Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
jagfox

New Chairman announced...

Recommended Posts

I'd like to correct an earlier post I made about the % of Club shares owned by 3BC.  The correct figure is I believe 55% not the 82% I stated.  I missed a 2015 share issue that was confirmed in November last year.

The two fan trusts between them own 26%, so if they act in unison, they have a veto in any major changes proposed by 3BC.  Acting in any form does not appear to be a strong suit of either Trust, far less acting in unison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone contacted Maryhill CID as I'm sure that the Taggart team need to re-examine the passing of Colin Weir. We have now established motive, so I hope Jacqui Low has an alibi, otherwise all we will need is a means. My money is on poison.

Has anyone else heard the rumour that Death In Paradise is relocating to The Firhill Basin ?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Completely the other way around mate.

Three Black Cats owns a majority of shares in Thistle.

Three Black Cats therefore controls Thistle and Thistle’s assets.

Thistle does not have any shares in Three Black Cats.

Thistle does not control what Three Black Cats does. It has no say at all.

Thistle has no claim or control over Three Black Cats’ assets except and insofar as there is a contractual agreement between the two (e.g. for the transfer of assets from 3BC and to PTFC Ltd).

To illustrate this.

If Three Black Cats wanted to it could borrow a mortgage against the Bing and Main Stand tomorrow. It would receive the credit and Thistle would receive nothing.

If Three Black Cats then got into financial difficulty, the bank could then sell that bit of the ground from under it. The new owner of said land could then demolish the Main Stand and, planning permission permitting, convert it into flats. Thistle would have no say whatsoever short of objecting to the planning proposal.

If Three Black Cats is to be wound up as part of the arrangements for distributing Colin Weir’s estate, the executors might sell off its land to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Again the Club would have no say. And even if it did... oh wait, Three Black Cats are the majority shareholder and would have control over who its own Thistle shares then get sold to.

For the land to be Thistle’s it has to be owned outright by Partick Thistle Football Club Limited or owned by a corporate entity over which PTFC Limited has a position of control or ownership.

It would be more accurate to say, the majority shareholding for the first time in a long time at Thistle now being held by a single corporate entity, that the Jackie Husband and John Lambie Stands are almost “less Thistle’s” than they were before, because 3BC could now effectively sanction the selling off of the rest of the ground to any entity it liked, including one with no shareholding or direct interest in Partick Thistle.

Thanks for this analysis WJ, [although your clarification does provoke a sort of sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach!]

I hope this subject can be raised at the working group conversations with Ms Low and the other trustees the club has nominated as 'leaders'

Share this post


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

3BC ....we don’t even know it’s status as Colin Weirs estate goes through the legal process nor do we know the contents of his will nor do we know who and How his is affairs are being currently managed yet Infowars are now out in full force  .....so on the other hand ....

- Colin weirs will could easily mandate the shares 3BC be transferred to fan ownership

- his will could also restrict lots of other actions in relation to the club 

- various financial transaction could be affected by his passing 

- even this assumes he had an up to date will

meanwhile person or persons unknown are scheming in not yet clear ways to do something which we don’t know but will definitely be to the detriment of the club .....

Everything you state is correct - apart from your last line - the scenario described by WJ is a possibility given the legal set up on Ownership of Shares & Propco - Club is therefore in less Control of its future than it was prior to CW / 3BC buying 55% plus Propco 

The longer the Bing etc takes to transfer ( bearing in mind this was stated as 7 Days ) then the more people will question why 

However you raise an interesting point - 3BC  were owned 100% by CW - its now part of his Estate and remains so until his matters are settled 

3BC in turn is a Debtor to CW - 3BC has Assetts ie the Land & 55% of PTFC - therefore the Lawyers have a duty to gather in all Debts for the Estate - if that requires the Sale of assetts then so be it - they have No Duty to PTFC  ( unless thats written in the Will ) Now given the very short Time Frame between the Purchase and CW becoming seriously ill - that might / might not have happened 

So given our New Chairman is a PR Guru - Given we have 3 Fans Reps on the Board - Given we have various Working Groups-  then we should be given a statement as to the position of Shares - Propco and of equal importance who has Authority of 3BC to make decisions - given the Shares are now controlled by the Estate 

No one is suggesting "Scheming" but its incumbent upon our Board to clarify the Position as it present 3BC owe the Weir Estate - 3BC Assetts are Propco Land & 55% of PTFC ? 

 

 

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Has anyone contacted Maryhill CID as I'm sure that the Taggart team need to re-examine the passing of Colin Weir. We have now established motive, so I hope Jacqui Low has an alibi, otherwise all we will need is a means. My money is on poison.

Has anyone else heard the rumour that Death In Paradise is relocating to The Firhill Basin ?  

Think you may be getting confused with Midsummerston Murders.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dl1971 said:

Ok. I understand that 3BC aka CW estate own the club lock stock and barrel. Why would they leverage credit facilities to the detriment of the club?

So that they could pretend they are investing new money in the Club when they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

So that they could pretend they are investing new money in the Club when they aren't.

Who are ‘they’ ? 

Share this post


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

Three Black Cats.

Well the 100% shareholder has passed away so atm there is no ‘they ‘ .... indeed no one knows that I’ve seen if 3BC is actually operating or under the control of Colin weirs estate 

Share this post


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

Well the 100% shareholder has passed away so atm there is no ‘they ‘ .... indeed no one knows that I’ve seen if 3BC is actually operating or under the control of Colin weirs estate 

Three Black Cats demonstrably still exists. It is a registered company limited by shares. The only change to its corporate governance since the appointment of Jacqui Low as a director has been the termination of the appointment of Colin Weir as a director in light of his passing.

While you are correct to state that the ownership of Three Black Cats rests with the estate of Colin Weir, the decisions about the management of Three Black Cats and its day-to-day operations will be governed by its board of directors and the means of oversight of decisions by the board of directors is merely the dismissal of directors by the shareholder. As things stand, only Jacqui Low and a representative from another Limited company presently sit on 3BC's board of directors.

Unless and until Colin Weir's estate (as the sole shareholder of 3BC) provides otherwise, Jacqui Low can pretty much do what she wants with its assets. It doesn't just sit there in stasis.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Three Black Cats demonstrably still exists. It is a registered company limited by shares. The only change to its corporate governance since the appointment of Jacqui Low as a director has been the termination of the appointment of Colin Weir as a director in light of his passing.

While you are correct to state that the ownership of Three Black Cats rests with the estate of Colin Weir, the decisions about the management of Three Black Cats and its day-to-day operations will be governed by its board of directors and the means of oversight of decisions by the board of directors is merely the dismissal of directors by the shareholder. As things stand, only Jacqui Low and a representative from another Limited company presently sit on 3BC's board of directors.

Unless and until Colin Weir's estate (as the sole shareholder of 3BC) provides otherwise, Jacqui Low can pretty much do what she wants with its assets. It doesn't just sit there in stasis.

Unless his will makes specific arrangements otherwise which we don’t know nor do we know how his estate is being managed so you don’t actually know what Jlow can or can’t do 

Share this post


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

Unless his will makes specific arrangements otherwise which we don’t know nor do we know how his estate is being managed so you don’t actually know what Jlow can or can’t do 

No, again, completely the other way around. We only don't know what she can or can't do if there are instructions in the will that have not been made public.

If there are no instructions we know exactly what she can do, because the company's articles of association are literally public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but as we don't know if there are or are not any instructions, therefore we do not know what she can or can not do. You are assuming that there are none when you say she can do what she likes. We just don't know.

Share this post


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

No, again, completely the other way around. We only don't know what she can or can't do if there are instructions in the will that have not been made public.

If there are no instructions we know exactly what she can do, because the company's articles of association are literally public domain.

Slightly pedantic ....unless we know the content of the will it’s not known what the actual situation is only the default which may be the situation or again may not .... we don’t know 

it was stated however that it is still the intention of 3BC to transfer the club to fan ownership which might be a clue 

Share this post


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

but as we don't know if there are or are not any instructions, therefore we do not know what she can or can not do. You are assuming that there are none when you say she can do what she likes. We just don't know.

Reminds me of Yes Minister:

You need to know things not because you need to know them,  

 but because you need to know whether or not you need to know.

 If you don't need to know,  you still need to know-   

 so that you know there is no need to know!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAGSMAN1968 said:

Reminds me of Yes Minister:

You need to know things not because you need to know them,  

 but because you need to know whether or not you need to know.

 If you don't need to know,  you still need to know-   

 so that you know there is no need to know!

You’re obviously in the know

Share this post


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

Slightly pedantic ....unless we know the content of the will it’s not known what the actual situation is only the default which may be the situation or again may not .... we don’t know 

it was stated however that it is still the intention of 3BC to transfer the club to fan ownership which might be a clue 

Never believe anything claimed about the custodians of Partick Thistle Football Club until it is in a legally binding document.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be of interest to the forum. I have sent the following email to the Club ([email protected] and [email protected]). I will let you know if/when I receive a reply

Quote

To whom it concerns,

Public statements made by the Club in connection with Firhill property transactions

On Thursday 21 November 2019, the Club website issued the following statement (emphasis in bold added):

"Fan ownership came a step closer today for Partick Thistle with the sale of shares in the Club by its majority shareholding group to Three Black Cats Ltd (TBC). In an associated transaction, Firhill Developments Ltd (FDL) also sold its holding in land at the Club’s ground to TBC, which is owned by Jags’ fan and Club Patron Colin Weir.

He was approached by Thistle for Ever (TfE) in early September looking to secure his support for their early stage plans for fan ownership after a majority shareholders group took over at Firhill as a precursor to selling their shares. TBC has subsequently been working on a linked purchase with both Thistle and FDL shareholders, with the aim of then gifting the shares to fans.

With the sale now completed, TBC will immediately transfer the ownership of the land purchased back to the Club within seven days. This means that the main stand, known as the Colin Weir Stand, and the undeveloped land to the south of the ground known as “the bing” reverts back to Thistle ownership after 10 years."

This appeared to suggest that, not later than Thursday 28 November 2019, the ownership of the land encompassing the Main Stand and 'The Bing' would become owned by Partick Thistle Football Club Limited.

A further Club statement the same day said (emphasis added):

"The takeover of Partick Thistle by long term Jags fan Colin Weir allows the club to begin planning for an exciting future with the prospect of becoming a fully-fledged community owned club.

Colin’s generosity means we begin this process in a strong position. The club is debt free and for the first time in over a decade now has full ownership of Firhill."

This statement, with its use of the present tense, strongly suggested that the transfer of the land back to Partick Thistle Football Club Limited was no more than an imminent formality.

The legal reality as stated on the Land Register

Based on the publicly available information on the Land Register (specifically title GLA205256), however, it appears the sale of the ground to Three Black Cats Limited happened on 20 November 2019, and the title was actually registered in early December 2019. There is no evidence on the Land Register of the PTFC Ltd having been transferred the land in question, more than three months after the pledge was made to transfer it "immediately... within seven days".

Legally, this means that Partick Thistle does not in fact "ha[ve] full ownership of Firhill". Indeed, whereas previously the Club owned a substantial stake in Firhill Developments Limited, which had owned the property in question, the Club owns no title or interest in Three Black Cats Limited, which now has full ownership over the property in question. In very crude terms, the Club has effectively gone from having a legal stake equivalent to about 3/4 of the ground to only about 1/2, and will only "ha[ve] full ownership of Firhill" if and when Three Black Cats Limited fully transfers the land it bought from Firhill Developments Limited to Partick Thistle Football Club Limited.

What I am not asking about

I entirely appreciate that there is a related but distinct issue about the circumstances under which the Three Black Cats shareholding will be transferred to a fan-based body, which had a separate stated timeline of the end of March 2020. More recent statements from the Club imply that this deadline might slip. This is entirely understandable given it was an ambitious deadline in the first place and the Working Group may well need more time to implement a viable proposal in that regard. I am also acutely aware that the untimely passing of Colin Weir just after Christmas may have complicated the alternative arrangements that might be put into place for something as complex as that.

But the Club and Three Black Cats explicitly indicated that the land would transfer within the space of a week: well before it could have become clear whether or on what timescale a Working Group's proposals were actually ready to be put into practice, and before (as far as I can see) estate issues could have arisen in relation to Colin Weir. His regrettable passing happened a full month after the 7-day deadline stipulated in the Club's press release.

What I am asking about

Could you please explain why it is the case that Partick Thistle Football Club Limited does not yet own the land Three Black Cats Limited purchased from Firhill Developments Limited? If this is simply a question of administrative delay, could you indicate when we can expect this transaction will take place? And if the problems are more substantial, could you please clarify whether it remains the intention to transfer that land: independently of whether or when the Working Group proposal is ready to be implemented?

I think it would be helpful for the fans, so as to avoid unnecessary and undesirable speculation, if a categorical statement could be made by the Club on its website about these matters. Several statements made in November, which still appear on the website, are not accurate as to the position some three months on, have not been contradicted by further club communications, and may give a misleading impression to fans that the Club owns land it does not in fact own.

Your prompt response on these matters would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards

Woodstock Jag

 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Great Email hopefully you get a response 

Think that might be debatable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, and setting aside all the legal, contractual and land issues, the timing of the announcement, particularly as regards the potentially divisive nature of it, isn't exactly ideal given the current dire predicament the club and team finds itself in. Of course it had to be done but given the level of debate it has provoked in such a short time I fear another 200 page circularly argued  abomination might be on the cards and heaven only knows what carnage will result if we add relegation into the mix!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2020 at 1:37 PM, jlsarmy said:

As you and I both said , David Beattie and Co made substantial profits both from Propco and the shares they sold , the rhetoric doing it for the best interests of the Club and relying on David Beattie ‘s judgement is nonsense .

The sale of the Club was a business deal , pure and simple and it shouldn’t be dressed up any other way .

 

I don’t think you understand the difference between “getting money back from selling something” and “making a profit on your investment”.

David Beattie ploughed about £250k into PropCo (about a quarter of the capital the investors put into that). He also bought shares in the Club in 2007 (from memory he paid about £200k for half a million B shares). That represented a relatively small proportion of the shares that Three Black Cats just bought.

He also paid what is understood to be £10kpa in the form of a director’s fee for each year he was on the board. This ignores any other money he may have spent on Thistle dipping into his own pocket in harder times. The guy very easily put in over half a million to Thistle and related ventures.

Simply put, unless David Beattie personally made well over half a million pounds from this transaction (and he probably didn’t), he objectively has not made a “substantial profit”. If he had bunged that money into a mediocre high street savings account in 2007, it would have now been worth more than what he probably got back.

Is this deal a windfall for him? Sure. But more because he probably expected to be lumbered with a shareholding in a football club no one would want to buy and a shareholding in a property company that couldn’t build anything.

He and others are probably happy because they got money back they thought was down the drain and can now use it in their retirement rather than lumber their kids with illiquid assets. Their delight is not because they’ve profiteered out of Thistle because that would have required them to, well, make more than they put in, for which there isn’t evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don’t think you understand the difference between “getting money back from selling something” and “making a profit on your investment”.

David Beattie ploughed about £250k into PropCo (about a quarter of the capital the investors put into that). He also bought shares in the Club in 2007 (from memory he paid about £200k for half a million B shares). That represented a relatively small proportion of the shares that Three Black Cats just bought.

He also paid what is understood to be £10kpa in the form of a director’s fee for each year he was on the board. This ignores any other money he may have spent on Thistle dipping into his own pocket in harder times. The guy very easily put in over half a million to Thistle and related ventures.

Simply put, unless David Beattie personally made well over half a million pounds from this transaction (and he probably didn’t), he objectively has not made a “substantial profit”. If he had bunged that money into a mediocre high street savings account in 2007, it would have now been worth more than what he probably got back.

Is this deal a windfall for him? Sure. But more because he probably expected to be lumbered with a shareholding in a football club no one would want to buy and a shareholding in a property company that couldn’t build anything.

He and others are probably happy because they got money back they thought was down the drain and can now use it in their retirement rather than lumber their kids with illiquid assets. Their delight is not because they’ve profiteered out of Thistle because that would have required them to, well, make more than they put in, for which there isn’t evidence.

Just to be clear that is not me saying Beattie and co made substantial profits from propco .....a quick check on the subject will show I have always said it was a dreadful investment opportunity at best a ‘punt’ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I don’t think you understand the difference between “getting money back from selling something” and “making a profit on your investment”.

David Beattie ploughed about £250k into PropCo (about a quarter of the capital the investors put into that). He also bought shares in the Club in 2007 (from memory he paid about £200k for half a million B shares). That represented a relatively small proportion of the shares that Three Black Cats just bought.

He also paid what is understood to be £10kpa in the form of a director’s fee for each year he was on the board. This ignores any other money he may have spent on Thistle dipping into his own pocket in harder times. The guy very easily put in over half a million to Thistle and related ventures.

Simply put, unless David Beattie personally made well over half a million pounds from this transaction (and he probably didn’t), he objectively has not made a “substantial profit”. If he had bunged that money into a mediocre high street savings account in 2007, it would have now been worth more than what he probably got back.

Is this deal a windfall for him? Sure. But more because he probably expected to be lumbered with a shareholding in a football club no one would want to buy and a shareholding in a property company that couldn’t build anything.

He and others are probably happy because they got money back they thought was down the drain and can now use it in their retirement rather than lumber their kids with illiquid assets. Their delight is not because they’ve profiteered out of Thistle because that would have required them to, well, make more than they put in, for which there isn’t evidence.

There is also no evidence that they didn’t make any Profit at all , you can’t equate substantial .

Beattie and Co took a gamble on Propco, indeed high risk , got refused planning applications on a couple of occasions which scuppered their investment. It did help our Club at the time but you can’t look at in a blinkered or narrow minded way . If planning permission had been granted they would have benefited greatly.

I’m just a bit concerned that the judgement of David Beattie and Co isn’t to the detriment of our Club in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×