Not Looking Good.............

[Jeehon]

Jonny Tuffey has left Thistle

[Guest Argus]

Can I just open this up again and ask how many of the folk on here would attend such a meeting? Might also be helpful to know of you are a JT member or not.

 

I wouldn't and I'm not a member in any case.

[lennythistle]

I'm not a member but depending on work shifts (when i finally get back after illness) and family comittments, i may be able to attend.

[Vom Itorium]

I'm no longer a member and have no desire to be.

[Dr.D]

I'm no longer a member and have no desire to be.

What do you want then,a mass resignation of the Trust Board or are you just a happy bunny getting a kick from sniping from outside? These guys are prepared to "do" something for the good of the Club and don't deserve this constant critisism from other so called supporters.

Change can always be effected by members if that is what they want.

[Vom Itorium]

What do you want then,a mass resignation of the Trust Board or are you just a happy bunny getting a kick from sniping from outside? These guys are prepared to "do" something for the good of the Club and don't deserve this constant critisism from other so called supporters.

Change can always be effected by members if that is what they want.

I wanted to answer Steven H's question about the worth of a public meeting.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Vom Itorium

[jags365]

I wanted to answer Steven H's question about the worth of a public meeting.

And herein lies the problem facing the Trust IMO. People slate the Trust for not doing what they want, but then they don't want to attend meetings in order to discuss which way people want the Trust to go in.

[Guest Argus]

And herein lies the problem facing the Trust IMO. People slate the Trust for not doing what they want, but then they don't want to attend meetings in order to discuss which way people want the Trust to go in.

 

Really?

Isn't the reality that significant section of the officals of the supporter association actually support the way forward the Board has decided on and the very apathy that is going on suits that stance? Isn't that what the letter written by the asscoiation last week to the planning authority indicated?

[Steven H]

Really?

Isn't the reality that significant section of the officals of the supporter association actually support the way forward the Board has decided on and the very apathy that is going on suits that stance? Isn't that what the letter written by the asscoiation last week to the planning authority indicated?

 

No Argus its not, but David explained that to you on here did he not?

[Guest Argus]

No Argus its not, but David explained that to you on here did he not?

 

That was Mr Stewart's explanation but then he went on to say to another poster that he didn't want to get into a discussion about the issue. I took his intial explanation to be a personal viewpoint and not one of the association as a whole.

[Steven H]

That was Mr Stewart's explanation but then he went on to say to another poster that he didn't want to get into a discussion about the issue. I took his intial explanation to be a personal viewpoint and not one of the association as a whole.

 

I know you haven't been on past forums so will give you an overview, the Jags Trust Board members on here can correct me if Im wrong.

 

When the idea of Propco was first mooted the Jags Trust and many other fans not on the Jags trust had serious reservations about it. The Jags trust tried to get into discussion with the BoD about these reservations and were ignored (as was explained). The Jags Trust also tried to engage with fans over the issue but again they were met with apathy, therefore they had no choice (imo) than to abstaining from voting in the shareholders meeting to decide if this deal was to go ahead or not (they couldn't give a representative view from the fans because they didnt have one). The shareholders of Partick Thistle voted in favour of Propco, end of part one.

 

Part 2, Propco is at the point of no return, there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it despite the reservations many still have (myself included), so now that its at the planning permission stage we have no choice but to hope it goes through. Your right tho, we do need to hope this development is not just a success but a resounding one.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Steven H

[jags365]

Argus, basically what Steven says is pretty much bang on. The Trust Board at the time did have SERIOUS reservations about Propco, though when it was first mooted, the plan was to get rid of all the debt. However, when it became clear that the club would only be able to pay off half of the debt it began to sound even worse.

 

However, we now find ourselves in the position that if we can't even clear half of the debt we will cease to exist in our current form. So it's because of this that we (everyone, not just the trust)need this to go through OR you can say goodbye to club before too long.

[Guest Argus]

I know you haven't been on past forums so will give you an overview, the Jags Trust Board members on here can correct me if Im wrong.

 

When the idea of Propco was first mooted the Jags Trust and many other fans not on the Jags trust had serious reservations about it. The Jags trust tried to get into discussion with the BoD about these reservations and were ignored (as was explained). The Jags Trust also tried to engage with fans over the issue but again they were met with apathy, therefore they had no choice (imo) than to abstaining from voting in the shareholders meeting to decide if this deal was to go ahead or not (they couldn't give a representative view from the fans because they didnt have one). The shareholders of Partick Thistle voted in favour of Propco, end of part one.

 

Part 2, Propco is at the point of no return, there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it despite the reservations many still have (myself included), so now that its at the planning permission stage we have no choice but to hope it goes through. Your right tho, we do need to hope this development is not just a success but a resounding one.

 

In the main we agree.

Part one is a matter of history and that history of apathy is why we are where we are now and even if individuals don't like it the members are where they are because of it.

 

Part two is now the only game in town and we are at the end of the line if it doesn't go through.

 

However, and speaking as a non member and as one who thinks we have to support the redevelopment of the ground, IMO the letter that was sent by the association, without any consulation with the membership, given its importance, is a serious misjudgement and I suspect apathy amongst the membership will be the reason given why consultaion didn't take place. One of a number of reasons why I wouldn't join the association.