New Owner

[javeajag]

6 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

After Barnsley went into administration in 2002 the council purchased the stadium. The club owners (current and previous) could not make improvements if they wished without council approval. Stadium currently holds 23000

Im not sure where you see a partial stadium closure, access roads were closed for the Leeds game but not seen any stand closures mentioned 

You are correct and they did.....look and you will find.....

[Norgethistle]

9 minutes ago, javeajag said:

You are correct and they did.....look and you will find.....

They closed access roads and car parks for Leeds game but no partial closure. Attendance was 19000

[javeajag]

32 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

They closed access roads and car parks for Leeds game but no partial closure. Attendance was 19000

Part 0f one of the stands was closed down ....official capacity used to be 23000

[javeajag]

third most successful manager in their history......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49999654

[Lenziejag]

53 minutes ago, javeajag said:

third most successful manager in their history......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49999654

I haven’t read the post - but I guess you are using it to justify slamming the consortium. Where does Archie rank in Thistle’s history. Pretty high I would guess - but that didn’t stop him being sacked.

[Jordanhill Jag]

14 hours ago, javeajag said:

A guy Kieran McGuire  - the price of football in Twitter - has done a very complementary analysis of our financial results both in terms of the information we produced and our ‘solid’ results.

im attaching four slides ....interestingly they show prudent financial management and £600k in the bank going into June ......

 

 

And I think you will find that at the AGM David Kelly showed how these reserves had been built up over a Seven Year Period 

But the bit I dont get is if everything in the Garden was so Rosy going forward under the previous Board - why had they arranged a £350K Loan ? 

Again this was stated  and discussed at length at the AGM 

Im just not getting how we are going from £661 K Reserves to going into debt - that makes no sense on any level ?  

 

  

[javeajag]

15 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I haven’t read the post - but I guess you are using it to justify slamming the consortium. Where does Archie rank in Thistle’s history. Pretty high I would guess - but that didn’t stop him being sacked.

We are asked to look at the consortiums track record ....well this is part of it 

you made the Archie comparison well this would be the equivalent of sacking Archie during the first quarter of his first season in the premiership  after he got us promotion.....nuts 

[javeajag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

And I think you will find that at the AGM David Kelly showed how these reserves had been built up over a Seven Year Period 

But the bit I dont get is if everything in the Garden was so Rosy going forward under the previous Board - why had they arranged a £350K Loan ? 

Again this was stated  and discussed at length at the AGM 

Im just not getting how we are going from £661 K Reserves to going into debt - that makes no sense on any level ?  

 

  

Correct it doesn’t .....if we have £650k in the bank in June and player transfer fees on top and there is no real increase in wages ....we both agree just over a million....then where is it going ?
the main point of course is that these are a healthy solid set of accounts 

still waiting for the explanation on the plan and track record  of the consortium you mentioned sort of ?

[Norgethistle]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

Correct it doesn’t .....if we have £650k in the bank in June and player transfer fees on top and there is no real increase in wages ....we both agree just over a million....then where is it going ?
the main point of course is that these are a healthy solid set of accounts 

still waiting for the explanation on the plan and track record  of the consortium you mentioned sort of ?

We spent close on a million one time income last year more than we’d get this season (Parachute, UEFA, Cup run) if the plan was to spend the same as last season then we need another million (£650k cash reserves plus £350k loan). If we’d won promotion with that then that would have maybe been cleared, but if not we start £350k in the hole the next season 

[javeajag]

23 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

We spent close on a million one time income last year more than we’d get this season (Parachute, UEFA, Cup run) if the plan was to spend the same as last season then we need another million (£650k cash reserves plus £350k loan). If we’d won promotion with that then that would have maybe been cleared, but if not we start £350k in the hole the next season 

So the previous season wage bill was £1.95  and on a downward trajectory to say £1.5m....so we’re not spending the same as last season and if other costs stay the same at £1m then total costs are around £2.5m which is prob break even 

whatever else it is it’s hard to call it mismanagement 

[Norgethistle]

24 minutes ago, javeajag said:

So the previous season wage bill was £1.95  and on a downward trajectory to say £1.5m....so we’re not spending the same as last season and if other costs stay the same at £1m then total costs are around £2.5m which is prob break even 

whatever else it is it’s hard to call it mismanagement 

As per AGM and various other statements from both boards. This season’s budget was planned in May to be the same as last season’s.

We only made a profit last season due to one off payments of a million pound that we wouldn’t get this year.

Without these payments this season but with same budget then we would need to Hoover up cash reserves (£650k) plus take a loan (£350k) to then balance the books.

 

Im not sure what part of this your not getting 

[allyo]

[Lenziejag]

3 hours ago, javeajag said:

We are asked to look at the consortiums track record ....well this is part of it 

you made the Archie comparison well this would be the equivalent of sacking Archie during the first quarter of his first season in the premiership  after he got us promotion.....nuts 

The point I was trying to make unsuccessfully is that managers get sacked all the time if they start to fall back. It isn’t exclusive to the consortium.

[jaf]

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And I think you will find that at the AGM David Kelly showed how these reserves had been built up over a Seven Year Period 

But the bit I dont get is if everything in the Garden was so Rosy going forward under the previous Board - why had they arranged a £350K Loan ? 

Again this was stated  and discussed at length at the AGM 

Im just not getting how we are going from £661 K Reserves to going into debt - that makes no sense on any level ?  

 

  

The player wages figures cannot be worked out from the publicly available accounts.

The only way to do so is to make assumptions.

One such assumption will be to calculate/estimate the wages of non playing staff.

As previously discussed our non playing staff number is (relatively) high.

Therefore it is not inconceivable that the entire calculation around players wages is based upon flawed assumptions.

I don't do twitter anymore but perhaps someone can ask him what his assumptions relating to players wages were? It would be good for us to be sure when we are quoting him that these are robust numbers I am sure everyone would agree?

Let me give you a further example, non Thistle might be less contentious.

He claims Kilmarnocks average weekly wage per player is £1419.

From Killie accounts, you cannot see how many players they have, they had 94 employees in total, with 74 being 'players & football administration'

He might have counted up the number of players to get to his average.  Per Wiki, they had a 32 man squad.

32*52*1419 = 2,361,216

Total wages costs - 3,149,289

therefore, non playing staff costs - £788,073

To return to our figures - playing staff per our accounts is 24

24*52*877 = 1,094,496

Total wages costs - 1,954,075

therefore non playing staff costs - £859,579

So we were paying more than Killie for off field staff?  This just doesn't smell right given their turnover was 67% higher than ours

You can do the same exercise with Hibs and the result is £855k on non playing staff for 3 times our turnover. (this includes £288k paid to directors)

Finally, I looked at Motherwell - I don't know whether youth players are in his average or not. if they are, the non playing staff wages looks ridiculously low, if they are excluded non playing staff wages look ridiculously high

Put simply, either we have more expensive off field people than many others in Scottish football or the assumptions backing up Kieran McGuires numbers are skewing the results, which mean you may not be able to rely on the results, and draw the conclusions so many seem keen to draw. 

If anyone knows him, happy to engage with him and validate his numbers, if I am wrong, but I would view these numbers with extreme caution until his assumptions are known.

 

HAVE EMAILED HIM TO ASK.......

Edited October 11, 2019 by jaf
Found his emal address

[Pinhead]

10 hours ago, javeajag said:

They shut down part of it .....

same as us then, closing the old main stand and destroying a perfectly good terracing to make a bing? I google'd to see if Barnsley had closed a part of their ground but couldn't see anything. Genuinly interested in reading about it if you have a link...thinking maybe their older stand?

[Norgethistle]

8 hours ago, javeajag said:

Part 0f one of the stands was closed down ....official capacity used to be 23000

That was for segregation at the Leeds game based on access roads being closed

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, Pinhead said:

same as us then, closing the old main stand and destroying a perfectly good terracing to make a bing? I google'd to see if Barnsley had closed a part of their ground but couldn't see anything. Genuinly interested in reading about it if you have a link...thinking maybe their older stand?

I think that’s right .... it was in the Barnsley GC fans forum

[javeajag]

3 hours ago, jaf said:

The player wages figures cannot be worked out from the publicly available accounts.

The only way to do so is to make assumptions.

One such assumption will be to calculate/estimate the wages of non playing staff.

As previously discussed our non playing staff number is (relatively) high.

Therefore it is not inconceivable that the entire calculation around players wages is based upon flawed assumptions.

I don't do twitter anymore but perhaps someone can ask him what his assumptions relating to players wages were? It would be good for us to be sure when we are quoting him that these are robust numbers I am sure everyone would agree?

Let me give you a further example, non Thistle might be less contentious.

He claims Kilmarnocks average weekly wage per player is £1419.

From Killie accounts, you cannot see how many players they have, they had 94 employees in total, with 74 being 'players & football administration'

He might have counted up the number of players to get to his average.  Per Wiki, they had a 32 man squad.

32*52*1419 = 2,361,216

Total wages costs - 3,149,289

therefore, non playing staff costs - £788,073

To return to our figures - playing staff per our accounts is 24

24*52*877 = 1,094,496

Total wages costs - 1,954,075

therefore non playing staff costs - £859,579

So we were paying more than Killie for off field staff?  This just doesn't smell right given their turnover was 67% higher than ours

You can do the same exercise with Hibs and the result is £855k on non playing staff for 3 times our turnover. (this includes £288k paid to directors)

Finally, I looked at Motherwell - I don't know whether youth players are in his average or not. if they are, the non playing staff wages looks ridiculously low, if they are excluded non playing staff wages look ridiculously high

Put simply, either we have more expensive off field people than many others in Scottish football or the assumptions backing up Kieran McGuires numbers are skewing the results, which mean you may not be able to rely on the results, and draw the conclusions so many seem keen to draw. 

If anyone knows him, happy to engage with him and validate his numbers, if I am wrong, but I would view these numbers with extreme caution until his assumptions are known.

 

HAVE EMAILED HIM TO ASK.......

I’m clearly being a bit fin on this ....

in our accounts income and expenditure are basically £3m each 

we are told that the plan for this season was to keep expenditure (all?) at last seasons level so £3m

i understand the one offs that are nit repeated 

the plan is then to use the £650k reserves and a loan of £350k so £1m

my assumption is that the £1m is need because income declines but it will decline to £2m or the level it was at 5 years ago ? Seems too low ? 
 

and to echo someone else all of this was planned so not mismanagement though we can all take a view on whether it was the right strategy or not 

ps I think our large non playing staff is I think because we include match day staff 

 

[javeajag]

5 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

The point I was trying to make unsuccessfully is that managers get sacked all the time if they start to fall back. It isn’t exclusive to the consortium.

We all know managers get sacked all the time it’s a question of when and why ...And the point I clearly didn’t get across was sacking him might be an indication of how they are run ..... like why he was sacked 

[Pinhead]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

I think that’s right .... it was in the Barnsley GC fans forum

Can't see anything there either, must be fake news lol

[jaf]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

I’m clearly being a bit fin on this ....

in our accounts income and expenditure are basically £3m each 

we are told that the plan for this season was to keep expenditure (all?) at last seasons level so £3m

i understand the one offs that are nit repeated 

the plan is then to use the £650k reserves and a loan of £350k so £1m

my assumption is that the £1m is need because income declines but it will decline to £2m or the level it was at 5 years ago ? Seems too low ? 
 

and to echo someone else all of this was planned so not mismanagement though we can all take a view on whether it was the right strategy or not 

ps I think our large non playing staff is I think because we include match day staff 

 

so let me get this straight. 
 

you triumphantly share analysis from someone who doesn’t know our club - who I accept is well qualified - but which instantly looks counter intuitive 

you keep bleating on about how we should trust OUR fans instead of people with no association to the club

i am a fan

i scratch the surface - I even put my money where my mouth is and contact Kieran - I challenge and refute his analysis 

but this fan you don’t want to trust or accept? This fan you want to challenge and Not accept what he says and make your own assumptions that suit your arguments 

you couldn’t even say “ok you’ve contacted him , so let’s see what he says”  nope  he’s right , you’re right, I’m wrong ?? 

At  least we all know where we stand  

your posts are pointless biased reading 

oh btw  - Kieran came back to me and explained his assumptions and acknowledged that they meant quote / unquote his conclusions were flawed and could be termed - his words -  “a load of pish”

if there is anyone left with an open mind, Kieran and I will exchange further emails this weekend - he’s at a gig tonight  - to see if we can make some sense of all this combined  his calculations were done by taking averages from a few English clubs and extrapolating them onto scottish teams results  this is based in no forensic financial science and is entirely arbitrary and flawed therefore.  He seems a good guy and I am sure we can actually make some sense of stuff if we put our heads together  

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by jaf

[jaf]

33 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Can't see anything there either, must be fake news lol

Since fighting at Oakwell in January 2017 between these two sets of fans, segregation at both grounds has been increased for this fixture.

Increased segregation reduces capacity.

I don't know if that accounts for the full difference but it may well account for part of it.

 

 

 

[Pinhead]

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

Since fighting at Oakwell in January 2017 between these two sets of fans, segregation at both grounds has been increased for this fixture.

Increased segregation reduces capacity.

I don't know if that accounts for the full difference but it may well account for part of it.

 

 

 

so they haven't closed part of the ground for fun then, segregation makes sense

[jaf]

5 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

so they haven't closed part of the ground for fun then, segregation makes sense

Yep, bigger attendance than the last time Leeds visited in November 2017

Second biggest attendance since April 2017 - only last seasons Sunderland match had a bigger attendance and not by much 

Not sure who claimed 23000 was capacity - I have checked back to start of 2012 season and there hasn't been a league attendance higher than 19000 in those 7 years

[The Legend Blows]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.......Lots of pointless drivel.......Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . 

Not been on here for a week or 2.  No new owner. No news.  A huge big pile of stinkin dung that I ain't even read. Shut this thread down Admin and wake me up when there's something to talk about. 1 nil to the Nomads.