New Owner

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

So their statement said they had honoured the player budget of the previous and the majority - which implies not all  - had been committed .... so that left open an interpretation that more players were coming in when if they were up front in their statement they would have said the squad is complete 

I know you try to defend them all the time but this is deceitful 

No - they said same Budget as last Year - It hadnt been Cut - that says that if there are No More Players then the Manager Spent his Budget 

Transfer Money was used to balance the Club Budget 

  

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No - they said same Budget as last Year - It hadnt been Cut - that says that if there are No More Players then the Manager Spent his Budget 

Transfer Money was used to balance the Club Budget 

  

Ok factually they didn’t say in their statement it had all been spent but a majority .... that let their defenders argue more players were coming in remember ? 

Actually no more players are coming in so why not say that in their statement it would have been simple and clear 

it was designed as I said to confuse 

[javeajag]

So we are to believe that we are spending the same amount if money on the number and quality of players ( and their contractual cost ) as we did last season

that is is simply not credible 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

Ok factually they didn’t say in their statement it had all been spent but a majority .... that let their defenders argue more players were coming in remember ? 

Actually no more players are coming in so why not say that in their statement it would have been simple and clear 

it was designed as I said to confuse 

I dont remember many people saying more Players were coming in ? If the Manager gets a Budget - its up to him to balance it ? 

[eljaggo]

Did anyone attend the jags trust meeting, and if so, what was said?

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

So we are to believe that we are spending the same amount if money on the number and quality of players ( and their contractual cost ) as we did last season

that is is simply not credible 

THe Budget is the Same as last Year - that was stated Publicly - No Cuts have been made from the Previous Board Player Budget - again stated publicly - Transfer Money required to balance Club Budget "just" stated publicly - why isnt it credible ? 

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I dont remember many people saying more Players were coming in ? If the Manager gets a Budget - its up to him to balance it ? 

Interesting the points you don’t address

if I say I have spent the majority of my budget the implication is I have some left to spend but we didn’t correct ? 

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

THe Budget is the Same as last Year - that was stated Publicly - No Cuts have been made from the Previous Board Player Budget - again stated publicly - Transfer Money required to balance Club Budget "just" stated publicly - why isnt it credible ? 

Look at one 

the number of players we have year on year

the quality of those players year on year 

and conclude they cost the same 

not credible 

[West of Scotland]

23 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

I should have said when it was QA with the manager both Caldwell and Gerry sat in the centre directly facing the crowd- they weren’t looking to avoid the crowd. There was a 5 minute break then the QA with the board

the board all headed to the left hand side and appeared to be sitting one behind the other. Fimurthermore none of them were facing the crowd they were all facing the guy with the mic which I also found strange.

Just to this point - Gerry and Caldwell were sitting at the same table as the board members. It didn't move during the break.

[scotty]

6 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

Did anyone attend the jags trust meeting, and if so, what was said?

What JT meeting?

[allyo]

My recollection is that the newspaper article from the insider suggested that 200k had been available for new players and this was cut.

The board statement, which was a reaction to the article, claimed that the budget was not being cut, but didn't specifically mention 200k or four players.

Therefore it was completely open to interpretation, but it would be naive beyond belief for the board to think this would not lead people to beliving that money was still available for players.

The fact that it is not, I think, leaves the statement not necessarily looking dishonest, but definitely unclear. 

But the fact that they are now saying that the budget was unsustainable and they had to rein it in. In what way is that not "cutting" it? I'm certainly confused.

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 minutes ago, allyo said:

My recollection is that the newspaper article from the insider suggested that 200k had been available for new players and this was cut.

The board statement, which was a reaction to the article, claimed that the budget was not being cut, but didn't specifically mention 200k or four players.

Therefore it was completely open to interpretation, but it would be naive beyond belief for the board to think this would not lead people to beliving that money was still available for players.

The fact that it is not, I think, leaves the statement not necessarily looking dishonest, but definitely unclear. 

But the fact that they are now saying that the budget was unsustainable and they had to rein it in. In what way is that not "cutting" it? I'm certainly confused.

My interpitation  is thus  - Budget was the same as last Year despite No Large Parachute Income - we then get Transfer Money from Liam & Fitzy - Caldwell thinks it will get added to his budget ( which is the norm ) - New Directors then say this cant go into Player Budget as its needed to balance the Books and it was never in the Budget in the First Place ? 

The Cut is purely based on a Firhill Insider stating it - it could have been anyone ? 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Jordanhill Jag

[eljaggo]

8 minutes ago, scotty said:

What JT meeting?

The one that was scheduled for 14.45 according to the list on the Open Day thread.

[Jordanhill Jag]

12 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Look at one 

the number of players we have year on year

the quality of those players year on year 

and conclude they cost the same 

not credible 

Ok - fair enough if thats your conclusion based on zero info and in complete opposition to what was stated fair enough 

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - fair enough if thats your conclusion based on zero info and in complete opposition to what was stated fair enough 

Ok how many players do we have this year compared to last year ?

and notice the points you don’t respond to 

[allyo]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

My interpitation  is thus  - Budget was the same as last Year despite No Large Parachute Income - we then get Transfer Money from Liam & Fitzy - Caldwell thinks it will get added to his budget ( which is the norm ) - New Directors then say this cant go into Player Budget as its needed to balance the Books and it was never in the Budget in the First Place ? 

That does sound like a fair interpretation. 

But consider the order...

Insider newspaper article says 200k was available for 4 new players, but this was being cut.

Board statement confirms there was no cut to the budget. Doesn't mention more players or 200k.

The natural conclusion is that money is still available for new players. They must have known that people would draw this conclusion, yet didn't clarify.

I just find that strange 

[javeajag]

8 minutes ago, allyo said:

My recollection is that the newspaper article from the insider suggested that 200k had been available for new players and this was cut.

The board statement, which was a reaction to the article, claimed that the budget was not being cut, but didn't specifically mention 200k or four players.

Therefore it was completely open to interpretation, but it would be naive beyond belief for the board to think this would not lead people to beliving that money was still available for players.

The fact that it is not, I think, leaves the statement not necessarily looking dishonest, but definitely unclear. 

But the fact that they are now saying that the budget was unsustainable and they had to rein it in. In what way is that not "cutting" it? I'm certainly confused.

The board statement said they had honoured the player budget from the previous board but the MAJORITY of that had been committed .... now apparently it had ALL been committed 

they knew that but didn’t want to say there would be no new players 

[scotty]

6 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

The one that was scheduled for 14.45 according to the list on the Open Day thread.

That was the PTFC trust. Confusing i'n it?

[eljaggo]

OK it is, but the question remains.

[Third Lanark]

30 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

My interpitation  is thus  - Budget was the same as last Year despite No Large Parachute Income - we then get Transfer Money from Liam & Fitzy - Caldwell thinks it will get added to his budget ( which is the norm ) - New Directors then say this cant go into Player Budget as its needed to balance the Books and it was never in the Budget in the First Place ? 

The Cut is purely based on a Firhill Insider stating it - it could have been anyone ? 

My interpretation Jim was that the 4 players were organised under the budget by the old board- new board came in and said sorry but we cannot afford them rightly or wrongly- gannon himself said today he wishes he could give Caldwell these 4 players.  

Therefore regardless of whether the budget is the exact same as last year or not the playing budget has now been changed the 4 players were as per the budget given by the old board- the new board has said we cannot afford these 4 signings- it’s as simple as that

the statement issued by the board earlier in the week in my opinion was not clear 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Third Lanark

[jlsarmy]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

So that means contrary to what their statement said they are actually not maintaining the player budget but cutting It ? 

Was it not put out on the media and possibly the website that was not going to happen.

No wonder the supporters don’t trust them .

[jagfox]

51 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I dont remember many people saying more Players were coming in ? If the Manager gets a Budget - its up to him to balance it ? 

The arrangement was that GC provides a list of targets and GB and the board sort out the budget.

This ties in with the confusion over this apparent 200k gap in the overall budget, imo.

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, jagfox said:

The arrangement was that GC provides a list of targets and GB and the board sort out the budget.

This ties in with the confusion over this apparent 200k gap in the overall budget, imo.

The board statement said the majority of the budget was committed so what’s left ? Nothing apparently... doesn’t  add up 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

My interpretation Jim was that the 4 players were organised under the budget by the old board- new board came in and said sorry but we cannot afford them rightly or wrongly- gannon himself said today he wishes he could give Caldwell these 4 players.  

Therefore regardless of whether the budget is the exact same as last year or not the playing budget has now been changed the 4 players were as per the budget given by the old board- the new board has said we cannot afford these 4 signings- it’s as simple as that

the statement issued by the board earlier in the week in my opinion was not clear 

Sorry - the only mention of these four Players and  Player Budget Cuts came from a "Firhill Insider" the CEO and the Finance Director stated the Player Budget had not been cut - now my interpitation was that there was additional funds mentioned  after the Player Transfer Money - these were unplanned additions - but they Money had to be used to balance the Club Budget - Cannon said he wished he could give GC more Players as he mentioned four positions - but he cant - Club have to balance the Budget with the Player Sale Money - simple as that  

[Semi Nurainen]

Well, there are factions and there are factions, and my interpretation of where this thread is heading  - presently - is that it is a pre-emptive strike by the (some of) the pro-Caldwell faction to provide an excuse  for what is anticipated (especially given our 1 point out of 6) as Caldwell's dismal performance at the end of the season.

'If GC had got those four players he was promised (was that not his swan-song at Chesterfield - where frankly the fans were glad to see the back of him) we would have won the League//The Cup/The Ashes ...'

And frankly, if these famous four were as mediocre as some he had already brought in ...

Edited August 10, 2019 by Semi Nurainen
missed a bit as usual