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

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Yes to a point ....clearly debt for equity and their other financial instruments are designed to either protect their investment, fund it cheaply or ensure the costs are Bourne by the club not them ....my point us still valid they buy the asset effectively for very little or nothing 

your next task is to work out how they make a 25% plus return in their investment 

Ahh that’s easy.  To make a success of their investment and a return on it, they must make a success of the particular club. 

And the more successful clubs they have in their stable the easier it will be to convince financers, owners of other clubs, fans of other clubs that they are the right buyers for them because buying (and selling) football clubs is their business. 

This is the crux of the matter. They will be focused on making a success of the club. The status quo option of this board have sold the club already in their heads and so to them “succcess” for the club will not equate to the same as you or I.  I think “success” in the eyes of the prospective new owners will much more closely aligned to what we supporters would define as success. It’s in their interests. 

This is why I am cautiously optimistic and behind this until I hear something of genuine factual concern rather than bullshit. It’s not being pro - current board. It’s being pro the ghost of a dreamy chance of a successful future for the club. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jaf said:

Completely different. 

I know facts won’t ckear this up as this is a convenient stick to beat the board with. But let’s at least put them out there.  

Javeajag has said their model is to borrow all the money of their original investment  jlsarmy suggested that they did that at nice  both of these are incorrect   

At nice, they originally bought 80 per cent of club   The money they borrowed for the short term was to finance the purchase of the other 20 per cent to allow them to have 100 per cent in event of sale  debt is cheaper than equity and so , whilst I am not saying this is right thing to do, in a business/corporate finance sense it does stack up and would not be uncommon to swap debt for equity   Furthermore it did not endanger the future of nice, being for the short term and nice will probably emerge stronger from their new owners  

at Barnsley (whose asset ownership is not dissimilar to our own) they have taken a bond and floating charge    This has nothing to do with the original investment   Nothing at all  It is likely to be for a  small amount given the asset base of a football club and is probably for some short term reason - for example may be to bridge funding on short term of  a transfer because the money incoming for a transfer deal is on a phrased basis whilst the selling club demand full payment up front  there are a myriad of other reasons   

The factual point is that in neither case have they leveraged the original purchase of the club with any debt whatsoever   In fact in the year they purchased Barnsley debt was reduced   These are the facts  

 

 

 

 

Chien Lee borrowed 22 million on the Nice deal which basically was what the money they put in when they bought the club.

It’s all documented 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Chien Lee borrowed 22 million on the Nice deal which basically was what the money they put in when they bought the club.

It’s all documented 

 

 

It was an advance on the 20% of shares that I agreed to sell them in the owners pact. The price was fixed since their arrival and that sale is due to occur, dependent on certain conditions, in the two years to come.”

quote from the previous owner/chairman about the use of 22m, or part thereof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jaf said:

It was an advance on the 20% of shares that I agreed to sell them in the owners pact. The price was fixed since their arrival and that sale is due to occur, dependent on certain conditions, in the two years to come.”

quote from the previous owner/chairman about the use of 22m, or part thereof. 

Which was exactly coincidentally what they put into the club

Just dressing up figures IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've now got back to the point in the circle where the experts in finance, business and football matters are putting forward their diametrically opposed points on the merits/demerits of the consortium. But no-one, so far has actually put forward any thoughts on how the consortium could take forward our club to make it viable for the future. It's one thing saying they did it with Barnsley and Nice. Barnsley is a club in a league awash with money and Nice, I take it, are in a similar position. We are a club struggling to retain our place in the second tier of a league where the vast majority of cash is directed towards two clubs. Both of whom reside in the same city as us and no matter how much we dream we will never overtake either of them in terms of supporter numbers, on-field success or financial strength. Any investors coming in to this club will need to invest millions to artificially take us to a position where we win the league and a cup or two, get in to Europe for an extended run and then get out quick because we know what will happen after that. Either that or they have to be willing to commit for many years without the hope of any large return.

What I have not read much of on this thread, is sensible and practical ideas on where our club should go. In our pre-promotion year there were plans put into place to make the Firhill experience much more fan friendly. Fans were asked for ideas, volunteers were used to enhance the enjoyment of a day at Firhill and efforts were made to try to encourage a family friendly atmosphere around Thistle. I may be remembering wrongly but all that seemed to go when we were promoted, as though we were too "professional" for all that.  We were in the "big" league and had to play the game their way. Instead of consolidating on our success, we let ourselves go backwards and inevitably maybe got to today's position. Maybe if Colin Weir's idea of giving the fans some involvement in the form of shares was the way to go if the board had not stifled any chance of some fan influence.

I am worried that at the end of all this we will either not have a club to support or if there is a PTFC it will be nothing like the club we follow and love. There has to be a third way. One where fans are involved in the club and the club is interested in the fans. Surely all the brains on here could get together and work for our club and not just to get petty points over on the other side. We should all be on the same side.

So instead of using your knowlege of what's going on behind the scenes to try to appear more ITK than anyone else, why not explain how this consortium will be good for the long term future of Partick Thistle. Give us somthing more than blind acceptance that you are right.  And those opposed, what is your plan to take us out of the mire we have found ourselves in?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, scotty said:

We've now got back to the point in the circle where the experts in finance, business and football matters are putting forward their diametrically opposed points on the merits/demerits of the consortium. But no-one, so far has actually put forward any thoughts on how the consortium could take forward our club to make it viable for the future. It's one thing saying they did it with Barnsley and Nice. Barnsley is a club in a league awash with money and Nice, I take it, are in a similar position. We are a club struggling to retain our place in the second tier of a league where the vast majority of cash is directed towards two clubs. Both of whom reside in the same city as us and no matter how much we dream we will never overtake either of them in terms of supporter numbers, on-field success or financial strength. Any investors coming in to this club will need to invest millions to artificially take us to a position where we win the league and a cup or two, get in to Europe for an extended run and then get out quick because we know what will happen after that. Either that or they have to be willing to commit for many years without the hope of any large return.

What I have not read much of on this thread, is sensible and practical ideas on where our club should go. In our pre-promotion year there were plans put into place to make the Firhill experience much more fan friendly. Fans were asked for ideas, volunteers were used to enhance the enjoyment of a day at Firhill and efforts were made to try to encourage a family friendly atmosphere around Thistle. I may be remembering wrongly but all that seemed to go when we were promoted, as though we were too "professional" for all that.  We were in the "big" league and had to play the game their way. Instead of consolidating on our success, we let ourselves go backwards and inevitably maybe got to today's position. Maybe if Colin Weir's idea of giving the fans some involvement in the form of shares was the way to go if the board had not stifled any chance of some fan influence.

I am worried that at the end of all this we will either not have a club to support or if there is a PTFC it will be nothing like the club we follow and love. There has to be a third way. One where fans are involved in the club and the club is interested in the fans. Surely all the brains on here could get together and work for our club and not just to get petty points over on the other side. We should all be on the same side.

So instead of using your knowlege of what's going on behind the scenes to try to appear more ITK than anyone else, why not explain how this consortium will be good for the long term future of Partick Thistle. Give us somthing more than blind acceptance that you are right.  And those opposed, what is your plan to take us out of the mire we have found ourselves in?

This is a really good post and a fair point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaf said:

Ahh that’s easy.  To make a success of their investment and a return on it, they must make a success of the particular club. 

And the more successful clubs they have in their stable the easier it will be to convince financers, owners of other clubs, fans of other clubs that they are the right buyers for them because buying (and selling) football clubs is their business. 

This is the crux of the matter. They will be focused on making a success of the club. The status quo option of this board have sold the club already in their heads and so to them “succcess” for the club will not equate to the same as you or I.  I think “success” in the eyes of the prospective new owners will much more closely aligned to what we supporters would define as success. It’s in their interests. 

This is why I am cautiously optimistic and behind this until I hear something of genuine factual concern rather than bullshit. It’s not being pro - current board. It’s being pro the ghost of a dreamy chance of a successful future for the club. 

Ah....success needs to be defined as it’s not necessarily football success .... their definition of success is financial ie making money ..... and if it’s about then selling us on you do have to think who is going buy us in the future ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fans get involved in running Thistle? Take a look at this forum and that will tell you why that is the worst idea of the lot so far. Also when there is a big payout to be made, transfer or stadium repairs are said fans gonna dip into the pockets and pay? I didnie think so

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one way of guaranteeing a successful football club and it's not by providing a positive 'fan experience' or letting in under 16s free or encouraging more female supporters or putting on half time entertainment, it's by winning football games.  Regularly, consistently, every game you play win it, or come damn close. Do that and you'll struggle to find an empty seat in the ground.

Some of us are old enough to remember when Manchester City and Chelsea were both a bit of a joke in English football. Cuddly toys, if you like. If anyone had suggested in the 70s that they build stadia like they both occupy today, they would have been certified. Why would you need grounds that size for two clubs who aren't winning games? Put a winning team on the park on a regular, consistent basis and the rest is history.

There was a time - and, no, I'm not old enough to remember it - when Celtic were a mid-table club, their best years behind them, competing on the same footing as Hibs and Hearts. Current Celtic fans will tell you that their club is 'special', that people will follow them irrespective of the results, but history says otherwise. Attendance at football games is in direct correlation to the likelihood of the team winning. The more games a team wins, the more people will turn up to see them.

Which is why football is such a risky business. There's been a lot of criticism of the previous board because they were, apparently, willing to go into deficit to sign players in the hope, presumably, that we win games. I don't have a problem with that. If we continually 'live within our means', then we limit ourselves to working within an ever shrinking budget with very little likelihood of putting the successful team on the park that we need to progress.

It's a risk. Of course it is. But we're currently looking at a squad that no one, apart, apparently, Gary Caldwell, thinks can get us into the Premiership. Add in the players we are rumoured to have targeted - Hall, Rudden, Keillor-Dunn - and we look much more competitive. Would we win the league with these players? Maybe not. But a run in the cups would look more likely and a play-off place wouldn't be out of the question. More importantly, we be likely to win more games, which is what it's all about.

I get that our current position is all about 'the deal', but there's a grave danger that by focussing on the safe harbour of a stable financial future, we run around and sink in the present.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ah....success needs to be defined as it’s not necessarily football success .... their definition of success is financial ie making money ..... and if it’s about then selling us on you do have to think who is going buy us in the future ?

Pretty much my thoughts. We know that these guys are interested in Thistle to make money. They are billionaires, so the goal must to make lots of money. This is not a hobby or an altruistic gesture, this is to make money. It could be that we are being used as a loss leader to prove to future clubs that their system works, but why when they have already proven this with NIce and Barnsley is a work in progress ? We therefore have to assume that this is to make money.

Some have said success on the park. But what would that cost to achieve ? What would be the reward ? I doubt that the prize money for winning the Premier League or Scottish Cup, plus a first round exit in Europe would give any return on the investment required.

It can't be about developing young players and selling them on, otherwise why piss off Colin Weir.

It certainly can't be about more fan involvement as I can guarantee that with the consortium both trusts would become further marginalised. There is no way that these guys would let supporters anywhere near their board. On that theme, some complained about the previous directors not being shareholders. Well that is what we will get with these guys. I doubt if Lee or Conway will even visit Firhill, so it will be their non-shareholding, non-supporter lackies who will be in charge. Exactly what many were complaining about before.

I accept that there needs to be change, but change for the right reason, not just for the sake of it. I'm not saying that this is for the wrong reason, we just don't know and until we do, I don't see how anyone can back it when the possible future of the club is at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich man donates to club.  "Wow thanks."

Rich man does not want to own club. "Wow he's given it to the fans."

Club names stand after him. "hmmmmm"

Rich man does not like one specific POTENTIAL decision from club so pulls all money impacting hundreds of kids, 10+ jobs, family of Thistle legend.  Refuses to communicate with club. 

All the power but none of the responsibility.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

 

It certainly can't be about more fan involvement as I can guarantee that with the consortium both trusts would become further marginalised. There is no way that these guys would let supporters anywhere near their board. On that theme, some complained about the previous directors not being shareholders. Well that is what we will get with these guys. I doubt if Lee or Conway will even visit Firhill, so it will be their non-shareholding, non-supporter lackies who will be in charge. Exactly what many were complaining about before.

I accept that there needs to be change, but change for the right reason, not just for the sake of it. I'm not saying that this is for the wrong reason, we just don't know and until we do, I don't see how anyone can back it when the possible future of the club is at risk.

 

Good point re the trusts which is why we ought to be encouraging the current board with all our efforts to give supporter representation on the Board through the trust before the deal, and have them put that into any deal as a condition.

There is a difference between non shareholder directors acting on behalf of majority shareholders and non shareholder directors acting on behalf of only themselves and their vision for the club.

The possible future of the club might equally be at risk with a 'speculate to accumulate' board which fails to accumulate, or might equally be at risk with a board comprised of disinterested shareholder directors who wish the club had been sold. Different risks, different potential deaths. My point is that there is no remaining risk free option as I see it. Even relying on a wealthy benefactor who is pretty ill does not seem a risk free approach to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to my mind the biggest risk is where we currently are, with a board that don't want to be there and apparently cutting all costs to make us more attractive for sale. 

Mad idea, but any idea how much it would cost to buy the club ? Could it be done with some sort of crowd funding ? I know there are then ongoing costs, but atleast we would be run by and for the fans. (I did say it was a mad idea)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

Rich man donates to club.  "Wow thanks."

Rich man does not want to own club. "Wow he's given it to the fans."

Club names stand after him. "hmmmmm"

Rich man does not like one specific POTENTIAL decision from club so pulls all money impacting hundreds of kids, 10+ jobs, family of Thistle legend.  Refuses to communicate with club. 

All the power but none of the responsibility.  

I think it’s a little more complicated than that so you need to add in ...

selling the club and not speaking to him

ousting the board and not telling him 

why would a billionaire need weirs  money 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I think it’s a little more complicated than that so you need to add in ...

selling the club and not speaking to him

ousting the board and not telling him 

why would a billionaire need weirs  money 

Perhaps the new board were 'frustrated' in their attempts to speak to him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Fans get involved in running Thistle? Take a look at this forum and that will tell you why that is the worst idea of the lot so far. Also when there is a big payout to be made, transfer or stadium repairs are said fans gonna dip into the pockets and pay? I didnie think so

The current board are not going to dip into their pockets.  Springford said it would be better if we could get crowds of 5000 and a good run in the cup.  Far easier said than done unfortunately 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

And to my mind the biggest risk is where we currently are, with a board that don't want to be there and apparently cutting all costs to make us more attractive for sale. 

Mad idea, but any idea how much it would cost to buy the club ? Could it be done with some sort of crowd funding ? I know there are then ongoing costs, but atleast we would be run by and for the fans. (I did say it was a mad idea)

A view that divides the support. And an approach equally not without risk.

However, Falkirk launched a scheme last season, and I would love the Trusts to be accumulating a war chest through pledges from supporters just even as an exercise to see what number we could get to.

Unfortunately, its hard to see us getting to the kind of numbers required.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

The current board are not going to dip into their pockets.  Springford said it would be better if we could get crowds of 5000 and a good run in the cup.  Far easier said than done unfortunately 

The guy needs a reality check. Even in the Top 6 season I wouldn’t imagine the jags fans at any home game would have exceeded 3500. The hopes of a cup run are unlikely given the squad is incomplete and we don’t have a prolific strike force. Being honest, unless there is a complete change of mind by someone we are looking at mid to bottom level of this league this season and that will probably see a further reduction in gates!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Consortium could take control of the Club for something over £3m based on the 2017 balance sheet valuation of £6m.   Assuming that neither the two fans' trusts nor the Weirs would be willing to sell that leaves them needing to buy about 80% of the remaining shares. That high % might push up the share price offer from the consortium, and should force Beattie et al to drive a hard bargain.

The fans' trusts therefore need to stand firm and not roll over.  They should be asking hard questions, and certainly asking for a seat on the new board.

If the consortium pull another Nice trick and load the Club with debt used to buy our shares and charge the same 9% interest on the loan, that would wipe out the operating profit in the 2017 results, or would reduce the playing budget.  And that is assuming no repayment of loan capital.

Given the amount that the Weirs have invested in the Club and the promise of more via the training ground, that £3m+ seems a paltry amount, and throws into sharp perspective the idiocy of Beattie in failing to persuade the Weirs of his good intentions before turning up with Sheriff Officers and sacking the Board.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fiduciary duty of directors is to all shareholders. I don't know French company law but the point is they had 100% control after removing the 20% retained by the old chairman.

It is a different landscape in the UK, and in this deal in particular. There are two things which I think ought to 'keep them honest' :

1. Fiduciary duty laws for directors

2. Minority interest and derivative action legislation brought in by last iteration of Companies Act

This means that the Trust(s) do have indirect power - not that this should stop them seeking direct power too - and means with the right advice available to  the Trusts, in the doomsday scenarios, I think a real battle could be put up with owners attempting to saddle a club they only own 55% of with debt.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

First Ive never done the lottery so can hardly be jealous of his picking of 6 Numbers - second why on any level would I be jealous of Colin Weir - seriously mate you really talk some nonsense - I argued six months ago reference the Weir involvement on this Forum - my stance has not changed on any level - jealously - I did a Cross Country Run through Mugdock yesterday the same run Ive been doing since my early 20s - Im in my late 50s - Colin Weir can keep his Euro Millions _ I will take my Cross Country Run every day 

Colin Weir did a cross country run in Mugdock yesterday but the difference is he done it for twice as long, he owns Mugdock and his water bottle was filled with the tears of Jim Alexander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet more reasons for the two Trusts to either merge or act as one, and avoid any divide and rule tactics of the Board/Consortium.  The PTFC Trust should also divest themselves of their three Board appointees to give them freedom of action and to become completely independent of the Board for the reasons you infer JAF.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jaf said:

The fiduciary duty of directors is to all shareholders. I don't know French company law but the point is they had 100% control after removing the 20% retained by the old chairman.

It is a different landscape in the UK, and in this deal in particular. There are two things which I think ought to 'keep them honest' :

1. Fiduciary duty laws for directors

2. Minority interest and derivative action legislation brought in by last iteration of Companies Act

This means that the Trust(s) do have indirect power - not that this should stop them seeking direct power too - and means with the right advice available to  the Trusts, in the doomsday scenarios, I think a real battle could be put up with owners attempting to saddle a club they only own 55% of with debt.

 

 

I think a bit of a reality check in this ....you are technically correct but we are a small private company let’s just say the rigour of legal enforcement might be somewhat lacking particularly as minority shareholders probably won’t do anything 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lindau said:

The guy needs a reality check. Even in the Top 6 season I wouldn’t imagine the jags fans at any home game would have exceeded 3500. The hopes of a cup run are unlikely given the squad is incomplete and we don’t have a prolific strike force. Being honest, unless there is a complete change of mind by someone we are looking at mid to bottom level of this league this season and that will probably see a further reduction in gates!

Out of likes but completely agree 

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...