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

14 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

But a large chunk of that was to pay off the debt. I think somebody said it was 1.5 Million. If that is correct and using your arithmetic, it costs Colin Weir £200K a year for the academy.

That’s not true , do you seriously think that’s all it takes to run an Academy, there was debt paid off circa 200/300 k but that’s all 

Share this post


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

Nor do you read any posts. At no point have I said what outcome I would like. I just am not having it all being blamed on one side or the other. 

Whereas you have an agenda against Beattie.

Nope just questioning what he’s going and why 

Share this post


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

If it was my money, I would want to know what was going on. I wouldn’t be sitting back and waiting for someone to come and talk to me.

Of course the new owners should have been getting in touch as well.

Both sides are at fault.

 

Maybe he asked and was told as he’s not a shareholder it has nothing to do with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more nervous about this situation than I thought … last night a 'sports update' came on the TV showing sellik scoring a goal against PTFC a few years ago.

What was weird is I just naturally assumed the update was about us, and we had gone into receivership!!

In fact it was the news that a sellik footballer had signed for an English team, I was able to breath again!

I wonder if the open day on Saturday could be used to good effect in 'openly' discussing the situations we as a club find ourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The invitation you'll (hopefully) never see...

"We are proud to announce that a series of "Meet the Business Expert" nights is to begin soon.  Final arrangements on venue/time/dates will be announced as soon as possible.  These events have been designed to give Thistle supporters a unique insight into the world of running a football club.  We will cover this season's burning issues including shareholding, voting rights, take-over protocol, due diligence procedures, transformational business models, property development, company law,  financial accounts and bus hire.  There will also be break-out sessions on internet etiquette, the role of the press and  the dangers of ill-founded speculation.  All sessions will be ably supported by multi-media input by our experts including Excel spreadsheets, Profit and Loss accounts and Balance Sheets.  The club doctor will also lead a short session on a medical condition that is becoming increasingly worrying ie, "Ma Heid's Buzzled-itis".   

Demand is likely to be considerable so to avoid disappointment please phone xxx-xxxx to book your place.  We are sure that all supporters will understand that preference will be given to those with degrees in Law or Business Economics and to Chartered Accountants.  Please remember to state your academic qualification (and if you're a Season Ticket holder) when you contact us.  (Please note that if time permits there may be a short opportunity to discuss the previous week's disastrous defeat/disappointing draw/glorious win #.

# delete as appropriate as the dates are confirmed."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

First No one mentioned Maryhill Park - Garscube Estate has excellent Facilities - reality we are a Tennent there - and we would be a Tennant at any 3 Black Cats Training Ground on BOTH we have to pay a Commercial Rent - circa 10% of the Development cost - simple fact or HMRC would be all over it - so not getting the "training Ground " frankly is no big deal in my opinion  

My leaning is towards a Scouting System - rather than an Academy - that view is not unique in Football

I think Colin Weir did what he thought was best  - the question is - as a result where we a better Club - thats a subjective view and down to opinion  - we were progressing before he was involved - we were a Premier Club - I have No idea as to individual Views on the Board  - I have my View      

Just to clarify, you criticised the previous board for failing to deliver a training ground that you didn't think was a good idea

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amidst all the speculation there's one thing that can be said for certain - cancelling the bus for a couple of games was a massive PR blunder.  Whether or not it matters to have a bus for nearby games, it makes us look to outsiders as if we're on the verge of bankruptcy (which i know we're not) to be unable to afford a team bus.  Savings made would be ridiculously tiny and above all it sets Thistle fans up for a real slagging: "your team going by tandem?"  I'm already cringing, waiting for when I see my non-Jags mates this weekend.  And all for something that could be paid out of petty cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
11 hours ago, Third Lanark said:

TB he has blatantly made up stuff again to suit his sad little agenda - the attendances were down from January onwards- it is a fact that they went up.  Just as it was also a fact that significant costs were spent having to pay off the previous manager, his assistant and a number of dud players he had wasted a whole load of cash on. While additionally we wasted high wages in not being able to ditch very high earners like keown and Storey though that may have been maxwells fault rather than Archie’s with regards to contracts and wages for these guys. 

in other words we wasted a significant amount of money in not ditching Archie last summer.  

We did waste a large amount, no arguement there. Just for clarity, I don't for a minute believe anyone set out to purposely wate the clubs money, but this and the last board are as culpable as Maxine, AA and GB. It's the nature of football at all levels  sometimes they'll get it right, sometimes they'll get it wrong.

Perhaps Sandy was referring to the number of home fans attending matches. Crowds were up perhaps due to bigger away support? I read on this forum that the home support was down last season compared to our last year in the premier league. It's hard to get a break down unless you take note of the announcement at each match. I've not found any details on line. Bottom line for me is that as I attend all home games, to the naked eye, our support is dropping over the last few seasons. In fact the figures for the promotion season were superb, compared to our time in the premier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

That’s not true , do you seriously think that’s all it takes to run an Academy, there was debt paid off circa 200/300 k but that’s all 

How much does it take ? Nobody seemed to question £250K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

That’s not true , do you seriously think that’s all it takes to run an Academy, there was debt paid off circa 200/300 k but that’s all 

I do not like saying this to someone who themselves is telling someone else what they are saying is not true, but what you have posted here is not true I am afraid.  

The truth is a matter of public record.

Shares were allotted in November 2015 to the following :

Colin Weir

Christine Weir

Billy Allan

PTFC Trust

There are two classes of shares.

The value ascribed for the A shares was £1.47 per share, whilst the B shares were priced at £0.147.

On that basis, the value paid for the shares by PTFC Trust alone was £658,500.

But in addition there were the issues of shares to the Weirs and Billy Allan at same time amounting to a further £441,500 of value among them.

Total value of new shares issued per Companies House was therefore £1,100,000 - albeit not entirely from the Weirs.

The 2016 accounts also show that the cash received for the issue of shares in 2015 amounted to £1,084,000. (I am guessing the £16k difference was non-cash, ie some money that was due to either Billy Allan or the Weirs)

The 2016 accounts also show £480k of loan repayments were made in that year, and the opening position of negative cash (overdraft) of over £100k had also been repaid, and the club instead were sitting with cash reserves. So around £600k was used to pay off bank debt, £244k to reduce other creditors of the club, and approx. £300k used to carry forward as future cash reserves. So debt and creditor reduction was in region of £850k.

These are the facts. The inconvenient alternative to made up nonsense to support an entrenched viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, javeajag said:

Maybe he asked and was told as he’s not a shareholder it has nothing to do with him

He is a shareholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, javeajag said:

And you will never know as the old board shuffle off and the figures are never published 

There will be a requirement to publish figures, not least to the shareholders which include the supporters trusts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, a f kincaid said:

The invitation you'll (hopefully) never see...

"We are proud to announce that a series of "Meet the Business Expert" nights is to begin soon.  Final arrangements on venue/time/dates will be announced as soon as possible.  These events have been designed to give Thistle supporters a unique insight into the world of running a football club.  We will cover this season's burning issues including shareholding, voting rights, take-over protocol, due diligence procedures, transformational business models, property development, company law,  financial accounts and bus hire.  There will also be break-out sessions on internet etiquette, the role of the press and  the dangers of ill-founded speculation.  All sessions will be ably supported by multi-media input by our experts including Excel spreadsheets, Profit and Loss accounts and Balance Sheets.  The club doctor will also lead a short session on a medical condition that is becoming increasingly worrying ie, "Ma Heid's Buzzled-itis".   

Demand is likely to be considerable so to avoid disappointment please phone xxx-xxxx to book your place.  We are sure that all supporters will understand that preference will be given to those with degrees in Law or Business Economics and to Chartered Accountants.  Please remember to state your academic qualification (and if you're a Season Ticket holder) when you contact us.  (Please note that if time permits there may be a short opportunity to discuss the previous week's disastrous defeat/disappointing draw/glorious win #.

# delete as appropriate as the dates are confirmed."

 

 

Egad sir, that looks like a dashed satire to me!

Who do you think you are, Semi Neuralgia or whatever it is he calls himself.

----

PS: would an M. Eng get me through the door quicker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, javeajag said:

Cool .....how could anyone spend another 700k on that ....it’s a joke ....and concerning that the board is pedaling this nonsense 

Per Published accounts :

2015 :

Playing staff - 30

Non playing staff - 45

2016 :

Playing staff - 34

Non playing staff - 43

2017 :

Playing staff - 35

Non playing staff - 48

2018 :

Playing staff - 35

Non playing staff - 60

 

Total wage bill 2016 - £2m

Total wage bill 2018 - £2.8m

(for context Kilmarnocks 2017 salary bill was £2.2m)

 

Might this explain some of this disputed difference, a 40% increase in non playing staff over a 2 year period, and similarly a 40% increase in total wages over the same period?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I do not like saying this to someone who themselves is telling someone else what they are saying is not true, but what you have posted here is not true I am afraid.  

The truth is a matter of public record.

Shares were allotted in November 2015 to the following :

Colin Weir

Christine Weir

Billy Allan

PTFC Trust

There are two classes of shares.

The value ascribed for the A shares was £1.47 per share, whilst the B shares were priced at £0.147.

On that basis, the value paid for the shares by PTFC Trust alone was £658,500.

But in addition there were the issues of shares to the Weirs and Billy Allan at same time amounting to a further £441,500 of value among them.

Total value of new shares issued per Companies House was therefore £1,100,000 - albeit not entirely from the Weirs.

The 2016 accounts also show that the cash received for the issue of shares in 2015 amounted to £1,084,000. (I am guessing the £16k difference was non-cash, ie some money that was due to either Billy Allan or the Weirs)

The 2016 accounts also show £480k of loan repayments were made in that year, and the opening position of negative cash (overdraft) of over £100k had also been repaid, and the club instead were sitting with cash reserves. So around £600k was used to pay off bank debt, £244k to reduce other creditors of the club, and approx. £300k used to carry forward as future cash reserves. So debt and creditor reduction was in region of £850k.

These are the facts. The inconvenient alternative to made up nonsense to support an entrenched viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get most of that , but would loan repayments etc also not be paid off re the the trading profits because of our SPFL Premier League status , you’re probably right in terms of shareholding etc but we had a small overdraft at that particular which Colin Weir helped to pay off .

As regards the Academy, the Coaching staff alone would cost in the region of 150k / 200k a year 

Share this post


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

Get most of that , but would loan repayments etc also not be paid off re the the trading profits because of our SPFL Premier League status , you’re probably right in terms of shareholding etc but we had a small overdraft at that particular which Colin Weir helped to pay off .

As regards the Academy, the Coaching staff alone would cost in the region of 150k / 200k a year 

I don't totally understand the question but there is a cash flow statement in that years accounts which shows this.

If I am understanding your question correctly, then no, we were paying £45k a year of debt reduction, not affording it, and so running up debts with other creditors instead. After the investment we paid off that debt in its entirety which amounted to £480k (a lot more than the annual £44k out of normal cash flow)

Share this post


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

There will be a requirement to publish figures, not least to the shareholders which include the supporters trusts.

But the point is that it will be the new board who will publish the accounts and will be able to present them with their own forcasts which will, to a degree, be able to spin them any way they want. 

Share this post


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

But the point is that it will be the new board who will publish the accounts and will be able to present them with their own forcasts which will, to a degree, be able to spin them any way they want. 

They don't publish budgets/forecasts as part of accounts.

The accounts are subject to audit - perhaps you think the auditor is going to risk their livelihood by agreeing to falsify audited accounts, but I think that's paranoia and so don't think they will? Especially given those audited accounts MIGHT be relied upon in a financial due diligence exercise to buy the club - that concentrates the mind on getting the numbers right I am sure. This is fanciful stuff.

I was answering the very specific point from Javeajag that the results would not be published. Which is incorrect. As for the future, there are enough people on here with finance or other skills who can cut through the spin and read a set of accounts and report back to the wider fanbase. We have been doing it for years regardless of who has been in charge and regardless what forum exists at the time!

 

 

Share this post


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

Per Published accounts :

2015 :

Playing staff - 30

Non playing staff - 45

2016 :

Playing staff - 34

Non playing staff - 43

2017 :

Playing staff - 35

Non playing staff - 48

2018 :

Playing staff - 35

Non playing staff - 60

 

Total wage bill 2016 - £2m

Total wage bill 2018 - £2.8m

(for context Kilmarnocks 2017 salary bill was £2.2m)

 

Might this explain some of this disputed difference, a 40% increase in non playing staff over a 2 year period, and similarly a 40% increase in total wages over the same period?

 

 

 

 

Now if you were at the agm you would know  what the explanation for the 60 was as the number was in fact comparable year in year as that very question was asked 

Share this post


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

They don't publish budgets/forecasts as part of accounts.

The accounts are subject to audit - perhaps you think the auditor is going to risk their livelihood by agreeing to falsify audited accounts, but I think that's paranoia and so don't think they will? Especially given those audited accounts MIGHT be relied upon in a financial due diligence exercise to buy the club - that concentrates the mind on getting the numbers right I am sure. This is fanciful stuff.

I was answering the very specific point from Javeajag that the results would not be published. Which is incorrect. As for the future, there are enough people on here with finance or other skills who can cut through the spin and read a set of accounts and report back to the wider fanbase. We have been doing it for years regardless of who has been in charge and regardless what forum exists at the time!

 

 

You need to be clear that our accounts are very limited in the information they give 

Share this post


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

You need to be clear that our accounts are very limited in the information they give 

They meet the statutory requirement for reporting , not sure what you are trying to insinuate here ? 

Share this post


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

Now if you were at the agm you would know  what the explanation for the 60 was as the number was in fact comparable year in year as that very question was asked 

If I had been at the AGM, I might not have accepted that answer without a follow up question.

If on some like for like comparison there is some weird justification why an apparent increase in numbers is not actually an increase, how come the wage costs increased by £800k - is that all down to playing budget even though there was only ONE extra player?

Whatever the lack of common ground on the staff numbers the wage bill still increased by £800k in two years despite us only having one extra player. That is a fact.

(I know you don't know the answers and we cannot get them from accounts and the ship has sailed on finding out the answers)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Junior said:

They meet the statutory requirement for reporting , not sure what you are trying to insinuate here ? 

Jesus nothing other that they provide the required minimum so lots not in there 

Share this post


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

If I had been at the AGM, I might not have accepted that answer without a follow up question.

If on some like for like comparison there is some weird justification why an apparent increase in numbers is not actually an increase, how come the wage costs increased by £800k - is that all down to playing budget even though there was only ONE extra player?

Whatever the lack of common ground on the staff numbers the wage bill still increased by £800k in two years despite us only having one extra player. That is a fact.

(I know you don't know the answers and we cannot get them from accounts and the ship has sailed on finding out the answers)

 

 

The non playing staff was the same year on year 

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.

×