Annual Accounts....

[jaf]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

Our income this year will be less than last year going down from the £3m in this years account to maybe £2.2 to £2.5m .....?

therefore our player expenditure has to fall this season as well to prob a range of £1.2 to £1.4m 

as a result the player budget cannot be the same because the income is not there to fund it 

Erm, exactly what we have been saying

Good, we agree  - thumbs up thingy!

 

[Norgethistle]

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Our income this year will be less than last year going down from the £3m in this years account to maybe £2.2 to £2.5m .....?

therefore our player expenditure has to fall this season as well to prob a range of £1.2 to £1.4m 

as a result the player budget cannot be the same because the income is not there to fund it 

Fully agree, but we were told by the previous board in May that player budget would be the same

[Dark Passenger]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Sorry mate - I've never stated at any point  that operating losses are £600K to anyone  ?  and Im happy to meet you personally and show you the text messages - just name where you want to meet ? 

I'm at Firhill every home game.

[jaf]

8 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Sorry Java you’ve lost me here.

If the expenditure is the same the spend must be the same, maybe I’m reading it wrong from the poolside here

Hope you are somewhere nice!

All inclusive means you don't have to worry about your daily beer and food budget?!

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Fully agree, but we were told by the previous board in May that player budget would be the same

And we told that by Gerry Britton after the new board came in .....both wrong ?

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, Dark Passenger said:

I'm at Firhill every home game.

Ok Ross - I will make contact by PM - I have nothing to hide and Im happy to show you what I said  - in essence it was no more than has been since stated in the Public Domain by the Jags Trust and in the Statement by David Beattie at the takeover - now for clarity - I received a  PM on this Website stating the figure you have mentioned - but I didnt send it nor did I comment on it      

So if someone thinks they have uncovered a Grand Plot - then they are incorrect -

[javeajag]

The basic point here is that the old board managed the finances fine 

[Dark Passenger]

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

Fully agree, but we were told by the previous board in May that player budget would be the same

If we're highlighting statements made by boards then it's worth remembering we were told by representatives of the current board in August that it had no issues with the way the previous board ran the club and that changes were made to facilitate the sale. The only people that seem to be hinting at financial armageddon are Mr Beattie, the Jags Trust and, apparently, some people in messages to other fans.

I appreciate that it's been suggested that there would've been a shortfall this year (I don't think a figure has ever been presented) and that's now been covered. But surely any concerned shareholders could've had that discussion with the previous board rather than going to the lengths of having members removed?

[Dark Passenger]

10 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok Ross - I will make contact by PM - I have nothing to hide and Im happy to show you what I said  - in essence it was no more than has been since stated in the Public Domain by the Jags Trust and in the Statement by David Beattie at the takeover - now for clarity - I received a  PM on this Website stating the figure you have mentioned - but I didnt send it nor did I comment on it      

So if someone thinks they have uncovered a Grand Plot - then they are incorrect -

You can save the PMs. You've offered to speak to me at Firhill and I'm happy to do so. Just so I'm clear, though, you're admitting to having had that figure but saying you didn't pass it on to anyone?

I received that message weeks before statements were issued by Mr Beattie and the Jags Trust, btw.  

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Dark Passenger

[Jordanhill Jag]

12 minutes ago, Dark Passenger said:

You can save the PMs. You've offered to speak to me at Firhill and I'm happy to do so. Just so I'm clear, though, you're admitting to having had that figure but saying you didn't pass it on to anyone?

I received that message weeks before statements were issued by Mr Beattie and the Jags Trust, btw.  

 

I will show you the info when I see you- including the PM I received with the figure  - I think its possible that bits of info were flying about - and someone has misread what came from whom - simple breakdown in Comms - Im not fussed about it - but Im happy to meet and clarify since you have raised it   

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Dark Passenger said:

You can save the PMs. You've offered to speak to me at Firhill and I'm happy to do so. Just so I'm clear, though, you're admitting to having had that figure but saying you didn't pass it on to anyone?

I received that message weeks before statements were issued by Mr Beattie and the Jags Trust, btw.  

 

The  figure of £600K from what I can gather - and 100% happy to withdraw if incorrect - was being bandied about at the time of the Club Redundancies - not sure if it was given out to staff etc as a reason for the lay offs ? - but given the number of redundancies-  it would sort of stack up - therefore you are correct regards the timing - as I've said the figure didn't come from me and - may have related to staff lay offs  ?  - happy to stand corrected  

I will get in touch before the next home game as agreed   

[Fawlty Towers]

Thanks to Javeajag for posting the information.

Couple of questions from me:

1. Given it is only the 6th of September why are the accounts dated the 26th of September?

2. There seems to be speculation that the reason MrBeattie and the other shareholders who came onto the board were concerned about the budget. As they were not involved in the day to day running of the club when it would have been drawn up how would they know what the budget was?

[scotty]

7 hours ago, javeajag said:

And we told that by Gerry Britton after the new board came in .....both wrong ?

Not if the playing budget was calculated as a percentage of income. The playing budget then could be reduced and stay the same.

[Jordanhill Jag]

15 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Thanks to Javeajag for posting the information.

Couple of questions from me:

1. Given it is only the 6th of September why are the accounts dated the 26th of September?

2. There seems to be speculation that the reason MrBeattie and the other shareholders who came onto the board were concerned about the budget. As they were not involved in the day to day running of the club when it would have been drawn up how would they know what the budget was?

26th is the date of the AGM-  and thats when they are formally approved 

 

[Norgethistle]

30 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Thanks to Javeajag for posting the information.

Couple of questions from me:

1. Given it is only the 6th of September why are the accounts dated the 26th of September?

2. There seems to be speculation that the reason MrBeattie and the other shareholders who came onto the board were concerned about the budget. As they were not involved in the day to day running of the club when it would have been drawn up how would they know what the budget was?

I’m hoping the correct questions are asked in the correct way resulting in this being put to bed one way or another. This is the exact place for the questions to be posed and answered. 

I hope it doesn’t turn into a farce with one side trying to outdo the other

[jlsarmy]

11 hours ago, jaf said:

The £300k was for the coming January DD

And at The Open Day Gerry Britton denied this theory about a big underspend in January past

No idea why, at the first meet the manager night which Gerry Britton was a big part of , Gary Caldwell said he was nowhere near the budget he was allocated.

[Auld Jag]

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

No idea why, at the first meet the manager night which Gerry Britton was a big part of , Gary Caldwell said he was nowhere near the budget he was allocated.

I am sure that Caldwell has said this a few times.

[jaf]

3 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

No idea why, at the first meet the manager night which Gerry Britton was a big part of , Gary Caldwell said he was nowhere near the budget he was allocated.

Gerry Britton contradicted this at the open day. 

But if we believe Gary all the information about the budget for the coming season just gets worse. And the results for 2019’ that we are praising the old board for we’re only good because  gary didnt  spend  all his budget? 

[javeajag]

The starting point for all this was Beattie indicating he came back because of concerns about the clubs finances - subsequently two directors at least disassociated themselves from this assertion.

now we see the accounts to May 31 and actually in the circumstances they are pretty good and do not support Beatties inferences.

the least he can do at the agm is explain himself.

 

[Jaggernaut]

Let's remember: some people bought half of Firhill to help the club while hoping to recoup their money or even make a profit by selling it on for development (remember the joke of a projected city end stand of 100 or 200 seats, dwarfed by yet more student apartements)? With the development project effectively dead in the water, another opportunity has maybe arisen to maybe get back at least what they spent....... Why not consider selling?

Edited September 7, 2019 by Jaggernaut

[lady-isobel-barnett]

5 hours ago, javeajag said:

The starting point for all this was Beattie indicating he came back because of concerns about the clubs finances - subsequently two directors at least disassociated themselves from this assertion.

now we see the accounts to May 31 and actually in the circumstances they are pretty good and do not support Beatties inferences.

the least he can do at the agm is explain himself.

 

I'm sure the real reason that Beattie & Co returned was to oversee the proposed takeover. Hardly a groundbreaking revelation admittedly but probably not the way they want to be perceived. Asking him to explain himself might end up with him digging a bigger hole. Hardly necessary and an ultimately pointless excercise.

Edited September 7, 2019 by lady-isobel-barnett

[jlsarmy]

4 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

Let's remember: some people bought half of Firhill to help the club while hoping to recoup their money or even make a profit by selling it on for development (remember the joke of a projected city end stand of 100 or 200 seats, dwarfed by yet more student apartements)? With the development project effectively dead in the water, another opportunity has maybe arisen to maybe get back at least what they spent....... Why not consider selling?

At the time , the Propco deal was done as a means to an end , with the Club selling part of the stadium to get out of debt , Beattie, Dodd and Co were perceived in the media to be “ Thistle minded supporters” helping out the Club in their hour of need when in fact they were actually trying to be property speculators ( re students flats etc ) but the planning permission fell through to scupper the idea .

This scenario has now taken place when Beattie and co have now came back on the scene because they were worried about the financial state of the Club , which is probably nonsense and was done to facilitate the sale of their shares .

Think David Beattie and co have obviously tried to pull the wool over the supporters eyes before and this time with the lack of transparency in this deal I believe they are doing the same thing again .

So much for “ Thistle minded supporters “

Edited September 7, 2019 by jlsarmy

[sandy]

On 9/6/2019 at 11:43 AM, javeajag said:

The basic point here is that the old board managed the finances fine 

I think that is stretching it somewhat. They overspent last season to try and get us back up. That failed. We seem to have squandered a lot of additional income; that’s unsustainable going into another year in the second tier.  

[jaf]

18 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

At the time , the Propco deal was done as a means to an end , with the Club selling part of the stadium to get out of debt , Beattie, Dodd and Co were perceived in the media to be “ Thistle minded supporters” helping out the Club in their hour of need when in fact they were actually trying to be property speculators ( re students flats etc ) but the planning permission fell through to scupper the idea .

This scenario has now taken place when Beattie and co have now came back on the scene because they were worried about the financial state of the Club , which is probably nonsense and was done to facilitate the sale of their shares .

Think David Beattie and co have obviously tried to pull the wool over the supporters eyes before and this time with the lack of transparency in this deal I believe they are doing the same thing again .

So much for “ Thistle minded supporters “

Let’s see what emerges at the agm before publicly flogging them?  

[Fawlty Towers]

Appears that there could be some financial issues for the Inverness Thistle:

https://ictfc.com/club-statement-on-3rd-october-2019-egm

Without wishing to drag up issues and arguments about the old board it seems odd that in our first season in the Championship we had a small profit whilst they had an £800k loss - what sort of decisions were they making?