Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Springburnjag

Fan Ownership Working Group

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

It was in September - there has been No Significant incomes beyond projections and nor any reductions in Overhead 

The difference is under Fan Ownership we cannot get Investors nor are we going to attract the type of people who turned the Club around eg Beattie - Billy Allan - Grieg Brown  - a small Club needs people on the Board with the level of Contacts that can pull in favours - we basically are betting on Colin Weir 

As you have pointed out - previously No one person owned the Club - Colin Weir has 60% of the Shares - in these circumstances the Owner Funds the Club - in our rather bizarre set of circumstances TFE backed by the Thistle Trust decided we were having Fan Ownership 

No discussion on what was best for the Club - it was decided - people talk about Fans having a say - part of that say should be if we want Fan Ownership in the first place and be clear regards the inherent risks 

Not once have you pointed out that this carries a massive risk to PTFC  

 

 

Now you did say you supported the consortium because the well had run dry on on the likes of Beattie and Allan are you now saying there are people out there ? 
 

what is it about fan ownership that would stop them being involved ? 
 

I think options on what was best for the club  could have been done but clearly David Beattie didn’t want to do that so here we are 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The exact opposite - there is a higher chance that with no external Investor that we run into Cashflow issues - the options are therefore to sell it onto a Private Owner ( as happened at Dundee or the other possibility is Administration and it will defo go into an Assett  Stripper its an Urban Myth that Fan Ownership somehow gives us better protection  

"if the club fails under fan ownership it fails" so you would rather have the Club disappear to satisfy your obsession with Fan Ownership than have a Model that gives us stability - Yes Clubs Fail under different Models but for the last 10 Years most Scottish Clubs have  been financially stable with the exception of Rangers - which was the result of decisions take over a decade ago  - to sell Fan Ownership as a Model that has less risk is frankly Nonsense  .

What obsession?  I've tried to look at things in a balanced way. The obsession with who owns what I'm not guilty off. Look in the mirror I would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I get you and jj don’t like fan ownership and never have and supported the consortium ...your ideas now seem to be 

1 sell 49% if the club to investors ( not clear who they are or if they exist ) giving fans control of 51% 

2 have a transitional period with a transitional board ( make sure business people are involved )

Personally I’m willing to consider both these ideas and others ....you have assumed they are out of bounds so are standing aside ... I’m not sure if have assumed that or been told it but I hope your nit just taking g the huff 

 

What part of them having 80 something percentage of the shareholding are you missing?

There is no room for other investment unless that is as handouts. 
The decision for fan ownership was made without asking the fans.

The decision of PTFC Trust to get their weight and shares behind this was made without consulting with the Trust members. 
 

This is why folk won’t blindly back this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

What part of them having 80 something percentage of the shareholding are you missing?

There is no room for other investment unless that is as handouts. 
The decision for fan ownership was made without asking the fans.

The decision of PTFC Trust to get their weight and shares behind this was made without consulting with the Trust members. 
 

This is why folk won’t blindly back this

Which part of ‘ not set in stone ‘ passes you by .... Colin weir can give or sell parts of his shareholding to anyone .... so he could give 51% to fans and the remainder to investors ( if they exist )

the decision to sell the club by shareholders was made without consulting anyone 

I’m not blindly backing it either 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Which part of ‘ not set in stone ‘ passes you by .... Colin weir can give or sell parts of his shareholding to anyone .... so he could give 51% to fans and the remainder to investors ( if they exist )

the decision to sell the club by shareholders was made without consulting anyone 

I’m not blindly backing it either 

Here is a direct quote from the club statement 21st November

“TBC will gift the 55% shareholding that it has acquired directly to a new fan shareholding entity currently being developed, based on the Well Society model at Motherwell FC. To allow fans time to get the preferred structure in place with the support of the Thistle fanbase, the shares will be held by TBC then transferred to fans no later than the 30th March 2020.”

 

That seems set in stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Here is a direct quote from the club statement 21st November

“TBC will gift the 55% shareholding that it has acquired directly to a new fan shareholding entity currently being developed, based on the Well Society model at Motherwell FC. To allow fans time to get the preferred structure in place with the support of the Thistle fanbase, the shares will be held by TBC then transferred to fans no later than the 30th March 2020.”

 

That seems set in stone

Maybe maybe not .... but what if the working group proposed it as their preferred structure or Colin weir doesn’t like the ideas they come up with or if someone external approaches him ? Always allow for the unexpected 

Or you get a list of 1000 fans who don’t want fan ownership and send it to Colin weir 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Maybe maybe not .... but what if the working group proposed it as their preferred structure or Colin weir doesn’t like the ideas they come up with or if someone external approaches him ? Always allow for the unexpected 

Or you get a list of 1000 fans who don’t want fan ownership and send it to Colin weir 
 

How about Paul Goodwin gets a list of 1000 fans who actually want this. Oh that’s right he tried and got 270

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

How about Paul Goodwin gets a list of 1000 fans who actually want this. Oh that’s right he tried and got 270

I could say that’s 269 more than anyone else but it’s Christmas enjoy your angst ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, javeajag said:

I get you and jj don’t like fan ownership and never have and supported the consortium ...your ideas now seem to be 

1 sell 49% if the club to investors ( not clear who they are or if they exist ) giving fans control of 51% 

2 have a transitional period with a transitional board ( make sure business people are involved )

Personally I’m willing to consider both these ideas and others ....you have assumed they are out of bounds so are standing aside ... I’m not sure if have assumed that or been told it but I hope your nit just taking g the huff 

 

We have No Say - Paul Goodwin and his Gang  decided how it was going to work

No other alternatives were considered  

We have a Transitional Board  with "Business People " 

No one is taking "The Huff" the decisions are already made - people are entitled to disagree - point out where they believe its wrong and pass an opinion 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We have No Say - Paul Goodwin and his Gang  decided how it was going to work

No other alternatives were considered  

We have a Transitional Board  with "Business People " 

No one is taking "The Huff" the decisions are already made - people are entitled to disagree - point out where they believe its wrong and pass an opinion 

 

So how’s it going to work then ? Cause I don’t know 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We have No Say - Paul Goodwin and his Gang  decided how it was going to work

No other alternatives were considered  

We have a Transitional Board  with "Business People " 

No one is taking "The Huff" the decisions are already made - people are entitled to disagree - point out where they believe its wrong and pass an opinion

How can he have a gang? No-one likes him or trusts him! (tongue firmly in cheek)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am correct in saying that the last update from ptfc trust suggested there would shortly be supporter trustee elections.  That was in August. 

as we stand on the cusp of a New Democratic fan ownership vehicle, it does not look convincing if we cannot make the existing one operate with great transparency and democracy. 
 

It seems that Alan Caldwell and Andrew Byron believe they can remain supporter trustees of the trust whilst also transitionary board members.  
 

as Norge says, they swung behind this without consulting those who they represent   It is in my view essential the independence, governance and democracy of the trust is fireproof  for the credibility of what comes after.  it ought to have people who  can make  decisions on whether the shares of that entity be amalgamated with the new packet of shares.   there are arguments both ways for that, including strong ones against doing so and I am concerned (having enquired of both the trust and the working group privately on this) that we are going to be presented with a fait accompli.  easy to dissuade me of that - do the right thing  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaf said:

It seems that Alan Caldwell and Andrew Byron believe they can remain supporter trustees of the trust whilst also transitionary board members.  

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not long ago that people on here were asking why there were no trustees on the board ?

Remember that the interim board is there to keep the ship afloat and isindependent of the working group to ensure there is no conflict of interest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not long ago that people on here were asking why there were no trustees on the board ?

Remember that the interim board is there to keep the ship afloat and isindependent of the working group to ensure there is no conflict of interest 

We have a fans trust that (appear) not to have consulted its membership on this critical path change, a trust that has not held its elections in August and who’s previous elections did not include a large percentage of the membership. With this Trust and its ‘elected’ board being central to the fan ownership model being railroaded the concerns from Jaf are valid and shared by many.

For fan ownership to work then the fans need to be kept involved, communicated with, and most importantly the democratic process followed to the letter. This does not bode well for any future involvement. The PTFC Trust have barely put anything of communication out since their statement backing TFE and  (falsely)stating the old board had done no due diligence, when questioned on this statement and had they consulted their members, we had silence, we still have silence. Who does the PTFC TRUST actually find itself accountable to if it’s not the fans?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaf said:

I think I am correct in saying that the last update from ptfc trust suggested there would shortly be supporter trustee elections.  That was in August. 

as we stand on the cusp of a New Democratic fan ownership vehicle, it does not look convincing if we cannot make the existing one operate with great transparency and democracy. 
 

It seems that Alan Caldwell and Andrew Byron believe they can remain supporter trustees of the trust whilst also transitionary board members.  
 

as Norge says, they swung behind this without consulting those who they represent   It is in my view essential the independence, governance and democracy of the trust is fireproof  for the credibility of what comes after.  it ought to have people who  can make  decisions on whether the shares of that entity be amalgamated with the new packet of shares.   there are arguments both ways for that, including strong ones against doing so and I am concerned (having enquired of both the trust and the working group privately on this) that we are going to be presented with a fait accompli.  easy to dissuade me of that - do the right thing  

 

4th of August was last minuted and published Trust meeting, where it stated “elections would be soon”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not long ago that people on here were asking why there were no trustees on the board ?

Remember that the interim board is there to keep the ship afloat and isindependent of the working group to ensure there is no conflict of interest 

I was one of those questioning why there were no fan trusts' representatives on the Board.  I also urged both fan trusts to amalgamate, and to improve their admin to make themselves more transparent and accountable.  Nothing much seems to have happened, although I will be delighted for someone to correct me.

There has to be an immediate root and branch reform of how the two trusts operate, and that must be discussed and agreed within the Working Group as a matter of urgency, and for that agreement to form the basis for future fan ownership.

A merry Christmas to one and all and let's hope that 2020 is an improvement on 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

I was one of those questioning why there were no fan trusts' representatives on the Board.  I also urged both fan trusts to amalgamate, and to improve their admin to make themselves more transparent and accountable.  Nothing much seems to have happened, although I will be delighted for someone to correct me.

There has to be an immediate root and branch reform of how the two trusts operate, and that must be discussed and agreed within the Working Group as a matter of urgency, and for that agreement to form the basis for future fan ownership.

A merry Christmas to one and all and let's hope that 2020 is an improvement on 2019.

The Working Groups have zero to do with the Trusts on any level - they are Constituted Organisations - its not for Colin Weir or Paul Goodwin and his Gang of Merry Followers to decide 

Its already been pointed  out that Two Trustees now sit on the Board  which means that the balance of Board Members and Trustees is not as per the Original Structure - therefore there requires to be Fresh Elections 

Currently the Thistle  Trust have backed Fan Ownership - yet I dont recall there Members being asked for an opinion

We are talking about Fan Ownership and Democratic Process - Yet TFE - who elected them to Speak on behalf of the Fans - Thistle Trust - when did the Consult there Members 

As for the Working Groups they are deciding the Future of the Club - under the auspices of TFE - yet No one really knows who TFE are - dont you find all of this remotely concerning ? 

As for "Fan Ownership" its a MASSIVE Risk to the Club - No Debate - No Review of the Options - Paul Goodwin stands in Front of Firhill with a Wee Board and its decided 

 

  

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

I was one of those questioning why there were no fan trusts' representatives on the Board.  I also urged both fan trusts to amalgamate, and to improve their admin to make themselves more transparent and accountable.  Nothing much seems to have happened, although I will be delighted for someone to correct me.

There has to be an immediate root and branch reform of how the two trusts operate, and that must be discussed and agreed within the Working Group as a matter of urgency, and for that agreement to form the basis for future fan ownership.

A merry Christmas to one and all and let's hope that 2020 is an improvement on 2019.

Well said. All the best to the forum contributors for the festive period and let's hope 2020 is a good year for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few random thoughts

- Merge ALL fans sharholdings under one group, there are at best just over 2000 adult fans here who may be interested , we dont need multple groups IMO

- Fans now own over 80% of the club. We make a commitment to sell some of the share to fans who want to invest leaving minimum 51% of the share in fans groups. Leads into next point..

- Follow FoH model and ask fans for monthly "donations" , maybe look to reinvent the Centernary Fund or repurpose that to raise money to be held "for emergencies". We dont need to raise to cover the share purchase but as a club you will have times you need an immediate influx of cash , this could be a method of doing so as long as its ringfenced and cant be just spent in a " oh we just need one more player..." scenario

-Establish funds for specific requirements - stadium works etc and stick to it

-Set a breakeven budget, fans will be unhappy as it will be a reduction in the playing budget - idiots last year setting a £1m deficit should be shot for that (not literally)

-Make Jagzone free to air , yeah it will cost but try get sponsors to offset some of the cost and allow all fans to see the media content

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Junior said:

Few random thoughts

- Merge ALL fans sharholdings under one group, there are at best just over 2000 adult fans here who may be interested , we dont need multple groups IMO

- Fans now own over 80% of the club. We make a commitment to sell some of the share to fans who want to invest leaving minimum 51% of the share in fans groups. Leads into next point..

- Follow FoH model and ask fans for monthly "donations" , maybe look to reinvent the Centernary Fund or repurpose that to raise money to be held "for emergencies". We dont need to raise to cover the share purchase but as a club you will have times you need an immediate influx of cash , this could be a method of doing so as long as its ringfenced and cant be just spent in a " oh we just need one more player..." scenario

-Establish funds for specific requirements - stadium works etc and stick to it

-Set a breakeven budget, fans will be unhappy as it will be a reduction in the playing budget - idiots last year setting a £1m deficit should be shot for that (not literally)

-Make Jagzone free to air , yeah it will cost but try get sponsors to offset some of the cost and allow all fans to see the media content

Persuasive arguments. 
 

there are however also persuasive arguments for not merging as well. 
 

but that’s not for this forum to decide upon but the working group and so I will keep my powder dry on those for the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×