Mr Scruff

I hope not. But you make an apt observation. One of my concerns about Fan Ownership was just this. Having sat on a couple of boards, and chaired one, my experience tells me that the loudest voice can often dominate the agenda and the direction irrespective of 'ownership'. Especially so if there's not the strength and skills balanced amongst the directors. I'd hope that this would tend to become less of a problem the longer established the structure becomes, but I'm sure it's a danger, and that those appointed by fan's organisations need to be strong and alive to that happening. Recent events do suggest it.

That's certainly true.

You do see it a lot in England with the English flag. It's not so much that the saltire is inherently imbued with political meaning, but it has been used a lot to make political statements in the last few years, that I'd be unhappy being associated with. Although, on balance, I would probably still view it as somewhat apolitical. I used to think the same of the Union Flag, so things do change. This does feel like a bit of a distraction. One thing I've valued in being a Thistle fan is not having support around us wrapped either metaphorically or physically in flags for symbolism.

100%

All us supporters have a relationship with the club. You'd like to think that it's been positively changed by active fan ownership. While that doesn't mean we should influence or materially affect the day-to-day running of the club, it does mean that stability in the management of the club is important to us, and does in some way impact us. The previous management regime felt opaque and distant. The worst aspect of this is just the feeling of that continuing.

Precisely.

Nice one. The goals were brutal...

I would echo those passing on their thanks to IMcC and the team for their efforts, as well as the feeling of slight disbelief at the timing of the announcement. But I would say that I've thought for a while that change was needed. I had a quick chat with him after the Cove game and he gave the clear impression that he wasn't sure what was wrong and what needed to change. Although honest, it also spoke to me of management through hope rather than positive planning. I feared at that time that the interim nature of the board might paralyse them into inactivity, when they do still have a fiduciary and strategic duty to the club, and that we might just stagger on regardless of performance on and off the park. The fact that they have acted, even with the questionable timing, gives me some hope that we might not just be rudderless in the coming period, and that the full transition to fan ownership will work out well (when a board is not Interim). And to the point that we're 1 point off fourth, we're precisely the same off seventh and the direction of travel is clear. Sometimes not making a decision is a bigger decision itself.

I have to applaud the efforts of all of those taking the time and effort to contact the club with their concerns and views surrounding this issue. I'd love to be wrong, but I believe this will fall on ears with fingers already planted firmly in them. The phrase we need to keep hearing in our heads is They Don't Care. The statements and reaction to the previous announcements amply demonstrate that. One of the reasons I turned round to both the fan ownership model in general and The Jags Foundation in particular is because They Do Care. Demonstrably so. Even more so than their professionalism, transparency, accountability and democracy that's something I want to be part of.

Glad to hear there's been a substantial response to the TJF email last week. Still to get mine back. I agree strongly with MarciaBlaine's points. The very openness, thoroughness and professionalism of TJF makes it an organisation easy to sideline by the status-quo-clique. I do take the point about having a decent chunk in the bank, but this can also be turned against you in any time of distress for the club. You could already see the PTFC Trust pretty much do that at the last meeting with TJF. I feel there needs to be a more campaigning side to this, and not just community building around the Pins, important though that is. Apathy is the killer at the moment.

Highly unlikely scenario. There's a presumption against approval for more student accommodation in many areas of Glasgow due to an over-supply. There would be significant challenges in achieving a commercially viable development on that site especially with topographical and hydrological issues as well as flooding and meeting the extensive requirements of the City Development Plan. It could be done, it's just difficult and that means expensive. Even if you think a grant funded social housing scheme might work you immediately hit the issue of high cost abnormals noted above. It would almost certainly not be approved without an undertaking to re-provide the pitch somewhere. I do believe that these ideas suggest a level of planning and Machiavellian machinations that is outside the abilities or ethos of those involved. A much simpler explanation for all of this is just the simple one - they are content with the status quo and want to ensure that all the actions preserve only that. Why that would be the case? Anyone's guess is as good as mine. I wouldn't discount the basic one of ego.

These are very valid and cogent points. Both are entirely explainable by the fact that the only reason this setup exists is to underpin the current structure - nothing else.

Thanks for the update from TJF. As usual very thorough, professional and open. That this stands in complete contrast to everything coming from both the current owners and board of the football club, throws into stark relief where we find ourselves. What is abundantly clear is that there is no change coming at all. We have a board who have no legitimacy and treat their fans with obvious contempt. Smugly so. We have an ownership model designed entirely to cement that in place and to offer no fan participation whatsoever (with the utter cheek to call it fan ownership). We have an unelected, and obviously detached and hostile, group now underpinning the entire rotten structure. In these circumstances I applaud the patient efforts of those Directors of the trust who are managing this engagement. However, as the only ones with any legitimacy in this whole scenario, I fear that TJF may find itself being exploited by those whose only aim is to continue the status quo for their own perceived benefit. If only by the simple fact that they’re not coming under any real pressure anywhere. I don’t see any path to change in the current setup. I don’t see any path to agitating or pushing for change without TJF and I don’t see the any way for that to happen. I fear that we will drift along in mediocrity and apathy, with those running the club perfectly content in that being the goal.

I did, years ago, get asked to give an opinion on the value of Firhill on the basis of build cost. I didn't know, but always assumed, that this was to achieve a particular Balance Sheet covenant for the bank - this would have been when Bank of Scotland provided funding to all but one of the SPL teams and clubs found borrowing relatively easy. Hard to say why this is being done now. Any business that actually owns the property that PTFC does and has the small turnover they do should easily have a very positive balance sheet unless something has gone wrong (eg lots of debt, which is not the case we understand). The challenge would always be cashflow I'd imagine. I don't know enough about estate law or accounting but I'd hope that 'donations' couldn't be arbitrarily turned into 'liabilities' after they'd been made (and to be clear I'm not suggesting anything of the sort).

A long read, but a welcome one. You both come across as positive and professional. Such a marked contrast to the other interviews with 'others' I've seen recently published. Which is one of the reason this all feels like a tragic outcome rather than a triumphant one.