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

5 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

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

Our shareholding percentage between the trusts wont change, so no more restrained than we are now, but hopefully more effective

The last few weeks is the best sales pitch the trusts could ever get to the fans; certainly convinced me to get involved with them, but each to their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you all don't want a takeover that could threaten the sustainability of the club, but are happy for people running massive deficit budgets which could by extension threaten the sustainability of the club, and are angry that people have come in and attempted to balance the budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement states the players budget remains the same. If true we can expect more signings then. Also refutes the allegation we are not going for promotion.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jaf said:

So you all don't want a takeover that could threaten the sustainability of the club, but are happy for people running massive deficit budgets which could by extension threaten the sustainability of the club, and are angry that people have come in and attempted to balance the budget?

The statement is carefully worded and you took the bait a potential budget deficit means what exactly ? I won’t believe what they say just because they say it not am I defending anybody ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The shortfall has been partly covered by the fees...”

Are they saying:

1. The previous board factored the sell-on fees into the budget before actually having that money?  And they STILL were running at a deficit?

2. The previous board did not factor the sell-on fees into the budget, meaning they were running at an even CRAZIER deficit?  And Beattie & Co. have decided to apply the sell-on fees to help paper over those cracks?

And either way, are we talking about portions of the Fitzpatrick/Lindsay fees?  Or all of it?  Still confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

The statement states the players budget remains the same. If true we can expect more signings then. Also refutes the allegation we are not going for promotion.....

If true 

Share this post


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

“The shortfall has been partly covered by the fees...”

Are they saying:

1. The previous board factored the sell-on fees into the budget before actually having that money?  And they STILL were running at a deficit?

2. The previous board did not factor the sell-on fees into the budget, meaning they were running at an even CRAZIER deficit?  And Beattie & Co. have decided to apply the sell-on fees to help paper over those cracks?

And either way, are we talking about portions of the Fitzpatrick/Lindsay fees?  Or all of it?  Still confused.

I think it’s designed to confuse you by guys who may well not be here next week 

Share this post


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

I think it’s designed to confuse you by guys who may well not be here next week 

In that case, it’s one of the biggest successes of any board since I’ve been supporting the club!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that we will never know the true state of the finances when the previous board were removed. Even when we get the audited accounts, it will be the new boards presentation of the figures with their forecasts used to make the state look like what ever they want it to look like. 

I was not a happy bunny when the take over was first mentioned and I get less happy with every development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

The statement states the players budget remains the same. If true we can expect more signings then. Also refutes the allegation we are not going for promotion.....

It states that the budget remains the same. It doesn't state that 200,000 was committed. Therefore there may be no further signings.

And of course it refutes the allegation that we are not going for promotion. You try to win every game. But it's a meaningless comment.

There's nothing in the statement that the board can be easily held to, without knowing the full state of the finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I didn't just dream this but was there not some sort of recent Club comment about re-employing staff/filling vacancies? If so anyone know the nature of the vacancies? Not that I don't welcome this, or do I hold strong opinions. It's just in the light of this statement and the nae bus thingy rather strange timing.

Share this post


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

 

 

"I demand a statement , we must have a statement!"

 

"What a terrible statement - and the statement might not be true!"

 

So do we have money to spend on four more players or not ?

What’s the position with Colin Weir as raised by Beattie ?

is the training ground cancelled ? 

Whats the position with the takeover ?

you might take any old s&&t I don’t 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the statement three times now. Not the easiest thing to interpret, which is in itself concerning.

The only issue it addresses is the playing budget which they state is the same as was agreed with Caldwell at the beginning of the season. They state that the board " strongly refutes any suggestion that £200,000 has been removed from the playing budget, as the figure available to the Manager remains as it was under the previous board.”

 If this is true, then we can assume we're back to looking at three or four players still to come in. I'd certainly feel a lot happier if that process started with a signing sometime soon - what about the centre back, Ben Hall, we were linked with? It would also provide some confidence in the claim that the board still back us for promotion this season.

However, until there's some movement on the signing front, I'm going to be deeply worried about the current board's intentions. Why no mention of the the other points made in the newspaper story? What about the team bus? What about Colin Weir? I get that they can't talk about the proposed takeover, but the fans deserve to know that the club is currently able to function as serious contenders for the Championship this season.

Share this post


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

It states that the budget remains the same. It doesn't state that 200,000 was committed. Therefore there may be no further signings.

And of course it refutes the allegation that we are not going for promotion. You try to win every game. But it's a meaningless comment.

There's nothing in the statement that the board can be easily held to, without knowing the full state of the finances.

And they will all be off shortly anyway 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Firhillista said:

I've read the statement three times now. Not the easiest thing to interpret, which is in itself concerning.

The only issue it addresses is the playing budget which they state is the same as was agreed with Caldwell at the beginning of the season. They state that the board " strongly refutes any suggestion that £200,000 has been removed from the playing budget, as the figure available to the Manager remains as it was under the previous board.”

 If this is true, then we can assume we're back to looking at three or four players still to come in. I'd certainly feel a lot happier if that process started with a signing sometime soon - what about the centre back, Ben Hall, we were linked with? It would also provide some confidence in the claim that the board still back us for promotion this season.

However, until there's some movement on the signing front, I'm going to be deeply worried about the current board's intentions. Why no mention of the the other points made in the newspaper story? What about the team bus? What about Colin Weir? I get that they can't talk about the proposed takeover, but the fans deserve to know that the club is currently able to function as serious contenders for the Championship this season.

"The remainder of the deficit will be funded by adjusting aspects of our logistical operations" - I think that refers to the Team Bus 

 

Share this post


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

"The remainder of the deficit will be funded by adjusting aspects of our logistical operations" - I think that refers to the Team Bus 

 

The fact that we are all working how to interpret the statement tells you how dreadful it is 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

"The remainder of the deficit will be funded by adjusting aspects of our logistical operations" - I think that refers to the Team Bus 

 

Seriously? We can't run a coach to away games? If that's the level of our financial position, then we must be in significant financial difficulties. How much does it cost to hire a bus?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why they would rush out such a shitty statement.. that doesnt really clear up anything. Maybe they already have a foot out the door and just dont care? 

Share this post


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

The statement is carefully worded and you took the bait a potential budget deficit means what exactly ? I won’t believe what they say just because they say it not am I defending anybody ... 

I think its really explicit on the issue of the deficit to be honest

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jaf said:

I think its really explicit on the issue of the deficit to be honest

Great and not being funny please explain it as you understand it 

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.

×