New Owner

[jaf]

2 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

Why would there be a Plan B?  I heard this shouted out at the meeting as the loudmouths tried to turn it into an episode of Question  Time.

Plan A and it is the only plan is to break even.

Perhaps he will change his forum name to that. 

[javeajag]

19 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

One thing that is bothering me with talk of budget deficits is the statement from JLow in May (before any Lindsay/Fitzpatrick money) where her statement said

"Off the pitch, the Board took the decision that the Club, while having no debts, needed to improve its financial planning. Our budgets do not include monies from cup runs, stadium hires by third parties etc. It encourages us to live within our means and extra monies that come in – such as that from our Scottish Cup run – can be used to supplement the playing budget or on unforeseen issues as they arise.

But, until season 2018/19, the focus had been solely on the current season which we felt wasn’t enough, we needed sight of what was coming down the track towards us. Our finances are now structured on a rolling two year basis (with a view to extending that to three years) so that we know exactly what we can spend in year, without compromising the Club’s viability for the following year. As the season ended, we came in on budget without depleting our reserves, which can be drawn on to support plans for the coming season."

That doesn't sound as if we were running at a budget deficit then. or had any plans to do so. Either someone is not telling the truth, or morelikely we are getting different versions of the truth depending on what they want us to believe.

It’s in the interest of the current board to imply which they did that there was some kind of financial mis management going on .....and they did .....springford blew a hole in that yesterday 

the club us being managed for a sale 

[blakey]

Jeez - I go out for the night and this thread explodes again. I was reflecting on yesterday’s meeting again though. A lot of this is still rather unclear but what became clearer =

Old board were apparently running the club at a potential budget deficit. The recent changes to the board have impacted the player budget. I know that directly contradicts Gerry’s answer yesterday, but that’s the only way I can make sense of the other answers. That is - Gary said that he had shared a recruitment plan with the board that is incomplete. Also david Kelly said they came in and had to make some changes so that the budget was corrected.

The sooner the conversations with the consortium are sorted out the better. It sounds like the new board are still hoping to get back on board with colin weir but feel like they are stymied there. Presumably that will only happen if Jackie is reinstated in some fashion. It might also rely upon the consortium bid failing.

The other major difference between the old board and the new board = old board did not see value in speaking to consortium and new board do. It’s a matter of opinion which course of action is correct but we’ll need that to play out now.

In summary its a mess. What is even sadder is that we’ve completely ballsed up the relationship with colin weir and impacted the financials of the youth setup, and the possible underwriting of costs at the parent club. I don’t really care if that’s an unsustainable way of running the club. Having a lottery winner help out at the football club should be a welcome unusual set of circumstances. 

Another sad point is that I believe that all the parties involve only want the best for thistle. The guys that spoke yesterday all seem like passionate thistle guys. Even the cricket chap. There had been some suggestion and incredulity that the old board was not make up of thistle fans. I think it is clear that Jackie is definitely a passionate thistle fan now. 

Ive got to feel a bit sorry for Gary Caldwell now. His plans for the player pool is definitely impacted just now. New board needs to sort the consortium and colin weir stuff ASAP or the run the risk of taking us backwards.

[Firhillista]

7 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It’s in the interest of the current board to imply which they did that there was some kind of financial mis management going on .....and they did .....springford blew a hole in that yesterday 

the club us being managed for a sale 

Out of all the speculation and the confusing and conflicting statements from representatives of both the new and old board's, this is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

The club is being managed for a sale and everything is focussed on that. So spending on player recruitment, travel arrangements, everything, will be limited to ensure the balance sheet looks as attractive as possible to the prospective buyers.

For some, financial restrictions will seem a good thing because it ensures the club is living within it's means, particularly if you hold the view that the board under Jacqui Low was not running the club well.

However, the impact of these restrictions will severely limit the ability of the club to compete this season which, in turn, will limit future finances.

It all boils down to the perennial business conundrum - is the short term pain worth the long term gain? Beattie and the current board clearly think that a possible takeover by New City Finance would provide long term advantages that justify limiting our competitiveness in the current season. Low and the previous board equally clearly disagreed and felt that the risk of an increased short term spend was worth potential future success.

Until this situation is resolved, the club is stuck. It's a mess.

The best we can hope for, I think, is that when it's finally resolved, the ownership of the club is clear and accountable. Until then, we can only look on in horror.

[jlsarmy]

2 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

Out of all the speculation and the confusing and conflicting statements from representatives of both the new and old board's, this is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

The club is being managed for a sale and everything is focussed on that. So spending on player recruitment, travel arrangements, everything, will be limited to ensure the balance sheet looks as attractive as possible to the prospective buyers.

For some, financial restrictions will seem a good thing because it ensures the club is living within it's means, particularly if you hold the view that the board under Jacqui Low was not running the club well.

However, the impact of these restrictions will severely limit the ability of the club to compete this season which, in turn, will limit future finances.

It all boils down to the perennial business conundrum - is the short term pain worth the long term gain? Beattie and the current board clearly think that a possible takeover by New City Finance would provide long term advantages that justify limiting our competitiveness in the current season. Low and the previous board equally clearly disagreed and felt that the risk of an increased short term spend was worth potential future success.

Until this situation is resolved, the club is stuck. It's a mess.

The best we can hope for, I think, is that when it's finally resolved, the ownership of the club is clear and accountable. Until then, we can only look on in horror.

Great Post , bottom line is Beattie and co have found an exit to recoup their money from their shares .  Think it is pretty obvious that there was concerns from the previous Board ( J. Low etc ) that for the future of PTFC that is not the direction we should be going in, that’s why there was a boardroom coup . Beattie pushing the takeover plans through has put the Academy at risk due to the shoddy way this deal has been put together especially with J, Lows removal from the Board.  The other stuff going on about budgets etc is just a smokescreen to justify the boardroom changes . I’m not so sure that this deal is going to happen which leaves us in a huge mess .

 

[Dick Dastardly]

Just now, jlsarmy said:

Great Post , bottom line is Beattie and co have found an exit to recoup their money from their shares .  Think it is pretty obvious that there was concerns from the previous Board ( J. Low etc ) that for the future of PTFC that is not the direction we should be going in, that’s why there was a boardroom coup . Beattie pushing the takeover plans through has put the Academy at risk due to the shoddy way this deal has been put together especially with J, Lows removal from the Board.  The other stuff going on about budgets etc is just a smokescreen to justify the boardroom changes . I’m not so sure that this deal is going to happen which leaves us in a huge mess .

 

I think that is the conclusion that I was coming to

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, jlsarmy said:

Great Post , bottom line is Beattie and co have found an exit to recoup their money from their shares .  Think it is pretty obvious that there was concerns from the previous Board ( J. Low etc ) that for the future of PTFC that is not the direction we should be going in, that’s why there was a boardroom coup . Beattie pushing the takeover plans through has put the Academy at risk due to the shoddy way this deal has been put together especially with J, Lows removal from the Board.  The other stuff going on about budgets etc is just a smokescreen to justify the boardroom changes . I’m not so sure that this deal is going to happen which leaves us in a huge mess .

 

It looks like the concern the new board had on the old board was not in the finances but that they were lukewarm on the takeover.....springfords comments yesterday make that clear.....this deal will be pushed through no matter what 

[jlsarmy]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

It looks like the concern the new board had on the old board was not in the finances but that they were lukewarm on the takeover.....springfords comments yesterday make that clear.....this deal will be pushed through no matter what 

I’m not sure they’ll get the approval from the relevant authorities to push this through .

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, jlsarmy said:

I’m not sure they’ll get the approval from the relevant authorities to push this through .

Dual ownership is not in itself a no no .....eg they own Barnsley and nice 

[Semi Nurainen]

1 hour ago, sandy said:

I think we may find when the Accounts are released that the old board did overspend. Any ‘clawback’ by the new board is probably a reflection of the gap they found when looking at the books. 

One thing David Beattie did was to ensure the Club ran within its means. It just may be that last season, paying 4 managers and giving GC funds in January, that we over-spent in a gamble that promotion would sort everything. That gamble failed. 

Well said, sir.

[jlsarmy]

53 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It’s in the interest of the current board to imply which they did that there was some kind of financial mis management going on .....and they did .....springford blew a hole in that yesterday 

the club us being managed for a sale 

If there was some sort of financial mismanagement going on , the first person to go is the Chief Executive who runs the club on a day to day basis , makes key decisions etc , Gerry Britton is still there, so the budget stuff is totally a smokescreen, it is getting managed just now for a sale .

[jlsarmy]

53 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It’s in the interest of the current board to imply which they did that there was some kind of financial mis management going on .....and they did .....springford blew a hole in that yesterday 

the club us being managed for a sale 

If there was some sort of financial mismanagement going on , the first person to go is the Chief Executive who runs the club on a day to day basis , makes key decisions etc , Gerry Britton is still there, so the budget stuff is totally a smokescreen, it is getting managed just now for a sale .

[allyo]

14 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Great Post , bottom line is Beattie and co have found an exit to recoup their money from their shares .  Think it is pretty obvious that there was concerns from the previous Board ( J. Low etc ) that for the future of PTFC that is not the direction we should be going in, that’s why there was a boardroom coup . Beattie pushing the takeover plans through has put the Academy at risk due to the shoddy way this deal has been put together especially with J, Lows removal from the Board.  The other stuff going on about budgets etc is just a smokescreen to justify the boardroom changes . I’m not so sure that this deal is going to happen which leaves us in a huge mess .

 

Agreed. There are some of us on here  who have no agendas but just want to understand what's going on, and I think we're arriving at similar conclusions.

Edited August 11, 2019 by allyo

[Firhillista]

I think there's a temptation to see situations like this in terms of goodies and baddies - you either support Beattie or Low. I'd rather cling to Blakey's view that everyone here wants the best for Thistle, it's just that they disagree on how to achieve that.

I get that Beattie's financial investment will mean that he's seen by some people as being mainly motivated by self interest and that others think Lowe's running of the club left so much to be desired that she shouldn't have any future involvement, but it's just possible that both are trying to do the best by Thistle.

I don't think it's helpful to represent either side in this as incompetent or malicious. I don't see sufficient evidence for that in either group.

What I do see is that as this situation progresses, folk commenting on here, fans of the club, are completely helpless. That's maybe something to reflect on for the future.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Firhillista

[jlsarmy]

5 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Dual ownership is not in itself a no no .....eg they own Barnsley and nice 

Nice has now been sold , if you’re going by the recent precedent of the SFA by not ratifying Mike Ashley’s takeover at Sevco then it won’t happen.

 

 

[Firhillista]

6 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Nice has now been sold , if you’re going by the recent precedent of the SFA by not ratifying Mike Ashley’s takeover at Sevco then it won’t happen.

 

 

Whether it happens or not, Pandora's Box has been opened here. We need the ownership of the club settled in a way which ensures stability and accountability. If anything good is to come out of this mess, then this is the minimum required.

Practically, we need fan represention on the board in the future to guarantee clear communication. This has to be a lesson learned. The communication to fans over this has been absolutely appalling.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Firhillista

[Dick Dastardly]

Man City own about half a dozen clubs

Watford, Udinese and Granada are all owned by the same guy

Dual ownership is common providing it is not clubs in the same league system

[scotty]

1 minute ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Man City own about half a dozen clubs

Watford, Udinese and Granada are all owned by the same guy

Dual ownership is common providing it is not clubs in the same league system

Something I may have missed. Have the FA also had a look at this takeover?

[allyo]

13 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Nice has now been sold , if you’re going by the recent precedent of the SFA by not ratifying Mike Ashley’s takeover at Sevco then it won’t happen.

 

 

I don't know all the details but I reckon you could find plenty of reasons for excluding Mike Ashley if you really wanted to.

And we all know that Sevco is a special case and gets special treatment.

[Lenziejag]

11 hours 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 

Not knowing how these things work, how does not spending for a couple of months make the club more attractive ?

[javeajag]

22 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

I think there's a temptation to see situations like this in terms of goodies and baddies - you either support Beattie or Low. I'd rather cling to Blakey's view that everyone here wants the best for Thistle, it's just that they disagree on how to achieve that.

I get that Beattie's financial investment will mean that he's seen by some people as being mainly motivated by self interest and that others think Lowe's running of the club left so much to be desired that she shouldn't have any future involvement, but it's just possible that both are trying to do the best by Thistle.

I don't think it's helpful to represent either side in this as incompetent or malicious. I don't see sufficient evidence for that in either group.

What I do see is that as this situation progresses, folk commenting on here, fans of the club, are completely helpless. That's maybe something to reflect on for the future.

Well yesterday was an opportunity to say we like theses guys because.....it’s good for the club because ....etc etc and they couldn’t do it which us surely worrying 

[Lambies Lost Doo]

The reliance and fawning of a sugar daddy has damaged many clubs in Scotland and England.

Unfortunately Thistle fans have been caught up in that fervour.  

[allyo]

1 minute ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

The reliance and fawning of a sugar daddy has damaged many clubs in Scotland and England.

Unfortunately Thistle fans have been caught up in that fervour.  

Are you referring to Colin Weir or the prospective owners? 

[Lenziejag]

10 hours 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 .

Whose rules ? Fifa, Eufa, Fa, EFL, SFA, SPFL ?

Eufa obviously allowed it ? Is their jurisdiction higher than national associations?

[Dick Dastardly]

9 minutes ago, allyo said:

Are you referring to Colin Weir or the prospective owners? 

To my mind both.

There is no such thing as a free lunch