Turning Point?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

It has been stated in the previous AGM's that the club could operate at break even if we went part time but that they are reluctant to go down this route. The problem is how much damage is done until this becomes an inevitable outcome. (Of course, that would still leave the debt to be managed but operating at break even would mean that this wouldn't increase and could be managed downwards without too much additional pressure from the bank)

 

There are transitional issues as we have players on contracts which would need to continue to be met. I had actually expected that we'd have been looking for a mix of full- and part-time for this season but that hasn't happened.

 

I think there is a fear factor involved here in a couple of areas - they don't believe the fans would accept this, and also they see that most of our competitors are in the same situation but there's an reluctance to be the first to make the jump as it's believed this would put us at a disadvantage. Might be instructive if fans would accept a move to part time in the interests of the longer term survival of the club.

 

The end result is that I believe that we must be budgetting for a loss for the coming season and investing in some prayer mats for good cup runs, but in the absence of that this just reinforces the steady decline that we're on.

 

It's an interesting point re part-time v full-time players. I was very taken with the attitude of Des McKeown in his book and his desperation to just continue playing. I think that attitude might suggest that the top level of part-time player is possibly at least as good as the bottom rung of the full time ranks.

Possibly the thought of league reconstruction, primarily the SPL taking in more clubs, has an influence too. Imagine fan reaction if we went part time the same season as the SPL enlarged to 16 clubs. I suppose if nothing happens on that front this season then we really have to be anticipating the transition to part time football very soon. What's the Trust's collective view on all this?

 

Just a thought but if no league reconstruction forthcoming could the SFL take some drastic action here? Something along the lines of limiting squads to a maximum say of 14 players over 21 years old. That would mean clubs could scale down and still remain competitive. It would almost certainly be in the interest of the lower league clubs and would make the transition to part time football less dramatic for clubs like ourselves.

Totally hypothetic as the SFL as a body don't do drastic action .

[Woodstock Jag]

Possibly the thought of league reconstruction, primarily the SPL taking in more clubs, has an influence too. Imagine fan reaction if we went part time the same season as the SPL enlarged to 16 clubs. I suppose if nothing happens on that front this season then we really have to be anticipating the transition to part time football very soon. What's the Trust's collective view on all this?

 

I don't think we necessarily have a "collective" view on either league reconstruction or whether or not to go part time.

 

My personal opinion is that the Raith Rovers model of a hybrid squad of part and full-time players is the way forward. It would prevent too much of a void being created between a full-time SPL and a part-time lower league.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I don't think we necessarily have a "collective" view on either league reconstruction or whether or not to go part time.

 

My personal opinion is that the Raith Rovers model of a hybrid squad of part and full-time players is the way forward. It would prevent too much of a void being created between a full-time SPL and a part-time lower league.

Why doesn't the Trust have a view on the Jags possibly going part time?

[Woodstock Jag]

Why doesn't the Trust have a view on the Jags possibly going part time?

 

It's not something that's been discussed directly (at least in the last 12 months, haven't a clue if a position was adopted before then). Certainly any view held would have been pretty much academic given the Club had too many players signed up on full-time contracts for this season to make any shift.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[lady-isobel-barnett]

It's not something that's been discussed directly (at least in the last 12 months, haven't a clue if a position was adopted before then). Certainly any view held would have been pretty much academic given the Club had too many players signed up on full-time contracts for this season to make any shift.

Do you think the Trust should have a view about the possibility of part time football in the near future?

[Steven H]

Do you think the Trust should have a view about the possibility of part time football in the near future?

 

I do, and it should echo the thoughts of the fans they represent. What are those thoughts tho

[Woodstock Jag]

Do you think the Trust should have a view about the possibility of part time football in the near future?

 

As and when it becomes relevant (i.e. reconsidered at Board level), I should think so, yes. What I would say though is that I think the support are massively divided on the issue, and it would be best to ascertain the prevailing view before reaching such a position.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[Robert Dunn's Potential]

Sometimes I think the problem with the Trust is that it tries to lead from the back - not a criticism of the board members but rather the culture that has prevailed over the Trust.

 

There is a sense that the Trust has to figure out what the prevailing view of its membership is rather than saying "we are the duly elected Trust board and as such we are going to do the following: A, B, C etc. If you don't like it, vote us out next time."

 

The Trust has become neutered by the time it seems to take to formulate any kind of position during key periods within the club and I think it would become more a vehicle for the fans if it was less reactionary either to the actions of the PTFC Board or the views of the support and Trust membership and instead took more of a lead based on the personal opinions of the elected board members. Maybe then there would be more of an interest in the elections as well.

[Junior]

I do, and it should echo the thoughts of the fans they represent. What are those thoughts tho

 

You are right with your last bit - What happens when the view of other fans doesnt match with your view ? This is guaranteed to happen with any fairly large supporters group IMO and is the cause of why the JT appears to be ineffective at the moment.

 

You are dealing with completely polar opposite views on most things and while many sit around the middle ground you will end up delighting one group and leaving another extremely pissed off. Its how you get all view represented that will be key in anything the JT does in the future and its not gonna be easy.

[Steven H]

You are right with your last bit - What happens when the view of other fans doesnt match with your view ? This is guaranteed to happen with any fairly large supporters group IMO and is the cause of why the JT appears to be ineffective at the moment.

 

You are dealing with completely polar opposite views on most things and while many sit around the middle ground you will end up delighting one group and leaving another extremely pissed off. Its how you get all view represented that will be key in anything the JT does in the future and its not gonna be easy.

 

I agree, and i think some of the guys on the JTB do as well. If I have things clear, it is collective groups of fans the JT want involved as well as individuals, each collective group can determine the consensus opinion of said group and their 'rep' can put it to the JTB. Again, I think this is the idea some on the JTB have mooted...maybe each group can be represented on the JTB and that then helps to gain a general perspective.

 

No way will everyone agree, on ANY decision, but if enough of the fan base are represented within the Jags Trust then at least some sort of general consensus can be formed.

[honved]

I agree, and i think some of the guys on the JTB do as well. If I have things clear, it is collective groups of fans the JT want involved as well as individuals, each collective group can determine the consensus opinion of said group and their 'rep' can put it to the JTB. Again, I think this is the idea some on the JTB have mooted...maybe each group can be represented on the JTB and that then helps to gain a general perspective.

 

No way will everyone agree, on ANY decision, but if enough of the fan base are represented within the Jags Trust then at least some sort of general consensus can be formed.

 

It's the general consensus bit that is the problem. The very nature of the Trust and its need to adhere to the consensus view is exactly why, in most cases, when it sets out to design a horse it ends up with a camel.

 

That's also why munkey's appeal elsewhere on this board will come to nothing, since folk are already selecting which bits of sack the board they like and which bits they don't.

 

What is needed is someone who's a bit of a pain in the arse, argumentative and self opinionated enough to lay out an agenda without worrying about who needs consulted or what bit of the support would like this, that or the other. They might just find that the agenda for change is strong enough to survive the inevitable kicking that the board and the lily livered would give it.

 

Don't all rush at once.

[Steven H]

It's the general consensus bit that is the problem. The very nature of the Trust and its need to adhere to the consensus view is exactly why, in most cases, when it sets out to design a horse it ends up with a camel.

 

That's also why munkey's appeal elsewhere on this board will come to nothing, since folk are already selecting which bits of sack the board they like and which bits they don't.

 

What is needed is someone who's a bit of a pain in the arse, argumentative and self opinionated enough to lay out an agenda without worrying about who needs consulted or what bit of the support would like this, that or the other. They might just find that the agenda for change is strong enough to survive the inevitable kicking that the board and the lily livered would give it.

 

Don't all rush at once.

 

You've just described a lot of the folk on this forum (yes, including myself) . By 'agenda' do you mean agenda for change at the Club or with the Jags Trust?

Edited August 11, 2010 by Steven H

[Woodstock Jag]

You've just described a lot of the folk on this forum (yes, including myself) . By 'agenda' do you mean agenda for change at the Club or with the Jags Trust?

 

I'd have thought both.

[Guest Argus]

It's the general consensus bit that is the problem. The very nature of the Trust and its need to adhere to the consensus view is exactly why, in most cases, when it sets out to design a horse it ends up with a camel.

 

That's also why munkey's appeal elsewhere on this board will come to nothing, since folk are already selecting which bits of sack the board they like and which bits they don't.

 

What is needed is someone who's a bit of a pain in the arse, argumentative and self opinionated enough to lay out an agenda without worrying about who needs consulted or what bit of the support would like this, that or the other. They might just find that the agenda for change is strong enough to survive the inevitable kicking that the board and the lily livered would give it.

 

Don't all rush at once.

 

You really expect people to commit to anything when you patronise fellow supporters like that?

Another reason why I wouldn't join the supporters association.

[Blackpool Jags]

Apologies in advance for being behind the times, but do we have new club board rep to replace Kieron, and if so, what is his/her view on the possibility of moving towards part-time football in the future?

[Steven H]

I'd have thought both.

 

I doubt the same argumentative pain in the arse could do both unless one came as part of the other, is that what you mean? For what it's worth, I like the idea of a two-part Jags Trust...I think L-I-B describes what I mean quite well on theharrywraggs forum, infact the discussion on there has been very interesting imo.

[stillresigned]

I have been having these thoughts for more than 5 seasons , in fact from the last time we were in the so-called SPL. Unfortunately, I have now come to the conclusion that we have past the point of no return. We're skint, losing support drastically and to compound matters we are pretty crap. Admittedly, none of these problems are exactly alien to Firhill, but I've got to admit things have rarely looked so bleak in my thirty odd years of supporting this club. There seems to be an all pervasive atmosphere of doom and gloom and going to a game is more often than not an exercise in masochism. I hate to say it, but if we get tanned on Saturday as we might well get, I fear the worst. I hate being a hawker of gloom, but I cannot honestly see any reasons to be cheerful at present. Nonetheless,I'll to Firhill on Saturday as usual and cheer on the Jag's, and just mayne my worst fears will not be realised.

[honved]

You really expect people to commit to anything when you patronise fellow supporters like that?

Another reason why I wouldn't join the supporters association.

 

I see no patronising. What I do see is someone using a bit of ironic humour to suggest a point...and then you come along and confirm my jaundiced opinion. Lol!

[Guest Argus]

I see no patronising. What I do see is someone using a bit of ironic humour to suggest a point...and then you come along and confirm my jaundiced opinion. Lol!

 

Apologies for not being as smart as you intellectuals that inhabit the supporters association.

Condescension seems to be your stock in trade.

Ever thought if you actually connected with true working class fans then you might actually be representative of the supporters instead of being a west end lovies clique?

[honved]

Apologies in advance for being behind the times, but do we have new club board rep to replace Kieron, and if so, what is his/her view on the possibility of moving towards part-time football in the future?

 

Yes we do have a new club board rep, Morag McHaffie. I don't think she is a forum user but has said on the JT website that she's happy for anyone to track her down at seat Q80.

[B.C.G. JAG]

There's often chat about The Trust needing to gauge the membership to decide their policy. Which obviously renders it somewhat impotent.

 

And then there is always the argument that the Trust Board shouldn't need to have a referendum on every single issue if only Board members stood on a 'political' platform that gave them a mandate to actually operate.

 

And then there is the problem that the there aren't enough candidates to fill the positions, so anyone who wants to stand can pretty much get in no matter what their agenda.

 

Soooooo, we need to open things up. And maybe the forum can be part of that.

 

We need to have the debate at election time, settle the policy direction there and then, then and only then, rather than faffing around directionless forever after.

 

And given the level of apathy around The Trust, that debate needs to include people who aren't members (although obviously voting is only a entitlement of membership).

 

This year, we need a more visible and open debate, where candidates post their statements and accept questions which they need to answer publicly. And perhaps the Forum can facilitate that, or at least be a part of it.

 

Whether or not there is mass participation there must be the mechanisms that fully encourage it. And then, we can elect a Trust with a mandate, a direction and a purpose.

 

And a last thing. Argus, it's your Trust too. No-one should look to the Trust as in some way above the rest of us, in the same way as you shouldn't think of any politician as your better. They are us, fans - just ordinary fans - just trying to do something for all of us, albeit without much direction from us, with bog all reward. We can critique the Trust's performance, but let's not freak potential candidates out by making them think they have to have the same style and presentation skills as a professionally groomed Cabinet Minister!

 

We're all despondent about the future of the club, and we need a vehicle for the fan's voice(s) to be heard. The Trust has the mechanism's in place to be that vehicle, we just need to give it something to say. So let's have a proper debate this time and all get involved and not get too huffy about the odd comment. Whoever is going into the club's boardroom on our behalf is going to need some pretty thick skin, so maybe we should give them the confidence to speak frankly.