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

3 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.

You may be correct - in that case he should have been getting told - you have a Budget - same as last Year - this is what you work with - giving a list is nonsense - it simply leaves the Manager with zero Financial responsibilty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

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  

Have to disagree- Gerry Britton referred to the 4 players then gannon did - so it looks like they were planned under the old budget and it’s now been cut. Now that’s not to say that decision is wrong but it’s clearly happened- I think both Britton and Caldwell were clearly thinking they would be able to boost the squad 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

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  

They did not tell the truth in their statement .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

So the money for Lindsay and FItzpatrick is being fully used to balance the old boards crazy deficit.......all 800k of it. What on earth would have happened if that transfer money had not come in? 

That’s one version which may or maybe not be correct if true the overspending was started by .... Beattie and then Low 

Edited by javeajag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. A Q&A session with the board and everybody comes away confused and unclear. So the board are either very poor at communicating (a valid criticism of the old board) or the they are trying to hide something. Or both. Meanwhile the support remain in the dark and this thread will run for another 100 pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You may be correct - in that case he should have been getting told - you have a Budget - same as last Year - this is what you work with - giving a list is nonsense - it simply leaves the Manager with zero Financial responsibilty 

Checking players who have left the Club and the players who have arrived, it does look as if we’re 3 or 4 players down from last year .

If the budget is the same as last year , does that mean they’ve overspent  on Wages for the new recruits ( Kenny Miller , Scott Fox etc ) , poor use of the budget if that’s the case .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my ignorance, but just trying to get a handle on who is who and does and decides what (or who was who and did and decided what as the case may be).

Cannon (Gannon?) is mentioned a lot in relation to budgets etc, and whether or not Gary Caldwell can get his 4 more players. Is he the Finance Director? 

If so, what role does David Kelly play? Am I right in saying that he is now responsible for finance on a day to day basis (ie he pays for/cancels buses as required), although he is not himself a director.

I presume that Cannon came in as part of the new/returning board and my understanding is that they re-appointed Kelly to supervise finance.

Who was directing and supervising finance on/under the Jacqui Low board?

Apologies as I appreciate that this is probably all very simple to those who know better than I do what is happening and who are all the dramatis personae, but a brief explanation would help me get my head round some of the debates!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Checking players who have left the Club and the players who have arrived, it does look as if we’re 3 or 4 players down from last year .

If the budget is the same as last year , does that mean they’ve overspent  on Wages for the new recruits ( Kenny Miller , Scott Fox etc ) , poor use of the budget if that’s the case .

 

One of the few things that does seem clear from this total shit show is that the manager believed we had the budget for four more players. It's reasonable to assume that the players we have actually signed were added to the squad with this expectation in mind. In other words, the money spent on their recruitment would have assumed sufficient funds for three or four more players.

It seems clear - if anything is clear from today's event - that the new/old board have told Caldwell that there's no money for these players. All the sophistry in the world isn't going to change the fact that the statement put out was misleading. (Deliberately?)

We can only speculate why this change occurred because speculation is all that today has provided.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, partickthedog said:

Pardon my ignorance, but just trying to get a handle on who is who and does and decides what (or who was who and did and decided what as the case may be).

Cannon (Gannon?) is mentioned a lot in relation to budgets etc, and whether or not Gary Caldwell can get his 4 more players. Is he the Finance Director? 

If so, what role does David Kelly play? Am I right in saying that he is now responsible for finance on a day to day basis (ie he pays for/cancels buses as required), although he is not himself a director.

I presume that Cannon came in as part of the new/returning board and my understanding is that they re-appointed Kelly to supervise finance.

Who was directing and supervising finance on/under the Jacqui Low board?

Apologies as I appreciate that this is probably all very simple to those who know better than I do what is happening and who are all the dramatis personae, but a brief explanation would help me get my head round some of the debates!

Cannon was on the previous board.He survived the coup.DavidKelly is the Finance Director

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Cannon was on the last board, but clearly survived something.  

I am not finding this debate/thread informative at all, and the seemingly endless, pointless exchanges are generating more heat than light.  I hope that either we get tired of going round in circles, or that the matter is resolved quickly.  The latter may be a faint hope, given it is partially down to the SFA to do a diligence check. 

When did you last see the words SFA and diligence in the same sentence without a negative link?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the manager was given the expectation by the board that he could spend Y amount on players but when the board changed he was told he could spend X amount instead, having already committed all of X on his recruitment to date.

X = current squad (incomplete in managers eyes)

Y = X plus 4 more players (what the manager had been planning for)

 

Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of playing with words going on.

But if the manager was getting money to buy new players from the old board, and the new board came in and said, no you're not getting that, then that is clearly the cut that was mentioned by the insider.

For the board to respond to that same article by saying there is no cut in the playing budget may not have been  an outright lie, but it does appear disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

After 103 pages, to date . Meeting today. There is still no clear indication to what is happening at our club.What direction it is going in. Or who is going to own it.  Ma heid is buzzled.

And to be honest that is a far more significant question than buses or even playing budgets. What are the plans regarding the takeover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an acknowledgement from the directors present that communication has been poor during this period. For example, the statement on the official site from the Board on the 11th of July states there were concerns over the direction of the club. Norman Springford stated several times there was no criticism of the previous Board and when asked about this statement said he did not know who put it out and if he had known about it he would not have signed off on it. A director of the club and he did not know about a statement on the club's website in the name of the directors - very strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Third Lanark said:

Have to disagree- Gerry Britton referred to the 4 players then gannon did - so it looks like they were planned under the old budget and it’s now been cut. Now that’s not to say that decision is wrong but it’s clearly happened- I think both Britton and Caldwell were clearly thinking they would be able to boost the squad 

But Gerry Britton David Kelly and Malcolm Cannon all confirmed the original budget remains in place - Gerry said it categorically and emphatically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ClydebankJag said:

So the manager was given the expectation by the board that he could spend Y amount on players but when the board changed he was told he could spend X amount instead, having already committed all of X on his recruitment to date.

X = current squad (incomplete in managers eyes)

Y = X plus 4 more players (what the manager had been planning for)

 

Is that correct?

where X also = a deficit budget, the same budget as last season and the same budget as he was advised of when budgets for the season were originally agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jaf said:

But Gerry Britton David Kelly and Malcolm Cannon all confirmed the original budget remains in place - Gerry said it categorically and emphatically

Which means Caldwell has blown a lot of the budget on Kenny Miller , Scott Fox etc ?

Edited by jlsarmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone actually know what’s happening because this thread is all over the place.

Didn’t Caldwell say he had only used a third of last years playing budget available to him  but we are to believe that he has already spent 3 times that amount this year with around 5 less players and also with the likes of Doolan,Macdonald,Spittal,Storey all away.

who’s fooling who here?

Can the current board pocket the Fitzy and Lindsay cash..Just asking?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paukea said:

Does anyone actually know what’s happening because this thread is all over the place.

Didn’t Caldwell say he had only used a third of last years playing budget available to him  but we are to believe that he has already spent 3 times that amount this year with around 5 less players and also with the likes of Doolan,Macdonald,Spittal,Storey all away.

who’s fooling who here?

Can the current board pocket the Fitzy and Lindsay cash..Just asking?

 

Doubt it but they can use it to make it look like the club is breaking even, before the consortium make a decision to buy as they don't seem to want to invest.

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...