Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

246 Excellent

About jaf

  • Rank
    Jags fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,241 profile views
  1. We have 10 points from 13 home games I think? - I am not sure the home game argument stacks up, at an average over the season of 0.77 points per home match, if they award us that average for the missing game, we still go down. We have been bottom for much of the season - I cannot recall QOS being bottom much at all? We probably deserve to be bottom I am afraid, and only a 'no relegation' solution can save us.
  2. We had £600k Cash reserves per last years accounts and were told we were running a financially responsible and prudent balanced budget. Times like these are exactly why you need cash reserves, so I am glad we apparently have that buffer. The problem as I see it is the people that will be asked to contribute will include many who have reduced income themselves.
  3. I have spent all morning sadly talking with clients about letting staff go, be it redundancy or laying off. The big issue for Scottish football I suspect isn't the conclusion of this particular season in whatever imperfect way they decide, it is in fact the economic consequences of this are likely to extend into next seasons season ticket sales, and attendances, and perhaps even beyond, as people lose employment and their businesses. There are many more important things right now than whether we are 'unfairly' relegated (again). There is not a perfect solution to all of this.
  4. Yes. For me queen of south will finish bottom.
  5. Over the last 6 games in our league, 8 of the 10 teams have drawn half or more of their recent games. Those draws have helped keep us in touch during this grim period of form but equally if that draw ratio replicates for the remainder of the season, it will be very difficult to climb out of this. I really think this is a huge week with 6 points required from these 2 home games.
  6. I think they are 8th in the last 6 game form table whilst we are 9th. United fans think Neilson is too defensive. Hopefully tomorrow is not the day all that changes. as others have said , Coke transformed our creativity when he came on against queens and so I hope he starts.
  7. They are not due 900k as you say The investment value was carried at 900k in the accounts One is an indicator of the other, but one does not mean the other will follow
  8. Looked offside to me. Thought my angle wasn’t great. it may have been a shambolic but if officiating, but I suspect they got the end decision correct. Unfortunately.
  9. Which of course in no way means a profit was made does it? Someone might say that, for example, if they expected not to ever get cash for something, but then did? Or other reasons unknown to us - anyway, I only wanted to point out the facts
  10. If you don't know how its distributed (your new favourite question), how were you ever able to come to that conclusion, especially as it is contradicted by all available facts?
  11. No it isn't - it is £900k And the accounts have been audited year after year, and the auditors have never seen the need to suggest that amount needs written down, as have the directors consistently carried it at that value in the accounts without write down, therefore suggesting everyone believes that full amount is recoverable.
  12. The club has carried an investment for many years on their Balance Sheet in respect of this. It is £900,000 - are you now saying our accounts have consistently been wrong, and that is not going to be realised after all? Also, your original post on this matter had jlsarmy agreeing with you and pointing out that you and him had both consistently said that Beattie etc had made a profit from both selling shares in club and propco. Was he wrong too and that is not your view now the facts dispute that?
  13. You were giving impression Beattie et al had walked away with a million quid profit. You were misleading people and/or wrong. A loss of £160,000 was actually made (per the publicly available accounts). As I have said previously only the individuals concerned know their own motivations and so this is simply endless and quite boring speculation, but if you all feel the need to have that debate, it should at least be based on facts?
  14. I always thought the way to have done this was by PTFC (funded by CW) to purchase the entire share capital of FDL. That would have reduced the stamp duty cost. It would also have saved another transfer being needed within seven days. Finally, the whole title could have been put back together with ease by transferring the land out of the (now subsidiary company) FDL back into PTFC with no LBTT nor corporate tax issue, and FDL dissolved in future after that had been done. I never understood the interim step of using 3BC for the land transfer (especially for only 7 days), but I guess they took advice.
  15. Correct, the carrying value of the property stock at the time of the last accounts was £2,123,627, so they will be reporting a loss on the disposal at the amount previously quoted.