New Owner

[Dick Dastardly]

Mike Ashley had more than 10% of both Newcastle and Rangers. He also made several loans between the clubs

Edited August 21, 2019 by Dick Dastardly

[jaf]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

Ok I won’t go into how patronising you sound ...

your post has two questions, a fact and and then speculation.....not exactly covering yourself in glory there with speculative musings 

FYI I do understand a little about working capital as I chair a small  company .....maybe rather than show your technical knowledge you might consider that making the simple complicated isn’t necessarily a good thing and our accounts are not that  complicated 

this all started with Beattie claiming it now looks falsely that there had been mis management and by cancelling  new spending in players  ....until we see the accounts we won’t know the details but you carry on 

You don't believe anything anyone says apart from one statement made by Norman Springford when you weren't in the room.

Lets see in due course whether the claim was 'falsely' made or not.

You are correct - the accounts aren't complicated, and furthermore they are publicly available.  Doesn't stop people ignoring them and making points which completely ignore reality.

I am sure you do understand all of this, and I genuinely apologise for patronising you, but if you have the knowledge as I suspect you do, and choose to ignore it, that's a little frustrating. 

Come the publication of the accounts, I will seek you out (in the virtual world) and confirm you were correct, in the event that turns out to be the case. Until then, lets wait and see. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by jaf

[jlsarmy]

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Mike Ashley had more than 10% of both Newcastle and Rangers. He also made several loans between the clubs

Mike Ashley wasn’t allowed to own Rangers for the reasons mentioned 

[Dick Dastardly]

8 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Mike Ashley wasn’t allowed to own Rangers for the reasons mentioned 

I stand corrected. He never had more than 8.92% and was stopped from raising that to 29.9%. I always thought he owned much more than that.

Also proves that you can’t believe everything you read in this thread.

[stolenscone]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

It’s not  really a popularity contest though is it ? You have your view so just block me out and ignore any posts 

I have often found you to be one of the more sensible posters, and (to my mind) you often have an interesting view. It feels a little as though you have the bit between your teeth on a particular point, though, which is manifesting itself in some rather unnecessary digs at other posters. I think it reflects badly on you as you don’t usually come across as one of the swivel eyed crazy people that forums often attract,  but who am I to comment.

Anyway, as far as I can tell.l, almost 130 pages could be boiled down to this: a couple of wealthy people are interested in buying the club. Nobody really knows why and nobody really knows whether or not it will go ahead.

I’ll wait and see what happens, and judge it from there.

[BowenBoys]

On 6/19/2019 at 6:22 PM, Jag said:

Anyone else hearing rumour of new owner coming in?  Chinese American.

 

30 minutes ago, stolenscone said:

I have often found you to be one of the more sensible posters, and (to my mind) you often have an interesting view. It feels a little as though you have the bit between your teeth on a particular point, though, which is manifesting itself in some rather unnecessary digs at other posters. I think it reflects badly on you as you don’t usually come across as one of the swivel eyed crazy people that forums often attract,  but who am I to comment.

Anyway, as far as I can tell.l, almost 130 pages could be boiled down to this: a couple of wealthy people are interested in buying the club. Nobody really knows why and nobody really knows whether or not it will go ahead.

I’ll wait and see what happens, and judge it from there.

At last.

[jaf]

2 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

JJ , the benefactor should have been the icing on the cake , in no way as you say should we have been reliant on Colin Weir , so at least we agree on that . What I totally disagree with is how this has all come about , there should have been dialogue between everyone after all its a business they’re meant to be running . When David Beattie stood down and passed on the baton to someone else , I’m sure he wouldn’t agree with every decision that the New Board has taken and vice versa I’m sure they probably didn’t agree with every decision that he thought was right ( not changing Archie before it was too late  as an example)

This scenario stinks of self interest, not for the good of our Club , we’ve put all our eggs in the one basket hoping that some investment company will fill the shareholders pockets regardless of the consequences.

Spoke to people within football and they can’t even understand why it’s even a starter in the first place .

The basic rules are you aren’t meant to have a shareholding of 10% in both clubs , and sporting integrity comes into play as obviously a major shareholder can affect both clubs , loan deals etc .

I’ll be surprised if this happens at all .

 

 

I am sure there are now also other examples missed from this list, I don't think any of these relationships existed ten years ago - MCO is of the moment.

Sheikh Mansour Manchester City, New York City FC, Al Jazira (Abu Dhabi), Melbourne City, Girona

Pozzo family Watford, Udinese (Italy), Granada (Spain).

Duchâtelet family Charlton Athletic, Standard Liège, Sint-Truiden (both Belgium), Carl Zeiss Jena (Germany), Alcorcon (Spain), Ujpest (Hungary).

Vincent Tan Cardiff City, FK Sarajevo (Bosnia).

Dietrich Mateschitz Red Bull Salzburg (Austria), Red Bull New York, Red Bull Brasil, RB Leipzig

[jlsarmy]

1 minute ago, jaf said:

 

I am sure there are now also other examples missed from this list, I don't think any of these relationships existed ten years ago - MCO is of the moment.

Sheikh Mansour Manchester City, New York City FC, Al Jazira (Abu Dhabi), Melbourne City, Girona

Pozzo family Watford, Udinese (Italy), Granada (Spain).

Duchâtelet family Charlton Athletic, Standard Liège, Sint-Truiden (both Belgium), Carl Zeiss Jena (Germany), Alcorcon (Spain), Ujpest (Hungary).

Vincent Tan Cardiff City, FK Sarajevo (Bosnia).

Dietrich Mateschitz Red Bull Salzburg (Austria), Red Bull New York, Red Bull Brasil, RB Leipzig

Get that but obviously no 2 clubs owned in the uk by one owner and from what I was told today the precedent was set re Rangers and Newcastle with Mike Ashley which was well documented.

[jaf]

27 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Get that but obviously no 2 clubs owned in the uk by one owner and from what I was told today the precedent was set re Rangers and Newcastle with Mike Ashley which was well documented.

I am not sure why that matters as they are separate leagues independent within UEFA. 

However, I do think the Scottish and English rules appear more onerous than other countries.  That can be argued both ways of course as to whether it is a good or bad thing.  

[ScottyDFA]

6 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

It appears that the consortium now only own Barnsley:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49426267

Freeing up capital for the Thistle purchase, no doubt.

 

[scotty]

8 hours ago, stolenscone said:

I have often found you to be one of the more sensible posters, and (to my mind) you often have an interesting view. It feels a little as though you have the bit between your teeth on a particular point, though, which is manifesting itself in some rather unnecessary digs at other posters. I think it reflects badly on you as you don’t usually come across as one of the swivel eyed crazy people that forums often attract,  but who am I to comment.

Anyway, as far as I can tell.l, almost 130 pages could be boiled down to this: a couple of wealthy people are interested in buying the club. Nobody really knows why and nobody really knows whether or not it will go ahead.

I’ll wait and see what happens, and judge it from there.

We also know that one board was replaced by another (rather unceremoniously) and no clear reason was given, We also know (and it has been confirmed by a board member)  that the club is very poor at communicating with fans.

So, perhaps all this speculation was only to be expected when you have a fan-base concerned about their club and being kept in the dark.

Edited August 22, 2019 by scotty

[Bobbyhouston]

9 hours ago, stolenscone said:

I have often found you to be one of the more sensible posters, and (to my mind) you often have an interesting view. It feels a little as though you have the bit between your teeth on a particular point, though, which is manifesting itself in some rather unnecessary digs at other posters. I think it reflects badly on you as you don’t usually come across as one of the swivel eyed crazy people that forums often attract,  but who am I to comment.

Anyway, as far as I can tell.l, almost 130 pages could be boiled down to this: a couple of wealthy people are interested in buying the club. Nobody really knows why and nobody really knows whether or not it will go ahead.

I’ll wait and see what happens, and judge it from there.

 

You could have cut to the chase and just said he’s acting like a dick 

 

[javeajag]

25 minutes ago, Bobbyhouston said:

 

You could have cut to the chase and just said he’s acting like a dick 

 

Nice.....care to expand 

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

Nice.....care to expand 

[stolenscone]

1 hour ago, Bobbyhouston said:

 

You could have cut to the chase and just said he’s acting like a dick 

 

I don’t think there’s really any need for that either, if I’m being honest.

[ARu-Strathbungo]

11 hours ago, stolenscone said:

I have often found you to be one of the more sensible posters, and (to my mind) you often have an interesting view. It feels a little as though you have the bit between your teeth on a particular point, though, which is manifesting itself in some rather unnecessary digs at other posters. I think it reflects badly on you as you don’t usually come across as one of the swivel eyed crazy people that forums often attract,  but who am I to comment.

Anyway, as far as I can tell.l, almost 130 pages could be boiled down to this: a couple of wealthy people are interested in buying the club. Nobody really knows why and nobody really knows whether or not it will go ahead.

I’ll wait and see what happens, and judge it from there.

yes

[Jordanhill Jag]

15 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

JJ , the benefactor should have been the icing on the cake , in no way as you say should we have been reliant on Colin Weir , so at least we agree on that . What I totally disagree with is how this has all come about , there should have been dialogue between everyone after all its a business they’re meant to be running . When David Beattie stood down and passed on the baton to someone else , I’m sure he wouldn’t agree with every decision that the New Board has taken and vice versa I’m sure they probably didn’t agree with every decision that he thought was right ( not changing Archie before it was too late  as an example)

This scenario stinks of self interest, not for the good of our Club , we’ve put all our eggs in the one basket hoping that some investment company will fill the shareholders pockets regardless of the consequences.

Spoke to people within football and they can’t even understand why it’s even a starter in the first place .

The basic rules are you aren’t meant to have a shareholding of 10% in both clubs , and sporting integrity comes into play as obviously a major shareholder can affect both clubs , loan deals etc .

I’ll be surprised if this happens at all .

 

From my perspective its simple - we are not going back to Thistle Fans Investing & being on the Board  Running The Club - thats over with the Pool of Fans with Cash to put in is long gone - we therefore have a Choice - A Group of Non Fans Running the Club but with no investment - that fir me makes no senses - A Group of Non Fans But with a Business Plan and have invested - that sort of stacks up 

If reports etc are anything to go with then its not a given that it will happen 

The Forward Plan will be simple - the Club will be run on breakeven budgets and will find  our level which reflects that - the Shareholders will appoint Directors from the Fan Base they are happy with and ensure there vision and financial strategy  reflects the Shareholders 

So thats it - the previous arrangement did not stack up on any level for me - just didnt make sense 

So going forward we will have New Owners / Investors or if not - New Directors from the Fanbase -  who reflect the views on the Club and Finances of the Shareholders and as Fans understand the Club and what we are about  - either of these Im happy with    

As for Benefactors - you simply work hard at engaging all the Fans with Businesses rather than having one large Benefactor as thats a big risk   

 

 

 

[Dark Passenger]

34 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If reports etc are anything to go with then its not a given that it will happen 

The takeover? What reports are those?

[Jordanhill Jag]

5 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

The takeover? What reports are those?

Ive seen various comments on Social Media - nothing official 

[Dick Dastardly]

I agree with your first statement that the pool of fans with cash has gone. However I do not agree that non-fans with no investment wont work. There is no reason for it not to.

As for the benefactor, we will never agree that it is a bad thing. I'd hate to think where we would be ("find our level") had Colin Weir not being involved. Yes the benefactor can pull his funding at short notice, but providing the board, however it is made up, don't piss him/her off, and you do not rely on him for day-to-day running costs then any additional funding has to be a good thing. I will never ever forgive Beattie for whatever happened between him and Colin Weir

[Woodstock Jag]

9 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

The takeover? What reports are those?

Haven’t various directors said (to the effect) that it was about 50-50 to go ahead? I think someone said RG said it at the open day and then there was that MC newspaper piece?

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I agree with your first statement that the pool of fans with cash has gone. However I do not agree that non-fans with no investment wont work. There is no reason for it not to.

As for the benefactor, we will never agree that it is a bad thing. I'd hate to think where we would be ("find our level") had Colin Weir not being involved. Yes the benefactor can pull his funding at short notice, but providing the board, however it is made up, don't piss him/her off, and you do not rely on him for day-to-day running costs then any additional funding has to be a good thing. I will never ever forgive Beattie for whatever happened between him and Colin Weir

Er... we were a Premier League club operating at an annual profit before Colin Weir got involved.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of how he’s been treated since, we were doing just fine.

[Dick Dastardly]

What I am saying is that in my opinion, having Colin Weir's money available has to be better than not having it available.

[Emsca]

2 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

What I am saying is that in my opinion, having Colin Weir's money available has to be better than not having it available.

Of course it does -as any sane person would recognise.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

16 minutes ago, Emsca said:

Of course it does -as any sane person would recognise.

Most certainly, but many churning their way thru 128 pages of this will already be doubting their sanity.