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

The hypocrisy of some people is astounding.

The (new) board should not sell their shares as if it doesn't work out with the next owners , who knows what fate awaits the club

BUT

The (new) board ought to run a "significant budget deficit" with a higher player wage budget than last year and   gamble on the future sustainability of the club

I am happy to help people to try to understand some of this stuff as I have exposure to a lot of it in my day job, but its now just a rammy of shouting at eachother and people not looking past their preconceived opinions, so its pointless. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes 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?

 

Gerry Britton categorically said that there was no underspend in last years player budget

Doolan took a massive pay cut after relegation - so I wouldn't be surprised if most of our new players are on more than he was last year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

Gerry Britton categorically said that there was no underspend in last years player budget

Doolan took a massive pay cut after relegation - so I wouldn't be surprised if most of our new players are on more than he was last year

I’m sure Caldwell  said at the first “meet the manager night” that he hadn’t spent all last seasons budget..

Ma Heids fried!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Paukea said:

I’m sure Caldwell  said at the first “meet the manager night” that he hadn’t spent all last seasons budget..

Ma Heids fried!!!

 

Caldwell definitely did say that (and that one was recorded), and there was a general ripple of bemusement through the audience today when Gerry and the board member who was speaking towards the finances told us that wasn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, West of Scotland said:

Caldwell definitely did say that (and that one was recorded), and there was a general ripple of bemusement through the audience today when Gerry and the board member who was speaking towards the finances told us that wasn't true.

Who’s lying then?

The club is an embarrassment at the moment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Well it was stated as such in Public and this Years Budget had nothing to do with Beattie - nothing 

As you well know Beattie left in a fanfare if we won’t make he mistakes others have done and slash budgets etc so he gave low a hospital pass ..,. Indeed you criticised him for it .... so he is partially responsible 

Edited by javeajag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

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.

That in itself is scandalous and  explains why the old board were upset but leads to so many questions

who put out the statement and why

why did the other directors not know

how is the club  being run 

etc etc 

Is Beattie just pushing things through ?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I now go back to simplifying what’s going on 

1 the club is being dressed up for a sale hence the cutbacks and budget reductions 

2 if the Sfa are considering whether the new guys can buy the club it’s totally incredulous that an outline deal is not in place .. I mean we have gone to to the sfa and said we are thinking we might sell to these guys what do you think ?!!!

thr current board are certainly not being up front with us 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

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.

Sums up that it's plain daft to pin your hopes on any of the outcomes. 

Old and new board have made mistakes. They've done good things as well.

Binary options seem the order of the day in all walks of life but very few issues are black and white, just varying shades of grey...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I think I now go back to simplifying what’s going on 

1 the club is being dressed up for a sale hence the cutbacks and budget reductions 

2 if the Sfa are considering whether the new guys can buy the club it’s totally incredulous that an outline deal is not in place .. I mean we have gone to to the sfa and said we are thinking we might sell to these guys what do you think ?!!!

thr current board are certainly not being up front with us 

1 your OPINION - contrary to our chief executive and finance director and a member of both boards

2 it was clear today - I know you weren't there - that firstly due diligence continues and secondly there are confidential aspects they are not at liberty to share yet due to the legal process - however they are cognisant that sharing with the supporters through the trusts as soon as they can is important to do and are committed to doing so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jaf said:

1 your OPINION - contrary to our chief executive and finance director and a member of both boards

2 it was clear today - I know you weren't there - that firstly due diligence continues and secondly there are confidential aspects they are not at liberty to share yet due to the legal process - however they are cognisant that sharing with the supporters through the trusts as soon as they can is important to do and are committed to doing so

They are considering selling yes ? So anyone selling anything makes it look as good as it can ... it’s well known in business practice almost the first thing you do is stop discretionary spending  and we are .... it appears that members of the board are not too sure what’s going on !

but tell me this what exactly are the sfa considering and why ? 

Edited by javeajag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

They are considering selling yes ? So anyone selling anything makes it look as good as it can ... it’s well known in business practice almost the first thing you do is stop discretionary spending  and we are .... it appears that members of the board are not too sure what’s going on !

but tell me this what exactly are the sfa considering and why ? 

Dual ownership ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaf said:

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

But was advised that more money was being made available because of the sale of Fitzpatrick and Liam by the old board which undoubtedly had a big difference on his transfer dealings 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaf said:

Gerry Britton categorically said that there was no underspend in last years player budget

Doolan took a massive pay cut after relegation - so I wouldn't be surprised if most of our new players are on more than he was last year

It’s been stated he took a pay cut - never been confirmed it was massive.  

Though think it was a bigger pay cut than keown Storey etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, javeajag said:

The clue is in ownership ... they are buying then ? I thought it was all you know but of a chat , some diligence,  might never happen but you know we have asked the sfa to ? 

The dual ownership issue could be a problem, Mike Ashley wasn’t allowed to take over Sevco because of this . Rules “ It is prohibited for the owners or directors of a football club to have the power to influence the management of another club “ 

I’m sure they’re trying to find a way around about this .

Edited by jlsarmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, West of Scotland said:

Caldwell definitely did say that (and that one was recorded), and there was a general ripple of bemusement through the audience today when Gerry and the board member who was speaking towards the finances told us that wasn't true.

He had been promised more funds by the old board from Fitzpatrick and Lindsay by the old board so Caldwell was technically right at that time he had not used all the money being allocated to him.

  Since then the new board has come in and said it is needed to plug the deficit so can’t be used now - so 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eljaggo said:

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?

I believe he was appointed towards the end of the last boards reign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

The dual ownership issue could be a problem, Mike Ashley wasn’t allowed to take over Sevco because of this . Rules “ It is prohibited for the owners or directors of a football club to have the power to influence the management of another club “ 

I’m sure they’re trying to find a way around about this .

Gerry's response was that the SFA deal with this sort of thing on a case by case basis. So it's wait and see mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending it but the current board statement said a major proportion of the budget had been committed  when the boardroom changes took place

Since then we've signed Jones and Austin on a permanent basis and de Vita on loan, so the devil may be in the detail there. 

I think Caldwell thought he was getting a good chunk of the AF fee but that's had to be used to plug a hole. 

Edited by Ancipital
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

The dual ownership issue could be a problem, Mike Ashley wasn’t allowed to take over Sevco because of this . Rules “ It is prohibited for the owners or directors of a football club to have the power to influence the management of another club “ 

I’m sure they’re trying to find a way around about this .

Who is asking about dual ownership and why are they asking ? 

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...