Jump to content

jaf

Members
  • Content Count

    791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

160 Excellent

About jaf

  • Rank
    Jags fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Perth

Recent Profile Visitors

831 profile views
  1. jaf

    New Owner

    The budget hole is in the future The cash is not all it seems because the debtors were £250k lower than the short term creditors at May 2018, therefore the NET CASH at that time was £300k - to put that into perspective - Falkirk had more than double the amount of net current assets (net cash). To further put it into perspective, that is the best that figure had been for us in a long time, and a lot of hard work and financial discipline had gone into achieving that I am sure. To put it another way, a loss of £300k or more in total over these two seasons (one actual and one budgeted) and we would not have enough money de in and in the bank to cover the amount that we were due suppliers etc. Its not a massive safety net. If that safety net were threatened, would you be comfortable letting that scenario play out? Humour me, and assume that in your analysis there is a missing piece of the jigsaw you are unaware of as yet that made that threat real.
  2. jaf

    New Owner

    We had £550k cash reserves at the start of last season Whether in last years accounts, or this years we don't have too much of a margin for error over the 12 months past and 12 months future; or we didn't at least prior to the player sales
  3. jaf

    New Owner

    Springford didn't say that He didn't say we didn't make a loss, he said he would not criticise the previous board for financial mismanagement and would not have released the statement worded in that way
  4. jaf

    4 minutes of NOTHING!!!

    I spoke to him at the open day and he said he wouldn’t make this week but should be in contention by next week.
  5. jaf

    New Owner

    I am not saying there is any debt. Audited accounts are historic and factual. Budgets are future and predictions.
  6. jaf

    New Owner

    We had £551k of cash reserves at May 2018. Lets assume we broke even in year to May 2019. All any of us can do is play a mad game of financial join the dots using the respective statements as clues and I know no more than anyone else.... From what is being speculated on, the INITIAL budget set seems to have been a deficit of around £500k for this season. (assuming the speculated fees are correct) We then got lucky - Liam Lindsay and Fitzy bringing in close to that figure. Hurrah, the budget now balances. (In which case the 'fully costed' claims would be correct, but after the event by subsequent events rather than specifically at the time of setting.) Old board - so lets ramp up the budget by another 200k. Shareholders - no. Old board sacked, new board in. The consequential loss of Colin Weir is terrible - but that may have happened at any time, and should not be how we balance budgets. If the takeover does not happen, we are in a grim position - a disinterested board who have sold 'in their heads'. I would say we all know we need more players to be competitive (and some might argue a different manager too!) however as much as I would want to be competitive, I would want STJ2 even less, and when you have £551k of cash reserves, setting a £500k deficit budget just blows my mind. My guess David Kelly would be central to all we don't know. He must have been involved in the initial budget setting. I am guessing any accountant would be uncomfortable with that. Then he and his assistant were made redundant. Then he comes back in with the new board, and speaks about balancing the budgets. Who knows what to believe, but among all the uninformed speculation, the above seems to bridge the gap between the stated positions of both boards. And as I have often realised in life - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of two positions. BTW, just on the old board/new board debate, it should be remembered that Ian Dodds (who we will ignore) and Malcolm Cannon are on both - Malcolm was a Jacqui Low appointee, and he has not flounced off. He has no allegiance to PTFC, and he spoke well last week I thought. I just don't think its credible that if the board were the villains some are keen to make out, he would have any reason to hang around and be associated with them. Just a thought.
  7. jaf

    New Owner

    Sorry this is just ridiculous. It will ease the sale if we look less sustainable and less able to balance the books? It’s more likely to derail the sale during FDD
  8. jaf

    New Owner

    I think it was Malcolm Cannon who said on Saturday that they were looking at different models to allow the academy to continue, and that the board were presently investigating a range of options. Might have been Ronnie G actually, but someone did.
  9. jaf

    New Owner

    I think you join automatically by being a season ticket holder and I assume they have access to that database.
  10. jaf

    New Owner

    On same page. Although, we cannot undo what they decided in past, and so for me the energy is better served making it fit for purpose moving forward.
  11. jaf

    New Owner

    I think it was quite evident from both the comments and questions that the PTFC Trust is not controlled by the board. I know you didn't have the benefit of being there. But there are elections in October in which if you are eligible to stand you should. do so. Then you can influence the way they act.
  12. jaf

    New Owner

    I don't agree - but then I was involved in the case where the new derivative action under Companies Act was used for the first time, so perhaps have more knowledge of this than anyone ever should have!! That was my point, the trusts are minority shareholders and we should be emboldening them with resource (be that a war chest of cash to get lawyers or time of people who have some expertise in this area) so that they can do something about this should the need arise. It is also important for the exiting shareholders and the buyers to know we know this. You can sit and speculate and complain about what might happen (a strange reality), or you can use the tools under law at your disposal that have successfully been used before. I think raising awareness among the trust elected members (and they may have that knowledge already) is a good thing, and ultimately we do have a protection. As the trusts are an extension of us as supporters, if the minority shareholders do nothing, it is us to blame for not convincing them and resourcing them to allow them to pursue something - in the event that it is required. It, of course, does not sit well with a scaremongering rhetoric.
  13. jaf

    New Owner

    The fiduciary duty of directors is to all shareholders. I don't know French company law but the point is they had 100% control after removing the 20% retained by the old chairman. It is a different landscape in the UK, and in this deal in particular. There are two things which I think ought to 'keep them honest' : 1. Fiduciary duty laws for directors 2. Minority interest and derivative action legislation brought in by last iteration of Companies Act This means that the Trust(s) do have indirect power - not that this should stop them seeking direct power too - and means with the right advice available to the Trusts, in the doomsday scenarios, I think a real battle could be put up with owners attempting to saddle a club they only own 55% of with debt.
  14. jaf

    New Owner

    A view that divides the support. And an approach equally not without risk. However, Falkirk launched a scheme last season, and I would love the Trusts to be accumulating a war chest through pledges from supporters just even as an exercise to see what number we could get to. Unfortunately, its hard to see us getting to the kind of numbers required.
  15. jaf

    New Owner

    Perhaps the new board were 'frustrated' in their attempts to speak to him
×