Jump to content

Jag

New Owner

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Message added by douglas clark

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

What are you going on about - if your attempting to turn this into some sort of anti inclusiveness stance on my part - dont bother and save your PR Spin 

So I will ask you again - Im assuming you believe that the Current Board   & Manager will take us forward - possibly promotion - Cup Run - Europe ?

And beyond the Rainbow Flashes - would you care to list what of substance has been delivered in the last 12 Months ? 

What am I going on about? What are you going on about? I'm not the one who's used the new strip to take two petty digs at the current board in the space of three days.

I've already said that I think this board and management are as likely to achieve that as any other. Promotion was achieved in 2012/13 without a huge injection of cash and we've gone on cup runs as recently as last season without a billionaire owner. Europe? We haven't come close to qualifying for it in my lifetime. That's not to say we won't, though.

As for the boards performance, I don't think they've done too badly - the odd PR blunder aside - given they're guiding the club through a transition period. A period you're doing you damndest to exploit.

Success wasn't achieved by the previous board in a 12-month time period. In fact, I seem to remember Mr Beattie presiding over his own PR blunder over Rangers' registration.

I don't see why this board should be held to different standards. You obviously do.

Edited by Dark Passenger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

What are you going on about - if your attempting to turn this into some sort of anti inclusiveness stance on my part - dont bother and save your PR Spin 

So I will ask you again - Im assuming you believe that the Current Board   & Manager will take us forward - possibly promotion - Cup Run - Europe ?

And beyond the Rainbow Flashes - would you care to list what of substance has been delivered in the last 12 Months ? 

You still haven’t denied that you would have been against the takeover if Archibald was in charge or that sooner or later the new board or who they sell it onto will seek to assets strip Partick Thistle- now that is very concerning 

Edited by Third Lanark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

You still haven’t denied that you would have been against the takeover if Archibald was in charge or that sooner or later the new board or who they sell it onto will seek to assets strip Partick Thistle- now that is very concerning 

There seems to be a perception that I was arguing to keep Archie - I wasnt - I never commented either way - after relegation I was 100% against him ( both for his own reputation and the good of the Club ) - as for Assetts - as explained by other Posters we dont really have any worth stripping 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

What am I going on about? What are you going on about? I'm not the one who's used the new strip to take two petty digs at the current board in the space of three days.

I've already said that I think this board and management are as likely to achieve that as any other. Promotion was achieved in 2012/13 without a huge injection of cash and we've gone on cup runs as recently as last season without a billionaire owner. Europe? We haven't come close to qualifying for it in my lifetime. That's not to say we won't, though.

As for the boards performance, I don't think they've done too badly - the odd PR blunder aside - given their going through a transition period. A period you're doing you damndest to exploit.

Success wasn't achieved by the previous board in a 12-month time period. In fact, I seem to remember Mr Beattie presiding over his own PR blunder over Rangers' registration.

I don't see why this board should be held to different standards. You obviously do.

Actually there was injections of Cash in 2012/13  - not massively visible - they came in the form of Goodwill and Business Contacts Sponsoring   etc 

We have to disagree on the Boards performance - given the level of Parachute & EUFA money we were given - the fact we were debt free - the resources on and off the Park I dont think they delivered anything apart from survival on the last day of the Season 

As for PR Blunders given the level of resource dedicated to this and the fact that our Chairman is a Communications Expert then I think comparing them to David Beattie who was only just in the Job with zero experience in this area  is unfair - whatever you may think of him - he delivered   

Agreed success wasnt achieved over a short term period - but there was the Business Acumen and Experience with the Contacts on the Board that could achieve it - I honestly dont see anything comparable to that - and if we are simply going to trundle on - hoping for success then I believe we need a  different Business Model & Different People doing it 

As for the Rainbow Laces - in my opinion its fair comment - we are a Football Club - the objective is to win games - not make Social Comment or Gestures or Statements - it is not up to the Board to decide what the view of the Fans are on Non Football subjects - its a dangerous Road to go down 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allyo said:

The questions of whether there has to be change, and whether this sort of change would be good, should be addressed separately.

On the basis of speculation this change is potentially fundamental to what Partick Thistle is, changing from a football club run primarily to achieve footballing success to a profit making business run primarily for the benefit of its shareholders. The question of how committed or effective our current board is in running a football club is fairly irrelevant. It is currently a football club, worthless without the fans (the only people who really care), as it has been for nearly 150 years.

The new regime arguably changes that forever. We don't know that for sure, but it's worthy of consideration in my view.

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. 

Can someone, JJ or whoever, articulate why; and without reference to the current BoD, this is a good deal for Partick Thistle? Or even why they think it is a good deal. 

I suspect in the absence of anything concrete nobody can aside, perhaps, from those selling their shares. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may intervene, my wife contacted Rob Mulholland a stand up of variable quality, who does a weekly podcast : Rob Mulholland Has An Opinion - where he gives opinions to various issues

She asked whether he had an opinion on our new strip

His latest podcast does contain a brief discussion on the matter. Generally favourable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many agendas on this thread. It takes a fair bit to be dull to the other side of the world but a few posters, you know who you are, craven acceptance of either side of this particular argument does nothing to prosecute the case either for or against this development.

My two cents worth from Australia. If you can, fight, however you can, to make sure that any new owners have a vision that includes an independent Thistle being able to have success on their terms, through our own hard work. Winning things because some investment firm ploughs a stack of money in would be meaningless. Top 6 was an achievement we could all be proud of, an achievement that every fan played a tiny part in through their financial support of the club. Having six young Barnsley, our parent company's other team,  stars in the team and being promoted, would be fools gold, fun but irrelevant. 

The trust's silence on this matter is staggering, they should be front and centre of any conversation and communication. That they're not is a flat out disgrace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As for PR Blunders given the level of resource dedicated to this and the fact that our Chairman is a Communications Expert then I think comparing them to David Beattie who was only just in the Job with zero experience in this area  is unfair - whatever you may think of him - he delivered.

The club employed Michelle Evans at the time - have you conveniently forgotten that?

Yes, promotion was achieved under David Beattie's stewardship. But we were also relegated under his Chairmanship. It could be argued that he started us on the path to where we are today.

And the debt was cleared due to the generosity of a EuroMillions winner. Mr Beattie benefitted from Colin Weir's benevolence as much as the current board. It's disingenuous *at best* to claim otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin said:

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. 

Can someone, JJ or whoever, articulate why; and without reference to the current BoD, this is a good deal for Partick Thistle? Or even why they think it is a good deal. 

I suspect in the absence of anything concrete nobody can aside, perhaps, from those selling their shares. 

No one knows. Just as no one knows whether its a bad deal.

I would say one thing though. The shareholder group who may or may not be selling have earned the right to make the decision; they have earned that right by making financial and other commitments to the club over a period of time. They have made those financial and other commitments based upon being fans of our club. Some of them are also serial company acquirers/disposers, and so better qualified to know a good deal than many on here.  Many on here are in favour for one reason or another with the current Board, or had an axe to grind against the past board. Some of course are less than impressed with the current board, and that probably colours many posts on both side of this debate - perhaps even yourself admin?

Therefore all I can do is trust my instinct. My instinct is - why would people experienced at doing business deals, having spent a lot of time and money putting the club into a better position, suddenly do a bad deal that threatens all of that? It is illogical. I trust people who care about the club, and have demonstrated it in the past with cash, resource and time. That's my default position, and I suppose my question would more likely be : What evidence is there, or why would you expect, that people of that background would do a bad deal for the club?

I have experience of people doing deals at varying levels, and sellers are often in my experience concerned about much more than just the £s they are likely to receive. I think, if I was one of those shareholders (which I am not, nor have I spoken with any of them) then I would think my track record, business skills and known feelings for the club would accord me being given the benefit of the doubt as a default position. On the basis, I always like to treat people how I would like to be treated myself, I therefore am giving them the benefit of the doubt for all of the above reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, admin said:

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. 

Can someone, JJ or whoever, articulate why; and without reference to the current BoD, this is a good deal for Partick Thistle? Or even why they think it is a good deal. 

I suspect in the absence of anything concrete nobody can aside, perhaps, from those selling their shares. 

Fair enough - first we  as have Fans have No say - thats up to the Shareholders - so the "Deal" good or bad isnt relevant 

However the Why is more of interest - having had dealings to a minor extent in Spanish football - it was possible to recruit a Player - hold is Contract - "lend" him to a Club and  then get the Transfer Fee ie Saurez - thats being stopped 

So to make Money from Player Transfers you need to own a Club - Football is now a Pan Europe Affair - owning a Number of Small Clubs - combined Economies of Scale makes sense - have Players interchange Clubs - Makes Sense - gain experience in Scotland - get used to British Football - Move Down South to Barnsley - sell on but with decent sell on Clause - it stacks up to an extent 

So back to original point - Shareholders hold Shares - Fans dont  if thats say 10 People or One Person - it makes no real difference - shares are bought and sold 

The Advantage to Thistle is possibly being part of a larger more professionally run organisation which can deliver on the Park - and that is why the Club exists to deliver on the Park - who owns us doesn't really matter   

 

 

Edited by Jordanhill Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

You still haven’t denied that you would have been against the takeover if Archibald was in charge or that sooner or later the new board or who they sell it onto will seek to assets strip Partick Thistle- now that is very concerning 

What assets exactly are you referring to ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

The club employed Michelle Evans at the time - have you conveniently forgotten that?

Yes, promotion was achieved under David Beattie's stewardship. But we were also relegated under his Chairmanship. It could be argued that he started us on the path to where we are today.

And the debt was cleared due to the generosity of a EuroMillions winner. Mr Beattie benefitted from Colin Weir's benevolence as much as the current board. It's disingenuous *at best* to claim otherwise.

The current board are utterly dreadful ..... as have been the last two seasons 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

The club employed Michelle Evans at the time - have you conveniently forgotten that?

Yes, promotion was achieved under David Beattie's stewardship. But we were also relegated under his Chairmanship. It could be argued that he started us on the path to where we are today.

And the debt was cleared due to the generosity of a EuroMillions winner. Mr Beattie benefitted from Colin Weir's benevolence as much as the current board. It's disingenuous *at best* to claim otherwise.

Ok fair point on Michelle Evans ............................

I have never critiscised getting Money from Colin Weir - I have questioned that statements regards  what we do or dont get and that it should be clearly shown in the Accounts 

The Club was trading profitably prior to the Weirs involvement - so we had a Business Model that worked and had got us promoted 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jaf said:

No one knows. Just as no one knows whether its a bad deal.

I would say one thing though. The shareholder group who may or may not be selling have earned the right to make the decision; they have earned that right by making financial and other commitments to the club over a period of time. They have made those financial and other commitments based upon being fans of our club. Some of them are also serial company acquirers/disposers, and so better qualified to know a good deal than many on here.  Many on here are in favour for one reason or another with the current Board, or had an axe to grind against the past board. Some of course are less than impressed with the current board, and that probably colours many posts on both side of this debate - perhaps even yourself admin?

Therefore all I can do is trust my instinct. My instinct is - why would people experienced at doing business deals, having spent a lot of time and money putting the club into a better position, suddenly do a bad deal that threatens all of that? It is illogical. I trust people who care about the club, and have demonstrated it in the past with cash, resource and time. That's my default position, and I suppose my question would more likely be : What evidence is there, or why would you expect, that people of that background would do a bad deal for the club?

I have experience of people doing deals at varying levels, and sellers are often in my experience concerned about much more than just the £s they are likely to receive. I think, if I was one of those shareholders (which I am not, nor have I spoken with any of them) then I would think my track record, business skills and known feelings for the club would accord me being given the benefit of the doubt as a default position. On the basis, I always like to treat people how I would like to be treated myself, I therefore am giving them the benefit of the doubt for all of the above reasons.

Excellent post. Thank you. 

I can't find anything to find issue with in what you say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the current Board it’s all about CV enhancement ....apart from Rough none had a prior coneection  to the club, they have no financial interest in the club nor have they brought investors on Board so it’s not surprising perhaps that their performance has been so poor .... their number one achievement has been to admit every few months they could have handles x issue better..... why people are idolising them I have no idea 

after the last agm I emailed our chair a few times as she said you could and if course no reply 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jaf said:

No one knows. Just as no one knows whether its a bad deal.

I would say one thing though. The shareholder group who may or may not be selling have earned the right to make the decision; they have earned that right by making financial and other commitments to the club over a period of time. They have made those financial and other commitments based upon being fans of our club. Some of them are also serial company acquirers/disposers, and so better qualified to know a good deal than many on here.  Many on here are in favour for one reason or another with the current Board, or had an axe to grind against the past board. Some of course are less than impressed with the current board, and that probably colours many posts on both side of this debate - perhaps even yourself admin?

Therefore all I can do is trust my instinct. My instinct is - why would people experienced at doing business deals, having spent a lot of time and money putting the club into a better position, suddenly do a bad deal that threatens all of that? It is illogical. I trust people who care about the club, and have demonstrated it in the past with cash, resource and time. That's my default position, and I suppose my question would more likely be : What evidence is there, or why would you expect, that people of that background would do a bad deal for the club?

I have experience of people doing deals at varying levels, and sellers are often in my experience concerned about much more than just the £s they are likely to receive. I think, if I was one of those shareholders (which I am not, nor have I spoken with any of them) then I would think my track record, business skills and known feelings for the club would accord me being given the benefit of the doubt as a default position. On the basis, I always like to treat people how I would like to be treated myself, I therefore am giving them the benefit of the doubt for all of the above reasons.

Sorry but the shareholder group have not earned it at all. Hughes and Cowan? Under their stewardship we had to sell Harkins and twaddle to stop us going bust. McMaster disastrously backed Campbell to the hilt which we had to financially pay for for years, also said in no way would he have McCall as manager then he jumps to stenhouswmuir to obtain place on board.

what exactly have Norman spring ford and gillfillan done?

Eddie prentice? Come on that guy had the nerve to take £35,000 a year from the club doing part time work running the centenary fund. What genuine supporter do you know would do this. When I challenged him he took the huff and said it was nothing to do with me - as far as I’m concerned he was taking £35,000 a year for work that most genuine supporters would have done for free. Guys like Martin towers do considerably more than Prentice giving up their free time - they would never dream of asking the club for payment 

do these guys Even bother going to games? We the fans have put in our hard earned money continually, much of it wasted on the decisions made by these shareholders when they had roles at the club, we the fans put money into save the jags with many of us having considerably less wealth than these guys and we continue to do so

colin Weir has probably put in more money than all these shareholders added together and I don’t see him asking for shares etc. I’d also trust colin weir for the good of the club than those shareholders above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A week or so ago, this all seemed like a done deal. Since then, the media have gone rather quiet on the whole affair. Does anyone know if discussions are even ongoing at this moment in time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Fair enough - first we  as have Fans have No say - thats up to the Shareholders - so the "Deal" good or bad isnt relevant 

However the Why is more of interest - having had dealings to a minor extent in Spanish football - it was possible to recruit a Player - hold is Contract - "lend" him to a Club and  then get the Transfer Fee ie Saurez - thats being stopped 

So to make Money from Player Transfers you need to own a Club - Football is now a Pan Europe Affair - owning a Number of Small Clubs - combined Economies of Scale makes sense - have Players interchange Clubs - Makes Sense - gain experience in Scotland - get used to British Football - Move Down South to Barnsley - sell on but with decent sell on Clause - it stacks up to an extent 

So back to original point - Shareholders hold Shares - Fans dont  if thats say 10 People or One Person - it makes no real difference - shares are bought and sold 

The Advantage to Thistle is possibly being part of a larger more professionally run organisation which can deliver on the Park - and that is why the Club exists to deliver on the Park - who owns us doesn't really matter   

 

 

Finally, something other than ,'What have the current Board done for us' mantra. 

Interesting and actually strikes at the core of where many of my concerns lie. 

If we become just part of an organisation's portfolio of clubs then our wellbeing becomes linked to theirs. 

Obviously things like TV deals etc. impact on how a club operates but currently pretty much every decision made, good or bad, by Thistle is Thistle's call based on what is considered the best for Thistle. 

As part of a wider stable of clubs we would lose that independence that sense of autonomy. 

Personally I would find it difficult to make an emotional connection the Club in those circumstances. We stop being what we are and are just a cog, a small one at that, in a machine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the BoD's performance generally seems to be lacking in any enthusiasm or dynamism, is it not more strange the complete lack of communication from the two PTFC supporters associations? Earlier this year they contacted me [after a period of about 5 years, no contact] via email to invite me to an AGM of sorts at Firhill. So I know they have my email address, why are they not sending out emails clarifying to the ordinary fan the basics of this 'buy-out / take-over' They still the largest  shareholders in PTFC [unless there has been a change in share ownership in the last 2 weeks] is it not incumbent upon them to try to be the information focal point on this if the club refuse to say anything via the PTFC website?

It's my opinion, a well run and inclusive supporters association [only one required] is the sign of a healthy football club …. and we don't appear to have that [or should I say either?]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Sorry but the shareholder group have not earned it at all. Hughes and Cowan? Under their stewardship we had to sell Harkins and twaddle to stop us going bust. McMaster disastrously backed Campbell to the hilt which we had to financially pay for for years, also said in no way would he have McCall as manager then he jumps to stenhouswmuir to obtain place on board.

what exactly have Norman spring ford and gillfillan done?

Eddie prentice? Come on that guy had the nerve to take £35,000 a year from the club doing part time work running the centenary fund. What genuine supporter do you know would do this. When I challenged him he took the huff and said it was nothing to do with me - as far as I’m concerned he was taking £35,000 a year for work that most genuine supporters would have done for free. Guys like Martin towers do considerably more than Prentice giving up their free time - they would never dream of asking the club for payment 

do these guys Even bother going to games? We the fans have put in our hard earned money continually, much of it wasted on the decisions made by these shareholders when they had roles at the club, we the fans put money into save the jags with many of us having considerably less wealth than these guys and we continue to do so

colin Weir has probably put in more money than all these shareholders added together and I don’t see him asking for shares etc. I’d also trust colin weir for the good of the club than those shareholders above

Not getting into a debate. You are entitled to your opinion. One could say if Hughes and Cowan had not pulled together STJ, where would we be now? One could say I presume we needed Springford and Gilfillans cash.  Like it or not, when cash, or expertise was needed, these guys were there.

Don't disagree with Colin Weir having been amazing for club, and generous to fans - even if ultimately that block of shares seem somehow controlled by the board, not the fans! Also don't disagree re Martin Towers.

Perhaps why they are not seen around the club anymore is a question for other people rather than them?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin said:

Finally, something other than ,'What have the current Board done for us' mantra. 

Interesting and actually strikes at the core of where many of my concerns lie. 

If we become just part of an organisation's portfolio of clubs then our wellbeing becomes linked to theirs. 

Obviously things like TV deals etc. impact on how a club operates but currently pretty much every decision made, good or bad, by Thistle is Thistle's call based on what is considered the best for Thistle. 

As part of a wider stable of clubs we would lose that independence that sense of autonomy. 

Personally I would find it difficult to make an emotional connection the Club in those circumstances. We stop being what we are and are just a cog, a small one at that, in a machine. 

They got us relegated and nearly relegated but let’s forget that

i for one would like more for us than we currently are getting .... my support for thistle has never been conditional nor linked to who owns us 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

Although the BoD's performance generally seems to be lacking in any enthusiasm or dynamism, is it not more strange the complete lack of communication from the two PTFC supporters associations? Earlier this year they contacted me [after a period of about 5 years, no contact] via email to invite me to an AGM of sorts at Firhill. So I know they have my email address, why are they not sending out emails clarifying to the ordinary fan the basics of this 'buy-out / take-over' They still the largest  shareholders in PTFC [unless there has been a change in share ownership in the last 2 weeks] is it not incumbent upon them to try to be the information focal point on this if the club refuse to say anything via the PTFC website?

It's my opinion, a well run and inclusive supporters association [only one required] is the sign of a healthy football club …. and we don't appear to have that [or should I say either?]

Yes you can add them as well ....useless 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, javeajag said:

The current board are utterly dreadful ..... as have been the last two seasons 

If we are talking about 2 seasons then David Beattie and a couple of the others were involved then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×