Thistle For Ever - Fans Ownership

[javeajag]

32 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

They stated that under there Rules you cant buy a seat on the Board - so if the only way of purchasing the Shares is to use the St Mirren Model where a Benefactor Buys the Shares - with the long term agreement that when the Fans raise the required Funds Shares will be sold to the Fans in tranches but meantime the Benefactor wants Seats on the Board ( same as St Mirren ) are you in support of this scenario ? 

Given its a Model thats been referred to as "Fan Ownership" then its a reasonable question ?       

Ask them and get clarification as I am not involved .....as I understand  it their objective is for the club to be community owned 

but as I understand your previous posts someone who owns shares and is on the board is a good thing 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by javeajag

[javeajag]

12 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But they clearly state you cant "Buy a Seat on the Board "  So by there own rules anyone giving cash cannot get any influence in the Boardroom beyond getting a single Vote 

Also in a normal Company I own 7% Shares - I have 7% Voting Rights - under this scenario I can own 0% Shares but have the same voting rights as the 7% ? 

Partick Thistle are a Limited Company - voting rights are controlled by the Companies Act - its also been stated that only members of this Group can be elected to the Board  - Im not actually sure thats in line with the Companies Act - and if your not part of this "Group" you cant be elected to the Board ?   Again not 100% sure where that sits as a limited Company - the Directors are beholding to Shareholders not a "Group" and thats all the shareholders not just the ones they like     

 

Ask them .....

[lady-isobel-barnett]

2 hours ago, jaf said:

They definitely cannot be criticised for communication. I have asked questions direct to individuals involved and had open answers. Quickly. 

If they are being bombarded then that’s quite a time commitment from them, so well done to the guys involved. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ask them .....

       Could save pages upon pages of posts.

[Jordanhill Jag]

38 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ask them and get clarification as I am not involved .....as I understand  it their objective is for the club to be community owned 

but as I understand your previous posts someone who owns shares and is on the board is a good thing 

 

They have made statements - that you cant buy a place on the Board - so lets see how much the hold to that ...........

[javeajag]

24 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

They have made statements - that you cant buy a place on the Board - so lets see how much the hold to that ...........

I’m not sure why you just don’t ask them instead of going all cynical....unless you want to buy a place in the board ....

[Norgethistle]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

I’m not sure why you just don’t ask them instead of going all cynical....unless you want to buy a place in the board ....

Jordanhill Jags question is similar to one of the series of ones I posted on here and directly to the group yesterday. They (Paul) have promised to look into it and get back to me with an answer, when they do I can share, but I believe (from memory)  JJ is correct regarding the Companies Act statement 

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Jordanhill Jags question is similar to one of the series of ones I posted on here and directly to the group yesterday. They (Paul) have promised to look into it and get back to me with an answer, when they do I can share, but I believe (from memory)  JJ is correct regarding the Companies Act statement 

Could be and let’s see what they say and let’s give them credit for being so responsive in contrast to the board and the consortium....

i took jj to be implying that although they say you cant buy a place in the board they don’t mean it and I’m nit sure what that’s based on ....let’s judge people by their actions 

or get involved and shape the outcome ?

[Norgethistle]

13 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Could be and let’s see what they say and let’s give them credit for being so responsive in contrast to the board and the consortium....

i took jj to be implying that although they say you cant buy a place in the board they don’t mean it and I’m nit sure what that’s based on ....let’s judge people by their actions 

or get involved and shape the outcome ?

Prior to just “getting involved” I’d rather try to understand the actual dynamics of what is being proposed. How it will be done?  how will it be funded?  who will choose a board? will those setting it up place themselves on the board in a wage? Will a backer or backers fund this themselves then the group pay them back with strings (St Mirren model)? 

We currently have (In my opinion) less information behind this group than the other group regarding where funding and control is proposed to come from 

[javeajag]

6 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Prior to just “getting involved” I’d rather try to understand the actual dynamics of what is being proposed. How it will be done?  how will it be funded?  who will choose a board? will those setting it up place themselves on the board in a wage? Will a backer or backers fund this themselves then the group pay them back with strings (St Mirren model)? 

We currently have (In my opinion) less information behind this group than the other group regarding where funding and control is proposed to come from 

I’m sure they will respond 

 

[Norgethistle]

Just now, javeajag said:

I’m sure they will respond 

 

I’m quite sure they will to

[Jordanhill Jag]

32 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Could be and let’s see what they say and let’s give them credit for being so responsive in contrast to the board and the consortium....

i took jj to be implying that although they say you cant buy a place in the board they don’t mean it and I’m nit sure what that’s based on ....let’s judge people by their actions 

or get involved and shape the outcome ?

Its very simple - I dont see the numbers stacking up- therefore the more likely scenario is the St Mirren Model with an Owner who is allowing tranches of shares to be purchased - meantime they Control places on the Board - but that is contradictory to the statement of " you will not be able to buy a place on the Board " 

As we wont know the numbers until January then there is No Question to ask - merely pointing out that they have made a bold statement 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Jordanhill Jag

[javeajag]

For those who want to ask some questions this is from Thistle For Ever....

 

We appreciate that fans will have questions about our proposals. Please don't hesitate to ask them here, on Twitter or via [email protected]. We've already received queries and have either answered them or are in the process of answering them. We'll also post sections of our Q&A periodically here and on Twitter. That Q&A will be updated to reflect our conversations with supporters. You can find it on our website: http://thistleforever.org

[Jordanhill Jag]

7 hours ago, javeajag said:

Could be and let’s see what they say and let’s give them credit for being so responsive in contrast to the board and the consortium....

i took jj to be implying that although they say you cant buy a place in the board they don’t mean it and I’m nit sure what that’s based on ....let’s judge people by their actions 

or get involved and shape the outcome ?

They have quoted the St Mirren Model - under that Hugh Scott Bought the Shares and is selling them back in tranches - Fans have a couple of Seats on the Board but Hugh Scott owns the Club and there is no major shift in shareholding towards the Fans at present 

So if someone with cash does the same under the quoted St Mirren " Community Ownership Model " then they could demand they get places on the Board - that goes against          " you cant buy a seat on the board" Im not implying anything -its highly likely they wont get the cash -its a more than reasonable scenario they go for the St Mirren Model - if thats the case then they need to remove that statement - also if there are nominees - then Fans dont really Control the Club ? 

Therefore applying logic - without someone with Cash - it falls apart - if they demand nominees-  then its simply a variation of what we had before     

 

 

[Norgethistle]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

They have quoted the St Mirren Model - under that Hugh Scott Bought the Shares and is selling them back in tranches - Fans have a couple of Seats on the Board but Hugh Scott owns the Club and there is no major shift in shareholding towards the Fans at present 

So if someone with cash does the same under the quoted St Mirren " Community Ownership Model " then they could demand they get places on the Board - that goes against          " you cant buy a seat on the board" Im not implying anything -its highly likely they wont get the cash -its a more than reasonable scenario they go for the St Mirren Model - if thats the case then they need to remove that statement - also if there are nominees - then Fans dont really Control the Club ? 

Therefore applying logic - without someone with Cash - it falls apart - if they demand nominees-  then its simply a variation of what we had before     

 

 

Fans have 1 person on board and if do not make payments or have minimum number all shares go back to Hugh Scott

[Norgethistle]

9 hours ago, javeajag said:

I’m sure they will respond 

 

Hopefully soon

[javeajag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

They have quoted the St Mirren Model - under that Hugh Scott Bought the Shares and is selling them back in tranches - Fans have a couple of Seats on the Board but Hugh Scott owns the Club and there is no major shift in shareholding towards the Fans at present 

So if someone with cash does the same under the quoted St Mirren " Community Ownership Model " then they could demand they get places on the Board - that goes against          " you cant buy a seat on the board" Im not implying anything -its highly likely they wont get the cash -its a more than reasonable scenario they go for the St Mirren Model - if thats the case then they need to remove that statement - also if there are nominees - then Fans dont really Control the Club ? 

Therefore applying logic - without someone with Cash - it falls apart - if they demand nominees-  then its simply a variation of what we had before     

 

 

They have quoted a number of models because I suppose there are a number of models out there ...your questions are best answered by them but there seems to be a level of scrutiny and negativity applied to this a few days after it’s announced as opposed to the consortium approach which you support after three months.

I think it would be much more productive to say you don’t like fan ownership rather than starting to pick holes and find fault with everything ....I’m assuming this is the beginning of a process which will change and evolve as a result of feedback, contributions and financial reality and who knows what the final model may end up being.

i personally think it’s worth exploring.

Edited September 5, 2019 by javeajag

[sandy]

@Norgethistle and @Jordanhill Jag are sound & inquisitive fans. If they appear to sceptical or are seeking answers, there will be a valid reason for that.

I’d sooner trust their opinions & caution than a poster who claims not to be involved but is trying to be their marketing man  

[Norgethistle]

15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

They have quoted a number of models because I suppose there are a number of models out there ...your questions are best answered by them but there seems to be a level of scrutiny and negativity applied to this a few days after it’s announced as opposed to the consortium approach which you support after three months.

I think it would be much more productive to say you don’t like fan ownership rather than starting to pick holes and find fault with everything ....I’m assuming this is the beginning of a process which will change and evoke as a result of feedback, contributions and financial reality and who knows what the final model may end up being.

i personally think it’s worth exploring.

Java it’s clear this is something close to your heart or those running it are close to you.

 

There are a lot of things still unanswered here, and apart from pulling on the heartstrings what is clear?

- How will it be funded

- Who will control the club

- How will a board be voted in/ selected 

- Liability towards those paying in

- Diluting of shares

 

This is primed for a 3rd party to take control of this and aim for the club, there are statements made that contradict the Companies Act, and tons of grey areas

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

Java it’s clear this is something close to your heart or those running it are close to you.

 

There are a lot of things still unanswered here, and apart from pulling on the heartstrings what is clear?

- How will it be funded

- Who will control the club

- How will a board be voted in/ selected 

- Liability towards those paying in

- Diluting of shares

 

This is primed for a 3rd party to take control of this and aim for the club, there are statements made that contradict the Companies Act, and tons of grey areas

It’s actually not that close to my heart and the last time fan ownership got discussed  much on here I was more in jj’s camp ....and to be clear I have no involvement or communication with the group though I do feel as many fans as possible should engage with them as even if they are un successful it will have been a worthwhile exercise 

but the reason  this is on the agenda is because we are about to be sold to financiers who care little about the club other than as a vehicle for financial gain and that is as much a leap into the unknown as anything else 

fan ownership is extremely common at all levels in German football and is not some weird untested model so why not explore it 

I also think it’s a bit disingenuous for some to say we are asking these questions because all these issues are clear with the consortium when they are not

 

[Fawlty Towers]

As we seem to be heading towards a debate on the St Mirren model it may help if we acquaint ourselves with it:

https://www.smisa.net/

In an ideal world we would have 2 plans which have been fully laid out and we could debate the merits/sticking points of each but that is unfortunately not the case. I would say, in my opinion, the Thistle For Ever scheme seems easier to understand on the basic question of why as I can understand the motivation of Thistle fans owning Thistle compared to a consortium of people with no prior connection to the club.

My personal inclination is towards the fan ownership model but that does not mean questions should not be asked about it and that works in the other direction as well. What I will say, and forgive me if sounds like a lecture, is that regardless of what model we end up under if we as a support don't get back to working together, asking tough questions but in a civil manner and remembering we have more in common than separates us it won't matter. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Fawlty Towers

[Norgethistle]

20 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It’s actually not that close to my heart and the last time fan ownership got discussed  much on here I was more in jj’s camp ....and to be clear I have no involvement or communication with the group though I do feel as many fans as possible should engage with them as even if they are un successful it will have been a worthwhile exercise 

but the reason  this is on the agenda is because we are about to be sold to financiers who care little about the club other than as a vehicle for financial gain and that is as much a leap into the unknown as anything else 

fan ownership is extremely common at all levels in German football and is not some weird untested model so why not explore it 

I also think it’s a bit disingenuous for some to say we are asking these questions because all these issues are clear with the consortium when they are not

 

Thanks Java, my concern is we can barely get 2000 adults to fork out for a season ticket and if that same group were to fund this then that’s an additional £600 per head.

German football has massive crowds, real city/town buy in,  we have none of this due to the Old Firm. Let’s remember Rangers fans raised under £2 million to save their club with 40000 season ticket holders.  Hearts currently have 8000 fans raising only £1.4 million a year, we are looking for roughly the same with a fraction of the fan base.

The board only being comprised of folk who are part of this group (24% I’ll get to that later) and not selected by the shareholders as a group via an AGM is in direct violation of the companies act, this is before we even decide how they are selected as this has not been made clear.

The fact that this will be an additional share option not purchasing of existing shares, now puts the 50+1 in doubt due to basic maths.

- Weirs 10%

- Both Trusts 23 % 

- Group of nine 52%

- Remaining very small holders 15%

Issuing another 24% (Say 25% for easy maths)of shares  leaves the following 

- Weirs 7.5%

- Both Trusts 17% 

- Group of nine 39%

- Remaining very small holders 11%

- Effectively they need to buy 25% of a company that is now 125% its previous worth (Read company laws regarding shares regarding issuing for purposes of takeover or control). So that £1.2 million is now £1.5 million, plus it needs to be approved by the majority (Group of 9 or new consortium) prior to being allowed. Now the 2000 fans are paying £750 a head.

The other option is a benefactor or benefactors gifts £1.5 million with conditions (place on board with wage/ full board control/ interest on payback/ combination of all), and has the fans buy them back over 10 years (Motherwell or St Mirren model), there are already 2 names that keep popping up regarding this as their is previous with these options  (Not Weir), and I’d have them nowhere near the club.

The other option is a benefactor writes the check tells the fans it’s your in 10 years if you have a minimum of X payers per month at £x, it’s my nominated board and default or have less members then the shares revert to me (St Mirren model).

St Mirren and Motherwell are NOT fan owned, Stirling Albion paid £300k to by club after chairman wiped debts and wrote of another £1.3 million (He was 84 then),  they charge players £200 for a trial and struggle to make ends meet relying on volunteers and a lot of local goodwill .

Will it be set up (Thistle Forever, the club) as a limited company, NFP, charitable status or what? There isn’t even the basics of a GDPR statement on the website making pulling any information illegal 

 

There is so much unclear 

[allyo]

I'm ok with unclear at the moment. It's early days. They can get there. What they'll never be is distant neutral venture capitalists who are only interested in their own pockets. So in principle, subject to clarification, I'm with them.

[javeajag]

7 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Thanks Java, my concern is we can barely get 2000 adults to fork out for a season ticket and if that same group were to fund this then that’s an additional £600 per head.

German football has massive crowds, real city/town buy in,  we have none of this due to the Old Firm. Let’s remember Rangers fans raised under £2 million to save their club with 40000 season ticket holders.  Hearts currently have 8000 fans raising only £1.4 million a year, we are looking for roughly the same with a fraction of the fan base.

The board only being comprised of folk who are part of this group (24% I’ll get to that later) and not selected by the shareholders as a group via an AGM is in direct violation of the companies act, this is before we even decide how they are selected as this has not been made clear.

The fact that this will be an additional share option not purchasing of existing shares, now puts the 50+1 in doubt due to basic maths.

- Weirs 10%

- Both Trusts 23 % 

- Group of nine 52%

- Remaining very small holders 15%

Issuing another 24% (Say 25% for easy maths)of shares  leaves the following 

- Weirs 7.5%

- Both Trusts 17% 

- Group of nine 39%

- Remaining very small holders 11%

- Effectively they need to buy 25% of a company that is now 125% its previous worth (Read company laws regarding shares regarding issuing for purposes of takeover or control). So that £1.2 million is now £1.5 million, plus it needs to be approved by the majority (Group of 9 or new consortium) prior to being allowed. Now the 2000 fans are paying £750 a head.

The other option is a benefactor or benefactors gifts £1.5 million with conditions (place on board with wage/ full board control/ interest on payback/ combination of all), and has the fans buy them back over 10 years (Motherwell or St Mirren model), there are already 2 names that keep popping up regarding this as their is previous with these options  (Not Weir), and I’d have them nowhere near the club.

The other option is a benefactor writes the check tells the fans it’s your in 10 years if you have a minimum of X payers per month at £x, it’s my nominated board and default or have less members then the shares revert to me (St Mirren model).

St Mirren and Motherwell are NOT fan owned, Stirling Albion paid £300k to by club after chairman wiped debts and wrote of another £1.3 million (He was 84 then),  they charge players £200 for a trial and struggle to make ends meet relying on volunteers and a lot of local goodwill .

Will it be set up (Thistle Forever, the club) as a limited company, NFP, charitable status or what? There isn’t even the basics of a GDPR statement on the website making pulling any information illegal 

 

There is so much unclear 

I’m not surprised everything is not clear as it’s just being launched, they would probably be criticised if it was ....I suspect but don’t know that they are trying to gauge the potential level of support on the one hand , whether any other investors/supporters are out there and what model might be successful.

inevitably that means there are lots of questions and unknowns forme that is not unexpected nor am I under any illusion it would be easy except if the current shareholders donated their shares to the fans with no conditions ! The debate should tease out questions and issues which can only be a good thing.

but let’s look at New City Capital....

Where will the club fit into their structure ?

how will it be managed ?

will the club have a Board ?

what will it’s composition be ?

will there be a fans representative on the board ?

what is their view of the supporters trusts ?

will minority shareholders be bought out ?

how will the interests of minority shareholders be protected ?

what is their business model ?

will there be any investment in the clubs infrastructure?

what is their normal expected internal rate of return ?

will they apply that to ptfc ?

if yes how will that be generated ?

etc etc etc 

so much is unclear 

[Firhillista]

I don't have the knowledge of company law that some of the posters on here clearly have, but I do know that SOMEONE'S got to own the club.

At the moment (and similarly for our entire history, I believe), the club is owned by locally based shareholders who have invested their money and have taken up their right to form a board of directors to make strategic decisions for the club. The current board wish to sell their shares and pass on the running of the club to someone else. Consequently, the status quo is not an option for Thistle. Someone else has to take over the ownership of the club.

The options, apparently, facing us at the moment are a takeover by an international consortium or a buy-out of the current shareholders by a fan-based group. Other options, presumably, may appear in the future, but they definitely fall into the category of 'unknown unknowns'.

As far as I can see, there's insufficient information available at this time to make any kind of sensible decision on what is the best option for Partick Thistle going forward. 

The ThistleforEver group have, to their credit, tried to be as open as possible about their intentions and are open to engaging with fans.

The international consortium have said nothing. That's worth repeating. Nothing. The only way we know that their interest even exists is because David Beattie says it does.

At the moment, probably in common with most Thistle fans, I'm open to anything that will bring 'transformational' change to the club because that's what it needs.

I think there's a balance to be struck between securing stability and investing for growth and I'd very much like to hear how those who want to take over the club will try to achieve that.

Actually, at this point I'd like to hear something, anything, from New City Finance...

Despite all the valid concerns, and I recognise that they have been very well expressed on this forum, the only proposal that reassures me about Thistle's future is currently coming from ThistleforEver. I think they deserve our provisional support while we wait for New City Finance to show their hand. At the very least, it will indicate that Thistle fans are prepared to engage with this whole debate.

[jaf]

1 hour ago, Firhillista said:

I don't have the knowledge of company law that some of the posters on here clearly have, but I do know that SOMEONE'S got to own the club.

At the moment (and similarly for our entire history, I believe), the club is owned by locally based shareholders who have invested their money and have taken up their right to form a board of directors to make strategic decisions for the club. The current board wish to sell their shares and pass on the running of the club to someone else. Consequently, the status quo is not an option for Thistle. Someone else has to take over the ownership of the club.

The options, apparently, facing us at the moment are a takeover by an international consortium or a buy-out of the current shareholders by a fan-based group. Other options, presumably, may appear in the future, but they definitely fall into the category of 'unknown unknowns'.

As far as I can see, there's insufficient information available at this time to make any kind of sensible decision on what is the best option for Partick Thistle going forward. 

The ThistleforEver group have, to their credit, tried to be as open as possible about their intentions and are open to engaging with fans.

The international consortium have said nothing. That's worth repeating. Nothing. The only way we know that their interest even exists is because David Beattie says it does.

At the moment, probably in common with most Thistle fans, I'm open to anything that will bring 'transformational' change to the club because that's what it needs.

I think there's a balance to be struck between securing stability and investing for growth and I'd very much like to hear how those who want to take over the club will try to achieve that.

Actually, at this point I'd like to hear something, anything, from New City Finance...

Despite all the valid concerns, and I recognise that they have been very well expressed on this forum, the only proposal that reassures me about Thistle's future is currently coming from ThistleforEver. I think they deserve our provisional support while we wait for New City Finance to show their hand. At the very least, it will indicate that Thistle fans are prepared to engage with this whole debate.

Very well put.