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

1 minute ago, Firhillista said:

Woodstock Jag's post is an excellent summary of where we are with our current shareholders, although I'm not sure that their motivation to sell, while not altruistic, might not also be compatible with being 'pro Thistle'. It really all depends on what this consortium is planning to do with the club.

I'm not aware of any investors willing to put significant money into the club over the past ten years (or any time before that to be honest). The Weir's money has largely been to support youth development while providing some financial stability for the club as a whole. There's never been a suggestion that they wished to be owners 

When we made the top six there was a feeling that maybe we could finally become a club with a consistent place at the top of Scottish football, competing with the top teams, going on cup runs, maybe even winning one of them occasionally. (For the much older fans amongst us, this used to be called 'the status quo'.) What's happened since then has been a crushing disappointment. We've been reminded just how fragile our position is. I don't know about anyone else, but the prospect of struggling to get out of the Championship for the next couple of seasons followed by yo-yoing between the two top divisions thereafter, doesn't seem that enticing.

(Folk keep saying we should be building for the future. I'm in my mid sixties. Can we put together a winning team soon? Tempus fugit and all that.)

The defining issue facing us at the moment is not what the current shareholders motivations are, it's what our potential new owners plans are. Until we get some clarity on that, it's all just got air.

Spot on. Yes be concerned and get as much detail as possible, but I'm hoping it may be more positive that negative. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Sure but it also doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do 

It doesn’t but I hope David Beattie is doing this for the right reasons and for the betterment of our Club , not so sure after their actions that Colin Weir will be part of things anymore?

After Woodstock’s post I’m extremely dubious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

A reminder of the breakdown of Propco, which owns/controls the Main Stand and Bing:

The Club: 100 A Shares

David Beattie: 100 A shares

Billy Allan’s pension fund: 100 A shares

Alan Lobban’s pension fund: 100 A shares

Ian Dodd’s pension fund: 100 A shares

Gavin Stewart: 50 A shares

Tom Hughes: 10 A shares

Eddie Prentice: 10 A shares

John McDougall: 10 A shares

Callum Stewart: 8 A shares

Gavin Taylor: 4 A shares

Lord Smith: 4 A shares

With the exception of the club, which also owns 300 B shares, all of the above shareholders also own preference shares, which (from what I can best recall) give the holders priority return on investment before the Club gets its share of the proceeds following the realisation of PropCo’s asset.

It’s worth noting that 200 of the 596 voting shares in PropCo are owned or controlled by current Board Members (David Beattie and Ian’s Dodd), and a further 100 are owned by a direct business associate who brought one of those Board Members into the fold (Billy Allan).

Put another way: the ducks are aligned in a row for the sale not just of shares in the Club, but for shares capable of controlling PropCo too.

Whatever you think of the new “consortium” and what it has planned for our Club, just please bear in mind that this looks, on paper, like the culmination of a project.

Moreover a project that some investors literally referred to at the time as a retirement project (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12502823.wealthy-jaggies-inject-1m-to-cut-partick-thistle-debt/) for a bunch of guys who are now in their 60s and 70s, who essentially bought shares in a piece of land about a decade ago and had hoped to sell it rather sooner.

I mean this as no ill will to those potentially selling up. But when you combine them with Norman Springford and Ronnie Gilfillan, both of whom are no spring chickens, this looks a lot like a collective exit strategy.

Now perhaps they’re doing this because they can’t find younger, sufficiently affluent, Thistle businessmen to put their money where their mouths are. And after putting money into a club they’re entitled in their later years to decide that their pensioned years should be free from commitments.

But if anyone seriously thinks this sale is being done for altruistic or primarily for pro Thistle reasons I have a bridge to the moon to sell you.

Cant disagree with any of that - however Billy Allan - Norman Springford dont need the Money - therefore I doubt they would agree to any buyer simply to get a return - the Jags Trust Statement did make an attempt to explain the logic of the New Owners strategy - which given they sold Nice at a tidy profit has a track record 

What is of interest is that its recently  been stated ( not rumour but fact ) that the previous Board had lined up there own Investors - now we know there are no more "Thistle Minded " Investors to approach- therefore I think we can safely assume that these Investors were not in it for "altruistic or primarily for pro Thistle reasons" - now the question was asked if it was David Low and the Glasgow Rocks Consortium - there was no confirmation nor denial - if it wasn't- then a simple No would have been suffice  

Now I have No idea if it was -but David Low has been involved in a Number of Football Club Takeovers - Celtic - Clydebank and of Course they took over Glasgow Rocks and the other Rocks Director was appointed to our Board a Month a go 

So we as a Club seem to have the Old Board Jlo etc with "there Investors" - Plans - Strategy etc unknown - and the current Board ( as of last week ) with "there Investors" - Plans Strategy sort of known- but with Questions 

Therefore whichever which way this was going-  we were getting Investors who were unlikely to be in it for "altruistic or primarily for pro Thistle reasons"  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

It doesn’t but I hope David Beattie is doing this for the right reasons and for the betterment of our Club , not so sure after their actions that Colin Weir will be part of things anymore?

After Woodstock’s post I’m extremely dubious 

Why would Colin weir not be part of it - we dont actually know the reasons for the takeover - they could  have sold the Club and instructed the Board to do so - they didnt need  to remove the Old Board for that to happen ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why would Colin weir not be part of it - we dont actually know the reasons for the takeover - they could  have sold the Club and instructed the Board to do so - they didnt need  to remove the Old Board for that to happen ?  

Would think the connection between Colin Weir and Jaqui Low might put that into question? 

My understanding is that the sitting Board were running the Club in the interests of the Shareholders and the Club ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

It doesn’t but I hope David Beattie is doing this for the right reasons and for the betterment of our Club , not so sure after their actions that Colin Weir will be part of things anymore?

After Woodstock’s post I’m extremely dubious 

It depends who you sell to doesn’t it ? What would happen if these guys kept the shares passed on and the shares were picked by relatives who were Rangers it Celtic fans  and didn’t care about the club ? 

I for one don’t think David Beattie would sell to anyone he thought would endanger the club ... the new board are thistle fans which is a positive 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Would think the connection between Colin Weir and Jaqui Low might put that into question? 

My understanding is that the sitting Board were running the Club in the interests of the Shareholders and the Club ?

That’s not necessarily true if they were engineering a takeover 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Would think the connection between Colin Weir and Jaqui Low might put that into question? 

My understanding is that the sitting Board were running the Club in the interests of the Shareholders and the Club ?

But the sitting Board were speaking to other Investors ?  So why are we assuming there Investors would be better than the ones we know about - also 64% of the shareholders voted them out  ?  

This wasnt a Staus Quo versus Change  this was the Previuos Board and there Plans versus the Current Board and there Plans for Investment    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to @Woodstock Jag @Firhillistaand @Jordanhill Jagfor enlightenment. 

As I read through these excellent posts and potential about what our status is within Scottish football and I think it was @ARu-Strathbungowho mention he thought when we went top 6 we could push on from there, I was thinking, what does it take to go from being a yo-yo club to being a st johnstone type club. You know, being a club of similer size to us, comfortable in the top league with the ability to win a cup, get to Europe every few years. What is the added ingredient they have that we don't 

Anyhoo, many thanks to all for the enlightenment. I hope the current "new" custodians do what's best for the club and we still have Thistle for many years to come.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Would think the connection between Colin Weir and Jaqui Low might put that into question? 

My understanding is that the sitting Board were running the Club in the interests of the Shareholders and the Club ?

Did someone on here not mention that they had been told colin weir had concerns about jlow's tenure? Perhaps he is supportive to the changes? We might never know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Thistleberight said:

Did someone on here not mention that they had been told colin weir had concerns about jlow's tenure? Perhaps he is supportive to the changes? We might never know

A lot of people have said that they have been told a lot of things on this thread. How many of them are fact is debatable

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

It depends who you sell to doesn’t it ? What would happen if these guys kept the shares passed on and the shares were picked by relatives who were Rangers it Celtic fans  and didn’t care about the club ? 

I for one don’t think David Beattie would sell to anyone he thought would endanger the club ... the new board are thistle fans which is a positive 

Understand that , but the implications are we’re passing it on to people who are not supporters , have no feel for the Club , if you read the media they have been turned down by other Scottish clubs , these people are purely and simply investors who think they can financially gain with their business model and if they don’t?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

A lot of people have said that they have been told a lot of things on this thread. How many of them are fact is debatable

Ok....give some examples ? As I think it’s been pretty much on the money eg there is a takeover, it’s lee and Conway , shareholders open to selling 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jlsarmy said:

Understand that , but the implications are we’re passing it on to people who are not supporters , have no feel for the Club , if you read the media they have been turned down by other Scottish clubs , these people are purely and simply investors who think they can financially gain with their business model and if they don’t?

 

Sure and it’s 50/50 whether it will be good ....if there business model takes us to top 6 I’ll be happy....what’s the alternative ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Thistleberight said:

Did someone on here not mention that they had been told colin weir had concerns about jlow's tenure? Perhaps he is supportive to the changes? We might never know

Think we’ll know pretty soon, if for instance we do get taken over by a Chinese billionaire, I would say Colin Weirs importance is diluted big time .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But the sitting Board were speaking to other Investors ?  So why are we assuming there Investors would be better than the ones we know about - also 64% of the shareholders voted them out  ?  

This wasnt a Staus Quo versus Change  this was the Previuos Board and there Plans versus the Current Board and there Plans for Investment    

JJ , think you can look at this at least a couple of ways , Beattie and co weren’t happy at the running of the Club or there was concerns from Jaqui Low etc about the direction that we were going in , in terms of a possible takeover and investment.

The easiest way to deal with this from Beatties perspective is to get rid of the dissenting factions .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Propco and the development of the bing [which failed to get planning permission / planning application approval] I seem to remember drawings or 'artists impressions' of the development. Does anyone know a link to where I could find these drawings.   [Did the PA fail due to the proximity of the electrical substation?]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

Regarding Propco and the development of the bing [which failed to get planning permission / planning application approval] I seem to remember drawings or 'artists impressions' of the development. Does anyone know a link to where I could find these drawings.   [Did the PA fail due to the proximity of the electrical substation?]

You could try Glasgow Council's website, their planning department should have records online of previous planning applications along with information on their decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

You could try Glasgow Council's website, their planning department should have records online of previous planning applications along with information on their decisions.

Thanks, I did and it does! As far as I can see, there is a possible planning permission subject to a section 75 agreement, [although I am no expert in understanding the words of Glasgow City Council's planning department].

I wonder if this is all that is stopping the development of the bing?  I was under the impression there was issues on the design / proximity / access etc etc etc. ...… reading the application is looks to be a case of ensuring money is provided for amenities in the area local to the development.

I wonder if this is something that could be taken up by any new owner?

Edited by ARu-Strathbungo
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...