Jump to content

Woodstock Jag

Members
  • Content Count

    2,341
  • Joined

Everything posted by Woodstock Jag

  1. Just for the record, the statement does not say that the transfer of the land is held up by Colin Weir’s estate. In context, it more accurately explains that has delayed the transfer of shares. It explicitly acknowledges that the delay to the transfer of land ownership was because of tax issues. Now those tax issues may exist because of Colin Weir’s estate, but they haven’t said that.
  2. So... has the land been transferred yet?
  3. It’s not the same. A couple of Fulham games have had a decent atmosphere but nothing compares to Scottish football. Some of the grounds don’t even sell pies.
  4. After 8 years a season ticket holder I had to move to London for work just after the 2017-18 season had started. Took in the Hibs away defeat on the opening day of the season and the home defeat to Aberdeen. Thereafter I saw the pre-Christmas victory over Hamilton and the John Lambie Derby. The only game I saw in the flesh during Gary Caldwell’s tenure was a 0-0 draw at Grangemouth. I returned for Doolan’s Testimonial and then took in the Dundee, Morton and Alloa games around Christmas/New Year. Made the mistake of making a point of getting to the Raith game a few weeks back. It’s frustrating not to be able to get to Firhill frequently but it’s the travel as much as anything that makes it expensive/inconvenient. I do try to get to games in and around London but this ******* virus has stopped that and all...
  5. I’m not sure Abramovich is *in* Boris’ pocket. The other way around, perhaps.
  6. Back Pocket Vladimir Putin Kremlin Moscow
  7. My background is legal but I’m not a solicitor.
  8. This isn't quite right Jim. The Club is a (substantial) but (just) minority shareholder in PropCo. It cannot issue an instruction to wind-up PropCo or to insist a dividend is paid out. If, for example, Beattie and the others wanted Firhill Developments Limited to reinvest the cash it now has, there is nothing in the Articles of Association to prevent them from doing so. Come to think of it, it may well be the case that it is more tax efficient for them that the proceeds are distributed by way of dividends gradually, rather than in a single lump sum. But I'm not an accountant and I could be wrong about that.
  9. One of two statements would do: ”The Club understands that Firhill Developments Limited is likely to make a distribution of its cash assets very soon and as a shareholder in FDL the Club anticipates that it will be a recipient of a dividend in line with the Company’s Articles of Association.” Or ”Because of how the deal to acquire the land was structured, it has been agreed that the Club will not retain (all/some of) any distribution made by Firhill Developments Limited. It will instead receive the Bing and Main Stand in full and in lieu of that distribution once Three Black Cats and the Club have resolved certain tax issues associated with the deal.”
  10. It isn’t “automatic” no. They are held by the executors of the deceased for the benefit of the estate. In the absence of specific instructions as to whom they should be bequeathed they form part of the intestate estate and the *value* is distributed, as with any other asset. That doesn’t mean specific people are entitled “to the shares” but if a family member does receive the shares that counts towards their legal entitlement under the succession laws.
  11. The Club statement made no reference at all to what was expected to happen to any distribution of PropCo's cash assets.
  12. Whether and when PropCo's cash assets are distributed will be a matter for PropCo, in which the Club is a significant but ultimately (just) minority shareholder. PropCo's next set of accounts don't have to be published until about August, and there's a good chance it will be liquidated before then (or at least its cash assets distributed and the company made in some meaningful sense dormant). Firhill Developments has been able to claim an exemption on submitting full accounts so they produce only very high level details. The Club's own accounts are normally published around October time, so we won't know if the Club is to receive the £900k or whatever it is and when unless and until PropCo or the Club tell us what has happened to it.
  13. This won't tell you whether every seller of shares made a profit, because that will depend on what consideration they paid for their shares at the outset. In many cases, shares were acquired at different points in time and in different circumstances, with different share premiums. Three Black Cats holds, according to the confirmation statement of February this year: 427,006 A shares (nominal value £1 each) - of about 7,354,329 B shares (nominal value £0.10 each) - of about 13.2 million in total This resulted from the following shareholders transferring their shares: Shareholder A Shares B Shares Norman Springford 27495 500000 Dorothy Springford 27495 500000 Eddie Prentice 54990 1000000 Jim Oliver 113054 500000 TC McMaster 22973 260000 Jill McMaster 22973 260000 SC McMaster 22974 260000 John McMaster 22973 260000 Arch Investments (Tom Hughes) 54990 1000000 Thomas Longley 27495 500000 Billy Allan 29594 354735 Ronnie Gilfillan 0 1000000 David Beattie 0 500000 Grant Bannerman 0 420000 I've obviously missed something out and/or there's something not quite right in the confirmation statement, because there are 39,594 fewer shares on that list than the total held by Three Black Cats and as far as I can see no new shares have been issued. Part of this discrepancy seems to result from something not quite adding up with Billy Allan's B shareholding (which I can't make sense of). He is listed in the January 2018 confirmation statement as holding 384,329 shares, but as having transferred 354,735 in November 2019 in the February 2020 confirmation statement and now having none. That explains 29,594 of the gap. It's possible I've missed another transfer of 10,000 shares to Three Black Cats somewhere else, but that would be the smallest shareholding to be part of this deal. As best I understand it, the A shares are basically worthless despite continuing nominally to exist and the split between the types of share was originally brought about after STJ. The holding of B shares is generally understood as being more relevant to who owns how much of the Club. As you can see, David Beattie was not one of the very big ticket shareholders (rather a sort of mid-level one). Unless the shareholders otherwise agreed between them that he should receive more consideration than his nominal shareholding would suggest, he's definitely not receiving as much as the McMasters (collectively), Springfords (collectively), Prentice, Gilfillan or Arch Investments/Hughes (specifically, he's getting about half as much as each of those groups). If you spoke to one of the McMasters, then David Beattie probably received £200k or so for his shares (which is about what he put in when he subscribed shares in 2007). If you spoke to someone with the same Ordinary B shareholding as David Beattie, your information suggests he got about £100k back. This is less than what he put into the Club in 2007. If you spoke to Eddie Prentice, Tom Hughes or Ronnie Gilfillan, or to the Springfords, and what they told you was true, this means David Beattie would have got about £50k back, which is much less than what he put in. Unless David Beattie was somehow getting a premium for co-ordinating the deal on behalf of all of these shareholders (in PTFC Ltd and/or in PropCo) there is no evidence he made any money in either transaction whatsoever and on the face of it he may well have lost money on his original investment. All of this while ignoring the directors' fee he paid throughout his time on the board (a fee also paid by other people on this list from time to time). If David Beattie is smiling on the beach it's because he got (most of) his money back.
  14. Even if we entertain this particular and ironic head of a pin nonsense from you, that would require you to have evidence that the PTFC shares were sold for a rate that was higher than the rate Beattie paid for his. What evidence do you have even for that?
  15. If the profit is made from selling “both” of them that means each of them made a profit. If the profit is just from selling the shares and he only broke even or made a loss on the land then guess what... it’s not “both”.
  16. Busted. ”But I never said why he was smiling and I didn’t imply they walked away with a big profit.” Ad ******* nauseam.
  17. You’re still missing the point. PropCo is a company. It has never been bought or sold. Only land was ever bought or sold. A transaction in which the Club forms all or part of both legal persons is a fundamentally different one than a transaction between PropCo and a third party. The numbers £1 million and £2 million relate to different things and therefore are not an “in” and “out” comparable. This isn’t pedantry it’s basic shit about the transactions that happened.
  18. PropCo has never been “bought for” or by anything. PropCo was set-up. PropCo was transferred (and it then sold) a piece of land. Edit to make clear PropCo itself was never bought, sold or transferred; only land was.
  19. I think it’s telling, javeajag, that both those who think there isn’t evidence that David Beattie et al made a profit on PropCo (me and jaf and others) and those who thought they were agreeing with you (jlsarmy) believed you were suggesting that David Beattie and others were making a “substantial profit” (jlsarmy’s words) from the sale of the land. At best, you have made a bit of a non point and expressed it very poorly. At worst, you have mislead (whether or not deliberately) others on the forum into thinking that PropCo investors doubled their money when there isn’t a shred of evidence (in the public domain at least) that they did. It’s late, so I’m going to be charitable and accept that, as with so many of your other contributions, you were simply expressing a non point poorly.
  20. Either your original post was implying participants in PropCo made a profit or your definition of “in” wasn’t your antonym of “out” and you were juxtaposing irrelevant things. If your position is that £2 million came “out” then £1 million did not go “in”; two bits of land did. If your position is that £1 million went “in” then there is no evidence that £2 million came “out”. This is because the cash assets are still “in” PropCo. Only if the PropCo investors (other than the Club) have acquired a legal right to 100% of the assets of PropCo as a consequence of these transactions has £2 million come “out”. The up-to-date evidence of PropCo’s statutory filing records suggest the Club still has its shares in it. The burden of proof therefore rests with you to support the contention that £2 million has in fact been taken out of the Club by PropCo, rather than that £1 million of that will be finding its way back to the Club. You haven’t provided any evidence of that.
  21. Again, you are using sleight of hand to compare non comparables. Ian and Alan set up an apple stall. But only Alan has apples and only Ian actually enjoys selling fruit to punters. In return for Alan putting 2 apples on the stall, Ian gives him £1 at the outset, and they agree to split the proceeds of the future sale of those apples 50:50. If they manage to sell the apples for more than £1 each, Ian has got a good deal. If they sell the apples for less than £1 each Ian has got a bad deal. Kris then pays £2 for two apples. They shut the stall. This didn’t mean that “£1 went in and £2 came out”. The £1 didn’t go “in” to the apple stall. It went to Alan. Two apples went in to the apple stall and £2 came out. This means that unless Ian and Alan’s arrangement changed after Alan put the apples into the stall, Alan got £2 for his two apples (£1 at the outset, another £1 later) and Ian got his money back, breaking even. We don’t have any evidence that Ian and Alan changed their deal around the time Kris bought the apples. In this analogy we even have public documents with the apple and pear board that say Ian and Alan each own half of the apple stall. We can’t say for certain that Ian didn’t make money on the apples, but we would need specific evidence for believing he did and the evidence we do have points to the conclusion he didn’t.
  22. In this particular instance NDAs, if in existence, are not there for the benefit of the Club, but for the benefit of one or more of the parties to the transaction. You are happy, without evidence, to selectively and misleadingly to conflate things to imply David Beattie and others made substantial profits from all of this, but then run shy when others tell you the public domain information doesn’t support those inferences being drawn. But if people raise concerns and ask questions about what it might mean for the Club’s relationship with its actual majority shareholder, you throw your hands up in the air and say “we don’t have all the facts, just wait and see until it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it if we have a real problem here”. Some of us believe in holding people with money and power to account and forcing them to be as open and honest with the ordinary punter. If there is a risk the punters are being played I’d rather they knew that risk now than after their Club has been put in danger. And unlike you I’m not happy to take “we have the best of intentions” and “trust us” or “wait and see” as a satisfactory answer. Fan ownership, if it means anything, means transparency. If we haven’t got that there’s no ******* point. Just give up now and let a couple of entrepreneurs take a punt. At least there’s a chance they’ll be spending their own money if it goes down the tubes.
  23. There is enough information to entitle us to ask the questions and to expect transparent responses, and to draw adverse inferences from inadequate responses. The whole point of a move to fan ownership is greater transparency about how Thistle is run so that it is run more explicitly for the benefit of the punters that underpin its identity. How this transaction was done, who benefited from it, and what risks it exposes the Club to if things go wrong is a test case for how serious 3BC is about getting a sustainable solution over the line. Just throwing your hands up in the air and going “oh well we don’t know all the facts” would be a pretty shit approach in most other walks of life and it’s a shit approach to scrutiny of those who currently own and control our 144 year old Club.
×