The Partick Thistle thread

[Pie Of The Month]

 

This is a wind up right?

[Hammer Jag]

1 minute ago, Pie Of The Month said:

 

This is a wind up right?

Delete before anyone sees.

[Virtual Insanity]

Most tinpot things you've seen in Scottish football thread for this pish.

[Jacky1990]

These c***s in charge could see us liquidated and the way they are going I probably wont even be that bothered.

Every decision maker at the club needs fucking torpedoed into the Atlantic

[DiegoDiego]

Our crowd on Saturday was almost 20% less than our previous lowest crowd EVER in the Scottish Cup, that's completely unheard of.
 
If PTFC Directors are treating such obvious warning signs about the dangers the club faces as so trivial (I refuse to listen to the remarks to be honest) then they are actively failing their responsibilities to the club.

To be fair, we've never had a Scottish Cup tie competing with the World Cup on TV before.

[TONTROOPER]

18 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

 

 

Dont forget to invite " Fossie" and all his BBC luvies.

[thisal]

17 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:

 

To be fair, we've never had a Scottish Cup tie competing with the World Cup on TV before.

No, it only had an old firm match to compete with.

[Virtual Insanity]

On 29/11/2022 at 23:09, DiegoDiego said:

 

To be fair, we've never had a Scottish Cup tie competing with the World Cup on TV before.

I'm clearly not au fait with other clubs' lowest ever Scottish Cup crowds but I would be completely stunned if any other club in Scotland at the weekend had a crowd that was almost 20% lower than theif previous ever lowest attendances. Had a quick look at Morton and Hamilton as an example and their attendances were both actually up on recent league games which makes our figures look even worse.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Virtual Insanity
Shocking grammar.

[Pie Of The Month]

We've never had a Scottish Cup tie competing with Drumpchapel United playing up at Lochburn either, can't forget that.

If anything the World Cup being on meaning there's no top flight football should be an opportunity for any normal football club to try to take advantage and get neutrals through the gate. Us and Kelty decided to go with £20 admission instead which killed the potential to negate any drop in attendance from the boycott.  Not that I'm complaining about that of course.

[jagfox]

LEST WE FORGET...

[VictorOnopko]

50 minutes ago, jagfox said:

LEST WE FORGET...

Hahaha - this was very very funny to read about at the time.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46405477

"After galloping around the Scottish countryside, the exhausted players were relieved to be told their day was done. Then the SAS arrived.

"I could hardly pick my head up I was so tired," Doolan said. "They told us to take our stuff off and jump in the van. The guys were shouting, 'we'll take you for some food'.

"Five minutes later, bang bang, doors open, guys with masks rag-dolled us out, head-locked us, flipped on the floor. We were blindfolded with ear muffs on. They were rough with us - it was a whole new level. They were dragging us about rooms bouncing us off walls in total darkness.

"Brice Ntambwe got out and ran away but it took four SAS to put him down. Jack Storer was crying at one point. "

[Mediocre Pundit]

I forgot how funny that last paragraph was. They should have let Ntambwe keep on running. 

[ptfc. 22]

4 hours ago, VictorOnopko said:

Hahaha - this was very very funny to read about at the time.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46405477

"After galloping around the Scottish countryside, the exhausted players were relieved to be told their day was done. Then the SAS arrived.

"I could hardly pick my head up I was so tired," Doolan said. "They told us to take our stuff off and jump in the van. The guys were shouting, 'we'll take you for some food'.

"Five minutes later, bang bang, doors open, guys with masks rag-dolled us out, head-locked us, flipped on the floor. We were blindfolded with ear muffs on. They were rough with us - it was a whole new level. They were dragging us about rooms bouncing us off walls in total darkness.

"Brice Ntambwe got out and ran away but it took four SAS to put him down. Jack Storer was crying at one point. "

Then Jack storers dad offered a Gary caldwell parody account a fight on twitter

Edited December 1, 2022 by ptfc. 22

[Fuctifano]

Should have been the third kit IMO 

 

[jagfox]

 

[Pie Of The Month]

They met the Jags Foundation before and couldn't commit to what the Foundation said was their red lines on issues such as democratic election of a majority of Trustees this season and then also broke the agreement they had with the Foundation about sight of each other's statements within about a couple of weeks of making it so I'm not sure:

1) Why they believe the Foundation or other supporters groups can trust them

2) What they think has changed since they last met unless they have conceded ground on the red line issues.

It's easy enough to sound reasonable in a few tweets but their actions since April/May demonstrate they shouldn't be trusted and I'll be contacting the Foundation to make clear that I think they shouldn't be moving an inch from where they were at the last meeting.

[John MacLean]

I think the statement from the PTFC Trust yesterday is a welcome one and a small step in the right direction. I previously described the situation that we are currently find ourselves in as a fan base as a civil war. It’s good now to see the potential at least for some détente.

However………………

It’s been a weird old route that has got us to this point and I can’t help but feel that there is still more than an element of doing things back to front.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for the majority shareholder to appraise the current Board and their roles. And I think it is entirely appropriate for the majority shareholder to make changes to the composition of the Board as they see fit.

But we can’t escape the fact that it is the five trustees of the PTFC Trust that are essentially the major shareholders and not the PTFC Trust itself.

Until they democratise their organisation, and it is good to see some steps being made towards that, it will be these five guys, no matter how well intentioned, acting without any mandate to do so. I don’t think they are morally in any kind of position to make changes. Their priority has to be identifying their current beneficiaries and widening the definition of beneficiary. Once that’s done and once there is some level of accountability to their beneficiaries, and this all takes time in an already glacial like process

It was that issue of legitimacy and mandate that caused my eyebrows to rise when The Jags Foundation called upon the PTFC Trust to vote against the reappointment of four Club Board members at the recent AGM. You can’t on one hand question the legitimacy of the PTFC Trust, essentially label them a five man cabal and accuse them of all types of malfeasance in acquiring the shares and then basically ask them to complete what amounts to little more than a coup d’etat. A bit of gesture politics there from The Jags Foundation in my opinion.

And I think TJF are missing an opportunity to demonstrate that they are a member led organisation and that having 900+ members is more than a bargaining tool, by continuing to have ‘red line’ issues before agreeing to further discussions with the PTFC Trust.

I don’t think it is practical for any member based organisation to consult with their membership on every issue and TJF Board clearly have a mandate but, IMO, this is a pretty fundamental issue and one worth canvassing their membership on further (they may well be doing so – I’m not a member) to give them a degree of certainty that this is the wishes of the majority of their membership. Social media would certainly suggest that it is but social media can also be something of an echo chamber at times.

Maybe their membership would welcome a softening of that position and dialogue with the PTFC Trust and maybe they wouldn’t and are entirely supportive of the stance taken by TJF Board, but why not take a bit of time to explore what their members think? There’s nothing to lose by doing so and plenty to gain. It can only strengthen their position and highlight their levels of engagement.

Dialogue is the only thing that is going to sort this mess out. I don’t want to see the Thistle support divided and I don’t want to see fans watching from the canal bank when we should all be inside Firhill together.

[jagsfan57]

1 hour ago, John MacLean said:

I think the statement from the PTFC Trust yesterday is a welcome one and a small step in the right direction. I previously described the situation that we are currently find ourselves in as a fan base as a civil war. It’s good now to see the potential at least for some détente.

However………………

It’s been a weird old route that has got us to this point and I can’t help but feel that there is still more than an element of doing things back to front.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for the majority shareholder to appraise the current Board and their roles. And I think it is entirely appropriate for the majority shareholder to make changes to the composition of the Board as they see fit.

But we can’t escape the fact that it is the five trustees of the PTFC Trust that are essentially the major shareholders and not the PTFC Trust itself.

Until they democratise their organisation, and it is good to see some steps being made towards that, it will be these five guys, no matter how well intentioned, acting without any mandate to do so. I don’t think they are morally in any kind of position to make changes. Their priority has to be identifying their current beneficiaries and widening the definition of beneficiary. Once that’s done and once there is some level of accountability to their beneficiaries, and this all takes time in an already glacial like process

It was that issue of legitimacy and mandate that caused my eyebrows to rise when The Jags Foundation called upon the PTFC Trust to vote against the reappointment of four Club Board members at the recent AGM. You can’t on one hand question the legitimacy of the PTFC Trust, essentially label them a five man cabal and accuse them of all types of malfeasance in acquiring the shares and then basically ask them to complete what amounts to little more than a coup d’etat. A bit of gesture politics there from The Jags Foundation in my opinion.

And I think TJF are missing an opportunity to demonstrate that they are a member led organisation and that having 900+ members is more than a bargaining tool, by continuing to have ‘red line’ issues before agreeing to further discussions with the PTFC Trust.

I don’t think it is practical for any member based organisation to consult with their membership on every issue and TJF Board clearly have a mandate but, IMO, this is a pretty fundamental issue and one worth canvassing their membership on further (they may well be doing so – I’m not a member) to give them a degree of certainty that this is the wishes of the majority of their membership. Social media would certainly suggest that it is but social media can also be something of an echo chamber at times.

Maybe their membership would welcome a softening of that position and dialogue with the PTFC Trust and maybe they wouldn’t and are entirely supportive of the stance taken by TJF Board, but why not take a bit of time to explore what their members think? There’s nothing to lose by doing so and plenty to gain. It can only strengthen their position and highlight their levels of engagement.

Dialogue is the only thing that is going to sort this mess out. I don’t want to see the Thistle support divided and I don’t want to see fans watching from the canal bank when we should all be inside Firhill together.

Like you I am not a member of TJF but am a ST holder and have just received an email, essentially asking if I want to opt out of communication from PTFC Trust via the club.  If this is the start of the engagement process,and I assume TJF had nothing to do with the protest last weekend, they may need to take care that they don’t get left behind but still have a significant part to play in the future shape of PTFC.

[Pie Of The Month]

The Foundation are demonstrating they are a member led organisation by the democratically elected directors maintaining the red lines they issued less than 5 weeks ago. Members have had all that time to get in touch with the Foundation if they felt those red lines were wrong and I trust the directors to have used that time to gauge the feelings of the membership based on any correspondence they have received.  Why should a legitimate fans organisation bend over backwards to accommodate the 5 unelected trustees? The red lines are already the Foundation meeting the Trust in the middle. The initial ask was for immediate elections of all trustees and that was changed to elections by May 2023 of the majority of trustees, it's up to the trustees to either meet those red lines or accept they will not have the Foundation's support.

There's only one side that caused all of this and the onus is on them to fix it, not the Foundation.

On a side note it's funny how often it seems to be people who aren't members of TJF that are telling them what they should be doing.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Pie Of The Month

[jagsfan57]

TJF may well be playing the perfect game. I think not being a member is precisely why I don’t know what that is. It is just a perception on my part that there was a group last weekend that want to go a different way. This has prompted reaction from Low,Rough and the Trust, and then the email. Although, there seems to be some doubt about its legitimacy.