New Owner

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Dark Passenger said:

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.

 

The Trust gave a clear update on the current position that the Takeover was ongoing and it was with the SFA - so save your nonsense - as for there view on it being transformational  treid and tested business models - thats a Trust view and Im hardly responsible for there views  - however they gave a clear update on where things stood ref the takeover and I doubt very much as these things go they can add much until its a done deal   - so wind your neck in  

[West Ender]

Some may see benefit from being a Barnsley B team, I see none. I only see a loss of sovereignty on our part. I hope the SFA put the kaibosh on it. It's Ken Bates all over again.

Edited August 6, 2019 by West Ender

[Dark Passenger]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

however they gave a clear update on where things stood ref the takeover and I doubt very much as these things go they can add much until its a done deal

The statement made it clear that the Chairman and Chief Executive had discussed the potential new owners' business model with the Trust, so they could have added that. After all, it exists to act as "a voice for Partick Thistle fans", not a little clique that's given enough exclusive access to information to allow it to take a position without balloting its members.

You seem very reluctant to question why it wouldn't communicate that information, or why, if Mr Beattie sees fit to discuss these details with the Trust, why he wouldn't share the vision with the wider fan base that it purports to represent. I find that odd of you.

What's also slightly strange is that it seems that the statement re. board changes wasn't issued by the club's communications team, but by a third party. I'd be interested to know if that third party is being employed by the club, a single shareholder or the group of shareholders that initiated the change - those same shareholders who're ready to cash in, apparently. it's all a bit weird, isn't it?

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Thistleberight said:

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.........

I posted yesterday - so hardly silent ? First we have an article thats has created TeamBusGate - however simple fact travelling on to grounds under an hour  was standard practice last time in the Championship - so Im honestly not sure what the fuss is - Team Budget has been cut - ok New Directors Im assuming have assessed the Budget Forecasts for next years income and re-evaluated it - that again is standard practice and part of there duty as a New Board - Budget Forecasts are subjective - Colin Weir may be pulling his funding - for the Club it was ad hoc according to the previous Board - If Colin Weir decides not to take anything to do with the Club as being suggested and ....? So No Ive not been silent up until the last 24 Hours there has been nothing worth commenting on - reading the article Im still struggling to see whats actually been said and why its considered a crisis - the Club is being sold - its with the SFA - none of that has changed - do I think Club should update direct rather than via the JT yes - thats the correct process - they have been in charge three weeks - so Im pretty sure they are now getting up to speed on things      

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, Dark Passenger said:

The statement made it clear that the Chairman and Chief Executive had discussed the potential new owners' business model with the Trust, so they could have added that. After all, it exists to act as "a voice for Partick Thistle fans", not a little clique that's given enough exclusive access to information to allow it to take a position without balloting its members.

You seem very reluctant to question why it wouldn't communicate that information, or why, if Mr Beattie sees fit to discuss these details with the Trust, why he wouldn't share the vision with the wider fan base that it purports to represent. I find that odd of you.

What's also slightly strange is that it seems that the statement re. board changes wasn't issued by the club's communications team, but by a third party. I'd be interested to know if that third party is being employed by the club, a single shareholder or the group of shareholders that initiated the change - those same shareholders who're ready to cash in, apparently. it's all a bit weird, isn't it?

Ive publicly stated that I think Comms should be direct to the Fans - and I think there was a genuine attempt to keep the Trust updated however they should be better at communicating via there Fan Base - Im sure there Comms Team will be providing valueable support steering them in the correct direction - but nothwistanding that there has been an update on where things stand via the JT 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

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 )

Why on any level is that negative - they are his Shares - the New Owners can only sell us on if we are a Success - would you rather we have a glorified Bowling Club Business Model ?    

[allyo]

36 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

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. 

We're guessing, but that seems like a realistic situation to me.

I have no reason to doubt that the current owners would wish to sell to a party that will protect the long term interests of Partick Thistle. But the reality is that they don't really know how it would all turn out under the new owners.

And human nature is that "diligence" can fall away if there is a strong incentive to make something happen. I just bought a pair of jeans that were probably too tight for a man of my age, because they were 50% reduced.

[allyo]

5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why on any level is that negative - they are his Shares - the New Owners can only sell us on if we are a Success - would you rather we have a glorified Bowling Club Business Model ?    

It's a negative if their judgement on the long term prospects for the club is being clouded by financial incentives. Very understandable, but not a good situation for Thistle.

You know them better than I do.

(I don't know them at all. Pure speculation, based on my amatuer reflections on human nature)

[Jordanhill Jag]

12 minutes ago, allyo said:

It's a negative if their judgement on the long term prospects for the club is being clouded by financial incentives. Very understandable, but not a good situation for Thistle.

You know them better than I do.

(I don't know them at all. Pure speculation, based on my amatuer reflections on human nature)

The reason for selling is irrelevant - shares get bought and sold ?  

[javeajag]

22 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why on any level is that negative - they are his Shares - the New Owners can only sell us on if we are a Success - would you rather we have a glorified Bowling Club Business Model ?    

That’s a good technique invent only two scenarios one ludicrous so the choice is easy but they are not the only two possible outcomes

beattie can sell his shares correct I just hope we don’t get the sanctimonious hogwash along with it

our new owners could also just sell us because we are not a success 

[Firhillista]

4 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The reason for selling is irrelevant - shares get bought and sold ?  

I have to say that I haven't agreed with much you've posted on here over the piece, but I'm desperately hoping you're right about this situation and that it'll all end for the best.

I think we can all agree that some statement from the board - even if it's limited in content - would provide some reassurance that we're not facing Armageddon...

[allyo]

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The reason for selling is irrelevant - shares get bought and sold ?  

The motivation for selling could be very relevant to the future of Partick Thistle. It could be for the genuine long term good of the club, or it could be for personal gain with absolute disregard for the club. Or it could be something in between (which I suspect is most likely). To say it is irrelevant is nonsense, frankly.

[jaf]

I think whilst it may appear unthinkable to any of us that we would ever want to sell the club if we were in their position, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a group of shareholders who do wish to exit. Their motivations and consciences are a matter for them.

So, it seems we have two options.

Option 1 is the takeover with all its risks, but with at its heart a group of owners who want to develop the club (that may be on a flawed business model who knows, but at least they have interest in the club)

Option 2 is we are left with a Board and owners, disappointed to have missed their chance to exit, and perhaps increasingly disinterested at the prospect of continuing to run a club, and certainly to continue to invest in it.

I think there are some disciples of the previous board running around gleefully attempting to derail the investment, and wishing for that outcome. I think we should be careful what we wish for. We cannot just go back to the way it was, the 55% have their eyes on the glittering prize now and that genie will never be put back in that particular bottle.

 

[Third Lanark]

36 minutes ago, jaf said:

I think whilst it may appear unthinkable to any of us that we would ever want to sell the club if we were in their position, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a group of shareholders who do wish to exit. Their motivations and consciences are a matter for them.

So, it seems we have two options.

Option 1 is the takeover with all its risks, but with at its heart a group of owners who want to develop the club (that may be on a flawed business model who knows, but at least they have interest in the club)

Option 2 is we are left with a Board and owners, disappointed to have missed their chance to exit, and perhaps increasingly disinterested at the prospect of continuing to run a club, and certainly to continue to invest in it.

I think there are some disciples of the previous board running around gleefully attempting to derail the investment, and wishing for that outcome. I think we should be careful what we wish for. We cannot just go back to the way it was, the 55% have their eyes on the glittering prize now and that genie will never be put back in that particular bottle.

 

Just in the same was as there was disciples of the new board who were running around gleefully trying to derail the previous board rightly or wrongly 

[jaf]

9 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Just in the same was as there was disciples of the new board who were running around gleefully trying to derail the previous board rightly or wrongly 

I think the previous board had its critics, yes for sure, but I am unsure those individuals (which I would count myself among) are disciples or even have any connection to the shareholders/board - but then I can only speak for myself.

[Dark Passenger]

2 hours ago, jaf said:

I do think whatever some may think the support has divided horribly over the past couple of years...I do wish the support could unite...

 

55 minutes ago, jaf said:

I think there are some disciples of the previous board running around gleefully attempting to derail the investment, and wishing for that outcome.

That isn't particularly consistent.

[Semi Nurainen]

If the 'crisis'/no crisis'/'which particular crisis' is having a fraction of the effect on the players and management (whose livelihood is affected) that it is having on the fans (whose hobby it is), then I am happy to absolve Caldwell and the team from all responsibility for anything up to, and including, a defeat by four clear goals on Friday night (always assuming they are being kept as ignorant as we are).

I definitely want to support Partick Thistle (despite my occasional apostasy), not Barnsley Reserves.

All of which reinforces (yet again) my long held belief that the root of all evil at Firhill, on and off the park,  since the day I counted myself as a Jags supporter, has been the fans' meek acceptance of substandard, occasionally disgraceful, performance from Boards, management and players on the guise of 'loyalty'.

Plus ça change ...

[Third Lanark]

8 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

If the 'crisis'/no crisis'/'which particular crisis' is having a fraction of the effect on the players and management (whose livelihood is affected) that it is having on the fans (whose hobby it is), then I am happy to absolve Caldwell and the team from all responsibility for anything up to, and including, a defeat by four clear goals on Friday night (always assuming they are being kept as ignorant as we are).

I definitely want to support Partick Thistle (despite my occasional apostasy), not Barnsley Reserves.

All of which reinforces (yet again) my long held belief that the root of all evil at Firhill, on and off the park,  since the day I counted myself as a Jags supporter, has been the fans' meek acceptance of substandard, occasionally disgraceful, performance from Boards, management and players on the guise of 'loyalty'.

Plus ça change ...

Out of likes but well said 

[jaf]

19 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

 

That isn't particularly consistent.

How is it not?

I wish we would unite behind whatever outcome presents itself BUT we cannot as some people are intent on fighting a battle that is already lost?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I posted yesterday - so hardly silent ? First we have an article thats has created TeamBusGate - however simple fact travelling on to grounds under an hour  was standard practice last time in the Championship - so Im honestly not sure what the fuss is - Team Budget has been cut - ok New Directors Im assuming have assessed the Budget Forecasts for next years income and re-evaluated it - that again is standard practice and part of there duty as a New Board - Budget Forecasts are subjective - Colin Weir may be pulling his funding - for the Club it was ad hoc according to the previous Board - If Colin Weir decides not to take anything to do with the Club as being suggested and ....? So No Ive not been silent up until the last 24 Hours there has been nothing worth commenting on - reading the article Im still struggling to see whats actually been said and why its considered a crisis - the Club is being sold - its with the SFA - none of that has changed - do I think Club should update direct rather than via the JT yes - thats the correct process - they have been in charge three weeks - so Im pretty sure they are now getting up to speed on things      

 

Main point remains, you are treating both boards differently.  I'm not going to be a sade and check how many posts you submit but the fact remains you were posting vigorously when the last board were in charge, demanding answers, chastising them for being silent (and I was right behind you for that). Yet when your friends/associates or whatever the relationship is, take control and give us the silent treatment your demeanour changes. This is hypocritical pure and simple. You have rules for the last board cos you didn't care for them (and I'm with you on that), and new rules for this board. No consistency. Shame on you.

You are assuming, just like us cos this board are the same as the last when it comes to communication. Come to the games, give us tour money, but programmes, buy pies (which are sh1te) drinks and sweets then feck off home and leave us to it. It simply will no do.

You don't know what the fuss is all about? Let me spell it out, they're treating us like village idiots and I was taken in but I can see it for what it is, capitalism in the raw. Now nothing wrong with that, but don't hide away which is what this crowd are doing. Shameful, and people like you fiddle while firhill burns.

Lastly, I've not used the word crisis, shambles - yes. Sleekit- yes. Crisis? - getting there. Open your eyes jj, unless of course you know what's going on but can't say.

[Third Lanark]

24 minutes ago, jaf said:

I think the previous board had its critics, yes for sure, but I am unsure those individuals (which I would count myself among) are disciples or even have any connection to the shareholders/board - but then I can only speak for myself.

Wasn’t referring to you, more so Mr Goldie who seemed to be on here every second day with regards to the latest innuendo or rumour about the old board from everyone’s favourite pet the mole 

[jaf]

12 minutes ago, Semi Nurainen said:

If the 'crisis'/no crisis'/'which particular crisis' is having a fraction of the effect on the players and management (whose livelihood is affected) that it is having on the fans (whose hobby it is), then I am happy to absolve Caldwell and the team from all responsibility for anything up to, and including, a defeat by four clear goals on Friday night (always assuming they are being kept as ignorant as we are).

I definitely want to support Partick Thistle (despite my occasional apostasy), not Barnsley Reserves.

All of which reinforces (yet again) my long held belief that the root of all evil at Firhill, on and off the park,  since the day I counted myself as a Jags supporter, has been the fans' meek acceptance of substandard, occasionally disgraceful, performance from Boards, management and players on the guise of 'loyalty'.

Plus ça change ...

Yes, which is why the best thing  (so far) that has come from this whole affair is a focus by all fans on the two trusts, as we need to make those vibrant, emboldened, representative, effective, And then we can better hold future boards to account, irrespective of ownership.

Lets get the trusts we want rather than complain about them!!

Edited August 6, 2019 by jaf

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Trust gave a clear update on the current position that the Takeover was ongoing and it was with the SFA - so save your nonsense - as for there view on it being transformational  treid and tested business models - thats a Trust view and Im hardly responsible for there views  - however they gave a clear update on where things stood ref the takeover and I doubt very much as these things go they can add much until its a done deal   - so wind your neck in  

It was as clear as the river water around Chernobyl. It was what DB wanted to be out out there. Why is he and his board in hiding, you were accusing the last board of this. Why not this board who are telling us nothing while counting their profits.

[Third Lanark]

1 minute ago, jaf said:

Yes, which is why the best thing  (so far) that has come from this whole affair is a focus by all fans on the two trusts, as we need to make those vibrant, emboldened, representative, effective

Even they though will be restrained by what they can do if non Partick Thistle supporters Lee and Conway take over and will likely grace Firhill at most once a year if at all but with their 55 per cent shareholding will be able to block and dictate to the club what they demand and tough luck to the paying fans that want to watch Partick Thistle play and not Barnsley reserves

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ive publicly stated that I think Comms should be direct to the Fans - and I think there was a genuine attempt to keep the Trust updated however they should be better at communicating via there Fan Base - Im sure there Comms Team will be providing valueable support steering them in the correct direction - but nothwistanding that there has been an update on where things stand via the JT 

 

Not being pedantic but,

Via their fan base.?? It's a simple case if puting a statement on the web site, coming to the open day, open dialogue?

Their comms team???? They should be sacked, as hopeless as the last board which your mantra was very evident on here but the new board has the same problem yet you are silent on that. Wake up