New Owner

[Norgethistle]

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Maybe the club told them ....no 

Why would the club tell them?

[Semi Nurainen]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

I have no connection with TFE ... I merely posted stuff they put out .... I do have a problem with people in here who support the consortium only by reference to not  liking tfe .....

not one person has put forward a positive case for the consortium after four months which to me is very telling 

jj said yesterday the consortium have a business track record and a plan .... today they don’t ! Who can support that 

who are the consortium .... do you know ?

F--k me! It has already been explained that the consortium is largely seen as the lesser of any of the available evils if the status quo is not available! Lesser than TfE. Could we be wrong? mibbe's aye, mibbe's naw. I have no more connection with the consortium that you have with TfE. But that's the only available choice at present. 

 

[javeajag]

9 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

F--k me! It has already been explained that the consortium is largely seen as the lesser of any of the available evils if the status quo is not available! Lesser than TfE. Could we be wrong? mibbe's aye, mibbe's naw. I have no more connection with the consortium that you have with TfE. But that's the only available choice at present. 

 

Look the consortium was on the table before TFE emerged and the Board was supportive - though never telling us why except it would be ‘transformational’ 

if we forget about TFE on the basis that the Board won’t sell to them again we are not told why how can anyone support a takeover of the club where 

1. We don’t know who is buying us 

2. we don t know what their plans are

3. we don’t know their track record 

these are basis basic things 

[allyo]

47 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Can we?  As soon as power is offered to people this quite often goes out the window. Look to the mess of the JT years ago, the board rep and basically 95% of MP’s MSP’s MEP’s to see how Being elevated to a position of power can corrupt

I think that's very unfair on MPs. But, different argument.

[Firhillista]

Jesus wept. I go out for a couple of hours and when I come back on here the argument for the consortium is now - 'we'd be no worse off'?! 

Seriously?

We're just going to ignore all the stories about the consortium's track record of piling up debt, of refusing to allow the signing of experienced players, of fallings out between the major players in the group and just say, yeah, great, you're 'business people' you know about money, it's great that you want to buy the club!

Democratically elected people are corrupt, but business people are to be trusted? Sorry, your Toryism is showing.

Not ONE suggestion from the 'business people' supporters on here as to how this consortium will be good for the club. Not one. 

 

[Semi Nurainen]

1 - I have read that the Chine Lee/Conway consortium New City Capital. That's all I know. 

2 - Some of this may be sub judice as is common in business takeovers - the Sunderland chairman (or whaveter) was on the fans' website explaining  this 'it's not like buying as house'. You must know this.

3 - Their track record is public domain if they are a limited company in the UK, but is visible at Nice and Barnsley - where the latter club gained promotion, and have now sacked a manager for poor results (as we have just done).

[allyo]

45 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

F--k me! It has already been explained that the consortium is largely seen as the lesser of any of the available evils if the status quo is not available! Lesser than TfE. Could we be wrong? mibbe's aye, mibbe's naw. I have no more connection with the consortium that you have with TfE. But that's the only available choice at present. 

 

I think it's fair to say that the majority of people on here would favour the TfE over the consortium.

Probably more in principle than on solid facts (given the general lack of them). Doesn't make it right. I just think the consortium bid naturally generates more unease.

 

[Semi Nurainen]

Don't dispute either claim, but people keep making up, and are still making up (look at Firhillista's recent post), things what are supposed to have been said by critics of TfE but never were said.

Watch my lips: 'lesser of two evils'.

[Firhillista]

Just now, Semi Nurainen said:

Don't dispute either claim, but people keep making up, and are still making up (look at Firhillista's recent post), things what are supposed to have been said by critics of TfE but never were said.

Watch my lips: 'lesser of two evils'.

Sorry? You want to point to something I made up? Where, exactly?

 

[allyo]

7 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

Don't dispute either claim, but people keep making up, and are still making up (look at Firhillista's recent post), things what are supposed to have been said by critics of TfE but never were said.

Watch my lips: 'lesser of two evils'.

Evil all the same. We're peeling you away from the dark side here Semi. :-)

[Semi Nurainen]

We can start with 'how this consortium will be good for the club'. Already stated many times, lesser of two evils.

(Still waiting to see how TfE will be good for the club, but never mind).

Then there's the 'big lie' that people who want some business skills on the board are Tories.

Don't tell a small lie when you can tell a big one.

[dl1971]

5 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

Don't dispute either claim, but people keep making up, and are still making up (look at Firhillista's recent post), things what are supposed to have been said by critics of TfE but never were said.

Watch my lips: 'lesser of two evils'.

Surely it would be better to say both options are flawed. Just because the consortium have an involvement in Nice/Barnsley does not make them appropriate for PTFC. Do you actually believe they will pump in millions to the club? WIll they make us more competitive? In the absence of evidence I remain wholly cynical. 

[Semi Nurainen]

1 minute ago, dl1971 said:

Surely it would be better to say both options are flawed. Just because the consortium have an involvement in Nice/Barnsley does not make them appropriate for PTFC. Do you actually believe they will pump in millions to the club? WIll they make us more competitive? In the absence of evidence I remain wholly cynical. 

Not disagreeing with that. I would point out that, for me, there is an equal absence of evidence that TfE will pump millions in/make us more competitive.

The experience of the Peoples Trusts of Judea don't inspire me either.

[jaf]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

They’ve stopped posting or updating for 2 weeks now, and not answered several folks questions on Twitter etc. So good luck getting an answer 

Perhaps they have entered a stage of negotiations where they have had to sign a confidentiality agreement?

Just to say - that's entirely speculation on my part

 

[Firhillista]

1 minute ago, Semi Nurainen said:

We can start with 'how this consortium will be good for the club'. Already stated many times, lesser of two evils.

(Still waiting to see how TfE will be good for the club, but never mind).

Then there's the 'big lie' that people who want some business skills on the board are Tories.

Don't tell a small lie when you can tell a big one.

 

You think trumpeting 'lesser of two evils' over and over makes a convincing case? Or are you now accepting that the consortium WON'T be good for the club?

Is it a 'big lie' that those who fetishise 'business people' are likely to be Tories? I doubt it. And even if they aren't, this view that only 'business people' can be trusted (and not any corruptible elected folk) is well deserving of the accusation of 'toryism'.

 

[delurker]

25 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

1 - I have read that the Chine Lee/Conway consortium New City Capital. That's all I know. 

2 - Some of this may be sub judice as is common in business takeovers - the Sunderland chairman (or whaveter) was on the fans' website explaining  this 'it's not like buying as house'. You must know this.

3 - Their track record is public domain if they are a limited company in the UK, but is visible at Nice and Barnsley - where the latter club gained promotion, and have now sacked a manager for poor results (as we have just done).

Good job I never tire of adding this to 'track record' claims; they were relegated first under the consortium before that promotion.

Track record shows zero on-field progress by either club compared to the season before the consortium bought them.

[jaf]

7 minutes ago, delurker said:

Good job I never tire of adding this to 'track record' claims; they were relegated first under the consortium before that promotion.

Track record shows zero on-field progress by either club compared to the season before the consortium bought them.

which is of course equally misleading because it would be correct to say they only took over mid way through that relegation season with the club I think already in the relegation places?

[Semi Nurainen]

17 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

 

You think trumpeting 'lesser of two evils' over and over makes a convincing case? Or are you now accepting that the consortium WON'T be good for the club?

Is it a 'big lie' that those who fetishise 'business people' are likely to be Tories? I doubt it. And even if they aren't, this view that only 'business people' can be trusted (and not any corruptible elected folk) is well deserving of the accusation of 'toryism'.

 

You're the one that's trumpeting, and continuing to make up lies about people.  

If you think I am even close to being a tory , it shows how appallingly, alarmingly wide of the mark your judgement is. 

The main criticism of the consortium has been that they will sell on young players. I keep asking, where does TfE says they won't sell on young players, I keep getting no answer.

[delurker]

1 minute ago, jaf said:

which is of course equally misleading because it would be correct to say they only took over mid way through that relegation season with the club I think already in the relegation places?

That's true, yes.

So the full picture would be half a season of consortium ownership wasn't enough to save them from Championship relegation and a whole season was enough to get League One promotion.

So far this season they're on track to repeat the cycle, and their pattern of recent years.

[Semi Nurainen]

17 minutes ago, delurker said:

Good job I never tire of adding this to 'track record' claims; they were relegated first under the consortium before that promotion.

Track record shows zero on-field progress by either club compared to the season before the consortium bought them.

The consortium had no time to turn the club round before they were relegated - they bought a club that  was in descent. That would be like blaming Bunter for our 5-0 defeat by Celtic, but don't let facts get in the way.  The club were promoted at first attempt in their first full season under the consortium.

[Semi Nurainen]

4 minutes ago, delurker said:

That's true, yes.

So the full picture would be half a season of consortium ownership wasn't enough to save them from Championship relegation and a whole season was enough to get League One promotion.

So far this season they're on track to repeat the cycle, and their pattern of recent years.

In that case they're 'no worse off', phrase which has been recently manufactured.

[Firhillista]

5 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

You're the one that's trumpeting, and continuing to make up lies about people.  

If you think I am even close to being a tory , it shows how appallingly, alarmingly wide of the mark your judgement is. 

The main criticism of the consortium has been that they will sell on young players. I keep asking, where does TfE says they won't sell on young players, I keep getting no answer.

I haven't lied about anything.

The main criticism of the consortium is NOT that they'll sell young players - you made that assertion, no one else.

The main criticism of them is that they're only here to make money - sporting success for Thistle won't be their priority.

[delurker]

Just now, Semi Nurainen said:

In that case they're 'no worse off', phrase which has been recently manufactured.

Indeed.

To use all the recent relevant quotes from this debate, I would say 'no worse off', not at all 'transformational' and showing no 'great track record' :-)

[Semi Nurainen]

5 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

I haven't lied about anything.

The main criticism of the consortium is NOT that they'll sell young players - you made that assertion, no one else.

The main criticism of them is that they're only here to make money - sporting success for Thistle won't be their priority.

By selling on young players - stop being disingenuous.

If you are as anti-tory as you claim to be you may have noticed that nowadays senior professional football is pretty much all about money. That's why we have supporters getting up at 7 in the morning to go to a 1200 o'clock kick-off at the other end of the country or getting home at 2 in the morning after 1700 kick off on a Sunday evening ; that's why we've got the farce of Friday night football. That's why we have things like Jagzone and hospitality, and pay £2.50 for a pie; it's what we've all signed up to whether we want to believe it or not.

If you don't like the fact that money drives the game you need to go and watch Pollok or Maryhill Juniors where they do it for love.

[allyo]

20 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

You're the one that's trumpeting, and continuing to make up lies about people.  

If you think I am even close to being a tory , it shows how appallingly, alarmingly wide of the mark your judgement is. 

The main criticism of the consortium has been that they will sell on young players. I keep asking, where does TfE says they won't sell on young players, I keep getting no answer.

I don't think it's about whether you sell young players. A club like this will always sell their players if the offer is worth it.

The question is what is the motivation for selling these players. If it is to reinvest in the squad, grow the club, even just balance the books, then fine. If it is to line the shareholders' pockets then less fine.