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

That’ll be the rumours that started on here, other forums and social media by people who weren’t privy to such information?

I don’t recall the statement from Mr Beattie mentioning anything about financial irregularities- just that they weren’t happy with the direction of the club. 

I can appreciate that they’re miffed at getting removed - no-one would be happy at that. 

Hope this doesn’t descend into he said she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 10:33 AM, javeajag said:

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 

OK .... the rumours that there were financial problems under the previous board. (an example and on the money !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

Indeed a few things not adding up here ...

Totally agree.  

Theres been enough corporate finance, law and accountancy on this thread though so I will keep my thoughts to myself!  

The audited accounts will tell all, and these won’t be available until October/November time I guess. 

Edited by jaf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

OK .... the rumours that there were financial problems under the previous board. (an example and on the money !)

We don’t know the facts so I’ll reserve judgement but these stemmed from the comments from Beattie who clearly implied concerns at how the club was being run ... self serving maybe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need to reserve judgment on the financial aspect (however wasn't it JJ who was on of the first to point out the studied vagueness in some of the financial statements that were being made) but it's not hard to see how DB was not happy with the direction of the club. Early days, but my gut feeling is that the departure of JLow is a step in the right direction. Hope GB stays, and the last thing we need right now is a change of manager, though I noticed GC said words to the effect that he would work with any board etc., etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Strong and thriving" is the quote???? Some people are deluded beyond belief.

I had hoped the true Thistle legend Alan Rough would escape this shambles with his reputation intact, shame he is part of the statement/threat, perhaps he had more power/input than I realised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note the old board went on about making a profit but wouldn't that be due to selling  Fitzpatrick and the add-ons from Lindsay's move.  For all we know we might have been in the red without that ... and the development of these players was in place before they took charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr Bunny said:

I note the old board went on about making a profit but wouldn't that be due to selling  Fitzpatrick and the add-ons from Lindsay's move.  For all we know we might have been in the red without that ... and the development of these players was in place before they took charge.

Both of those happened after May 31 2019 when the accounts will be  up to.

However we made £343k profit in the final  Premiership season (accounts ending 31 May 2018) under Beattie & co and that included the first fee (rumoured to be approx £350k) for Linsday.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters what the old Board ousted members think. They may be unhappy with the way they're being portrayed but it's the current Board that'll make the decisions on the club and threats of a legal challenge for hurt feelings are just a distraction. The ET are giving old Board members a voice to fill otherwise empty space in their paper. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ancipital said:

Both of those happened after May 31 2019 when the accounts will be  up to.

However we made £343k profit in the final  Premiership season (accounts ending 31 May 2018) under Beattie & co and that included the first fee (rumoured to be approx £350k) for Linsday.

I stand corrected, I thought at least one of them happened before then.  Maybe the new board can claim the benefits from them then. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good well written article but offers no additional information, particularly noticable is the lack of quotes from those involved though I would have been surprised if any of the parties would offer anything publicly at this point. I do hope mcgarry is right in his assessment of DB's intentions in making sure we would be safe as a club and that there would be no rebranding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Scottish football’s recent history is littered with outside investors who have come in with grand ideas of taking smaller clubs and challenging the Old Firm, bringing in players on unsustainable salaries and then saddling those clubs with the debts once they lose interest in the project.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thistleberight said:

A good well written article but offers no additional information, particularly noticable is the lack of quotes from those involved though I would have been surprised if any of the parties would offer anything publicly at this point. I do hope mcgarry is right in his assessment of DB's intentions in making sure we would be safe as a club and that there would be no rebranding. 

Appears to be an opinion/analysis piece, which is often light on facts or new info (read anything Derek Johnstone has “written”).

Interesting the ET doesn’t specify that it’s an opinion piece though.  Normally there’s an “opinion” or “analysis” banner, isn’t there?  Maybe it’s different viewing on a mobile device?  Or maybe they count on the headline with “<author_name>:” to signify it’s not technically a news story?

Weird.

 

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...