Airija

I agree it would be preferable to have been consulted prior to the investment. I can imagine it's a hard thing to organise though and guys with that sort of money tend not to be too keen on the scrutiny and I'm sure they're not exactly in need of black holes to throw money into. The need and intent to seek investment like this was discussed at the TJF AGM though if i remember right and I don't think anyone raised major concerns there. I think it is a really good step to have the inability to dilute the shareholding written into the club articles. That was always one of the big concerns when the trust was appointed and the original trustees were willing to work with a MoU with the previous board. That arrangement couldn't guarantee the shareholding would be protected.

I was worried about losing him this summer tbh. Figured with the money worries and a lot of our other best players out of contract someone would have thrown in a low ball offer we'd have had to accept. Every bit as good as a new body in the door.

When I first saw it I was an outright no and it's already working away at me like a brainworm. Might get it for the wee man's first top and see how it looks in person.

Someone else mentioned that podcast but I couldn't work out what episode it was cause I don't think it was in the title. Don't suppose you still know?

My thoughts when I saw Keredine's tweet since reinforced by that video are the trust has moved and the board have walked rather than see the foundation involved again. I thought the trust's last(ish) statement sounded like the right words with nothing to back it up but maybe not. Seems to me the trust have responded to the pressure and protest, are moving on some of the red lines and its a jump before you're pushed situation for the board. If that's the case I'd at least be willing to say the trustees have listened and should be heard out for now. My guess is some form of joint statement and plan is in the works. Especially since our resident TJF board member hasn't appeared.

It's all good though cause we now have an FAQ on the trust answering precisely none of our questions and if anything raising more. My favourite one being why does it take a vote of the beneficiaries to expand their definition beyond those holding three years season books but it doesn't take a vote to change their trust deeds five times, constantly delay elections and turn your minority shareholding into a majority (by their own admission in their document) with significant tax and liability implications to the beneficiaries.

The tone of the last statement is unbelievable. They give it big licks about their 1600 membership but if they haven't changed the trust deed, despite them being updated every five minutes, then the real figure is below that. Assuming people are replying honestly then the 300 or so TJF members must be massive wedge if not a small majority of the beneficiaries and they've asked for that information. All that chat about democracy and accountability and suddenly the only information they're going to provide is what they consider legally required. I think the drawbridges are up for these guys and they've no intention to do anything but hunker down and do the share transfer regardless of the backlash.

I reckon they think they do. My reading of the Jags Foundation statements and the profiles is that they basically have no faith in us. They're all from the same strata. MDs, CFOs, lawyers, etc. They are elitist and think the unwashed masses will be so busy trying to search for success the club is run into the ground. You can see repeated comments to the effect that fans can't be trusted dotted through. They think a trust is the perfect model for fan ownership. We are the beneficiaries of the ownership. It is to be run for us but but not by us.

When did the club last release a statement on this? Was it after the playoffs? I thought they confirmed at the time there were zero other interested parties. Never mind the other questions but they need to explain how on earth an organisation has managed form and prove they are appropriate in the space of three or four months.