Jump to content

New Owner


Jag
 Share

Message added by douglas clark

'Tis not the job of a moderator to stop people writing here. The rules are pretty simple:

reported ad hominem attacks will be investigated (and if found to be true) or write stuff that could get the site into trouble

and you'll either be warned / your post deleted, or - worst case scenario -  banned either temporarily or permanently.

This particular thread has had a vigorous exchange of views, and perhaps more heat than light. But the quality of the debate - it seems to me at least - is down to the lack of information.  That, in and of itself, means that whatever side you happen to be on is for a fan, very frustrating.

So, I have no intention of closing threads just because the quality of the postings isn't great. That is not the role of a moderator.

If you wake up the following morning you can always delete something you wish you'd never said.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if they knew, whether they would share it with us, y'know, mere fans?

This is getting ridiculous and beyond a joke.

We need a meaningful statement either from the buyers or those against it.

Perhaps this will happen this week, or next week or the week after?

So far, proposals appear to be on a continuum of 'next week' on a rolling, next weekly basis. Y'know, never.

In other words there is no conclusion and this will just forment here until it is a 25 year old malt whisky or summat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

because they cant influence any share Sale outcome - there duty is to there Shareholders - nor could they discuss it without advising all shareholders atb the same time ? 

 

Stating they are aware of discussions but not a party to them would be possible 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, javeajag said:

Stating they are aware of discussions but not a party to them would be possible 

Yes - agreed - but they couldnt  take any action on any level to try and influence  the outcome - nor could they reveal any discussions with select parties which could influence any potential Share Sale - which makes the rumors of  a third party looking to buy up 10% very strange - why would you take an arbitrary decision without any knowledge to try and by a blocking shareholding ?   the Transfer of shares needs to be approved by the Board - however not sure if thats the case if its an existing shareholder ( cant remember  )  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Yes - agreed - but they couldnt  take any action on any level to try and influence  the outcome - nor could they reveal any discussions with select parties which could influence any potential Share Sale - which makes the rumors of  a third party looking to buy up 10% very strange - why would you take an arbitrary decision without any knowledge to try and by a blocking shareholding ?   the Transfer of shares needs to be approved by the Board - however not sure if thats the case if its an existing shareholder ( cant remember  )  

I just think they should at least tell the fans what they can within the restrictions they have 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, douglas clark said:

Just wondering if they knew, whether they would share it with us, y'know, mere fans?

This is getting ridiculous and beyond a joke.

We need a meaningful statement either from the buyers or those against it.

Perhaps this will happen this week, or next week or the week after?

So far, proposals appear to be on a continuum of 'next week' on a rolling, next weekly basis. Y'know, never.

In other words there is no conclusion and this will just forment here until it is a 25 year old malt whisky or summat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, yes please. Posters can then tell us all about what it doesn't say. That's got to be worth another ten pages of this thread

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, douglas clark said:

Just wondering if they knew, whether they would share it with us, y'know, mere fans?

This is getting ridiculous and beyond a joke.

We need a meaningful statement either from the buyers or those against it.

Perhaps this will happen this week, or next week or the week after?

So far, proposals appear to be on a continuum of 'next week' on a rolling, next weekly basis. Y'know, never.

In other words there is no conclusion and this will just forment here until it is a 25 year old malt whisky or summat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Douglas that there will be confidentiality clauses - also the Board couldn't discuss any details in case it influences any Share Sale - if the SFA are to approve potential New Owners would reveal plans to the SFA - but bit Im not getting is why did the Hibs deal get concluded so quickly - why is ours dragging on ?  Its not as though the Board are in a position to block it as they have no shares  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordanhill Jag,

You say:

" because they cant influence any share Sale outcome - there duty is to there Shareholders - nor could they discuss it without advising all shareholders atb the same time ? "

It seems that they have control over the shares they own. It is their, not there, btw.

To the extent that they own shares, then they certainly do have a voice, or do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, douglas clark said:

Jordanhill Jag,

You say:

" because they cant influence any share Sale outcome - there duty is to there Shareholders - nor could they discuss it without advising all shareholders atb the same time ? "

It seems that they have control over the shares they own. It is their, not there, btw.

To the extent that they own shares, then they certainly do have a voice, or do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

The Club said that No Official Approach had been made ref Share Transfer-  so Im assuming that there is detail still to be resolved - no idea what if Shareholders are willing to sell ? 

The Board dont own any shares ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

It’s not one of the group of 9 that hold 50% approx I’m led to believe ,  I’m assuming  it’s not the JT or THistle Trust,  from what I’ve been told the lawyer is working for a (yet) unnamed person or persons.

That does not leave too many shareholders!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Club said that No Official Approach had been made ref Share Transfer-  so Im assuming that there is detail still to be resolved - no idea what if Shareholders are willing to sell ? 

The Board dont own any shares ? 

Top marks for rising above the unnecessary grammar lesson

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jaf said:

That does not leave too many shareholders!

There are 250+ smaller shareholders not counting the ones I mentioned. I’ve also been informed of the lawyers name (which I won’t post) so this seems it’s actually going on, the question is who is he acting on behalf of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

There are 250+ smaller shareholders not counting the ones I mentioned. I’ve also been informed of the lawyers name (which I won’t post) so this seems it’s actually going on, the question is who is he acting on behalf of

Norge .....do you know the firm he’s with ? Just see who they are 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2019 at 11:56 AM, jaf said:

 

 51 pages of utter guff and one man acting like a 5 year old suggesting he’s ITK but can’t say..Well how about just saying nothing.

one thing is for sure when this season starts to go wrong like lack of signings, type of signings and ultimately results. This will be the exact excuse used by those in power.

lets all act like adults and show a little patience until something is actually happening 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

Yes, or those who'd rather see someone else in power.

Why is looking for a Board who invest in the Club a problem ?   Why would a New Owner with Contacts and experience  be worse than  what we have ? Why would a Fan not want to see there Club having a chance at Europe ?  Show me where the present incumbents have delivered on anything of substance ?  Or any signs that we are going to improve apart from "hoping" for a Play Off Spot -Show me examples of there Business Experience - Connections that are benefiting Partick Thistle 

So Why the big problem about people looking for better ? 

 

Edited by Jordanhill Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Paukea said:

 one thing is for sure when this season starts to go wrong like lack of signings, type of signings and ultimately results. This will be the exact excuse used by those in power.

 

The board are not the owners of the club, they have not been approached by any potential new owners (their words), they have the budget already for this season. It’s business as usual so should have no impact towards ours signings 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why is looking for a Board who invest in the Club a problem ?   Why would a New Owner with Contacts and experience  be worse than  what we have ? Why would a Fan not want to see there Club having a chance at Europe ?  Show me where the present incumbents have delivered on anything of substance ?  Or any signs that we are going to improve apart from "hoping" for a Play Off Spot -Show me examples of there Business Experience - Connections that are benefiting Partick Thistle 

So Why the big problem about people looking for better ? 

I've outlined my concerns numerous times. I'm pretty sure people are sick of reading them. It's all speculation, though, eh? I have no idea if my worst fears will be realised and it's equally impossible for you to say things will definitely be better.

Perhaps it's time both of us STFU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A board that doesn’t own the club, doesn’t even own a share in the club, are not fans  of the club and doesn’t bring any investment into the club is by nature self serving ... their motivation will be directed to themselves than to a club they have no particular affinity with 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

A board that doesn’t own the club, doesn’t even own a share in the club, are not fans  of the club and doesn’t bring any investment into the club is by nature self serving ... their motivation will be directed to themselves than to a club they have no particular affinity with 

 

Correction, they are appointed by the shareholders and their motivation will be to serve the shareholders.

The fact that they are not shareholders is not an issue. I'd rather turn it round and ask why any of the shareholders don't want to be directors ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...