yoda-jag Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 Maybe the Trust just needs to be given a single task? I'd like to see the Trust solely be responsible for the Supporters Association shareholding in the Club. Manned by one elected member of each of the supporters buses, all the fans from across the support can be kept informed if anything happens. Maybe it would need a re-write of the rules but hopefully this would stop all the negativity surrounding the Trust. Lower expectations and there's nothing to complain about! Why only supporters buses represented? What about the train-ers? The car drivers (and passengers)? Those who only go to Firhill primarily by whatever mode of transport or even walking? The interneters and nomads? The home support is always at least twice the away support, and of the away support, supporters buses are lucky if they account for 50% at any time. Shouldn't these varied (and often larger) groups of supporters have a say or a representative? Moot point really, as the JT is a hollow corpse, which has turned off and lost 99% of the support, nothing will see it ever gain credibility again, but am curious enough to post and ask why you feel supporters buses only should have elected members, when it comes to having any say or holding over anything Thistle related, and all other groups or types of supporters, shouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted September 16, 2012 Members Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 My point is, make the Trust an organisation just to manage the shareholding and nothing else. However, we do need some form of committee to represent the shareholding and I don't think it should come purely from the one section of the support. As long as it's only one person from any particular section of the support I don't really mind. I used the buses as an example because I felt that any individual would be known to a group of a fans. Clearly the Trust in it's current form is no longer working but we need something. It's easy to slag something off and not offer an alternative. I'm trying to offer an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 Agree with WillJag. It needs a rebranding and one focused direction. If as Beattie says he sees it only as a fund raiser then let that be one possible focus. Once it becomes respected for that one focused direction then it will have some clout again. To be honest I never joined and can,t think of any reason why I would as I don,t really know what it does. Representing the support just became to big a remit. Works ok for smaller fan bases like Dumbarton,Stirling Albion but probably not for our support base with so many opinions. It was all those differing opinions that have killed it knocking the stuffing out of some dedicated supporters who took on a role. Suggestions for a single focus 1. General fund raising 2. Recruitment of new or lapsed fans 3. Catering I am not sure but does the Jags Trust have in any input in OneThistle or in the Firhill Cup or are these individual efforts by other groups? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 Shares in the club no longer mean anything what so ever. The fact that anyone like the trust, Tom hughes, brown mcmaster, Alan Cowan hold any amount of shares is irrelevant as the shares do not give any sort of decision making or influence in how the club is run. The club has moved on from these people, they are not important. There may have been a time when the perception was that shares brought power, control or influence. The club needs people to be proactive volunteers, people not seeking reward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 Wasn't trying to disparage your point Willjag (which i did get, in terms of there should be some form of representative body to be custodian of the shareholding). But my point is, is the JT the best or right body or organisation to be this? Such a custodian should be accepted and trusted by the whole support ideally. I accept there is the paperwork in place that states the JT are the custodians of the supporters shares, and those (allegedly) gained from the centenary fund. But the fact no one knows what the CF has generated in shares (admittedly pretty worthless anyway in grand scheme of monetary value (but not influence possibly?)), and there is such a disconnection between the JT and the majority of the Thistle support, i am more questioning the existence of the JT and its role or even point of existence any more. Yes the JT can be rebranded, new people can run to be on its board, but it is such a cabal and clique, majority of those "new thinkers" who do put themselves forward and are voted into the JT, inevitably are soon left without will and energy to try influence change (more so if they come from outside a certain bus clique for instance), on what is to all intensive purposes an immoveable obstinate core group. Hence, another reason why i questioned the supporters buses point. Many years ago the supporters buses represented a lot more of the support, but as times have changed over the decades and now with the internet age, there is now many more types of supporters and means of communication and doing things. I wholeheartedly agree that the Trust in it's current form is no longer working and the fact we need SOMETHING. I'm not here to slag off the JT for the hell of it. I genuinelly believe no matter what, its a dead duck. That does raise the shareholding/who holds the shares issue if there is no JT, but i am of the opinion that the supporters deserve and will only accept a complete new supporters body that represents (and listens to and interacts with) ALL sections of the Thistle support, and is not a little private plaything for an exclusive club, where if your face doesn't fit, most are soon out if they are elected to a role. Guess i am floating the question, is there an alternative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted September 16, 2012 Members Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 Yoda, let me quote you this part from my post above as I don't think I'm explaining it properly.... "we do need some form of committee to represent the shareholding and I don't think it should come purely from the one section of the support." Let's say a committee of five people. I mean one person and only one person from any section of the support. For instance, the NW bus would only be allowed one person, as would the Jordanhill bus, the City Centre Bus, the Shed boys, the adults in the kids section etc. 7 or 8 sections of the support could nominate a person and the support at large could opt for who they want on the committee of five from the nominees. I feel strongly that their only remit would be to manage the shareholding and attend AGM's etc. I think Onethistle can handle everything else that's needed. They've already got people looking after the match experience and I believe they are at some point going to be running fund raising events. Sit five people there to look after the shares and nothing else and there's nothing to criticise them for. If they don't attend meetings, they're replaced by someone else that is willing to as long as that section of the support doesn't already have a representative on the committee. It needn't be difficult. A lot of folk slag off the members of the NW bus on the Trust, but I'll say this for them, they're always amongst the first to buy tickets to attend any fundraisers for the Club and if there was a stooshie with the Club that the shareholding could affect, there are one or two on that bus I would love to have fighting our corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 Shares in the club no longer mean anything what so ever. The fact that anyone like the trust, Tom hughes, brown mcmaster, Alan Cowan hold any amount of shares is irrelevant as the shares do not give any sort of decision making or influence in how the club is run. The club has moved on from these people, they are not important. There may have been a time when the perception was that shares brought power, control or influence. The club needs people to be proactive volunteers, people not seeking reward. These people aren't important as things stand but as they hold the majority of the shares in the club, individually or collectively they could force change on the club (that no-one else may want) with little opposition in terms of shareholders voting against them. Nothing to worry about at the moment but it's a situation that can't be healthy I would say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 This years accounts have now been updated onto the website in the library section - http://www.jagstrust.co.uk/library/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I'm afraid with the loss of many good people from the Trust Board over the last 3 years, there is arguably more talent outside looking in than inside gazing out. I'm with Mr Trained and Yoda on this issue. Sadly the Trust has been stifled by thebold timers and has lost both members and respect; it's a pity, given the honourable intentions of Messers Heron ET al. At the end of the day, chasing political battles is fruitless; the kind of one thistle volunteering effort that Jim & Lance are fostering, is the way forward. 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.