New Owner

[MonehJags]

Im not business minded at all but that's sounds like buying a new house and finding a 1/5th of a million stashed up the loft and declaring it your own. What makes it the clubs Asset to prevent board members taking it with them?

[jlsarmy]

24 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

No. Or at least not directly.

That money would be in the assets of PTFC and therefore be available for the new board to use on PTFC business. Nobody can just dip their hands in the till.

That said, with increased assets, the buying price could be higher and therefore the current directors could benefit indirectly

 

I’m not so sure when buying a Company you take over their Bank Account as well unless agreed (?new owners ,new signatories )eg there is 500 k in bank account that would have to be added on to price agreed at the time of the Sale of the Club .

 

[jaf]

7 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

I’m not so sure when buying a Company you take over their Bank Account as well unless agreed (?new owners ,new signatories )eg there is 500 k in bank account that would have to be added on to price agreed at the time of the Sale of the Club .

 

Correct.  There is no freezing of bank accounts as some have said on a sale of some shares in a private company. 

However usually a deal will have a net assets target and a working capital target. Shortfalls (and excesses) will be price adjustors. 

It’s not inconceivable that a deal was struck based on 2018 accounts but when it became apparent that it would not actually happen until later in 2019 the 2019/20 season budgets became relevant and timing and those budgets threatened the £  

 

[javeajag]

30 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

I’m not so sure when buying a Company you take over their Bank Account as well unless agreed (?new owners ,new signatories )eg there is 500 k in bank account that would have to be added on to price agreed at the time of the Sale of the Club .

 

These will all be agreed as assets of the club and itemised as part of the sale agreement 

[jlsarmy]

Just now, javeajag said:

These will all be agreed as assets of the club and itemised as part of the sale agreement 

The bank account details won’t be known till the actual day of the takeover.

[javeajag]

38 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

The bank account details won’t be known till the actual day of the takeover.

I doubt that very much.....they will have asked for and given.....basic due diligence 

[Firhillista]

Surely there has to be a statement from the board today? Other clubs are taken over by rich investors and their fans, setting aside not unreasonable concerns, look forward to the potential of financial stability and some big name signings. Thistle are linked to billionaire investors and we scrap the team bus, put a hold on further signings and say that promotion is 'not a priority' - what the actual fcuk?

I'm clinging to the hope that 'the insider' is painting as black a picture as possible because they don't like what's happening, but that the reality isn't anywhere near as bad. But hopes and fears aren't what we need at this point. Someone needs to explain what's going on.

[jaf]

22 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I doubt that very much.....they will have asked for and given.....basic due diligence 

It moves on a day to day basis, this is why such deals have net asset and working capital targets.

By not spending money on buses or players, you preserve the net assets and working capital position.

For a football club, the best time to do a deal is summer, and the worst time is in darkest mid winter when the net assets and working capital are eroded - unless a balanced budget is being met - and that means a balanced budget month by month not over a season.

The delay in the deal by the approvals has perhaps threatened the amount as the working capital position under the old board may have been lower by say December when a deal may complete after all the approvals.

Therefore removing the old board, so that the new board/sellers can preserve the net assets and maximise their cash out fits with what is going on, albeit that could be entirely wide of the mark, but in absence of any narrative to the contrary, or indeed any narrative at all, then we can al make up our own minds what the motivations for recent actions might be.

 

 

 

 

 

[jlsarmy]

56 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I doubt that very much.....they will have asked for and given.....basic due diligence 

Kind of talking about how much is in the Bank account on the day of the takeover, it’ll. vary from day to day and also month to month 

[javeajag]

38 minutes ago, jaf said:

It moves on a day to day basis, this is why such deals have net asset and working capital targets.

By not spending money on buses or players, you preserve the net assets and working capital position.

For a football club, the best time to do a deal is summer, and the worst time is in darkest mid winter when the net assets and working capital are eroded - unless a balanced budget is being met - and that means a balanced budget month by month not over a season.

The delay in the deal by the approvals has perhaps threatened the amount as the working capital position under the old board may have been lower by say December when a deal may complete after all the approvals.

Therefore removing the old board, so that the new board/sellers can preserve the net assets and maximise their cash out fits with what is going on, albeit that could be entirely wide of the mark, but in absence of any narrative to the contrary, or indeed any narrative at all, then we can al make up our own minds what the motivations for recent actions might be.

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t disagree but I suspect they are getting daily/weekly information and clearly involvement in decision making .....that will be part of the deal 

[javeajag]

11 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Kind of talking about how much is in the Bank account on the day of the takeover, it’ll. vary from day to day and also month to month 

They will probably have access to that and receive  daily/weekly reports on finance 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, ChiThistle said:

Okay, hear me out....

The team bus was canceled because it was actually a McGill’s bus.  It turns out the mystery second bidder was none other than the Easdales, who are trying to stay ahead of the next Rangers liquidation by having a new club at the ready.  The training ground was scuppered because they were near a deal to put the new training ground on the old Misco site in - you heard it here first - Greenock which they bought in 2018.  The benefits bring it was on the waterfront and very close to an RBS mortgage centre.  In preparation, they’d already begun building an underground tunnel between the two.  Well, less of a tunnel and more of a pneumatic tube for lending.

Meanwhile, NewCity was not keen on these guys trying to take their Barnsley Junior and turn it into The Future Rangers 3.0, so they got the directors sacked and installed their own preferred folks.

The McGills Bus just happened to be the last remnant, along with the 200k which GC wanted to use to sign ONE player, slightly out of favor Borna Barisic at, you guessed it, Rangers.  Due to language differences, he was able to convince Barisic that “K” is the abbreviation for “millions” and was ready to swoop if the Easdales could convince Gerrard to hand him his walking papers.

Now you’re probably asking yourself, “well that’s all quite obvious, but how exactly is Jackie Macnamara tied up in all of this?  And THAT is where it gets really interesting....

Ran out if emoji for Haha. Superb, a ray of laughter in this depressing thread. I look forward to part 2

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

No. Or at least not directly.

That money would be in the assets of PTFC and therefore be available for the new board to use on PTFC business. Nobody can just dip their hands in the till.

That said, with increased assets, the buying price could be higher and therefore the current directors could benefit indirectly

 

But not if the profit (fees for lindsay and fitzy) are disposed of by way of bonuses to shareholders before any sale goes through?

[jaf]

23 minutes ago, Thistleberight said:

But not if the profit (fees for lindsay and fitzy) are disposed of by way of bonuses to shareholders before any sale goes through?

Vey tax inefficient!!!

Dividends - supporters get one too

Fees - higher rate tax on them

Additional consideration for shares as net assets are higher - CGT so lower rate of tax

 

 

[allyo]

Is anyone still feeling positive about the Chien_Lee takeover?

Personally I'm not, but thats related to my original concerns. Despite the apparent current "shambles" I don't really see that anything much has changed in terms of the potential risk or benefits relating to the takeover.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, allyo said:

Is anyone still feeling positive about the Chien_Lee takeover?

Personally I'm not, but thats related to my original concerns. Despite the apparent current "shambles" I don't really see that anything much has changed in terms of the potential risk or benefits relating to the takeover.

I'm of a similer mind allyo. After posting that I had zero concerns re DB's motive, I'm now very concerned and confuddled as to what his motivations are now.

It would really help if he and his board were being more transparent with us mere fans. The silence is deafening and @Jordanhill Jagsilence tells a story too. Not picking on him but under the last board he was very vocal and now hardly posts which considering he usually can't hold his p1ss concerns me. I suspect he knows far more than he wants to let on.

Personally I, and my Thistle supporting friends and family just want something tangible from the current powers that everything is going to be ok and we are not heading towards another save the jags episode.

I'm hoping against hope that the deal falls through and CW plays a blinder and buys the club. Can but dream. I played the lottery last Saturday for the first time in about 5 years, thinking a few million would buy the club, how hard can it be to pick 6 numbers.........

[Auld Jag]

25 minutes ago, allyo said:

Is anyone still feeling positive about the Chien_Lee takeover?

Personally I'm not, but thats related to my original concerns. Despite the apparent current "shambles" I don't really see that anything much has changed in terms of the potential risk or benefits relating to the takeover.

Hi allyo, for me the problem is the uncertainty of everything. We now have an insider saying that Thistle is a shambles. What was their motivation for doing this interview ? We have a post from the Jags trust, who seem to be in favour of the takeover. With some sound bites bit nothing else to back it up. Meanwhile us the fans have little to nothing to go with, apart from rumours. Not the best atmosphere to begin a season that most of us had hoped we would be up nearer the top 4 and not struggling like last season to stave of relegation. As others have said we really need to hear something from Firhill. To give us the fans some idea of what  is going on and where our club is going.

[Dark Passenger]

1 minute ago, Thistleberight said:

The silence is deafening and @Jordanhill Jagsilence tells a story too. Not picking on him but under the last board he was very vocal and now hardly posts which considering he usually can't hold his p1ss concerns me.

On reflection, his post about the Trust issuing a clear and unambiguous statement is a crock of sh*t, too.

What was it he said about the previous board's statements? The most interesting thing is what they fail to say, or words to that effect? The below, taken from the Trust update, is a classic example of that. It mentions "transformational" "tried and tested" business models.  What's the proposed business model? Where have they been utilised successfully? More questions than answers, and yet that's supposed to satiate the supporters? Aye right, Jim.

Quote

We discussed the business model proposed by the aspiring new owners, which has been tried and tested elsewhere, and it was felt that it had the potential to be “transformational for Thistle”.

 

[allyo]

If an elephant fell on top of me it would be transformational.

To be fair to JJ his main defence seemed to be that the directors were justified in seeking to get a return on their investment, which was made in good faith. I have no argument with that. But it doesn't help Thistle.

Edited August 6, 2019 by allyo

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, Thistleberight said:

But not if the profit (fees for lindsay and fitzy) are disposed of by way of bonuses to shareholders before any sale goes through?

A good chunk of that money is/was, in theory at least, due to the academy. Albeit at a stretch but it's even possible that Colin Weir has first charge on total amount and has ring-fenced it. 

The idea that the Academy is funded in continuance by a third party and that any profit from sale of players, who are product of the  Academy, goes straight to the manager to purchase players is flawed in so many ways. Apart from not being sustainable it could be viewed morally wrong, a slap in the face to the Weirs.

The Academy requires funding and perhaps extra funding to expand. Once the monies for that are found thru presumably transfers and add ons , as is the case with Liam and Aiden, any surplus could go straight to the manager. Even then if the Academy isn't showing signs of self sufficiency transfer money may well be held in reserve. Otherwise, and I'm being hypothetic here, we could just be in a situation where we sign say a  fullback but have to sell Penrice in January to fund the Academy.

On a slightly different aspect I don't want to see our team on the field being run on last years Reserves model. In other words constituted of Barnsley U23s (replacing our own youngsters) with a sprinkling of seasoned pros with their best days behind them added to the mix. 

[Third Lanark]

19 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Hi allyo, for me the problem is the uncertainty of everything. We now have an insider saying that Thistle is a shambles. What was their motivation for doing this interview ? We have a post from the Jags trust, who seem to be in favour of the takeover. With some sound bites bit nothing else to back it up. Meanwhile us the fans have little to nothing to go with, apart from rumours. Not the best atmosphere to begin a season that most of us had hoped we would be up nearer the top 4 and not struggling like last season to stave of relegation. As others have said we really need to hear something from Firhill. To give us the fans some idea of what  is going on and where our club is going.

We also have the jags Trust not bothering to respond to emails from it’s me which is also a concern in itself 

[jaf]

Here is where I am :

1. My personal opinion is I would rather have DB at helm than JL - that may turn out to be flawed but is my opinion

2. The takeover will not be without risk, but it also offers a chance of progress, and I see it as an opportunity until I have evidence otherwise

3. I can understand and accept why the financials might be as they are - but wish there was some  honesty and transparency on this point

4. Communication is key to the new board, as it was tot he old board - and so far DB - the Trusts engagement aside - looks to be missing a trick here to put minds at rest

5. I do think whatever some may think the support has divided horribly over the past couple of years; firstly over Archie, which has then rolled onto Caldwell, and now the battles are being refought over old board v new board, and I do think the conduct of both boards play a part in that entrenchment, albeit one has only had 3 weeks at the helm.  It would be very nice for matters to resolve themselves one way or another very soon. As for the old board, rightly or wrongly, the majority of the present owners of the club do not want them running the club (for whatever reason), as owners they have the right to make that decision, and now that decision has been made perhaps a line should be drawn on the phrase 'old board'. They are history, and the past, and of no relevance to the important developments ahead. We don't get to choose our board, the owners do. I do wish the support could unite, and that means forgetting Archie, and forgetting favourites on the old board, and forgetting Dools and Erskine - we ALL need to move on.

 

[Auld Jag]

9 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

We also have the jags Trust not bothering to respond to emails from it’s me which is also a concern in itself 

Agree.

[javeajag]

16 minutes ago, jaf said:

Here is where I am :

1. My personal opinion is I would rather have DB at helm than JL - that may turn out to be flawed but is my opinion

2. The takeover will not be without risk, but it also offers a chance of progress, and I see it as an opportunity until I have evidence otherwise

3. I can understand and accept why the financials might be as they are - but wish there was some  honesty and transparency on this point

4. Communication is key to the new board, as it was tot he old board - and so far DB - the Trusts engagement aside - looks to be missing a trick here to put minds at rest

5. I do think whatever some may think the support has divided horribly over the past couple of years; firstly over Archie, which has then rolled onto Caldwell, and now the battles are being refought over old board v new board, and I do think the conduct of both boards play a part in that entrenchment, albeit one has only had 3 weeks at the helm.  It would be very nice for matters to resolve themselves one way or another very soon. As for the old board, rightly or wrongly, the majority of the present owners of the club do not want them running the club (for whatever reason), as owners they have the right to make that decision, and now that decision has been made perhaps a line should be drawn on the phrase 'old board'. They are history, and the past, and of no relevance to the important developments ahead. We don't get to choose our board, the owners do. I do wish the support could unite, and that means forgetting Archie, and forgetting favourites on the old board, and forgetting Dools and Erskine - we ALL need to move on.

 

David Beattie is not handling this situation well for somebody who claims to care about the club....we need to be clear he is selling the club to a private equity outfit whose goal is to make profits for themselves ( and he and the shareholders make a few quid as well )

[Jaggernaut]

How long ago is it since propco bought half the stadium? Eight years? 10? The development prospects or even projects look non-existent, and I wonder whether those "Thistle-minded" people who "invested" might now be thinking this is probably the easiest way to recoup their money.