at a night when the Board were to answer the fans questions, he lied - or maybe he really DIDN'T know the details about the break clause at the time and is lying to us now because he thinks he looked like a diddy at the time. Either way...!

[Steven H]

Except it wasn't upfront honesty, was it? It was an admission that, at a night when the Board were to answer the fans questions, he lied - or maybe he really DIDN'T know the details about the break clause at the time and is lying to us now because he thinks he looked like a diddy at the time. Either way...!

 

Was gona mention this too, but felt I'd said plenty already

[davemains]

Except it wasn't upfront honesty, was it? It was an admission that, at a night when the Board were to answer the fans questions, he lied - or maybe he really DIDN'T know the details about the break clause at the time and is lying to us now because he thinks he looked like a diddy at the time. Either way...!

It came off more to me that he didnt want rumours to start. From memory that was towards the end (when it seemwd things had gone well). happy to be corrected if im wrong ... nonetheless the article is a formal confiemation of what everyone already thinks - the jags trust is dead.

[Fawlty Towers]

The more important question for me is how are we as supporters along with the directors going to generate additional funds next season to make up for the loss of the Warriors' income?

 

In terms of the Trust even I am losing patience with them at the moment.

[1 John Lambie]

Maybe I've mis-read people's posts on here, but at the meet the board night David Beattie said he knew that there was a clasue in the deal where they could leave, but he didn't know the details of it & wasn't overly stressed about it as they hadn't hears anything from the Warriors. I wouldn't call that lying.

[MerryHell]

I'm not going to back the board on everything, but I can understand why DB decided to answer the question posed in the way he did. The night was supposed to be about informing the fans about the future plans for the club and to calm any fears over the proposed changes to the AOA etc. It was dressed as starting to communicate with the fans, but IMO they probably wanted to keep the agenda on this particular evening to the EGM and surrounding issues. I don't feel any less positive about the future of the club after reading his programme notes yesterday.

 

I do however feel that his comments on the JT are just the start of something. We are still to find out what Forever Thistle is all about...

[Steven H]

Maybe I've mis-read people's posts on here, but at the meet the board night David Beattie said he knew that there was a clasue in the deal where they could leave, but he didn't know the details of it & wasn't overly stressed about it as they hadn't hears anything from the Warriors. I wouldn't call that lying.

 

Except the fact that he did know the details and simply didn't want a positive night ruined by worry/speculation. Not the biggest fib ever told to us, and it was highlighted on here that his answer was a bit vague given his position at the club, but still flys in the face of the 100% honesty thing fans were creaming themselves over. I don't think it's coincidence that his 'confession' and his comments re the JT appeared in the same article, do you?

[MerryHell]

Except the fact that he did know the details and simply didn't want a positive night ruined by worry/speculation. Not the biggest fib ever told to us, and it was highlighted on here that his answer was a bit vague given his position at the club, but still flys in the face of the 100% honesty thing fans were creaming themselves over. I don't think it's coincidence that his 'confession' and his comments re the JT appeared in the same article, do you?

 

I think this is probably right - but remember that there had already been speculation in the papers about the Warriors leaving. I believe that the club hadn't been informed either way by the Warriors as they were in discussion with GCC at that point. There was no point in needlessly creating any further worry/speculation by adding to what was only speculation at the time. It maybe wasn't 100% honest, but I still believe that the people on the board are commited to pulling Thistle in the right direction.

 

IMO his comments on the JT were accurate, however surprised I was to read them. I didn't really expect anyone on the board to be quite as forthright in their opinions towards the JT - the relationship between the two has certainly broken down, just didn't expect it to be made quite as public. I don't think the rest of his column takes away from the accuracy of his JT related comments.

[Steven H]

I think this is probably right - but remember that there had already been speculation in the papers about the Warriors leaving. I believe that the club hadn't been informed either way by the Warriors as they were in discussion with GCC at that point. There was no point in needlessly creating any further worry/speculation by adding to what was only speculation at the time. It maybe wasn't 100% honest, but I still believe that the people on the board are commited to pulling Thistle in the right direction.

 

IMO his comments on the JT were accurate, however surprised I was to read them. I didn't really expect anyone on the board to be quite as forthright in their opinions towards the JT - the relationship between the two has certainly broken down, just didn't expect it to be made quite as public. I don't think the rest of his column takes away from the accuracy of his JT related comments.

 

I agree, but the Warriors had until the 30th of September to give us notice that they would be using the break clause...he knew that. Like I said, not the biggest fib ever told.

 

Also agree with everything you say about his comments re the JT, but I see DB's comments as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. The medicine didn't taste particularly bad (except the bit where we now have a £200k shortfall due to the Warriors moving), so the sugar has easily overpowered it.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Steven H

[twinny]

When do the chairman's noted normally appear on the official site?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Except the fact that he did know the details and simply didn't want a positive night ruined by worry/speculation.

To enlarge on that or maybe just a different take, had he answered "yes the Warriors are leaving at the end of the season" then there would undoubtedly have been a series of follow up questions regarding that subject.

One of the plus points of the evening was the wide subject matter discussed. A big turn off at previous less well attended meetings at Firhill I've attended has been side tracking where one particular subject comes under almost forensic scrutiny to the detriment of other items of importance or interest.

I'm not condoning anyone being economic with the truth, if that has indeed occurred, more pointing out that there can be a plus side to such action. Besides on this specific I can think of a few possible reasons why an evasive answer might have been preferable. We all want our chairman to be straight with us but at the same time we surely don't want him being naively blunt.

[Guest fredthecheesecloth]

Agree with a lot of the above, and really hope we can have a bit of forward perspective on it, rather than sniping about something that now is not really that important.

 

Steven, your points are fairly valid, but the Jags Trust reputation is the key thing in all of this. It does not have the respect of a lot of the fans, and it does not have the respect of the board of directors. New idea, clean slate, no past history of 'poor compliance', fresh perspective, different wings.

 

Change is coming.

[Steven H]

Agree with a lot of the above, and really hope we can have a bit of forward perspective on it, rather than sniping about something that now is not really that important.

 

Steven, your points are fairly valid, but the Jags Trust reputation is the key thing in all of this. It does not have the respect of a lot of the fans, and it does not have the respect of the board of directors. New idea, clean slate, no past history of 'poor compliance', fresh perspective, different wings.

 

Change is coming.

 

Oh I know, and it's needed, but change for changes sake just won't work...there needs to be structure and legality. BTW, my points are VERY valid

[Steven H]

To enlarge on that or maybe just a different take, had he answered "yes the Warriors are leaving at the end of the season" then there would undoubtedly have been a series of follow up questions regarding that subject.

One of the plus points of the evening was the wide subject matter discussed. A big turn off at previous less well attended meetings at Firhill I've attended has been side tracking where one particular subject comes under almost forensic scrutiny to the detriment of other items of importance or interest.

I'm not condoning anyone being economic with the truth, if that has indeed occurred, more pointing out that there can be a plus side to such action. Besides on this specific I can think of a few possible reasons why an evasive answer might have been preferable. We all want our chairman to be straight with us but at the same time we surely don't want him being naively blunt.

 

Agreed, but when the meeting was billed as 'No question is off limits and we'll be 100% honest in our replies' night, then this is revealed...well, let's just say the previous board would be ridiculed mercilessly for it, and imagine the uproar if it was the JT and not the Thistle board who had done this.

 

One wee white lie is ok, but what if it isn't 1, what if they aren't wee white ones? Didn't DB give the 'leap of faith' schpeel back at the time of the 1879/CF merger? Didn't DB say at the meet the board night "Trust me!" (at least twice)? Maybe he was right to hide the truth (all he had to say tho was the Warriors need to decide by the 30th of September whether or not they intend to use the break out clause) but for me it conflicts with the 'trust me' line.

[stolenscone]

Agreed, but when the meeting was billed as 'No question is off limits and we'll be 100% honest in our replies' night, then this is revealed...well, let's just say the previous board would be ridiculed mercilessly for it, and imagine the uproar if it was the JT and not the Thistle board who had done this.

 

 

Steven - I understand where you're coming from, but my take on it is that it's a little naive to think that any and all commercial information is ever going to be revealed in a public meeting, irrespective of the sound bites that were put out there before the meeting.

 

If the Board responded to questions on the night in the full knowledge that the break option was there; that no break notice had been served at that time; but the time limit for serving the break notice expired a few days thereafter, then from a practical perspective, it was quite correct to play things down. The reality is that the break notice was subsequently served, but that doesn't make the approach taken at the meeting any less valid.

 

For my part, all I really want the Board to do is to run the finances efficiently, to listen to supporters about how things can be improved, and to support the manager when finances permit. We haven't really had a Board that could be said to do either of the first two things with any degree of success over the past 8 or 10 years.

 

Warriors cash aside, if the Board really have turned a c.£300k loss into a small trading profit over the last few years, then bloody hell, that's more than I could have hoped for from them. At the end of the day, though, it's all about income and that means encouraging folk to turn up and watch on a Saturday. We all have a part to play in that.

 

As an aside (and the irony is not lost on me), I wasn't there on Saturday -- what's the lastest score on the "Trust Bashing" that seems to have gone on in the Chairman's column?

[Allan Heron]

Agreed, but when the meeting was billed as 'No question is off limits and we'll be 100% honest in our replies' night, then this is revealed...well, let's just say the previous board would be ridiculed mercilessly for it, and imagine the uproar if it was the JT and not the Thistle board who had done this.

 

One wee white lie is ok, but what if it isn't 1, what if they aren't wee white ones? Didn't DB give the 'leap of faith' schpeel back at the time of the 1879/CF merger? Didn't DB say at the meet the board night "Trust me!" (at least twice)? Maybe he was right to hide the truth (all he had to say tho was the Warriors need to decide by the 30th of September whether or not they intend to use the break out clause) but for me it conflicts with the 'trust me' line.

 

What I find quite amusing is the apparent implication that the Warriors might not have been aware of this and might only have discovered about it on the back of some chat from this meeting. I'm pretty sure they knew damned fine what the contractual terms were and the key date to notify about withdrawal from the arrangements.

 

What's even more baffling is why David Beattie chose to resurrect this particular aspect in the programme notes. It was perfectly possible to provide some commentary on the situation without making any mention of this, just as it was on the night of the meeting without coming across in a manner that i in itself raised questions.

 

You make valid points about the frequency with which David asks for trust. He's already marked down quite consderably in my book on the back of the "leap of faith". I'm alwasy innately suspicious about the ability of people who rely on this too often - I find it all too often to be a substitute for substance and/or action. I did prefer Billy Allan's approach on the evening - I think he gave more direct responses across the board, including a few that had the ability to upset some people.

 

There are going to be circumstances when it is not appropriate to reveal all that is going on or has happened - or perhaps even any of it. That has to be countered by an open approach to everything else. Putting aside any comments about individuals, I approve of the approach of the new board but this does need to be sustained. It's a vast improvement on the previous regime where just about anything was shrouded in a cloak of commercial confidentiality on a formal basis, whilst all sorts of information seemed to be readily to anyone who'd share a drink with a board memeber in the bar after a game.

 

Trust me, I know

[Steven H]

Steven - I understand where you're coming from, but my take on it is that it's a little naive to think that any and all commercial information is ever going to be revealed in a public meeting, irrespective of the sound bites that were put out there before the meeting.

 

If the Board responded to questions on the night in the full knowledge that the break option was there; that no break notice had been served at that time; but the time limit for serving the break notice expired a few days thereafter, then from a practical perspective, it was quite correct to play things down. The reality is that the break notice was subsequently served, but that doesn't make the approach taken at the meeting any less valid.

 

For my part, all I really want the Board to do is to run the finances efficiently, to listen to supporters about how things can be improved, and to support the manager when finances permit. We haven't really had a Board that could be said to do either of the first two things with any degree of success over the past 8 or 10 years.

 

I understand that, and I am not really against the stance that he took or the way he answered the question. IIRC it was you who asked the question, and if you got the same vibes as I did from the answer then you will have realised he was being economical with the truth/diplomatic in his response. The points Im making here all have the same 'angle' I guess, trying to balance the discussion re the faults with the JT (and the blinkered view some posters have of the organisation) and the fawning over the new board (again some posters seem to have the blinkers on). For the record, I am in full support of the board, but that doesn't make them immune from criticism over issues that the JT would have been slated for.

 

Warriors cash aside, if the Board really have turned a c.£300k loss into a small trading profit over the last few years, then bloody hell, that's more than I could have hoped for from them. At the end of the day, though, it's all about income and that means encouraging folk to turn up and watch on a Saturday. We all have a part to play in that.

 

I agree, quite astonishing imo. Either the previous board made a bigger pigs ear of running the club than we realised (and we knew it was quite a big pigs ear anyway), or, putting 2 and 2 together, we are indebted to another company/individual for taking on the cost/running of certain overheads. The very first question asked at the Meet the Board night appeared to me to have been only half answered (something along the lines of 'how have the board managed to turn things around, and what implications will these actions have for the club in the future?'). Got the same vibes from the answer to that question as I did from the answer to the question re the Warriors tenancy agreement. Maybe I'm coming up with 5 here, time will tell.

 

As an aside (and the irony is not lost on me), I wasn't there on Saturday -- what's the lastest score on the "Trust Bashing" that seems to have gone on in the Chairman's column?

 

Hopefully Tom will put the Chairmans Comments page on ptfc.co.uk, but in short the Jags Trust is nothing more than small group of people content to snipe from the sidelines without actually doing much. I think we all agree that he has a fair point, not sure how fair the delivery of that point is considering the other issues he discusses.