New Owner

[blakey]

8 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

The shareholders who put £ in 20 years ago and have given up time away from their careers to focus on Thistle cannot be beholden to one man though and neither can we as fans.

They wanted to find out more info from a potential investment.  The other board didn't.  They are still gathering information and will use their business experience to give a response.  They have a lot of long term success in business.  You can't say No to something that could and they emphasised could be positive.  Maybe it wont happen.  They'll run the club to break even with no debt instead of small loss like the previous board.

Colin Weir has went "nah not for me."  That's his choice.  He's decided not to communicate with club.  That's his choice.  His £ was always short term.  No training ground.  That's his choice.  Sorry club and McParland family.  No youth funding.  Sorry 15 yr old from Possil learning football and life skills plus getting chance to sample culture abroad.  That's his choice.   There was a chap called "Donners" who wouldn't let it go.  I don't see him going to Largs to hunt down someone who is not talking and is famous for a low profile.

For me Malcolm Cannon was the best communicator.  Just standing up made it better.  Hopefully he'll help improve things.

(On a side note Caldwell came across well as usual.  However what he says v what is on the pitch does not match.  I compare us to McNamara promo season of 4-3-3 and we are nowhere near that.)

Sorry but some of that I just don’t agree with. Colin weirs investments were not for the short term. He did not do the Dundee style glory signing (caniggia) type stuff. It was investment in youth, and removal of club debt to make us sustainable.

The recent actions of the board have jeopardised that funding stream. That could be a huge negative for us. This is not about the board or fans being ‘beholden’ to colin weir. It’s about people in power making the right decisions for our club.

[Fawlty Towers]

The main things I took away from yesterday were:

• We have fans who may disagree on certain points but care deeply for this club
• Nothing about this proposed takeover is going to be resolved soon
• We have gone from having a large deficit budget this season to a marginal deficit budget so if we can win in the cup on Saturday it would help move that closer to break-even
• Like most things that happen at football clubs it is us, the fans, who are the really important people as we will be still be here if the current board stay or go, if the consortium comes in and if in a few years they sell up. So lets have our discussions on here but get right behind the team each matchday.

[jlsarmy]

11 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

I've mentioned him in the second par @jlsarmy

I saw that DP , it was more the criticism angle that I was getting at , if I was taking over a Company and was getting told the Budget weren’t getting done properly the first port of call would be the Chief Executive to find out why ?

[allyo]

Probably escapes a lot of the criticism because he's the King of Spain 

Edited August 11, 2019 by allyo

[Lambies Lost Doo]

16 minutes ago, blakey said:

Sorry but some of that I just don’t agree with. Colin weirs investments were not for the short term. He did not do the Dundee style glory signing (caniggia) type stuff. It was investment in youth, and removal of club debt to make us sustainable.

The recent actions of the board have jeopardised that funding stream. That could be a huge negative for us. This is not about the board or fans being ‘beholden’ to colin weir. It’s about people in power making the right decisions for our club.

Agree about debt.

Youth system funding was put in for period of years.  For me a club of our size can't sustain a youth system hoping for a gem.  The odds are so low.  Have community and youth football to help society and foster support but concentrate on picking up released players age 18, 19 from bigger clubs.

[Firhillista]

I think the thing with Colin Weir is that there's an element of looking for power without the responsibility here. He doesn't (didn't?) want to own the club. Fair enough, that's entirely his choice.

However, he wanted to support the club financially to ensure it's stability and also to ensure the provision of top class youth development which benefits both the club and the young people involved. That's entirely praiseworthy in my opinion and he deserves nothing but credit for that.

Problems arise, though, when the club wants to go in a direction he doesn't like. He's a benefactor, not a shareholder, so he's powerless.

The only way for Colin Weir, or anyone else for that matter, to weild power within the club is to take the responsibility of ownership, either in whole or part. Given the latest rumours, maybe that's the conclusion he's come to as well.

 

[allyo]

Or he accepts that he has no power, and when things go in a direction that he is not comfortable with he is free to walk away

[Firhillista]

1 minute ago, allyo said:

Or he accepts that he has no power, and when things go in a direction that he is not comfortable with he is free to walk away

Exactly. Which is the attraction of being a benefactor and not an investor.

[Semi Nurainen]

1 hour ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

I did a copy and paste onto a word document with various statements from each of the supporter organisations and an explanation as to why we have ended up with two 'trusts' [the explanation is courtesy of Woodstock Jag]

I refer to this when I get confused on the matter of who is who, and who does what

 

The Jags Trust -PTFC Trust history.odt

Cheers!

[Jagged Edge]

I think people are being  grossly unfair on Gerry Britton. His job as CEO is to fulfil the policies and strategy of the board of directors.

If their strategy was to overspend the budget then Gerry will operate on that basis. Only if the strategy was to break even, but a serious overspend occurred should he be getting his jotters. It is clear from yesterday that the strategy of the old board for this season was to overspend. It is clear that the playing budget for this year is the same as last year. Only the transfer money from Liam and Fitzy has prevented the deficit at the end of the season from being embarrassingly huge.

The only conclusion I can come to regarding the mysterious £200k for four players was based on a "promise of additional funding" from the old board. The £200k is not sitting in PTFC's bank account, is not in the playing budget, and would have to have been an additional £200k input from someone (or more than one person), otherwise it would have been yet another £200k to add to the season's deficit. The new board are committed to a break even budget - we all know what overspent budgets leads to.

I actually thought Norman Springford and Ronnie Gilfillan spoke well yesterday - genuine Thistle men who pumped money into Thistle with no expectation of ever getting it back. Ronnie stated that any money he would get back from any sale would be less (in real terms) that what he put in, and Norman stated that his return from any sale would be going to charities, so no direct benefit to him at all. Posters who claim that the new board are only out for money from the sale are insulting these fine gentlemen! Their reasons for wanting to look into the consortium taking over Thistle were based on believing that Thistle would benefit from the consortium's infrastructure, additional revenue stream possibilities, and beliefs in the development of young players. They have not committed to taking any deal that is offered by the consortium, but believe that it should be considered.

[jlsarmy]

45 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

I think the thing with Colin Weir is that there's an element of looking for power without the responsibility here. He doesn't (didn't?) want to own the club. Fair enough, that's entirely his choice.

However, he wanted to support the club financially to ensure it's stability and also to ensure the provision of top class youth development which benefits both the club and the young people involved. That's entirely praiseworthy in my opinion and he deserves nothing but credit for that.

Problems arise, though, when the club wants to go in a direction he doesn't like. He's a benefactor, not a shareholder, so he's powerless.

The only way for Colin Weir, or anyone else for that matter, to weild power within the club is to take the responsibility of ownership, either in whole or part. Given the latest rumours, maybe that's the conclusion he's come to as well.

 

Think Colin Weir and his wife both had a 5% shareholding in PTFC.

[jaf]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

The main things I took away from yesterday were:

• We have fans who may disagree on certain points but care deeply for this club
• Nothing about this proposed takeover is going to be resolved soon
• We have gone from having a large deficit budget this season to a marginal deficit budget so if we can win in the cup on Saturday it would help move that closer to break-even
• Like most things that happen at football clubs it is us, the fans, who are the really important people as we will be still be here if the current board stay or go, if the consortium comes in and if in a few years they sell up. So lets have our discussions on here but get right behind the team each matchday.

Out of likes, but absolutely this.

I would add one more thing - the trust is a fantastic thing and we should all be engaging with it and using it. Its our future, our protection, our voice, and our opportunity to, some day, get the representation on the board that 26% of the shares deserve.

 

[JAGSMAN1968]

1 hour ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

 

The Jags Trust -PTFC Trust history.odt

just tried to open this, got this message, has it been hooked?

Sorry, there is a problem

This attachment is not available. It may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it to this location.

Error code: 2C171/1

 

 

 

[jaf]

2 hours ago, Dark Passenger said:

Haha...no comments about hair gel? Or is that the other Sandy? Sorry, it gets confusing. 

On basis I have no idea what you are talking about, could be the other one!

[jaf]

1 hour ago, Dark Passenger said:

Here's my take on yesterday...

First, fair play to those shareholders who placed themselves in the eye of the storm. They took some tough questions and answered them as fully and as truthfully as they could. I don't think they're the real driving force behind the takeover, though, and I'd like to see the Chairman (David Beattie) conduct a similar exercise.

I think it's fair to say that, last season, the Chairman (Jacqui Low) and the Chief Executive (Gerry Britton) burned a hole through their budget. My guess is that the £200k quoted in the press this week was coming from Colin Weir. If that's the case, then it's just not sustainable. I said on one of the FB fan pages that if the shareholders told us that money wasn't available for players for reasons pertaining to financial management then I would accept that. I do.

*But*, I do think they were placed in an unenviable position by David Beattie and Ian Maxwell's reluctance to sack Alan Archibald and David Beattie's post-relegation budget. In other words, they were having to deal with *some* issues that weren't of their making. Jacqui and Gerry could have tightened the purse strings, but I think the January signings were made to halt relegation (despite hyperbolic promotion talk), which would have been an even bigger financial disaster.

Maybe that's why Norman Springford was so reluctant to criticise those ousted in July. Or maybe he's just a noble guy. You really can't have any issues with people like him, Ronnie Gilfillan and David Kelly. He did make a point of saying that he hadn't seen the statement dated 11 July and wouldn't have signed off the line saying that "existing investors had raised concerns about the direction of the club". 

I would like to know how Propco factors into this, though, particularly with regards to who has money tied up in it and how, if possible, they would benefit. Those present couldn't answer that because they aren't investors in that entity.

I was satisfied that a commitment was drawn from those shareholders present, and by Gerry Britton on behalf of David Beattie, that they would happily try and set up a meeting for the members (not just the boards) of the fans' trusts with a representative of the prospective new owners, where David Beattie would outline his reasons for selling and the prospective new owners would set out their reasons for buying, *before* any sale is finalised.

That's where my loyalties lie - with the club and its fans. Not with any individuals on past or present boards. Because I think they're all f*cking at it to one degree or another.

Well said - I suspect that is where we all are. We support the club 

I want to take my daughter to Hampden one day and STJ and losing my club still scares the shit out of me - that's why deficit budgets and unsustainable models give me the fear

I also think that we have lots of skilled and articulate fans within the support, and if we could just all swing behind the club however ownership and boardrooms are comprised by joining together (which I think has to be through the vehicles that are there, ie the trust(s)) we could be much more productive and give our club a better chance in the future, no matter what challenges lie ahead.

 

 

[javeajag]

48 minutes ago, Jagged Edge said:

I think people are being  grossly unfair on Gerry Britton. His job as CEO is to fulfil the policies and strategy of the board of directors.

If their strategy was to overspend the budget then Gerry will operate on that basis. Only if the strategy was to break even, but a serious overspend occurred should he be getting his jotters. It is clear from yesterday that the strategy of the old board for this season was to overspend. It is clear that the playing budget for this year is the same as last year. Only the transfer money from Liam and Fitzy has prevented the deficit at the end of the season from being embarrassingly huge.

The only conclusion I can come to regarding the mysterious £200k for four players was based on a "promise of additional funding" from the old board. The £200k is not sitting in PTFC's bank account, is not in the playing budget, and would have to have been an additional £200k input from someone (or more than one person), otherwise it would have been yet another £200k to add to the season's deficit. The new board are committed to a break even budget - we all know what overspent budgets leads to.

I actually thought Norman Springford and Ronnie Gilfillan spoke well yesterday - genuine Thistle men who pumped money into Thistle with no expectation of ever getting it back. Ronnie stated that any money he would get back from any sale would be less (in real terms) that what he put in, and Norman stated that his return from any sale would be going to charities, so no direct benefit to him at all. Posters who claim that the new board are only out for money from the sale are insulting these fine gentlemen! Their reasons for wanting to look into the consortium taking over Thistle were based on believing that Thistle would benefit from the consortium's infrastructure, additional revenue stream possibilities, and beliefs in the development of young players. They have not committed to taking any deal that is offered by the consortium, but believe that it should be considered.

I think Norman and Ronnie were put up yesterday precisely because they are 

not the driving force behind the takeover 

are not in line for a huge financial game 

but Beattie Oliver etc its a different story 

[Jordanhill Jag]

5 hours ago, javeajag said:

Of course we need to balance the budget and where did I say that doesn’t matter ? Deflection and avoidance yet again 

Well if it matters why are you going on about the not signing of four additional Players - they were never in the Budget that Caldwell agreed in May - he may have been advised that he could get the Transfer Money as additional funding  previously  - but the Financial reality is that Money is required to balance the Books - the Statement stated the Truth - there had been No cuts to the agreed Player Budget agreed in May - which GC was happy with at the time - the Player Budget is the same as last Year - despite a significant drop in income ref Parachute and EUFA Money - not sure what part of that is confusing tbh       

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Dark Passenger said:

Here's my take on yesterday...

First, fair play to those shareholders who placed themselves in the eye of the storm. They took some tough questions and answered them as fully and as truthfully as they could. I don't think they're the real driving force behind the takeover, though, and I'd like to see the Chairman (David Beattie) conduct a similar exercise.

I think it's fair to say that, last season, the Chairman (Jacqui Low) and the Chief Executive (Gerry Britton) burned a hole through their budget. My guess is that the £200k quoted in the press this week was coming from Colin Weir. If that's the case, then it's just not sustainable. I said on one of the FB fan pages that if the shareholders told us that money wasn't available for players for reasons pertaining to financial management then I would accept that. I do.

*But*, I do think they were placed in an unenviable position by David Beattie and Ian Maxwell's reluctance to sack Alan Archibald and David Beattie's post-relegation budget. In other words, they were having to deal with *some* issues that weren't of their making. Jacqui and Gerry could have tightened the purse strings, but I think the January signings were made to halt relegation (despite hyperbolic promotion talk), which would have been an even bigger financial disaster.

Maybe that's why Norman Springford was so reluctant to criticise those ousted in July. Or maybe he's just a noble guy. You really can't have any issues with people like him, Ronnie Gilfillan and David Kelly. He did make a point of saying that he hadn't seen the statement dated 11 July and wouldn't have signed off the line saying that "existing investors had raised concerns about the direction of the club". 

I would like to know how Propco factors into this, though, particularly with regards to who has money tied up in it and how, if possible, they would benefit. Those present couldn't answer that because they aren't investors in that entity.

I was satisfied that a commitment was drawn from those shareholders present, and by Gerry Britton on behalf of David Beattie, that they would happily try and set up a meeting for the members (not just the boards) of the fans' trusts with a representative of the prospective new owners, where David Beattie would outline his reasons for selling and the prospective new owners would set out their reasons for buying, *before* any sale is finalised.

That's where my loyalties lie - with the club and its fans. Not with any individuals on past or present boards. Because I think they're all f*cking at it to one degree or another.

Thats a fair synopsis -I thought David Kelly & Malcom Cannon came across very well and they all attempted to answer the questions to the best of there knowledge - which was apparent that they were not up to speed on everything that was going on -given the amount of time they have been away from the Board thats understandable - Comms & regular updates are key going forward   

[partickthedog]

12 hours ago, allyo said:

To Be Or Not To Be. ..

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

 

Looks like William Shakespeare read this thread over 400 years ago. I wonder who was the poor player he was referring to?

[Third Lanark]

3 hours ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

The shareholders who put £ in 20 years ago and have given up time away from their careers to focus on Thistle cannot be beholden to one man though and neither can we as fans.

They wanted to find out more info from a potential investment.  The other board didn't.  They are still gathering information and will use their business experience to give a response.  They have a lot of long term success in business.  You can't say No to something that could and they emphasised could be positive.  Maybe it wont happen.  They'll run the club to break even with no debt instead of small loss like the previous board.

Colin Weir has went "nah not for me."  That's his choice.  He's decided not to communicate with club.  That's his choice.  His £ was always short term.  No training ground.  That's his choice.  Sorry club and McParland family.  No youth funding.  Sorry 15 yr old from Possil learning football and life skills plus getting chance to sample culture abroad.  That's his choice.   There was a chap called "Donners" who wouldn't let it go.  I don't see him going to Largs to hunt down someone who is not talking and is famous for a low profile.

For me Malcolm Cannon was the best communicator.  Just standing up made it better.  Hopefully he'll help improve things.

(On a side note Caldwell came across well as usual.  However what he says v what is on the pitch does not match.  I compare us to McNamara promo season of 4-3-3 and we are nowhere near that.)

McNamaras promotion season did not have the shambles and uncertainties going on in the background as we have now, nor did he have to deal with 2 boards, with one telling him he had more money to make signings.  And lets not forget his full season the year before when we finished 6th, which while okay was not really a roaring success.  I think Caldwell and the players can be cut some slack due to all the carry on that is happening and still appears to be some distance from being resolved.

 

Agree with you regarding Gannon being a good communicator, probably had quite a lot of experience from his cricketing duties

[blakey]

56 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Well if it matters why are you going on about the not signing of four additional Players - they were never in the Budget that Caldwell agreed in May - he may have been advised that he could get the Transfer Money as additional funding  previously  - but the Financial reality is that Money is required to balance the Books - the Statement stated the Truth - there had been No cuts to the agreed Player Budget agreed in May - which GC was happy with at the time - the Player Budget is the same as last Year - despite a significant drop in income ref Parachute and EUFA Money - not sure what part of that is confusing tbh       

Jj - it is confusing because different folk gave contradicting answers to related questions. GB said that the budget was not cut. GC said his recruitment (that had been agreed) is incomplete. David kelly then said that they had to change the way the finances were being managed, so that we don’t run at a deficit. It looks like if the old board were still in place GC may well have recruited a few more players. 

The fact that we are debating this indicates that the updates have not been clear.

[Third Lanark]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Well if it matters why are you going on about the not signing of four additional Players - they were never in the Budget that Caldwell agreed in May - he may have been advised that he could get the Transfer Money as additional funding  previously  - but the Financial reality is that Money is required to balance the Books - the Statement stated the Truth - there had been No cuts to the agreed Player Budget agreed in May - which GC was happy with at the time - the Player Budget is the same as last Year - despite a significant drop in income ref Parachute and EUFA Money - not sure what part of that is confusing tbh       

Its pretty clear to me anyway that he was promised more funds by the old board through the sale of Liam and Fitzpatrick that probably was the £200,000

[Jordanhill Jag]

6 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Its pretty clear to me anyway that he was promised more funds by the old board through the sale of Liam and Fitzpatrick that probably was the £200,000

Agreed - but it was "more" funds people keep accusing the current Board of telling lies in there rebuttal to the Newspaper article - which they didnt -put simply it would be madness not to balance the Club Budget  

[Mr Bunny]

3 hours ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

Agree about debt.

Youth system funding was put in for period of years.  For me a club of our size can't sustain a youth system hoping for a gem.  The odds are so low.  Have community and youth football to help society and foster support but concentrate on picking up released players age 18, 19 from bigger clubs.

Hamilton have run a fine youth system for years and got a good bit of money for players they developed and they are not a bigger club than us.  Producing the occasional (say once every couple of years) player who can be sold for say 300-500 grand and a few other players who can enhance the squad would be good going short term and over time it could get better than that.  No reason why we can't pick the odd released player either.  However it does need to be managed properly and I think we've had a problem the last couple of years in developing enough 18 years plus players into the final stages of a career with the club.  If we sorted that our youth policy would work better for us.

[alexander livingstone]

47 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Agreed - but it was "more" funds people keep accusing the current Board of telling lies in there rebuttal to the Newspaper article - which they didnt -put simply it would be madness not to balance the Club Budget  

Where was the £350,000 the old board promised would be available in January going to come from.