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

6 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.

Out of likes but for me this highlights concerns with the consortium 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I think the exam question for those supporting the consortium is pretty simple...

If they say pay £2-3m buying a controlling stake in the club how do they get that money back plus a profit ? 

By buying promising young players relatively cheap and selling them 2 years later at a profit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

By buying promising young players relatively cheap and selling them 2 years later at a profit

I think four things about that 

1. That’s a risky strategy and may not work as everyone from Celtic down us trying to do that 

2. We are doing that ourselves now anyway what added value do they bring 

3. As yet with Barnsley that hasn’t been overly successful 

4. It’s not concerned with us being successful on the park 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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.

Probably the post I can most identify with re expressing my concerns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

By buying promising young players relatively cheap and selling them 2 years later at a profit

A. I'm sure every club would like to do this, but it's easier said than done

B. I'm sure billionaires could find much easier ways to make money

C. This fundamentally means that Thistle results are not the objective, at best they might coincide

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

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

I think four things about that 

1. That’s a risky strategy and may not work as everyone from Celtic down us trying to do that 

2. We are doing that ourselves now anyway what added value do they bring 

3. As yet with Barnsley that hasn’t been overly successful 

4. It’s not concerned with us being successful on the park 

It might not have been under the consortium, but Barnsley bought Lindsay for £350K - 3 years later they sold him for £2M less our sell on fee. That is a fairly hefty profit !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

I think four things about that 

1. That’s a risky strategy and may not work as everyone from Celtic down us trying to do that 

2. We are doing that ourselves now anyway what added value do they bring 

3. As yet with Barnsley that hasn’t been overly successful 

4. It’s not concerned with us being successful on the park 

Hadn't seen this. Very similar thoughts to my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

It might not have been under the consortium, but Barnsley bought Lindsay for £350K - 3 years later they sold him for £2M less our sell on fee. That is a fairly hefty profit !

They won't be spending 350k on players for Thistle. So the whole thing would be a much smaller scale than either Barnsley or Nice. 

Less investment, less return. 169 pages and it still makes no sense to me. Scotty's suggestion that they want to test the rules is the best explanation I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, allyo said:

They won't be spending 350k on players for Thistle. So the whole thing would be a much smaller scale than either Barnsley or Nice. 

Less investment, less return. 169 pages and it still makes no sense to me. Scotty's suggestion that they want to test the rules is the best explanation I've seen.

Transformational it ain’t ....more like meh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the Barnsley v Brentford game on Sky. Stated at beginning that both sets of fans disgruntled with lack of investment after selling a lot of their best players at the end of last season. Interesting that the Barnsley teams average age is 22 which is very low for a championship side. They do seem to be lacking a few experienced players at that level. 1-1 at HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lenziejag said:

I have no idea how much their outlay was. But making approx 3 times their outlay in 1 transaction isn’t bad and shows how they can make money.

Yes they can make money but the problem is with both clubs they have bought shares in there has been no investment going into the clubs. They're buying players only to sell them on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I have no idea how much their outlay was. But making approx 3 times their outlay in 1 transaction isn’t bad and shows how they can make money.

For every success story like Liam Lindsay you can find half a dozen that cost them money. In the same window there were loads, like Cole Kpekawa signed for 500k and later freed.

All of this is stupid anyway because Thistle, and in general Scottish clubs, don’t sell players for £3mil. By default the margins are much lower so you need to sell loads more players to make much money at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Lindau said:

Barnsley fans not happy. Cant blame them, they were awful. Young side with no experienced heads to guide them!

 

http://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/board-out.283652/

If Beattie and Co think this is a good template for us , I’m genuinely worried,  no investment in Barnsley and the billionaire business people also took out a loan which Barnsley Football Club are financing .

 

  • Like 2
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...