The Jags' Trust

[twinny]

There have been quite a few posts recently describing the trust as a dead duck, with people giving various reasons why they've given up on it. I myself took years to get round to joining as I couldn't really see what the aims were and how those involved were going about achieving them, and it seems that's how most people are feeling these days. For me though I'm thinking it's better to have a voice than no voice and everyone should try and get involved.

 

Some of the people involved in the trust seem to have fan ownership as a main objective, which with the club board as they currently are seems an impossibility. The trust has generated momentum on community projects and fundraising for the club, but relations between the club and the fans appear to be at an all time low, despite a greater web presence than ever in the past.

 

So how would you change the trust in order to make it more successful in achieving its goals? Would changing the structure of the board and length of terms of those elected make an impact? Should there be more/less people involved at the top end? Would any change in communication from the JTB impact on the current apathy surrounding the fans?

 

I know there were a couple of surveys carried out on jagsforum, but I thought a debate on the subject would be worthwhile. It would be particularly interesting for those who aren't members of the JT not only to state why they aren't members, but what the JT would have to do in order to convince them that it is worth being a member.

[Guest Argus]

There have been quite a few posts recently describing the trust as a dead duck, with people giving various reasons why they've given up on it. I myself took years to get round to joining as I couldn't really see what the aims were and how those involved were going about achieving them, and it seems that's how most people are feeling these days. For me though I'm thinking it's better to have a voice than no voice and everyone should try and get involved.

 

Some of the people involved in the trust seem to have fan ownership as a main objective, which with the club board as they currently are seems an impossibility. The trust has generated momentum on community projects and fundraising for the club, but relations between the club and the fans appear to be at an all time low, despite a greater web presence than ever in the past.

 

So how would you change the trust in order to make it more successful in achieving its goals? Would changing the structure of the board and length of terms of those elected make an impact? Should there be more/less people involved at the top end? Would any change in communication from the JTB impact on the current apathy surrounding the fans?

 

I know there were a couple of surveys carried out on jagsforum, but I thought a debate on the subject would be worthwhile. It would be particularly interesting for those who aren't members of the JT not only to state why they aren't members, but what the JT would have to do in order to convince them that it is worth being a member.

I'll give it a go.

 

I've spoken to some of my mates who were (and it is in the past tense) in the supporters association.

 

Its not clear what it is. Does it represent the fans or does it just want the status quo and to fund raise only.

Its a clique. It doesn't want any different sort of direction.

 

A new more radical organisation is required if change is required as the present supporters association is to closely associated with the old structures.

 

However at the end of the day the only people who can alter the board are the shareholders.

 

So unless any new organisation can get several major shareholders involved then its a waste of time to even try.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I'm a member of the Jags Trust and will renew my membership. I take the simplistic view that the Trust is the only game in town so, even if it's vastly underachieving as an organisation, I see no viable alternative.

As to changing the Trust to meet its goals, well I'm not that sure I even know any longer what it's goals are. However what I think should be done is some sort of formal split within the organisation, a kinda re-branding.

It's always been apparent to me that some folk join the Trust as they see it as an avenue to change the Club (share purchase, one (even push for a second) representative on the Club Board etc whilst others see the Trust mainly as a fund raising vehicle and have only passing interest in things like fan ownership.

So maybe the Trust should recognise this and promote two groups under its umbrella ie a fund raising wing and a political wing. They could give the two divisions snazzy titles, which may help offset the negativity that's associated with the name Jags Trust.

I know it sound like a sort of terrorist group template but I feel there's a fair bit of logic behind a re-branding along these lines.

[Steven H]

Like LIB I'm a member and will be renewing BUT, first and foremost, I want to see a Trust that can be the guardians of this Club, and there are 2 million guardianship shares out there that do not belong to the Trust and cost the current holders nothing IIRC. In light of Brown McMasters move to Stenny and Tom Hughes position in both the Propco and PTFC boards I feel those shares should be given to the Trust. I aint stupid tho, these guys aint just gona hand them over so a Jags Trust that will explore all the avenues with regards to fighting for this would please me.

 

With regards to the Jags Trust objectives I would like to see the sentiments of 1, 2 & 4 retained but objective 5 (regarding having a JTB member on the PTFC BoD) is one I struggle with personally (won't go into that now), but I think it could be developed a wee bit (with the Clubs agreement). I’d like to see some sort of liaison between the JT and the BoD in a different form to that of the Rep on the BoD, perhaps someone who can liaise directly with Jim Alexander (for eg) where fans can take their issues to the JT Liaison who can then take them to JA and get a direct response in due course. This would be in addition to the position Kieron held until recently. Objective 6....confused.com, needs simplified for the purpose of clarity imo.

 

What I would like to see from the JT is a bigger recruitment drive (members would hopefully help out here), but that would need to be based on a‘here's what we intend to do but we need your support’ pitch. For example, more members can lead to increased fundraising opportunities and bigger events to raise money FOR THE JAGS TRUST. That money could then be used as leverage (in a way) with the BoD to ensure they ‘play ball’ with regard to Fan Rep and JT Liaison person/people. If the BoD want funds they come to the fans (Jaggy Mac last season for eg) and the Trust, therefore the fans, decide yae or nae. Likewise if we had enough in the coffers we could offer to fund the youth team for a season (after a vote of course) on the pretext that the money the Club save on that goes directly to the 1st team budget. Getting safeguards would be vital tho and Im not sure we would legally have that right. But something along those lines.

 

I would also like the JT to be looking at the Stirling Albion model and Barcelona thing (mentioned by the Jagsforum Blogger) to see how viable it might be for us.

But after all that prattling on, nothing can be achieved unless we have enough people joining up and playing an active role....vicious circle time now. Im away for a lie doon.

[Woodstock Jag]

Some good, constructive stuff in here. Keep it coming. I'll post my thoughts in more detail a bit later.

 

Edit: for reference, our current "Objectives" can be found here on our website.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[twinny]

I'm a member of the Jags Trust and will renew my membership. I take the simplistic view that the Trust is the only game in town so, even if it's vastly underachieving as an organisation, I see no viable alternative.

As to changing the Trust to meet its goals, well I'm not that sure I even know any longer what it's goals are. However what I think should be done is some sort of formal split within the organisation, a kinda re-branding.

It's always been apparent to me that some folk join the Trust as they see it as an avenue to change the Club (share purchase, one (even push for a second) representative on the Club Board etc whilst others see the Trust mainly as a fund raising vehicle and have only passing interest in things like fan ownership.

So maybe the Trust should recognise this and promote two groups under its umbrella ie a fund raising wing and a political wing. They could give the two divisions snazzy titles, which may help offset the negativity that's associated with the name Jags Trust.

I know it sound like a sort of terrorist group template but I feel there's a fair bit of logic behind a re-branding along these lines.

 

This is similar to my views. The trust is the only supporters' association and if it is underachieving then (IMO) the fans should be trying to change that.

 

I agree with the sentiments regarding the fund raising and political aspects of the trust. Without consulting the JT website of other sources of information, I would give simplistic aims as political (aiming for more fan representation if not fan ownership), fund raising, and raising the profile of the club and its links with the community. I don't believe the JT needs separate 'wings', but perhaps different JTB members could take responsibility for each of the objectives. Keiron has in the past looked after the community aspect (and been fantastic at doing so), perhaps in the future though the board representative should look after the political side of things (though I know that confidentiality could be an issue...). I guess my only experience with this type of thing would be from university sports teams, where there is a president doing all the delegating, with people in positions such as fixture secretary, kit sec, general sec (fundraising etc), social sec, etc - and with my uneducated view I can imagine this type of set up could work.

[Fawlty Towers]

Lots of interesting points have been made in this (and other threads), I won't be able to post tomorrow so I will put this invite out now. If anybody (current Trust member, former member or never been a member) wants to speak to me at the game tomorrow I will be in the kiosk in the North concourse, between sections 6 & 7, from about 7pm until kick off. The key point that has been made by several people is that the Trust needs more members so I will be more than happy to do my salesman routine tomorrow (and all the other home games this season).

[Willjag]

There are guys on the JT board now that are and are trying to change things. Unfortunately they have been tarred with the same brush as some of the non-achievers and that's a pity. If there's a clique it's a divided clique. I just think that some of the more outspoken members of the JT Board are happy just to plough along as is and that's part of the reason why I'm no longer a member.

 

In fact, I think the Trust Board mirrors the Club Board. Those that want to change opposed by those who are happy (I use this term very loosely!) with the way things are and another group that just goes along with the majority at the time.

[jags365]

Not trying to sound too negative here, but if you're not happy with certain members on the Trust board then it's up to you to at least cause an election by putting yourselves forward. I do tend to agree with a number of points here, and like Martin and only too happy to talk to people and shall try my best to be at the kiosk tomorrow as well.

[Woodstock Jag]

I'm conscious that both the Trust elections I've contested have been... well... completely uncontested! If anyone is to have any mandate at all to take the Trust in a new direction the fans haven't had a chance to vote for them. That in turn needs more people willing to stand for election and offer their own alternative path. Only then do you get a Supporters' Trust which can claim to "represent" even a section of the support.

 

Now obviously people have other commitments which may preclude them from being able to devote the time and effort required to "put their money where their mouths are", but surely there's got to be others who still think we can make the Trust a vehicle for progressive change in the Club we all support.

 

I guess I'm throwing down the gauntlet here.

[McKennan]

Firstly, it strikes me that the trust has an utterly, utterly, utterly miserable record on promoting itself through social activities. Even if it's as daft as a once-a-month Friday night pub quiz in Munns, the Star & Garter or wherever, for god's sake organise a regular knees up where Jags fans can be miserable together.

 

Secondly, in case no-one's noticed, the trust has a big shareholding in the club and a seat on the board. As much as it'd be nice to see a few ructions, the Jags Trust probably isn't going to be anyone's T62 tank on the road to Firhill revolution and the promised land. Stop expecting it be one. If it's going to bring about change, it'll move damn slowly.

 

Which brings me to my final point - can the trust not sponsor/help the foundation of a Partick Thistle shareholder's organisation? I don't know if such a body exists. As I've said in countless other posts (ad nauseam) shareholders may be the fastest route to change on the club's board. Organising them, those who are sympathetic to change of whatever degree, is something the trust could do.

[Ma Ba']

Here's a thought. (off the wall)

How much cash does the Trust raise, and effectively throw away (sorry give to the club to 'assist with the playing budget') each season? Lets face it what effectively happens is that amount is reduced from the cash the club have to spend on the playing budget. Good! I hear you say cos that will help the club reduce its debts. Rubbish, all that is presently happening is that it is helping keep the club afloat until the BoD asset strips the club in a move that will make them (the Proco) money and 'prolong the inevitable' demise of the club by a few years (5 to 10 perhaps).

My question for debate,

Should the Trust, instead of donating our cash to the BoD, start a fund to raise cash so that when the club does eventually go to the wall we have some funds to reserect the club in some form (Like Clydebank,.... sorry meant Airdrie United)?

[Woodstock Jag]

Here's a thought. (off the wall)

How much cash does the Trust raise, and effectively throw away (sorry give to the club to 'assist with the playing budget') each season? Lets face it what effectively happens is that amount is reduced from the cash the club have to spend on the playing budget.

 

Last season we only provided the funds for a specific request (to pay for the loan signing of McNamara). Granted the way that came about wasn't handled as well as it could be, but it's the only instance of us "contributing" in any shape or form to the player budget. If I recall correctly, it was also agreed that we'd receive the equivalent back in Club shares (it was just before the AGM so the revaluation had to be approved before the number of shares could correlate to anything).

 

The only other cash sum paid directly to the Club (IIRC) was under a similar agreement when Kieron informed us that they needed funds to replace the old physio table. That came from the proceeds of the Race Night.

[sandy]

If I recall correctly, it was also agreed that we'd receive the equivalent back in Club shares (it was just before the AGM so the revaluation had to be approved before the number of shares could correlate to anything).

 

 

Thanks WJ, can you confirm if the Trust did get some shares in return for their donation ?

 

Also, I'm not sure if I have missed this elsewhere, but can the Trust confirm how many shares have been received from the Club through the Centenary Fund sign-up process in the first year ? This would include the agreed allocation for original 1876 Club members retaining their CF membership for one year - but also the 'commission' shares from members selecting the Jags Trust via the agents box.

[Woodstock Jag]

Thanks WJ, can you confirm if the Trust did get some shares in return for their donation ?

 

Also, I'm not sure if I have missed this elsewhere, but can the Trust confirm how many shares have been received from the Club through the Centenary Fund sign-up process in the first year ? This would include the agreed allocation for original 1876 Club members retaining their CF membership for one year - but also the 'commission' shares from members selecting the Jags Trust via the agents box.

 

As far as I know, it's something we're impatiently pursuing...

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I'm under the impression that some folk's notion of the Trust is mainly as a support arm for the Club and thus the prime aim is to raise funds and pass them over to the Club without much reservation. Other folk's idea of the Trust is primarily to strengthen fan representation through share purchase etc. Thus the idea of passing funds to the present Club Board is a sore one to take.

 

I thought the night of the 1876 Club/Centenary Fund clearly demonstrated this division. But we're all jags fans and can all get on within the Jags Trust. I just feel it would be better recognising the perceived difference in what folk maybe want from the Trust and split from within and form a Trust Supporters Club (better title please) with its main aims social, community initiatives & moderate fund raising and a Jags Action Group (again a better title please) aimed at greater representation, share purchase & ultimately at fan ownership.

[Pie Of The Month]

It's this very attitude of "If you don't like it then do it yourself" that I don't really like. I can't think of any other person or group who represents others in my day to day life which have this attitude. I dread to think the reaction if I had a problem with my local councillor or MP and their solution was to stand for election myself if I wanted change instead of wanting them to represent me.

 

I an neither pro or anti Trust as I don't know enough about the organisation to make a decision. Even attending their last event I still know very little about them other than that their way to sell the Trust to those attending such an event is to leave some membership forms scattered over the tables and then not one Trust representative coming over to the table to talk to us or answer any questions (except of course when more money was wanted for the raffle). I agree with Steven H with regards to a recruitment drive. It's all very well hoping people come along to the kiosk or visit the website but there's many in the support who just simply don't know what the Jags Trust do or the benefits of being a member/involved and don't want to have to approach someone. The hard sell might seem a bit pushy for some but it gets the information out there, I've lost amount of times I've bought an extra 50/50 ticket or 2 purely because the guy at the top of the hill selling them is pretty much unavoidable. I appreciate those involved in the JT might not have the time to do this week in week out but even to pick one game where a decent crowd is expected and push the aims of the JT on the regular support who need educated.

[Tom Hosie]

I appreciate those involved in the JT might not have the time to do this week in week out but even to pick one game where a decent crowd is expected and push the aims of the JT on the regular support who need educated.

 

Sponsor that match? Programme advertising (though they aren't short in that respect at the moment), trackside advertising, tannoy announcements etc and a real chance to try and increase awareness the Jags Trust.

[Woodstock Jag]

It's this very attitude of "If you don't like it then do it yourself" that I don't really like. I can't think of any other person or group who represents others in my day to day life which have this attitude.

 

It's not a case of "do it yourself" rather "do something about it". That could be as simple as the fanbase actually telling us what they want us to do (see just the 2 non-members turning up to the PropCo meeting) or trying to take it on more directly and get involved.

 

The Trust is what the members make it.

[Allan Heron]

I'm under the impression that some folk's notion of the Trust is mainly as a support arm for the Club and thus the prime aim is to raise funds and pass them over to the Club without much reservation. Other folk's idea of the Trust is primarily to strengthen fan representation through share purchase etc. Thus the idea of passing funds to the present Club Board is a sore one to take.

 

I thought the night of the 1876 Club/Centenary Fund clearly demonstrated this division. But we're all jags fans and can all get on within the Jags Trust. I just feel it would be better recognising the perceived difference in what folk maybe want from the Trust and split from within and form a Trust Supporters Club (better title please) with its main aims social, community initiatives & moderate fund raising and a Jags Action Group (again a better title please) aimed at greater representation, share purchase & ultimately at fan ownership.

 

Your first paragraph probably sums up the paradox/dilemma of the Trust (or any Trust). Having said that, providing that we obtain additional shares for monies handed over should bridge that gap.

 

There are other clubs where the Trust operates alongside another supporters group and where the type of distinction you are making can perhaps be made clearer. On the other hand, it can result in dual fundraising attempts which may ultimately be less effective.

 

I know that the decision made about the 1876 Club was seen as controversial (and I was surprised at the outcome myself) but, for better or worse, it was a decision made by the members of the Trust. There are always likely to be situations where what people want from the Trust will be different - in these circumstances, all that can be done is come to a decision and deal with the outcome. That is has been dealt with in an appropriate fashion should be enough to allow people to move on from that, although others may be of a different opinion.

 

My own personal view is that we do underplay the basic aim of any supporters trust which is to seek greater fan involvement in the running of both the football club and the wider game as well. Having a representative on the club board is but one element of that, albeit an important one.

[Tom Hosie]

Ironically, especially given the effort expended in getting the JT to follow the rules and regulations it is bound by, by becoming an Industrial and Provident Society the Trust has become, IMO, actually less representative for the Thistle support.

 

At the time of the formation of the Jags Trust the intention was have representation from as many fan groups as possible. Not just from each affiliated branch of the Supporters’ Association but from groups like the old 800 Club, Junior Jags, season ticket holders etc.

 

In practical terms I would imagine that would be very difficult to do (in reality I doubt the composition of the Jags Trust committee ever had representation from that kind of cross section of fans’ groups) but it has to be better that the present perception, an unfair one in my opinion, of the Jags Trust being dominated by a cabal from one Supporters Branch.

 

It might be worth, therefore, the Jags Trust Board to consider co-opting people onto the JTB from groups or areas that they feel are presently unrepresented.

 

One final word. It’s no fault of the individual, who I’m sure is very capable indeed of filling the position, that has stepped forward and it is no fault of the Jags Trust Board but I feel very uncomfortable that the Jags Trust prospective Board Rep hasn’t been elected to that position.

 

Could it have been put to a vote at the Jags Trust AGM?

[Woodstock Jag]

Could it have been put to a vote at the Jags Trust AGM?

 

I think (though I could be wrong) that it still will be. The rules necessitate that if we receive no nominations we elect one from amongst the existing Board and put them up for approval at the AGM. Obviously this was our intention, but with Kieron stepping down a couple of months early, it would have left the Trust without a representative on the Club Board, while their Board Meetings take place as usual.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Steven H]

Ironically, especially given the effort expended in getting the JT to follow the rules and regulations it is bound by, by becoming an Industrial and Provident Society the Trust has become, IMO, actually less representative for the Thistle support.

 

At the time of the formation of the Jags Trust the intention was have representation from as many fan groups as possible. Not just from each affiliated branch of the Supporters’ Association but from groups like the old 800 Club, Junior Jags, season ticket holders etc.

 

In practical terms I would imagine that would be very difficult to do (in reality I doubt the composition of the Jags Trust committee ever had representation from that kind of cross section of fans’ groups) but it has to be better that the present perception, an unfair one in my opinion, of the Jags Trust being dominated by a cabal from one Supporters Branch.

 

It might be worth, therefore, the Jags Trust Board to consider co-opting people onto the JTB from groups or areas that they feel are presently unrepresented.

 

One final word. It’s no fault of the individual, who I’m sure is very capable indeed of filling the position, that has stepped forward and it is no fault of the Jags Trust Board but I feel very uncomfortable that the Jags Trust prospective Board Rep hasn’t been elected to that position.

 

Could it have been put to a vote at the Jags Trust AGM?

 

We were told that no-one else came forward to contest the position you speak about Tom, and WJ also states that the 2 elections he contested were actually uncontested. An uncomfortable situation for sure but these guys put themselves forward when no-one did, why did no-one else put their names in the hat is the important question imo.

 

As for you comments re representation on the JTB, I agree but not sure about the co-opting thing, is a committee different from a board? My thinking is of a Jags Trust with a small board, coupled with a committee where the individuals on it have distinct roles and are representative of the wider fan base. A lot of folk don't have the time to take on the role of Trust Secretary, Board Rep etc, but could have the time to be on a committee where that one specific role (for example the JT Liaison I mentioned earlier) may be manageable.

 

The committee, if fully representative, along with the JTB would be the ones to vote on various issues where its not practical to get a full census from the membership. If the committee is fully representative then each individual would have access to their own section of the support, and base their vote on what they say.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Steven H

[Tom Hosie]

I think (though I could be wrong) that it still will be. The rules necessitate that if we receive no nominations we elect one from amongst the existing Board and put them up for approval at the AGM. Obviously this was our intention, but with Kieron stepping down a couple of months early, it would have left the Trust without a representative on the Club Board, while their Board Meetings take place as usual.

 

If it is the case and it is subject to approval at the AGM (a formality I would have thought but would make me more comfortable about it) then it might be worth re-wording slightly the article on the JT website and the JT article for inclusion in Saturday's programme. You would need to be quick re the programme though.

[Allan Heron]

It doesn't require approval at the Annual General Meeting, although it will be noted at that meeting. Subtle difference there that might only be appreciated by the geeks amongst us

 

Where there aren't any nominations it falls on the Trust Board to select someone from their own number to carry out the role. It does mean that whoever is selected has been subject to some element of selection process albeut that may have been uncontested.

 

So the programme is perfectly fine imo.