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

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Obviuosly not that bright

 

11 minutes ago, Thistleberight said:

Thicko

My hope that the ramblings on this thread might eventually formulate the complete works of Shakespeare is dwindling. Although, the exchange above is possibly heading towards a tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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)

Yes it is a mad idea.

Look at the amount of squabbling on this forum ( on practically every topic), can you imagine what it be like if the fans actually had control of the board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.  

And David Beattie’s responsibility is exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sandbank boy said:

Yes it is a mad idea.

Look at the amount of squabbling on this forum ( on practically every topic), can you imagine what it be like if the fans actually had control of the board?

Let me dream. It was a lovely dream which also included Lewis Mansell scoring 20 goals on our way to the Scottish Cup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, javeajag said:

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 

I don't agree - but then I was involved in the case where the new derivative action under Companies Act was used for the first time, so perhaps have more knowledge of this than anyone ever should have!!

That was my point, the trusts are minority shareholders and we should be emboldening them with resource (be that a war chest of cash to get lawyers or time of people who have some expertise in this area) so that they can do something about this should the need arise.

It is also important for the exiting shareholders and the buyers to know we know this.

You can sit and speculate and complain about what might happen (a strange reality), or you can use the tools under law at your disposal that have successfully been used before. I think raising awareness among the trust elected members (and they may have that knowledge already) is a good thing, and ultimately we do have a protection. As the trusts are an extension of us as supporters, if the minority shareholders do nothing, it is us to blame for not convincing them and resourcing them to allow them to pursue something - in the event that it is required. It, of course, does not sit well with a scaremongering rhetoric.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Let me dream. It was a lovely dream which also included Lewis Mansell scoring 20 goals on our way to the Scottish Cup

Dreams are are permitted DD.

When I was a very wee boy I always dreamt we'd win something ( and in my dream it was by stuffing one of the ugly sisters)

Then, that glorious day in October '71  came along.  

See? They do come true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jaf said:

I don't agree - but then I was involved in the case where the new derivative action under Companies Act was used for the first time, so perhaps have more knowledge of this than anyone ever should have!!

That was my point, the trusts are minority shareholders and we should be emboldening them with resource (be that a war chest of cash to get lawyers or time of people who have some expertise in this area) so that they can do something about this should the need arise.

It is also important for the exiting shareholders and the buyers to know we know this.

You can sit and speculate and complain about what might happen (a strange reality), or you can use the tools under law at your disposal that have successfully been used before. I think raising awareness among the trust elected members (and they may have that knowledge already) is a good thing, and ultimately we do have a protection. As the trusts are an extension of us as supporters, if the minority shareholders do nothing, it is us to blame for not convincing them and resourcing them to allow them to pursue something - in the event that it is required. It, of course, does not sit well with a scaremongering rhetoric.

 

 

One trust is actually controlled by the board and the other is in beatties pocket .... they will do nothing except hold  a few meetings and  then roll over and have their tummies  tickled 

Edited by javeajag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said JAF, and I certainly don't subscribe to the view that a fan led buyout would be the disaster some on here are predicting. 

For a Trusts/Weir consortium that already owns slightly over 36% of voting shares, about £1m-£2m would be needed to purchase a controlling interest from other shareholders.  And that assumes existing shareholders have to be bought out and cannot be persuaded to sign up to the new regime.  Not completely unrealistic. 

Even if a loan was raised to buy these other shares, the cost would be much less than if the Consortium did the same and charged the Nice 9%.  It would also give control to fans with a genuine long term interest in the Club.

The fan base is not going to change significantly irrespective of team performance, and keeping the finance costs of the Club as low as possible gives the flexibility needed for long term success. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, javeajag said:

One trust is actually controlled by the board and the other is in beatties pocket .... they will do nothing except hold  a few meetings and  then roll over and have their tummies  tickled 

The PTFC Trust has more fan apponted trustees than Board appointed trustees, so how is it controlled by the Board?

Edited by eljaggo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Obviuosly not that bright - - why on any level would I ever in a Million Years be jealous of Colin Weir- seriously ? 

What has Colin Weir ever done that I would on any level be jealous of ? 

The point of the Cross Country Run is simple all the money in the World doesn't buy it ? 

 

And another thing, if you're making a not very bright in reference to the moniker, it's be right, not bright. I shall refrain from further name calling so as not to upset @BowenBoys, as I'd hate for him to miss out on a capulet / Montague type scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jaf said:

That was my point, the trusts are minority shareholders and we should be emboldening them with resource (be that a war chest of cash to get lawyers or time of people who have some expertise in this area) so that they can do something about this should the need arise.

That's what my final question at Saturday's Q&A was all about - emboldening and empowering the Trusts. 

I contacted the Jags Trust via Twitter last night to suggest that a meeting of its members would be timely. As I said elsewhere, I think it has questions to answer about the conclusions it reached re. the proposed takeover, but setting that aside I'd hope that any meeting would cover the points you've raised this morning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, javeajag said:

One trust is actually controlled by the board and the other is in beatties pocket .... they will do nothing except hold  a few meetings and  then roll over and have their tummies  tickled 

I think it was quite evident from both the comments and questions that the PTFC Trust is not controlled by the board. I know you didn't have the benefit of being there.

But there are elections in October in which if you are eligible to stand you should. do so. Then you can influence the way they act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

That's what my final question at Saturday's Q&A was all about - emboldening and empowering the Trusts. 

I contacted the Jags Trust via Twitter last night to suggest that a meeting of its members would be timely. As I said elsewhere, I think it has questions to answer about the conclusions it reached re. the proposed takeover, but setting that aside I'd hope that any meeting would cover the points you've raised this morning.

On same page.

Although, we cannot undo what they decided in past, and so for me the energy is better served making it fit for purpose moving forward.

Edited by jaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thistleberight said:

Thicko

 

1 hour ago, BowenBoys said:

My hope that the ramblings on this thread might eventually formulate the complete works of Shakespeare is dwindling. Although, the exchange above is possibly heading towards a tragedy.

Think you'll find Thomas Thicko (Nick Bottom's second cousin) was the seventh Rude Mechanical in the unedited version of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jags Trust has just emailed me to suggest that the Consortium would determine who (all Trust members or Trust board members only) would attend any meeting with the Trust(s).  I have emailed back to point out that since the Trusts asked for the meeting, they should chair it and determine who attends and also of course set the agenda. 

The Trusts certainly need empowering.  An early joint meeting of both Trusts and their members would be worthwhile, and hopefully stiffen their resolve.

Edited by eljaggo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

This thread is, understandably, generating some heated debate but it's stepping over the mark on occasion to the degree that posts are being reported due to "personal abuse". 

PMs have been sent asking for this to stop but this is a gentle, public, request for all to try and cut out the abuse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, admin said:

This thread is, understandably, generating some heated debate but it's stepping over the mark on occasion to the degree that posts are being reported due to "personal abuse". 

PMs have been sent asking for this to stop but this is a gentle, public, request for all to try and cut out the abuse. 

Well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

The Jags Trust has just emailed me to suggest that the Consortium would determine who (all Trust members or Trust board members only) would attend any meeting with the Trust(s).  I have emailed back to point out that since the Trusts asked for the meeting, they should chair it and determine who attends and also of course set the agenda. 

The Trusts certainly need empowering.  An early joint meeting of both Trusts and their members would be worthwhile, and hopefully stiffen their resolve.

Was that a member-wide email, or an email to you personally?

And has it stated that it is open to having members present and will ask this of the consortium, or that it will purely ask the consortium for a meeting and let the consortium dictate the terms?

Edited by Dark Passenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok so we now have No Funding for the Youth Academy as it was a stand alone organisation under the auspices of Colin Weir - Club had no direct control 

I very much doubt that is the case . 

If, however, we assume you are correct and Colin Weir withdrawing means there is now no direct funding for the Youth academy, then the Board have a decision to make.

From the finite resources available , how much if any do we want to allocate towards running the Youth academy.?

This requires the Board to have a hierarchy of aims/ costs/ commitments.

Eg- Keep the Youth Academy fully funded but reduce Staff wages by 10% OR Keep the Youth Academy fully funded and increase admission prices by 20%. OR Wind up the Youth Academy Or- any host of other combinations/options.

It is all about choices. None of this means that the Club were not absolutely correct to take whatever money Colin Weir was willing to donate  and have greatly benefited from so doing.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has completely lost their marbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Derby Jag said:

I've been a season ticket holder for well beyond the three (?) year requirement to join the new trust but have never heard a peep out of them. Should I have?

Yes, I'm in the same boat despite speaking to one of the members face to face and providing my email address. 

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...