The Centenary Fund..part 2

[David Stevenson]

I don't think that was anyone involved in OneThistle who said it had "power" David. It was someone's perceiving of OneThistle. Incorrectly.

 

 

With regards to getting involved to rebuild the trust... Why?

 

That very action took place 6 years ago when removing willie Arthur, it was rebuilt, set up and handed over. The first board then handed over to another 1 or 2 boards after that, which I think you were involved?

 

As I said, the 1876 club vote neutered the trust, and from then and forever, it will never have any influence, never mind respect in the boardroom.

 

Even if this trust bird is a good one, it will take two to three years to get to a level of saying, we're ready to join the club board, we've done this this and thd... But in the 3 years there will be 3 elections, he many of toads new breed will be here in a year or two?

I didn't think it was someone from OneThistle claiming power they didn't have, just indicating that I don't see any "power" in the hands of Onethistle.

 

I have never been "involved" in the Trust, but I am a member. As far as I can see, the BoD manipulated the situation to undermine the Trust to it's own ends. As a result of the inevitable loss of faith in the Trust among many fans, the organisation has diminished and the BoD now uses this position to ignore it. There have obviously been changes in BoD personnel in the intervening years of course.

 

I don't question that the "leap of faith" crew made a huge mistake. Turkeys voting for Xmas etc... But that is where we are. As I recall, the JT elections are not usually a full slate change every year as that would obviously be bad for continuity. If you think fans don't need representation and influence within the club structure then clearly you would see no role for the Trust. However, if you do think such representation is needed, how is it to be achieved? Could there be a twin-track arrangement where the Trust managed the representation and influence while supporting the efforts of OneThistle to do their hands-on matchday stuff? Could it be that hard? We're all Jags fans with the same aim after all. I'm not sure what your reference to toads is about.....

Edited September 17, 2013 by David Stevenson

[potty trained]

I've edited my post, bloody iPad! Toads!

 

Sorry David I must have you mixed up, I thought you were part of the board when Tom Hogg was involved.

 

I've edited my post to demonstrate how OneThistle can have some "power", probably better defined as "influence".

 

I think David Beattie was the main driver behind neutering the trust not Eddie prentice, and I'm sure it was he who used the leap of faith line. I think he must have been chuckling away at how easy it was to get all the trusts hard work and graft handed over to Eddie. What did it take, a 2 hour meeting, with a back drop of bullshit made up slides suggesting utopia?

 

I think fans do need representation... But I don't think the trust is the mechanism to do it. Ironically the mechanism I did think could do it was Tag... Strangely the club don't seem to want to push that out the starting blocks.

Edited September 17, 2013 by potty trained

[jags365]

I realise it is pretty late and this probably isn't the best time for me to post (but as I won't get another chance until after tea-time tomorrow).....

 

What David has said is more or less my view on the current and historical situation.

 

PT is correct in that it was David Beattie who used the 'leap of faith' line and since then hasn't been terribly complamentory of the Trust, despite what we have done to help the club. (paid for McNamara to join the club, half of Lawless' jaw op & for a new physio table last year, promote CF fund etc)

 

I see no reason why the Trust can't work alongside One Thistle, the PTFC board, or anyone else other than their own misgivings against the Trust. I realise that there is work to be done BY the Trust to remove this stigma, but it obviously takes a lot longer to create a positive reputation than it does to destroy one.

 

For CF share issue - we have recieved 0 shares, but have started taking commission (I mentioned this in another thread).

 

Going back to PT's earlier post:

The Community Trust is a registered charity, the Trust is an IPS and as such required to have elections, audited accounts etc.

Minutes are not currently posted on the website, this is something we will change this season. As such people will be able to see what is being discussed and what actions the Trust Board are taking.

We currently represent our members and while we don't have a seat on PTFC board, we can only really get answers from the club board at AGMs, otherwise it's through Ian Maxwell, who has always been brilliant when he has the authority to deal with anything we've asked.

 

Just one last point on the issue of Trust Board transition, the named positions (Secretary & Treasurer) no longer have a time limit and while can be challenged at any election process, they are no longer required to step down after a set amount of years. This was approved at the Trust AGM 2012, so there should always be some continuity of board members when placed against the 2 year cycles of normal board members.

[Jordanhill Jag]

I didn't think it was someone from OneThistle claiming power they didn't have, just indicating that I don't see any "power" in the hands of Onethistle.

 

I have never been "involved" in the Trust, but I am a member. As far as I can see, the BoD manipulated the situation to undermine the Trust to it's own ends. As a result of the inevitable loss of faith in the Trust among many fans, the organisation has diminished and the BoD now uses this position to ignore it. There have obviously been changes in BoD personnel in the intervening years of course.

 

I don't question that the "leap of faith" crew made a huge mistake. Turkeys voting for Xmas etc... But that is where we are. As I recall, the JT elections are not usually a full slate change every year as that would obviously be bad for continuity. If you think fans don't need representation and influence within the club structure then clearly you would see no role for the Trust. However, if you do think such representation is needed, how is it to be achieved? Could there be a twin-track arrangement where the Trust managed the representation and influence while supporting the efforts of OneThistle to do their hands-on matchday stuff? Could it be that hard? We're all Jags fans with the same aim after all. I'm not sure what your reference to toads is about.....

The purpose of onethistle was always to improve the experience for our Fans wither that was on Matchday experience or via better communications and Marketing - the big picture was to demonstrate that fans are capable of having key roles in running a Football Club ,therefore onethistle are set up with a management structure same as any other organisation, people have job roles and we work as a team - we are not a fans representative organisation we are a team who attempts to improve the experience of supporting Thistle and a core aim of increasing our fanbase. This aim doesn't clash with anything the Jags Trust are set up to do and relationships are cordial there is the odd communication via Donald & Maggie on mundane matters. Regards power it depends on what is perceived as power- my strongly held view is the ability to effect change, in a number of key areas onethistle have achieved that - has it been easy or without resistance - obviously not, entrenched views will always be a barrier to change- but that can be applied to any organisation not just a Football Club . On the big ticket items like Propco etc onethistle cannot and will not take a position - if we are to effect the changes we wish - we need to work closely with the Board.On Fan issues we have a major say and have robust discussions - the "power" on these issues doesn't come from a place on the Board nor a shareholding- it comes from demonstrating that the people delivering do so in a professional manner and should therefore be taken seriously when issues are raised. The aim is a successful Club both on the park and off it - it is no secret that I have always believed in a directly elected Board based on the Spanish model - I still firmly believe that's the way forward. onethistle did make a major impact on a key aspect - previously when talking about large scale Boardroom changes the fear was always "but who would run the Club" onethistle have clearly demonstrated that Fans can run key elements of a Football Club - it removed the smoke and mirrors ,if it achieved nothing else that's a major step forward.

[GrantB]

I'd consider the trust again of I was certain it was free of the influence of the North West mafia who have shamed the organization for years.

[jags365]

Could you give us a quick run down of the current people on the JTB please?

Sorry Will, missed this last night.

 

Current Board members and their roles:

 

myself, Donald Larmour - Secretary

Douglas Rimmer - Treasurer

David Mains - Club Board Rep

Morag McHaffie - Chair

Gary Gentles - Board Member

Alan Limond - Board Member

Paul Devine - Board Member

[Willjag]

Thanks Donald. Lots of changes to the Board. Only recognise yourself and Morag from previously being on the Board and I knew there was talk of David was being co-opted at one point.

[jags365]

Thanks Donald. Lots of changes to the Board. Only recognise yourself and Morag from previously being on the Board and I knew there was talk of David was being co-opted at one point.

David was co-opted last year and was elected at the AGM earlier this month.

[topcat]

How did my thread on a positive comment for the centenary fund get hijacked like this.

[The Sunnylaw Jag]

Christ you think this is bad, have you read the "Just Say Yes" thread lately?

[Willjag]

How did my thread on a positive comment for the centenary fund get hijacked like this.

You should have known better TC!

[David Stevenson]

(Firstly, apologies to TC. Obviously it's great that the CF is finally being drawn when it is supposed to! Also, I apologise for mis-attributing the "leap of faith" quote in a previous post).

 

 

 

Thanks for the outline of OneThistle, JJ. I too see no clash of interest/intent between the Trust and OneThistle.

As we both recognize, they are two quite different set-ups. One is a membership organisation open to all Thistle fans based on democratic principles and set up to give the fans an input to the running and oversight of the club via the significant shareholding that the Trust is steward of. In essence, it is the “fans representative organization” that you recognize that OneThistle is NOT.

The other (OneThistle) is a grouping of individual fans who wish a more hands-on approach to the match-day event from an organisational side and to demonstrate what I would feel is the blindingly obvious: that football fans can do more than just clap and moan, but can perform functions within a football club to assist with it's running. Of course, some functions such as that of program editor, photographer etc have been performed by volunteer workers for many years. I would imagine the functions taken on by OneThistle volunteers are unlikely to be more complex than those which they and indeed many of us perform on a daily basis at work.

Both organizations should offer complementary "influences" on the running of the club and delivery of "service" (for want of a better word). The problem for me is not at all the existence of OneThistle, but that the BoD has undermined and side-lined the Trust to the extent of manipulation of it's democracy and failure to honour agreements. I think that stinks. The way I see it, they don't want to formally recognise the role of the support in the running of the club and don’t want to be answerable for their actions.

Regarding advances made by OneThistle in waking the Board up to the possibilities and desirability of certain things, that is great. I agree that it is not the role of a grouping such as OneThistle to take a view on Propco. A “fans representative organisation“ (aka the Trust) ought to, however. Of course, the bigger and more popular is the Trust, the more influential will that collective view be, which may go some way to explain the machinations of the BoD in undermining the Trust. The depressing thing for me is that there are people who come on here and incessantly snipe and sneer at the Trust, merely compounding the problem and basing their position on the actions some years ago of people who are mostly no longer involved with the running of the Trust.

I share your desire for a fully democratically elected BoD. Unfortunately it looks like it is more likely to happen at other clubs (mainly as a result of fiscal disasters even greater than Thistle suffered) than ours.

Good luck to the people trying to keep the Trust on the road and calling the BoD to account. I salute your indefatigability….

[Jordanhill Jag]

David ,you make an interesting point regards the democratic management of Football Clubs being linked to economic hardship - reality is that after STJ the fans should have had a far greater percentage, 30% of shares were gifted - only 10% were given to the Fans who rallied round to save the Club ,in short we sold ourselves far too cheaply - would 30% shareholding to the fans have made a difference - without doubt it gives real clout,

 

Onethistle currently deal with the traditional issues that Trusts dealt with from Catering to Queues to Stewarding it allows a support structure for traditional volunteer roles eg programme Editor as well as Matchday Volunteers and trys to ensure they are not taken for granted.

 

I accept everything you say about the need for a democratic Fans organisation however in practical terms Im not quite sure that the role that it started with as "fans representatives" is still relevant given an increased focus on Fan Customer service and the falling membership numbers - so we are clear this isnt a dig at the Jags Trust more an attempt at having a reasoned debate,I personally want to see more democracy ,however I prefer the whole Board is elected via direct elections not just a "Fans Rep"

 

For clarity I will re-emphasise the key thing onethistle have demonstrated is that ordinary Fans can have a major influence in the running of there Football Club - there is no magic to it,just lots of mundane hard work ,most of which as you say people do in there day jobs - that changes everything regards the prospect of directly elected Boards at some point in the future.- we are not at that point but we are heading in that direction.,if its still available on youtube the BBC documentary on the Fan ownership of Swansea FC is highly recommended.

 

I know people will laugh but I proposed a membership scheme to the Club Board four years ago based on the Spanish Model ,this evolved into TAG -its my firm belief that this holds the key to the future of the Club - as I came up with the Marketing launch I meant every word that was stated at the time- its the single fundamental change for our future.it involves everyone,.

[ian_mac]

Interesting that now, after years of silence, we now have people on the forum leaping to the trust's defence.

 

Of course this has nothing to do with the impending campaign to get one of them a seat on the board.

 

The biggest problem with the trust has always been the way it has been used as an easy route to power for a tiny number of individuals. That was the reason that all the good guys who tried to change things 5/6 years ago got fed up.

 

From where I'm standing, that's still the situation. The membership numbers have plummeted from 800 down to 200, but no one from the trust really seems that bothered, as the memberships numbers don't really matter to them. It seems to be all about getting their seat on the board back, rather than striving to represent the fans.

 

There have been some big issues at the club over the last few months, and the trust were nowhere to be found. Says it all for me.

 

It will never again truly represent the fans - the plummeting membership numbers have shown that the fans have no confidence in the trust. It's a toxic brand now.

[Willjag]

Just in case you or anyone else thinks I'm in the "crowd" you're referring to Ian, I'd like to point out, I'm not currently a member of the Trust. I do however, want to see Thistle progress and any organisation that can do this I'm willing to give them a chance before writing them off and as such, I'm willing to give this new breed of Board Trust members a chance.

 

I wont jump and join on the promise as I did before only to be disappointed, but if they do perform and show that they are doing positive things for the Club I will join.

[Fearchar]

It's interesting to see so many people stating that they want to see benefits before deciding to pay a (small) subscription. In my trade union, some years ago our conference decided that newly joined members would not be entitled to major benefits (such as representation for previously existing problems) because some individuals were freeloaders, taking all the benefits of collective representation, such as wage rises, but only ever joining when they had individual problems. (This sold members short, since they were paying for providing these services all the time.) This seems to be the unworldly attitude of many posting here - I want to complain about the Trust because it's not doing what I want it to do, but I'm not prepared to pay the subscription or vote to change it.

 

As noted above, like many other organisations, the Trust is a democratic organisation that's open to anyone. You don't have to participate, but if you don't, then your view does not count nor will it ever count: you have made the decision that your views are to be excluded.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Fearchar

[Jordanhill Jag]

Fearchar - this is a Thistle Fans Forum - as long as the posters obey the rules then they can express there views openly - its up to other posters to decide if there views have merit or indeed "count" - you don't have to be a member of an organisation to express a view on them ,this is not Communist China where only "party members" have valid views.- are you suggesting that guys like Dave J ,Tom Hogg ,David Stewart ,Colin Quinn ,Grieg Forbes, and many other who worked hard to effect change in the JT should have there views dismissed as they are no longer JT members. I strongly believe in elected Boards and have held this view for a long number of years - my preference is via direct elections same as in many European Football Clubs including Barcelona - is this view to be excluded because Im not a member of the Jags Trust ?

[ian_mac]

It's interesting to see so many people stating that they want to see benefits before deciding to pay a (small) subscription. In my trade union, some years ago our conference decided that newly joined members would not be entitled to major benefits (such as representation for previously existing problems) because some individuals were freeloaders, taking all the benefits of collective representation, such as wage rises, but only ever joining when they had individual problems. (This sold members short, since they were paying for providing these services all the time.) This seems to be the unworldly attitude of many posting here - I want to complain about the Trust because it's not doing what I want it to do, but I'm not prepared to pay the subscription or vote to change it.

 

As noted above, like many other organisations, the Trust is a democratic organisation that's open to anyone. You don't have to participate, but if you don't, then your view does not count nor will it ever count: you have made the decision that your views are to be excluded.

 

I've been a member of the trust twice actually. First joined when I was pretty young and didn't really know what it was about, thought it was just a good way to give money to the club, didn't go to any meetings. Then when it became apparent that the trust was run illegally, during Willie Arthur's time in charge, I decided to not renew my membership.

 

However, when new guys came in and tried to turn things round, I was encouraged by what I was hearing from guys like Greig Forbes, they seemed to have a real vision for the trust and the creation of the 1876 club I thought was fantastic.

 

However, when people were duped so easily into surrendering the 1876 club (and let's not forget the number of proxy votes that seemed to appear out of thin air) and when the good guys eventually started dropping off one by one through sheer frustration at the single-minded attitudes of the resurgent old guard, I once again decided not to renew my membership.

 

The trust has had many opportunities to be so much more than it is, but it's failed every time because of the selfish ambitions of individuals, and as the membership haemorrhage has shown, the overwhelming majority of the fans realised this as well.

 

I now believe that the problem lies with the trust model itself, at least at our club.

 

Fearchar, it's all very well saying my opinion means nothing because I don't pay my money, but with that dismissive attitude I can tell you for sure that you'll never increase the membership again.

 

The trust has had it's chance as a vehicle for change and a model for fan ownership, but it's failed, time and time again. The fans have no confidence in it, the vast majority of people who served on the board have no confidence in it, and the falling membership numbers speak for themselves.

 

Fearchar's attitude is typical of those who have controlled the trust for most of it's existence. They aren't bothered about membership numbers, in fact it suits them to have no one caring because it means they can carry on with their own agendas without anyone asking questions.

 

I believe in fan ownership of football clubs, but the trust model, at least at our club, has proven over the last 15 years that it simply isn't the way to achieve fan ownership.

Edited September 22, 2013 by ian_mac

[David Stevenson]

Interesting that now, after years of silence, we now have people on the forum leaping to the trust's defence.

 

Of course this has nothing to do with the impending campaign to get one of them a seat on the board.

 

Would you like to join some dots and expand on this?

[Fearchar]

If you refuse to become a member of an organisation, then your views don't count because they have no vote to back them: they're just so much hot air.

 

As far as the club board, or any board in the capitalist world is concerned, you get a say when you obtain shares. (Hell will freeze over before any board allows that to change.)

 

The only way for the fan with limited resources to influence the club's board is collectively, and there is only one organisation that offers that approach.

 

This is the situation - no ifs, no buts. Sure, you may not like it, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

[Norgethistle]

If you refuse to become a member of an organisation, then your views don't count because they have no vote to back them: they're just so much hot air.

 

As far as the club board, or any board in the capitalist world is concerned, you get a say when you obtain shares. (Hell will freeze over before any board allows that to change.)

 

The only way for the fan with limited resources to influence the club's board is collectively, and there is only one organisation that offers that approach.

 

This is the situation - no ifs, no buts. Sure, you may not like it, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

I strongly disagree with this, the Trusts aim should be to represent the feelings and views of the majority of the fans, going with the downturn in membership over the last few years I would say it no longer is.

 

A few questions

1. How many paid up members are there currently.
   
2. How does this number compare over the last 5 years, how is the trend going.
   
3. What actions are the trust taking to take the fans views on board and hence grow the membership up to representing a far larger population of the fan base.
   

 

We keep coming back to this issue of having a seat on the board...... why??

The confidentiality of this matter will stop the rep feeding back and will be stuck between a rock and a hard place

 

Folk have withdrawn from the Trust due to the lack of flexibility on many items, and so by antagonising a cross structure of the support we are now left with a wee club, who appear not to want to adapt to represent the majority but more happy and content about satisfying the minority.

[ian_mac]

If you refuse to become a member of an organisation, then your views don't count because they have no vote to back them: they're just so much hot air.

 

As far as the club board, or any board in the capitalist world is concerned, you get a say when you obtain shares. (Hell will freeze over before any board allows that to change.)

 

The only way for the fan with limited resources to influence the club's board is collectively, and there is only one organisation that offers that approach.

 

This is the situation - no ifs, no buts. Sure, you may not like it, but facts are chiels that winna ding. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

Yes Fearchar, you've made that very clear, in fact you've spent the best part of 3 posts making the exact same point.

 

But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that myself or anyone else on this thread have about the trust. Instead you've just repeated yourself over and over.

 

How about first addressing the fact that the membership has decreased so rapidly in such a short space of time?

 

I put it to you, that the fan base at large has no confidence in the trust to represent them.

 

Now are you going to address these issues or are you going to just keep blindly repeating yourself like an idiot?

Edited September 23, 2013 by ian_mac

[David Stevenson]

Yes Fearchar, you've made that very clear, in fact you've spent the best part of 3 posts making the exact same point.

 

But you haven't addressed any of the concerns that myself or anyone else on this thread have about the trust. Instead you've just repeated yourself over and over.

 

How about first addressing the fact that the membership has decreased so rapidly in such a short space of time?

 

I put it to you, that the fan base at large has no confidence in the trust to represent them.

 

Now are you going to address these issues or are you going to just keep blindly repeating yourself like an idiot?

 

Do you fancy addressing my question?

[La Scimmia Rossa]

Changing the name might be a good start.

[The Sunnylaw Jag]

I know It is funny that no one trusts the Trust.