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

9 hours ago, allyo said:

 

It's never how I've seen it to be honest. 

From my point of view, if I was  millionaire investing in my football club, and it then looked like it was going to be sold to billionaires, I would withdraw my funding. To me, that is a logical and reasonable decision.

I have no idea whether his decision had anything to do with Jacqui Low. Maybe it did, but I think there was justification anyway. And it's his money.

 

 

Exactly this. If, I as a mere millionaire offering (not really investing) millions in my club then (1) some billionaires came along with "transformational" plans and promises (all undisclosed) and wanting to buy the club and own the club, which were (2) looked on positively by the board, then it would be stupidly crazy for me to keep frittering away my millions. Let the billionaires do it! But will they? Doesn't look like it at all, from what has gone on at previous clubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Those pledges of £50k will never 100% materialize or last long term. Look to Hearts or Dundee or Stirling (50000 signed up according to our own TFE guy) to see the actual percentage of those interested Vs those who contribute, then check those who start contributing to those still doing it 1 year later.

268 people are interested, more contributed to Maryhill FC crowdfunding, it’s less than 10% of the fanbase. This does not appear to be what the majority of the fanbase wants.

The timing and rhetoric behind TFE causes alarms, whilst the old board was in place, no mention.  Low etc get ousted and suddenly this new fan ownership backed by Weir (Low’s employer) enters the fray.  Despite being told Weir wasn’t involved it was obvious he was this came to fruition.

TFE still won’t confirm or deny other people (who I know are) are involved, why?

When the initial talk of the consortium was mentioned, and prior to the board being changed why were shareholders being called by a (certain) individual stating he was acting on behalf of the club (never employed by to my knowledge) enquiring about purchasing shareholders shares? I know 2 shareholders approached this way.  Was this anything to do with the club, the old board or just a prank cold call?

The Partick Thistle trust (Which our previous Chairman was on and set up by Weir) puts a statement out stating it backs TFE and Beattie has done no due diligence (Rubbished at AGM) on the same night that TFE launch the press release that Colin Weir is bankrolling it.

The model for running the club has been rolled out prior to any voting etc, effectively having a two tier board. One selected one Elected, the power is not with the elected. The control has been decided upfront. The elected board will be the same as the JT board member, a puppet.


Im still not sold on consortium, but what TFE is not is fan ownership or control.  Check the time line of events, the press leaks etc, there is a coordinated PR and Spin campaign going around this which is way above 4 fans level.


I also struggle with why anyone would buy a company and gift its value and running of to complete strangers. Why would you not ensure your substantial investment and outlay was being managed properly either by yourself or by your own man or woman doing it for you. 

Weir academy was set up to eventually become self sufficient with transfer fees funding future running costs, it was also a community based project almost charitable status. When the investment in the club was given it wasn’t controlling and some of those shares were held, with the other lot gifted to a Trust where his person had a say, as was on the club board where he invested. 

My fear is this becomes a Brooks Milesom  (Gretna) scenario, when Weirs funding stops the club stops. With business men like Springford or Gilfillan involved they have the ability if need be to prevent a cash flow issue bankrupting the club, which could impact their ability to be a director at their other companies. How does this model do that if Weir can’t or won’t plug any shortfall. Will the 4 or 5 TFE guys take a loan from the bank? Also with 2 boards will that be another 5 or 10 wages or will they do it for free or (as previously done under Beattie) pay an annual fee for being in that board position.

This 100% - the coincidence odds are close to that on getting a Rollover Week 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dl1971 said:

Whereas the consortium are singing away.....unbelievable. Remind me how much the consortium are committing to PTFC? 

The Consortium are a Business they are not selling themselves as Fans only doing this for the Good of the Club - so as being "Fans" is there core Sales Pitch then they should have no issue in communicating with other Fans 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Consortium are a Business they are not selling themselves as Fans only doing this for the Good of the Club - so as being "Fans" is there core Sales Pitch then they should have no issue in communicating with other Fans 

What business is the consortium in exactly ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
7 hours ago, Semi Nurainen said:

100% Norge.

Admin produced volley of opinions, and 'stated intentions', and tried to pass them off as fact.

Sums up the quality of TfE.

I have no involvement with TfE aside from having made a modest pledge. 

Just for clarity in case you didn't get that, first, and then second time around, I have no involvement with TfE. So my posts don't 'sum up the quality' of TfE in any way, shape or form. 

I personally see it as an opportunity that we as fans of Partick Thistle should embrace. I get and respect  that some  feel differently providing they are judging things on their merits and not on the basis of personality. 

Of course I have offered opinion. Is that not what a debate involves. 

What have I presented as fact that is in fact opinion? 

That pledges would represent new and additional income?. 

That the Club would continue to be funded as it presently is? 

That the Club Board would be appointed as it currently is? I of course have no idea of the actual composition of the Board just the rationale for appointments as outlined by TfE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, admin said:

I have no involvement with TfE aside from having made a modest pledge. 

Just for clarity in case you didn't get that, first, and then second time around, I have no involvement with TfE. So my posts don't 'sum up the quality' of TfE in any way, shape or form. 

I personally see it as an opportunity that we as fans of Partick Thistle should embrace. I get and respect  that some  feel differently providing they are judging things on their merits and not on the basis of personality. 

Of course I have offered opinion. Is that not what a debate involves. 

What have I presented as fact that is in fact opinion? 

That pledges would represent new and additional income?. 

That the Club would continue to be funded as it presently is? 

That the Club Board would be appointed as it currently is? I of course have no idea of the actual composition of the Board just the rationale for appointments as outlined by TfE. 

The main opinion presented as fact is that the supporters will own PTFC. It may be my interpretation, but that suggests to me that ALL supporters will be owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
9 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Admin,

I am not knocking this, but i think that it needs to be explained how the supporters will be owners. Only if they make a pledge before the takeover. ? Or what is the way to become an owner after the takeover.

I'm a little frustrated that TfE haven't been more proactive in outlining things like that. I can't answer your query. That would need to come from TfE and they did promise an open meeting with supporters. There may be good reason why that hasn't been scheduled but I would urge them to articulate that if that is the case. 

Not related to your post I know but this might be a good point to outline what I would like to see happen if TfE do complete the purchase of shares. 

TfE hold an Open Meeting with supporters  ASAP as well as making themselves visible for less formal interaction on match days. They were invited to travel to Montrose on the Jordanhill Bus to explain their plans and answer questions. Doing similar at future away games and having a visible presence at home games for the same purpose would be useful..

As per the plans outlined by TfE an interim Board would be appointed. I had serious misgivings about the current BoD motives in instigating the Boardroom coup. I still do but actions speak louder than words. Some of what they have done since has impressed me. Not least the change in football management. I would like to see the current Board continue as the interim Board for a period of not less than 12 months with two co-opted TfE members. This allows for continuity and experience  at a vital level of the Club's structure while TfE formalise their plans which won't happen overnight. Indeed I wouldn't be adverse for some of the current BoD to continue to serve on the new Club Board indefinitely. This is a personal view and I don't know if it mirrors the view of TfE at all. 

A number of supporters have expressed a preference for the status quo neither convinced by the consortium or TfE. 

What I have tried to demonstrate over the last couple of days is that how the club is funded and Board appointed would differ little, or at all, under fan ownership. It isn't the fans suddenly taking up the reigns and making all the decisions. Nor is it a small cabal taking control as some would like you to believe . It's about placing the ownership of the club in the hands of the supporters. The ownership of the Club changes but how the club is run and funded is much closer to the status quo than people realise. Especially if the skill set of those currently in post is utilised. 

Disclaimer:, I have no involvement with TfE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, Lenziejag said:

The main opinion presented as fact is that the supporters will own PTFC. It may be my interpretation, but that suggests to me that ALL supporters will be owners.

I have now provided a response to your previous post. 

The Club would be owned by the supporters but to what degree and the mechanics of that I would agree need to be better articulated by TfE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, admin said:

I have now provided a response to your previous post. 

The Club would be owned by the supporters but to what degree and the mechanics of that I would agree need to be better articulated by TfE. 

I believe (and I’ll try and find the mails) that only those contributing would be either able to stand for election or be able to vote, I’m lead to believe current shareholders who chose not to transfer their shares over would not be able to stand for election or get a vote.

The 2 boards concerns me. We will have an elected (Fans) board reporting to a selected operational board,  the remit and selection for this is unclear. Will it be just the TFE guys, will someone from 3 Black Cats be on it?

Whilst I have some concerns over the consortium, for them to make money they need to bring good young players in cheap and sell them at a profit, which means the players need to dramatically improve over 1 or 2 seasons, that would only work if the team is also successful and improves. This would be easier to do in Scotland than England but your ROI would be lower.

 

The difference with TFE and the Consortium, TFE states it’s fan ownership, so they need the fans on board. Communication is vague and as yet several questions are unanswered and their promise of a fan meeting hasn’t materialized. Consortium is about making money that means buying low and selling high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I believe (and I’ll try and find the mails) that only those contributing would be either able to stand for election or be able to vote, I’m lead to believe current shareholders who chose not to transfer their shares over would not be able to stand for election or get a vote.

The 2 boards concerns me. We will have an elected (Fans) board reporting to a selected operational board,  the remit and selection for this is unclear. Will it be just the TFE guys, will someone from 3 Black Cats be on it?

Whilst I have some concerns over the consortium, for them to make money they need to bring good young players in cheap and sell them at a profit, which means the players need to dramatically improve over 1 or 2 seasons, that would only work if the team is also successful and improves. This would be easier to do in Scotland than England but your ROI would be lower.

 

The difference with TFE and the Consortium, TFE states it’s fan ownership, so they need the fans on board. Communication is vague and as yet several questions are unanswered and their promise of a fan meeting hasn’t materialized. Consortium is about making money that means buying low and selling high.

Essentially this is what we had prior to the boardroom coupe. The operational board was the shareholders, who elected the board of directors. OK, so the shareholders probably got it wrong in appointing some members of the previous board, but the basic principal is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No - TFE are a self elected Group who are deciding how Fan Ownership should look and have Mr Weirs Money 

Is this correct though? Someone has to set the ball rolling. Otherwise it could never get started. It is seeking support so that other things can be decided.

Norge appears to be hammering TFE for kicking things off before they had all the details in place.

You, on the other hand, seem to be hammering them for having decided everything already.

So it's obviously a difficult line for them to tread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allyo said:

Is this correct though? Someone has to set the ball rolling. Otherwise it could never get started. It is seeking support so that other things can be decided.

Norge appears to be hammering TFE for kicking things off before they had all the details in place.

You, on the other hand, seem to be hammering them for having decided everything already.

So it's obviously a difficult line for them to tread.

No its not  - what we have is a Group of people who are taking over the Club - they are deciding  how things are going  to be - and  they rather strangely pretty much over night got Colin Weirs Backing - We are both saying the same thing - its TFE Model - its TFE "deciding" that the Fans want Fan Ownership - Its TFE stating that anyone elected to the Board will be part of the TFE Project - Im assuming this includes "appiontees" to the Operations Board 

And those "Appiontees" will be vetted - by whom exactly 

So this isnt Fan Ownership this is TFE with Colin Weirs Money 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, admin said:

I have now provided a response to your previous post. 

The Club would be owned by the supporters but to what degree and the mechanics of that I would agree need to be better articulated by TfE. 

And Controlled by TFE - they have decided how this is going to Work - who is doing the Vetting - ?

Who "decided" the Fans wanted Run by other Fans - at Dundee it was a complete Carcrash   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No its not  - what we have is a Group of people who are taking over the Club - they are deciding  how things are going  to be - and  they rather strangely pretty much over night got Colin Weirs Backing - We are both saying the same thing - its TFE Model - its TFE "deciding" that the Fans want Fan Ownership - Its TFE stating that anyone elected to the Board will be part of the TFE Project - Im assuming this includes "appiontees" to the Operations Board 

And those "Appiontees" will be vetted - by whom exactly 

So this isnt Fan Ownership this is TFE with Colin Weirs Money 

  

Assumption and supposition you don’t know 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

And Controlled by TFE - they have decided how this is going to Work - who is doing the Vetting - ?

Who "decided" the Fans wanted Run by other Fans - at Dundee it was a complete Carcrash   

I think I need to go and watch the da Vinci code again .,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, admin said:

I'm a little frustrated that TfE haven't been more proactive in outlining things like that. I can't answer your query. That would need to come from TfE and they did promise an open meeting with supporters. There may be good reason why that hasn't been scheduled but I would urge them to articulate that if that is the case. 

Not related to your post I know but this might be a good point to outline what I would like to see happen if TfE do complete the purchase of shares. 

TfE hold an Open Meeting with supporters  ASAP as well as making themselves visible for less formal interaction on match days. They were invited to travel to Montrose on the Jordanhill Bus to explain their plans and answer questions. Doing similar at future away games and having a visible presence at home games for the same purpose would be useful..

As per the plans outlined by TfE an interim Board would be appointed. I had serious misgivings about the current BoD motives in instigating the Boardroom coup. I still do but actions speak louder than words. Some of what they have done since has impressed me. Not least the change in football management. I would like to see the current Board continue as the interim Board for a period of not less than 12 months with two co-opted TfE members. This allows for continuity and experience  at a vital level of the Club's structure while TfE formalise their plans which won't happen overnight. Indeed I wouldn't be adverse for some of the current BoD to continue to serve on the new Club Board indefinitely. This is a personal view and I don't know if it mirrors the view of TfE at all. 

A number of supporters have expressed a preference for the status quo neither convinced by the consortium or TfE. 

What I have tried to demonstrate over the last couple of days is that how the club is funded and Board appointed would differ little, or at all, under fan ownership. It isn't the fans suddenly taking up the reigns and making all the decisions. Nor is it a small cabal taking control as some would like you to believe . It's about placing the ownership of the club in the hands of the supporters. The ownership of the Club changes but how the club is run and funded is much closer to the status quo than people realise. Especially if the skill set of those currently in post is utilised. 

Disclaimer:, I have no involvement with TfE. 

Why does the Co Opt have to come from TFE - Why Can the Co-OP not come from each of the Supporters Trusts ? At least we have some not guaranteed semblance of distance from a TFE Takeover and we can move towards a proper debate as to how people think it would work - who exactly are TFE  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why does the Co Opt have to come from TFE - Why Can the Co-OP not come from each of the Supporters Trusts ? At least we have some not guaranteed semblance of distance from a TFE Takeover and we can move towards a proper debate as to how people think it would work - who exactly are TFE  

And maybe that’s what will happen ...let’s see 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, admin said:

I have no involvement with TfE aside from having made a modest pledge. 

Just for clarity in case you didn't get that, first, and then second time around, I have no involvement with TfE. So my posts don't 'sum up the quality' of TfE in any way, shape or form. 

I personally see it as an opportunity that we as fans of Partick Thistle should embrace. I get and respect  that some  feel differently providing they are judging things on their merits and not on the basis of personality. 

Of course I have offered opinion. Is that not what a debate involves. 

What have I presented as fact that is in fact opinion? 

That pledges would represent new and additional income?. 

That the Club would continue to be funded as it presently is? 

That the Club Board would be appointed as it currently is? I of course have no idea of the actual composition of the Board just the rationale for appointments as outlined by TfE. 

Already been well answered.

It is remarkable how many people on here, whilst putting a very robust case for TfE, when challenged, state 'I have no involvement with TfE'.

Another remarkable co-incidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
35 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why does the Co Opt have to come from TFE - Why Can the Co-OP not come from each of the Supporters Trusts ? At least we have some not guaranteed semblance of distance from a TFE Takeover and we can move towards a proper debate as to how people think it would work - who exactly are TFE  

They don't have to come from TfE. I've offered a personal view of what I would like to see should TfE share purchase be completed not a summary of what will happen. I can't be clearer. I am not a part of TfE. 

Should that happen then an interim board would be appointed. I'm suggesting that for the benefit of continuity and experience the current Board should form a large part of that interim board. It would seem sensible to co-opt TfE representatives to that interim board. 

My personal view is that the interim board should be in place for a period of not less than 12 months. 

That would allow TfE to formalise, with consultation with all interested fan groups, their fan led model and process leading to election of the fans board. This is a process that won't and shouldn't be completed in haste. 

You've said elsewhere that TfE are stating that only those that are part of the TfE project will sit on the Club Board (interim and moving forward I assume). They have said nothing of the sort. Please check before you make these assertions. It doesn't help people get an informed sense of what is happening. 

I'm in favour of the TfE led takeover. I don't see it as the end game but the start of a new exciting era. I'm not fooled into thinking it is perfect or it will be easy. I have questions that I would like to see TfE provide more detail on. Don't confuse me with being part of TfE itself. I'm not. I can't answer for them. Merely provide my thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

Already been well answered.

It is remarkable how many people on here, whilst putting a very robust case for TfE, when challenged, state 'I have no involvement with TfE'.

Another remarkable co-incidence.

I assume you are claiming I'm lying then? 

Please provide evidence of my involvement with TfE aside from having made a pledge. If you can't remove your post or retract your allegation. 

You'll not find any evidence of my involvement TfE because there is none. I have no involvement with them. That might not suit the your agenda but it happens to be the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

Already been well answered.

It is remarkable how many people on here, whilst putting a very robust case for TfE, when challenged, state 'I have no involvement with TfE'.

Another remarkable co-incidence.

I honestly haven't seen a robust case for TFE on here.

I've seen a lot of people keen on the philosophy of fan ownership, willing to give TFE a chance, and looking for further information.

In fact I'd say that this is the majority view, while there seems to be a tight group that wants to kill it before it starts.

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

30 minutes ago, admin said:

I assume you are claiming I'm lying then? 

Please provide evidence of my involvement with TfE aside from having made a pledge. If you can't remove your post or retract your allegation. 

You'll not find any evidence of my involvement TfE because there is none. I have no involvement with them. That might not suit the your agenda but it happens to be the truth. 

You used the word lying, not me.

If you sent them cash you are by definition 'involved' and supporting them  ('your honour I admit I sent ISIS some  cash, but I don't support them and I'm not involved '). 

And you're now using your position to issue ultimatums.  Some 'debate'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, allyo said:

I honestly haven't seen a robust case for TFE on here.

I've seen a lot of people keen on the philosophy of fan ownership, willing to give TFE a chance, and looking for further information.

In fact I'd say that this is the majority view, while there seems to be a tight group that wants to kill it before it starts.

How exactly is the group which is sceptical of TfE any 'tighter' than the one propounding it?

What exactly does 'tight ' mean in this context?

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...