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

32 minutes ago, jaf said:

So you all don't want a takeover that could threaten the sustainability of the club, but are happy for people running massive deficit budgets which could by extension threaten the sustainability of the club, and are angry that people have come in and attempted to balance the budget?

Where has it been confirmed we have a massive deficit? Have you had a preview of the audited accounts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it worth noting that it was this board which stated (along the lines) that cutting costs when relegated was a false economy, and therefore a Premier league budget would be maintained in the Championship on the grounds that this would give us the best possible chance to achieve immediate promotion? And then kept on Archie, who was unsuccessful.

I'm not saying whether this was right or wrong, but I would assume that it would mean us running (for virtually the entire duration of the old board's tenure) at an unsustainable deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

Great and not being funny please explain it as you understand it 

Gladly

There was a budget for the season , which had largely been used by the time the board changed

That budget was a  significant deficit budget - ie we would use reserves to fund the season as our income could not cover our costs

(that would not be palatable to sellers for the reasons I posted this morning - net assets/working capital targets which would worsen with a deficit budget)

The incoming transfer fees have helped but not entirely removed the forecast deficit - illustrating the scale of deficit must have been considerable

The entire original playing budget remains in place with any adjustments to ensure a breakeven budget is in place being made to non playing overheads

Unlike what some have posted/leaked, there is no removal of £200k from the playing budget

He has a budget capable of making the play offs

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Where has it been confirmed we have a massive deficit? Have you had a preview of the audited accounts 

Ok - SIGNIFICANT , I stand corrected - personally I think a deficit that exceeds the incoming transfer fees from Fitzy and Liam sell ons is pretty massive in context of this division but I wont die in a ditch over it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jaf said:

Gladly

There was a budget for the season , which had largely been used by the time the board changed

That budget was a  significant deficit budget - ie we would use reserves to fund the season as our income could not cover our costs

(that would not be palatable to sellers for the reasons I posted this morning - net assets/working capital targets which would worsen with a deficit budget)

The incoming transfer fees have helped but not entirely removed the forecast deficit - illustrating the scale of deficit must have been considerable

The entire original playing budget remains in place with any adjustments to ensure a breakeven budget is in place being made to non playing overheads

Unlike what some have posted/leaked, there is no removal of £200k from the playing budget

He has a budget capable of making the play offs

 

 

 

 

So they are supporting  the player budget with a known deficit but reducing it by cutting back in other expenditure .... you really believe that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jaf said:

Ok - SIGNIFICANT , I stand corrected - personally I think a deficit that exceeds the incoming transfer fees from Fitzy and Liam sell ons is pretty massive in context of this division but I wont die in a ditch over it

I really want some evidence there was/is a significant deficit .... how is it being funded ? !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

Gladly

There was a budget for the season , which had largely been used by the time the board changed

That budget was a  significant deficit budget - ie we would use reserves to fund the season as our income could not cover our costs

(that would not be palatable to sellers for the reasons I posted this morning - net assets/working capital targets which would worsen with a deficit budget)

The incoming transfer fees have helped but not entirely removed the forecast deficit - illustrating the scale of deficit must have been considerable

The entire original playing budget remains in place with any adjustments to ensure a breakeven budget is in place being made to non playing overheads

Unlike what some have posted/leaked, there is no removal of £200k from the playing budget

He has a budget capable of making the play offs

 

 

 

 

My God, I understood all that - close to a first in all this.

So we're protecting the playing budget currently, but expecting to be running at a loss for the season as a whole which is obviously an issue for anyone wanting to buy the club. This makes sense to me. Doesn't reassure me, but it does make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, javeajag said:

So they are supporting  the player budget with a known deficit but reducing it by cutting back in other expenditure .... you really believe that ?

the deficit has been reduced by the transfer fees

I don't have any reason to disbelieve it at moment, perhaps you have more knowledge than me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

Seriously? We can't run a coach to away games? If that's the level of our financial position, then we must be in significant financial difficulties. How much does it cost to hire a bus?!

But we didnt run a Bus to all the Games in the Championship in the past - we are simply following what we normally do at this level in Football ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I really want some evidence there was/is a significant deficit .... how is it being funded ? !

how it was intended to be funded is a question surely for the previous incumbents

How it is being funded is apparently by being reduced to breakeven through the good fortune of incoming transfer fees (exceptional items) and by reducing overheads to balance the budget (which you don't believe but I am taking at face value until there is evidence to the contrary)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Semi Nurainen said:

If the 'crisis'/no crisis'/'which particular crisis' is having a fraction of the effect on the players and management (whose livelihood is affected) that it is having on the fans (whose hobby it is), then I am happy to absolve Caldwell and the team from all responsibility for anything up to, and including, a defeat by four clear goals on Friday night (always assuming they are being kept as ignorant as we are).

I definitely want to support Partick Thistle (despite my occasional apostasy), not Barnsley Reserves.

All of which reinforces (yet again) my long held belief that the root of all evil at Firhill, on and off the park,  since the day I counted myself as a Jags supporter, has been the fans' meek acceptance of substandard, occasionally disgraceful, performance from Boards, management and players on the guise of 'loyalty'.

Plus ça change ...

Out of likes, well said sir. Solution to the fans apparent apathy, of some fans?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

But we didnt run a Bus to all the Games in the Championship in the past - we are simply following what we normally do at this level in Football ?  

Which I'm absolutely fine about, but the concern is that the players have been told that they'll have to get themselves to all away matches in future and that will include Inverness and Dumfries. This isn't how a professional club, at any level, operates. Surely this position should have been refuted in the statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

the deficit has been reduced by the transfer fees

I don't have any reason to disbelieve it at moment, perhaps you have more knowledge than me

Well I’m not assuming we are given the whole truth on one item when others are not even addressed .... a member of the previous board has stated there was no deficit for example 

and as they will all be off shortly ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Afreed.

It's ok in addressing any concerns re player purchasing but we are all worried about far more than GC spending budget. A complete joke of a statement at a time when we are all crapping ourselves if we'll have a club and what form it will take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

how it was intended to be funded is a question surely for the previous incumbents

How it is being funded is apparently by being reduced to breakeven through the good fortune of incoming transfer fees (exceptional items) and by reducing overheads to balance the budget (which you don't believe but I am taking at face value until there is evidence to the contrary)

So the old board say there was no deficit and they certainly had not budgeted for money from Fitzpatrick or Lindsay and have threatened legal action .... meanwhile the old old board come back in to sell the club and say there is a deficit so we have to cut back ....

Nothing to see here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Firhillista said:

Which I'm absolutely fine about, but the concern is that the players have been told that they'll have to get themselves to all away matches in future and that will include Inverness and Dumfries. This isn't how a professional club, at any level, operates. Surely this position should have been refuted in the statement?

Who said that ? The rule of thumb is anything within an hours drive of the Stadium eg Dunfermline - not all our Players live in Glasgow for a lot of them driving is easier  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stuart_adam said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49255075

 

For two games which are fairly local.

Can't really see a problem with this.

At last! Some clarity on the bus front! 

While it's clear there's much to be concerned about at the club currently, I'm beginning to think that the original newspaper story and the rumours that preceded it included a lot of stuff that was lumped in to make the current board look as bad as possible. Throw as much shit as you can and something will stick.

Although that's not to say that all's well, of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

“The shortfall has been partly covered by the fees...”

Are they saying:

1. The previous board factored the sell-on fees into the budget before actually having that money?  And they STILL were running at a deficit?

2. The previous board did not factor the sell-on fees into the budget, meaning they were running at an even CRAZIER deficit?  And Beattie & Co. have decided to apply the sell-on fees to help paper over those cracks?

And either way, are we talking about portions of the Fitzpatrick/Lindsay fees?  Or all of it?  Still confused.

No wonder colin weir walked, if they are taking or re directing cash from the academy. I don't know what to think other than I'm getting as twitchy about this board as the last one

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...