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

57 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Does say 55% have agreed to sell their shares .....who was at firhill ?

It says in the article* 

 

*I can't remember his name. Not Chien the other one lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

Does say 55% have agreed to sell their shares .....who was at firhill ?

So its it officially "not a rumour" 

Its very simple - with 55% Board can accept or an existing shareholder can make an offer for the 55% - thats it 

Regards SFA - again as JAF points out they would need to have very very good reasons to say no - they cant just say No because they dont fancy it - there has to be due process or they could end up in Court  - are Thistle worth the hassle - Probs Not 

So unless Colin Weir is buying the 55% ( and Propco ) - its looking very much like this is going through in my opinion  

Our Board can of course lobby the SFA - or use Social Media etc - but the SFA will be very much influenced by the  potential ramifications of  refusal as it sets a precedence for the future  

We live in a Global World - owning Clubs in different Countries means nothing 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So its it officially "not a rumour" 

Its very simple - with 55% Board can accept or an existing shareholder can make an offer for the 55% - thats it 

Regards SFA - again as JAF points out they would need to have very very good reasons to say no - they cant just say No because they dont fancy it - there has to be due process or they could end up in Court  - are Thistle worth the hassle - Probs Not 

So unless Colin Weir is buying the 55% ( and Propco ) - its looking very much like this is going through in my opinion  

Our Board can of course lobby the SFA - or use Social Media etc - but the SFA will be very much influenced by the  potential ramifications of  refusal as it sets a precedence for the future  

We live in a Global World - owning Clubs in different Countries means nothing 

 

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So its it officially "not a rumour" 

Its very simple - with 55% Board can accept or an existing shareholder can make an offer for the 55% - thats it 

Regards SFA - again as JAF points out they would need to have very very good reasons to say no - they cant just say No because they dont fancy it - there has to be due process or they could end up in Court  - are Thistle worth the hassle - Probs Not 

So unless Colin Weir is buying the 55% ( and Propco ) - its looking very much like this is going through in my opinion  

Our Board can of course lobby the SFA - or use Social Media etc - but the SFA will be very much influenced by the  potential ramifications of  refusal as it sets a precedence for the future  

We live in a Global World - owning Clubs in different Countries means nothing 

 

 

Colin Weir has done much for the club and for that we should all be very thankful.

However, personally I would rather have an owner doing it because they positively wanted to own the club as part of a plan, than one who was cajoled into it  simply to stop something else happening.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Passenger said:

And the dual ownership issue? 

Its a permission that's required.

Its not a rule that it cannot happen - it cannot happen without permission.

The permission should only be withheld where certain criteria are not met.

You may think that wealthy and experienced acquirers of football clubs will not be able to satisfy the permission criteria, but I tend to think they might.

Of course people , with no knowledge of the details nor outcomes for our club, who wish to deny the club the opportunity for growth, even if it is only a ghost of a chance, will be tweeting away and noisily shouting about dual ownership to try to influence matters no doubt. Personally, I hope that campaign is unsuccessful. One thing is for sure, I understand that's my opinion, and others may take the contrary view - but no one can say who is right until the passing of time. Not me, not you. So far we have seen nothing from the consortium, and consequently that means we have seen nothing negative.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We haven't seen anything positive either.

But we have seen people with no knowledge of the details nor outcomes for the club...blah, blah blah...

My point re. dual ownership is that it creates a clear conflict of interest that *could* be detrimental to Partick Thistle in the longterm. I wonder how the SFA will view that.

I also wonder, if we're talking about precedents, if the SFA will ponder whether this creates a situation where Scotland's leagues are full of feeder clubs for clubs across the border.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

And the dual ownership issue? 

Its not an "issue" plenty of people are shouting about it being an "issue" trying making out its bigger than it is - Mike Ashley bought 10% of Rangers - you need permission - there are no rules preventing it - also they need good reason to refuse it - or SFA could be challenged in Court   

So either Colin Weir is buying the Club or the SFA have to find a justifiable legal reason to say No - this will be on advise of Lawyers 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

We haven't seen anything positive either.

But we have seen people with no knowledge of the details nor outcomes for the club...blah, blah blah...

My point re. dual ownership is that it creates a clear conflict of interest that *could* be detrimental to Partick Thistle in the longterm. I wonder how the SFA will view that.

I also wonder, if we're talking about precedents, if the SFA will ponder whether this creates a situation where Scotland's leagues are full of feeder clubs for clubs across the border.

Why would dual ownership be detrimental to Thistle in the long term ?

Why is it a conflict of interest when the Teams are in different Countries ? 

We already are Feeder Clubs to across the Border - we always have been ? 

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

3 minutes ago, jaf said:

Its a permission that's required.

Its not a rule that it cannot happen - it cannot happen without permission.

The permission should only be withheld where certain criteria are not met.

You may think that wealthy and experienced acquirers of football clubs will not be able to satisfy the permission criteria, but I tend to think they might.

Of course people , with no knowledge of the details nor outcomes for our club, who wish to deny the club the opportunity for growth, even if it is only a ghost of a chance, will be tweeting away and noisily shouting about dual ownership to try to influence matters no doubt. Personally, I hope that campaign is unsuccessful. One thing is for sure, I understand that's my opinion, and others may take the contrary view - but no one can say who is right until the passing of time. Not me, not you. So far we have seen nothing from the consortium, and consequently that means we have seen nothing negative.

 

 

 

 

We don’t really have any information on the potential new owners so will have to wait and see .... sadly we can see our board in action on a daily basis 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

 

My point re. dual ownership is that it creates a clear conflict of interest that *could* be detrimental to Partick Thistle in the longterm. I wonder how the SFA will view that.

I also wonder, if we're talking about precedents, if the SFA will ponder whether this creates a situation where Scotland's leagues are full of feeder clubs for clubs across the border.

Yeah, but that's exactly what the criteria they need to satisfy are about - ensuring that conflict of interest is mitigated against or eradicated, and my understanding is that it prevents a feedr club scenario

I don't think they have said we will be a feeder club - that's purely uninformed speculation - it also wont let them get their permission

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

We haven't seen anything positive either.

But we have seen people with no knowledge of the details nor outcomes for the club...blah, blah blah...

My point re. dual ownership is that it creates a clear conflict of interest that *could* be detrimental to Partick Thistle in the longterm. I wonder how the SFA will view that.

I also wonder, if we're talking about precedents, if the SFA will ponder whether this creates a situation where Scotland's leagues are full of feeder clubs for clubs across the border.

Also - now its Official - Im assuming we will now get an update from the Club   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In considering whether to give any such consent as may be required by this Article 13, the Board shall have

regard to the need to promote and safeguard the interests and public profile of Association Football, its

players, spectators and others concerned with the game and shall have regard also to these Articles,

the rules and regulations of the Scottish FA and to the constitution and rules of those bodies of which the

Scottish FA is in membership and, accordingly, any such consent shall be subject to such conditions as the

Board shall consider appropriate in all the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are examples of cross country club ownership which have been agreed and approved by the following football associations over the past few seasons :

English

Swiss

Belgian

French

US

Australian

Italian

Japanese

Spanish

Mexican

Dutch

South African

German

I am sure there are probably more too....

Not sure why Scotland would be different.  Should the SFA deny this on principal rather than detail, they are effectively denying Scottish clubs the opportunity to participate in the new global investment market of multi club ownership.

Edited by jaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I find it strange that people can spend time analysing the minutiae of every club statement but blithely dismiss the issue of 'dual ownership' as mere red tape. 

There are reasons why these regulations are in place. In part to protect clubs from being used for the benefit of others. 

A change in ownership needn't be a bad thing but I see nothing of substance to suggest to me that people aren't simply wanting to see change in the current BoD and are ignoring the fact that this is potentially a seismic change in how Partick Thistle operate. That's dangerous thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, admin said:

I find it strange that people can spend time analysing the minutiae of every club statement but blithely dismiss the issue of 'dual ownership' as mere red tape. 

There are reasons why these regulations are in place. In part to protect clubs from being used for the benefit of others. 

A change in ownership needn't be a bad thing but I see nothing of substance to suggest to me that people aren't simply wanting to see change in the current BoD and are ignoring the fact that this is potentially a seismic change in how Partick Thistle operate. That's dangerous thinking. 

That also assumes that the Status Quo is a Good thing for Partick Thistle - given that the Board have zero previous connection to the Club - most likely Support other Teams - have No Shares - Havent Invested or Havent attracted  Investment   - we already have a major change in how we operate - something thats being ignored 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, admin said:

I find it strange that people can spend time analysing the minutiae of every club statement but blithely dismiss the issue of 'dual ownership' as mere red tape. 

There are reasons why these regulations are in place. In part to protect clubs from being used for the benefit of others. 

A change in ownership needn't be a bad thing but I see nothing of substance to suggest to me that people aren't simply wanting to see change in the current BoD and are ignoring the fact that this is potentially a seismic change in how Partick Thistle operate. That's dangerous thinking. 

You don't know if it will be good, you don't know if it will be bad.

I don't know if it will be good, or if it will be bad.

I am not blithely saying they are red tape, but the rules are there - you can read them, I copied and pasted them. I will trust our selling shareholders, and the SFA to do their jobs.

My post above shows that this is now commonplace practice around the globe and is simply now coming to Scotland.

I am not criticising anyone who views it with suspicion, in the absence of any concrete information. But also there is an absence of concrete information that suggest concern. Apart from fear of change, as your post alludes to.

Furthermore, for balance, I think there are many posters whose view on the merits of the takeover is based entirely on a positive view and/or cosy relationship with the current board. Perhaps if the current board engaged equally with all, then they would not have got the support divided in this way?  Perhaps if they had treated some shareholders differently, they would not be facing a takeover now?  But those are just more perhapses.

The fundamental point you are making re peoples view of the board is of course flawed because we have seen no plans from the consortium. Perhaps they would keep the Board intact, or individual members thereof. Malcolm Cannon has a great CV for example. or by board, do you mean Chair? In which case, even then, we have no idea whether any board member would be retained under a change of ownership.

I am embracing this as an opportunity to raise the ceiling of Partick Thistle, and until I see a concern of substance I will continue to do so. But I will be open minded should one emerge. Will you?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, admin said:

I find it strange that people can spend time analysing the minutiae of every club statement but blithely dismiss the issue of 'dual ownership' as mere red tape. 

There are reasons why these regulations are in place. In part to protect clubs from being used for the benefit of others. 

A change in ownership needn't be a bad thing but I see nothing of substance to suggest to me that people aren't simply wanting to see change in the current BoD and are ignoring the fact that this is potentially a seismic change in how Partick Thistle operate. That's dangerous thinking. 

The way the club has operated in the last 12 months has already been a seismic change from previously, the fact for the first time in its history the board have no shares and no investment is a seismic change, the fact the club has relied on investment from outside the club is massively different from before.

The club has already changed, the spin coming out in PM’s on various mediums to people from certain people close to the event smacks of desperation from those in charge trying to hold onto their power. 

Weve changed and IMHO we need to change again, as what we have does not work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
2 minutes ago, jaf said:

You don't know if it will be good, you don't know if it will be bad.

I don't know if it will be good, or if it will be bad.

I am not blithely saying they are red tape, but the rules are there - you can read them, I copied and pasted them. I will trust our selling shareholders, and the SFA to do their jobs.

My post above shows that this is now commonplace practice around the globe and is simply now coming to Scotland.

I am not criticising anyone who views it with suspicion, in the absence of any concrete information. But also there is an absence of concrete information that suggest concern. Apart from fear of change, as your post alludes to.

Furthermore, for balance, I think there are many posters whose view on the merits of the takeover is based entirely on a positive view and/or cosy relationship with the current board. Perhaps if the current board engaged equally with all, then they would not have got the support divided in this way?  Perhaps if they had treated some shareholders differently, they would not be facing a takeover now?  But those are just more perhapses.

The fundamental point you are making re peoples view of the board is of course flawed because we have seen no plans from the consortium. Perhaps they would keep the Board intact, or individual members thereof. Malcolm Cannon has a great CV for example. or by board, do you mean Chair? In which case, even then, we have no idea whether any board member would be retained under a change of ownership.

I am embracing this as an opportunity to raise the ceiling of Partick Thistle, and until I see a concern of substance I will continue to do so. But I will be open minded should one emerge. Will you?

 

 

 

 

 

I feel I'm repeating myself but anyway here goes. 

The point I'm trying to make is the current performance of the BoD is, or should be, irrelevant when debating the takeover. 

It needs to be judged on its merits alone. 

Of course I'll be opened minded. I've said from day one that it could potentially be great for Partick Thistle but that shouldn't prevent anyone from trying to articulate why they are concerned. 

My concerns in no way relate to the current BoD. Personally I have no major issue with them. Or at least I see no maelovent intent in their actions that would prompt me to want their removal. 

I don't know anyone on the Board far less have any relationship, cosy or otherwise, with any of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

That also assumes that the Status Quo is a Good thing for Partick Thistle - given that the Board have zero previous connection to the Club - most likely Support other Teams - have No Shares - Havent Invested or Havent attracted  Investment   - we already have a major change in how we operate - something thats being ignored 

Exactly 

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...