New Owner

[scotty]

8 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Just to echo Phil - we have won today, questions can be asked tomorrow. Let's just enjoy this strange feeling a bit longer please.

And there's even a thread we can do that in. 

[sandy]

21 minutes ago, BowenBoys said:

Give it a rest guys, it's so dull. We've won. Let's just enjoy that this evening.

Indeed Phil, cheers guys

[Lenziejag]

7 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

My point is how long is the transitional board in place for? A month or a year and who selects them and how?

Im not against fan ownership but it seems less than  10% of our fan base is interested in this model (263 people) generating £50k a year if they all follow up on their pledges and stay interested.  Without Weir that would have taken 80 years to buy out the club and Propco.

Also based on this level of support, what happens if we need emergency cash, who is the go to person that can fund something there and then, even from a cash flow point of view. Previously that was Oliver, Allan, Beattie etc.  If the floodlights fail for example or we need to repair part of the stand after a storm.

The GDPR was not a red herring, I contacted them to highlight it, so they could fix it.  This was highlighted by others to them weeks ago on Twitter,  I contacted them directly on Thursday and after initially stating they didn’t need it they have now said they will fix it when I reminded them of the actual legislation. Hopefully they follow through on this, not only for themselves but for the 263 people who have registered their data.

 

I have been largely agreeing with you throughout this thread. However, I think getting 10% of the fan base to pledge in less than a month is quite impressive. The original idea wasn’t to buy out propco but only buy 24% of the shares.

You have put a value of £4M on the shares, so only £1M was needed.

You say without Weir it would take now revised 20 years - but Weir is involved, so that point is no longer relevant?

For any emergency funding, I guess Weir will still be there - otherwise normal business management would need to come into play. Whether that is reserving some operating profit each year, taking on a loan or raising more capital from existing or new shareholders, or hopefully getting year on year windfalls from academy players getting sold on. 

 

[Lenziejag]

7 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

It’s better to be owned by people who know how to run a business at a profit and have finances to cover any eventuality. If that’s Jags fans (Like Beattie) then that’s a plus.  Forget the heartstrings being tugged here, currently the model will only generate £50k a year if all follow through with their pledges and to the level mentioned. I know bowling clubs that generate more.

Come on Norge, the £50K is extra income not total income

[Lenziejag]

6 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

No banking facilities means we do not have access to an overdraft or short term loan facilities at the bank

I think that in one of the old board statements, they planned to get a loan and I believe that was confirmed at the AGM on how the old board were going to finance this season’s budget ?

[Lenziejag]

5 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

The statement (plan) isn’t to survive in premiership it’s to be a sustainable top 6 team. 

We thought a couple of years ago that we were about to challenge that and that was without additional finance. It isn’t that unrealistic.

[scotty]

4 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I think that in one of the old board statements, they planned to get a loan and I believe that was confirmed at the AGM on how the old board were going to finance this season’s budget ?

I haven't seen the accounts or a published report from the AGM so can only go from what was reported on here from someone present.

"I was there.  The “old board” budget was planning to run at £700K deficit using £600K we have in bank, topped up by a loan of up to £350K as required. The current prediction is to run at ~£100K deficit. Much of difference was down to player sales and this League Cup run .  They were very clear to state that this windfall would be open to “old board” as well as “new board”.  

This reads a bit differently from the reactive posts which suggest that Thistle were heading for financial disaster before the current board came back. Two different ways of approaching a budget and who's to say the old board wouln't have used the "windfall" in the same way or if it hadn't come in the new board wouldn't have budgeted the same?.

[thru thin and thin]

As I see it, there exists, three options:

1 - Consortium deal goes through - New owners with possible potential to invest.

2 - TfE/Colin Weir deal goes through - Community ownership donated to the fans. 

3 - Status Quo - Both of the above options fail to come to fruition.

Do not know enough about option 1 to come to a conclusion, but have concerns. Concerns about option 2 also: Colin Weir wishing to cover the cost of buying the necessary share holding to donate to the control of an organisation that we know very little about? A group of fans.

Buying the shares is the easy bit, that is to stand still. To invest in the future would most certainly require significant further and regular funds. I do not believe our hardcore base of support 2000/2500 can sustain this in the mid to long term through a pledge scheme. Do we hope that Colin Weir is prepared to underwrite this further investment on an ongoing basis? Colin Weir is not a young fellow and I am led to believe, unfortunately does not enjoy good health.

Remember Gretna FC. Philanthropic and well meaning benefactor passes away. His family have no desire to continue backing a football club.................the rest is well documented!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Norgethistle]

3 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Just to echo Phil - we have won today, questions can be asked tomorrow. Let's just enjoy this strange feeling a bit longer please.

There’s more that unites us than divides us.

 

cheers chaps 

 

yes I am bonkers for conkers 

 

I wanna be mccalled

 

[allyo]

You McCall me

[jagfox]

The mods @admin should lock this thread when games are on. Psychobabble from folk who aren't even at the games...

 

[Norgethistle]

5 minutes ago, jagfox said:

The mods @admin should lock this thread when games are on. Psychobabble from folk who aren't even at the games...

 

Bollocks

[jagfox]

6 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Bollocks

^^^ psychobabbler #1 

[Norgethistle]

Just now, jagfox said:

^^^ psychobabbler #1 

Delighted with 3 pts 

[jagfox]

8 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Delighted with 3 pts 

Just pulling your plonk mate. A great day. Hopefully catch up soon x

[jagfox]

I don't give a f$#k about who the new owner is as long as they support Ian and his backroom staff when it comes down to it.

Puts me off the feeder system route but you never know. A good player is a good player irrespective if they are on loan or signed to the club.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, jagfox said:

Puts me off the feeder system route but you never know. A good player is a good player irrespective if they are on loan or signed to the club.

Probably of similar mind. I don't like the idea that our future depends on the quality of players who spend one season maximum at Firhill. Never to be in a position to hold onto players from our own volition alone. Even if the model makes complete sense, and I'm not questioning the commercial judgment, the idea that no matter how much success we achieve we'll always be second fiddle to Barnsley FC is galling. 

[jagfox]

7 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Probably of similar mind. I don't like the idea that our future depends on the quality of players who spend one season maximum at Firhill. Never to be in a position to hold onto players from our own volition alone. Even if the model makes complete sense, and I'm not questioning the commercial judgment, the idea that no matter how much success we achieve we'll always be second fiddle to Barnsley FC is galling. 

Better the (red, Yella  and black) devil's we know...

[north stander]

12 hours ago, javeajag said:

Explain how the venture capitalists make us sustainable 

 

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

They wont run out of cash thats one thing 

 

5 hours ago, thru thin and thin said:

As I see it, there exists, three options:

1 - Consortium deal goes through - New owners with possible potential to invest.

 

Apologies for selective quoting, I could have picked any number of posts, but these three recent ones encapsulate a question I'd like to raise.

I keep reading on here that these foreign venture capitalists will have the wherewithall and deep enough pockets to invest in PTFC. However, and I admit I haven't been researching 24/7 on it, but can anyone point me to cold hard factual evidence of what they invested into Nice and Barnsley, and more pertinently at what specific risk to them (the venture capitalists)? 

From what I have read (and I may be wrong, hence asking the question), they bought both Nice and Barnsley and whatever money they "put into" these clubs, was simply added to the clubs balance sheet as debt to be paid back to them, while they also reaped sizeable fees for their involvement.  As far as I can see, they didn't fund the likes of player signings from their own pockets, it was raised against the clubs, the purchase of the clubs was covered by mortgaging the clubs assets - and while they sold Nice for a tidy profit, that appears to be off the back of a good couple of seasons by the teams performance, and with Barnsley they also seem to have sold their best players in the summer.

PTFC, as much as I'd like them to be, is no Nice, nor is it even a Barnsley, in terms of what they can generate from TV deals, attendances, sponsorship, prize money etc either.

As far as I can see from all the speculation and (the limited amount of) whats been said in the media (as we have heard nothing official in terms of a press release or a public engagement with the fans), they plan to use PTFC as a feeder club, and their ownership of PTFC would follow the same model as Barnsley and Nice.  So, it appears, if the venture capitalists "bought" PTFC and "invested" in it, all these financial transactions would be put onto the club, so PTFC basically "pays for the privilege" of them being owners, and the club goes into debt, while they also take a sizeable chunk from the club for their time.

So, in essence it currently appears to me, the venture capitalists cannot lose out financially - best case scenario they improve us and sell us in a few year for a tidy profit (and would the new new owners then do the same, and put their investment/purchase on to the club, so even greater debt?) - worst case scenario, they don't lose any money, and still make a tidy sum for their time owning us by taking money out the club for their fees, and get their original purchase amount, and any money they "put into the club", back in full, as it's been put onto the club as debt in order to pay them back their purchase outlay. So no risk of financial loss to them either way - but if it doesn't work where PTFC end up being "worth more" than before they came in, they can walk away and leave the club saddled with whatever debt that may be.

Am I wrong?

As I said at outset, if anyone can disprove how things look to how they bought and invested in Barnsley and Nice, and the above scenario I foresee for PTFC if the venture capitalists do end up owning the club (or company if anyone wants to be pedantic), and point me to hard evidence that this is not their model and way of doing things, I would be much obliged.

[Dick Dastardly]

3 hours ago, north stander said:

 

 

 

Apologies for selective quoting, I could have picked any number of posts, but these three recent ones encapsulate a question I'd like to raise.

I keep reading on here that these foreign venture capitalists will have the wherewithall and deep enough pockets to invest in PTFC. However, and I admit I haven't been researching 24/7 on it, but can anyone point me to cold hard factual evidence of what they invested into Nice and Barnsley, and more pertinently at what specific risk to them (the venture capitalists)? 

From what I have read (and I may be wrong, hence asking the question), they bought both Nice and Barnsley and whatever money they "put into" these clubs, was simply added to the clubs balance sheet as debt to be paid back to them, while they also reaped sizeable fees for their involvement.  As far as I can see, they didn't fund the likes of player signings from their own pockets, it was raised against the clubs, the purchase of the clubs was covered by mortgaging the clubs assets - and while they sold Nice for a tidy profit, that appears to be off the back of a good couple of seasons by the teams performance, and with Barnsley they also seem to have sold their best players in the summer.

PTFC, as much as I'd like them to be, is no Nice, nor is it even a Barnsley, in terms of what they can generate from TV deals, attendances, sponsorship, prize money etc either.

As far as I can see from all the speculation and (the limited amount of) whats been said in the media (as we have heard nothing official in terms of a press release or a public engagement with the fans), they plan to use PTFC as a feeder club, and their ownership of PTFC would follow the same model as Barnsley and Nice.  So, it appears, if the venture capitalists "bought" PTFC and "invested" in it, all these financial transactions would be put onto the club, so PTFC basically "pays for the privilege" of them being owners, and the club goes into debt, while they also take a sizeable chunk from the club for their time.

So, in essence it currently appears to me, the venture capitalists cannot lose out financially - best case scenario they improve us and sell us in a few year for a tidy profit (and would the new new owners then do the same, and put their investment/purchase on to the club, so even greater debt?) - worst case scenario, they don't lose any money, and still make a tidy sum for their time owning us by taking money out the club for their fees, and get their original purchase amount, and any money they "put into the club", back in full, as it's been put onto the club as debt in order to pay them back their purchase outlay. So no risk of financial loss to them either way - but if it doesn't work where PTFC end up being "worth more" than before they came in, they can walk away and leave the club saddled with whatever debt that may be.

Am I wrong?

As I said at outset, if anyone can disprove how things look to how they bought and invested in Barnsley and Nice, and the above scenario I foresee for PTFC if the venture capitalists do end up owning the club (or company if anyone wants to be pedantic), and point me to hard evidence that this is not their model and way of doing things, I would be much obliged.

I agree with a lot of what you say and it covers many of my concerns, however it doesn’t explain “why Thistle”. If the plan was simply loaning Barnsley kids (which I believe started as speculation on this forum and never confirmed) or simply lumping us with debt then there must be easier clubs on the continent which don’t require the same dual ownership scrutiny and probably play at a higher standard. To my mind there has to be something else behind it, but in the absence of any hard facts, I am clueless, and very concerned, as to what that might be.

[javeajag]

3 hours ago, north stander said:

 

 

 

Apologies for selective quoting, I could have picked any number of posts, but these three recent ones encapsulate a question I'd like to raise.

I keep reading on here that these foreign venture capitalists will have the wherewithall and deep enough pockets to invest in PTFC. However, and I admit I haven't been researching 24/7 on it, but can anyone point me to cold hard factual evidence of what they invested into Nice and Barnsley, and more pertinently at what specific risk to them (the venture capitalists)? 

From what I have read (and I may be wrong, hence asking the question), they bought both Nice and Barnsley and whatever money they "put into" these clubs, was simply added to the clubs balance sheet as debt to be paid back to them, while they also reaped sizeable fees for their involvement.  As far as I can see, they didn't fund the likes of player signings from their own pockets, it was raised against the clubs, the purchase of the clubs was covered by mortgaging the clubs assets - and while they sold Nice for a tidy profit, that appears to be off the back of a good couple of seasons by the teams performance, and with Barnsley they also seem to have sold their best players in the summer.

PTFC, as much as I'd like them to be, is no Nice, nor is it even a Barnsley, in terms of what they can generate from TV deals, attendances, sponsorship, prize money etc either.

As far as I can see from all the speculation and (the limited amount of) whats been said in the media (as we have heard nothing official in terms of a press release or a public engagement with the fans), they plan to use PTFC as a feeder club, and their ownership of PTFC would follow the same model as Barnsley and Nice.  So, it appears, if the venture capitalists "bought" PTFC and "invested" in it, all these financial transactions would be put onto the club, so PTFC basically "pays for the privilege" of them being owners, and the club goes into debt, while they also take a sizeable chunk from the club for their time.

So, in essence it currently appears to me, the venture capitalists cannot lose out financially - best case scenario they improve us and sell us in a few year for a tidy profit (and would the new new owners then do the same, and put their investment/purchase on to the club, so even greater debt?) - worst case scenario, they don't lose any money, and still make a tidy sum for their time owning us by taking money out the club for their fees, and get their original purchase amount, and any money they "put into the club", back in full, as it's been put onto the club as debt in order to pay them back their purchase outlay. So no risk of financial loss to them either way - but if it doesn't work where PTFC end up being "worth more" than before they came in, they can walk away and leave the club saddled with whatever debt that may be.

Am I wrong?

As I said at outset, if anyone can disprove how things look to how they bought and invested in Barnsley and Nice, and the above scenario I foresee for PTFC if the venture capitalists do end up owning the club (or company if anyone wants to be pedantic), and point me to hard evidence that this is not their model and way of doing things, I would be much obliged.

Great post and I don’t think you’ve missed a thing 

there seems to be misconception that of course these guys will make money buts that’s ok because  that means Thistle will be doing well ......and that’s just wrong.....they will ensure they get their money back irrespective of how the team is doing 

first thing they will do is put us into debt 

[Jaggernaut]

11 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Great post and I don’t think you’ve missed a thing 

there seems to be misconception that of course these guys will make money buts that’s ok because  that means Thistle will be doing well ......and that’s just wrong.....they will ensure they get their money back irrespective of how the team is doing 

first thing they will do is put us into debt 

If there's a real danger of that then we should not allow them to touch us with a bargepole. Or with any other kind of pole. Or indeed any kind of object, or even hands on.

[Lenziejag]

10 hours ago, thru thin and thin said:

As I see it, there exists, three options:

1 - Consortium deal goes through - New owners with possible potential to invest.

2 - TfE/Colin Weir deal goes through - Community ownership donated to the fans. 

3 - Status Quo - Both of the above options fail to come to fruition.

Do not know enough about option 1 to come to a conclusion, but have concerns. Concerns about option 2 also: Colin Weir wishing to cover the cost of buying the necessary share holding to donate to the control of an organisation that we know very little about? A group of fans.

Buying the shares is the easy bit, that is to stand still. To invest in the future would most certainly require significant further and regular funds. I do not believe our hardcore base of support 2000/2500 can sustain this in the mid to long term through a pledge scheme. Do we hope that Colin Weir is prepared to underwrite this further investment on an ongoing basis? Colin Weir is not a young fellow and I am led to believe, unfortunately does not enjoy good health.

Remember Gretna FC. Philanthropic and well meaning benefactor passes away. His family have no desire to continue backing a football club.................the rest is well documented!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn’t the main purpose of tfe to ensure that the future of PTFC is in the hands of the fans. As far as I believe we aren’t in financial trouble, we have a budget just about breaks even. There isn’t any need for investment beyond what is provided by our operations. 

The current shareholders weren’t in the habit of putting money in.

The difference between Gretna and us is that Gretna’s benefactor was funding the day to day running of the club.

[Dick Dastardly]

13 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Come on Norge, the £50K is extra income not total income

And that is £50k more than the consortium are likely to put in. They will be looking to make a profit... ie take money out

[javeajag]

30 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Isn’t the main purpose of tfe to ensure that the future of PTFC is in the hands of the fans. As far as I believe we aren’t in financial trouble, we have a budget just about breaks even. There isn’t any need for investment beyond what is provided by our operations. 

The current shareholders weren’t in the habit of putting money in.

The difference between Gretna and us is that Gretna’s benefactor was funding the day to day running of the club.

Exactly right ....in fact I think TFE have explicitly said we will operate within our financial limits