Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
jagfox

New Chairman announced...

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

True - But as the Value Registered for Propco is £2Million-  and Club owned 50% of Propco then Club are owed 50% of the Sale Value ? which is circa £900K 

Not necessarily unless you have have the transaction agreements 

Share this post


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

Or there is not sufficient publicly available information to clearly understand the issue which is I think what you are saying 

There is enough information to entitle us to ask the questions and to expect transparent responses, and to draw adverse inferences from inadequate responses.

The whole point of a move to fan ownership is greater transparency about how Thistle is run so that it is run more explicitly for the benefit of the punters that underpin its identity. How this transaction was done, who benefited from it, and what risks it exposes the Club to if things go wrong is a test case for how serious 3BC is about getting a sustainable solution over the line.

Just throwing your hands up in the air and going “oh well we don’t know all the facts” would be a pretty shit approach in most other walks of life and it’s a shit approach to scrutiny of those who currently own and control our 144 year old Club.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

As ever here .....speculation now extending to guessing .....unless someone knows the details of the agreements we don’t know ....cue it’s a conspiracy and very bad 

Ive cleary stated the second part of my statement is a guess - whats not in dispute is that PTFC are due 50% of the Sale of Propco - thats factual 

therefore Propco who the Club 50% of the 2 Million unless the aggregated interest clause kicked in - if that was the case the Club has a duty to tell us 
This is a £900k investment on our books - so stop trying to be your usual smart arse self and dismissing what are perfectly reasonable questions  

Share this post


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

There is enough information to entitle us to ask the questions and to expect transparent responses, and to draw adverse inferences from inadequate responses.

The whole point of a move to fan ownership is greater transparency about how Thistle is run so that it is run more explicitly for the benefit of the punters that underpin its identity. How this transaction was done, who benefited from it, and what risks it exposes the Club to if things go wrong is a test case for how serious 3BC is about getting a sustainable solution over the line.

Just throwing your hands up in the air and going “oh well we don’t know all the facts” would be a pretty shit approach in most other walks of life and it’s a shit approach to scrutiny of those who currently own and control our 144 year old Club.

Well there is not current  sufficient information available to understand the transaction in detail and unless 3BC or the propco investors ( and unless there is an NDA they could easily explain the transaction and if they don’t would it be fair for me to draw inferences from that ?)

Sometimes saying we don’t know all the facts is actually true and just they way things are , would I like to know more of course but I don’t 

Share this post


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

Ive cleary stated the second part of my statement is a guess - whats not in dispute is that PTFC are due 50% of the Sale of Propco - thats factual 

Unless something in the transaction changed that original agreement or the tax issues prevent it from happening at this time things can be in a company’s accounts and subsequently not materialise .....

but as you know the details of the propco return shareholders got dont you know ?

Share this post


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

Well there is not current  sufficient information available to understand the transaction in detail and unless 3BC or the propco investors ( and unless there is an NDA they could easily explain the transaction and if they don’t would it be fair for me to draw inferences from that ?)

Sometimes saying we don’t know all the facts is actually true and just they way things are , would I like to know more of course but I don’t 

In this particular instance NDAs, if in existence, are not there for the benefit of the Club, but for the benefit of one or more of the parties to the transaction.

You are happy, without evidence, to selectively and misleadingly to conflate things to imply David Beattie and others made substantial profits from all of this, but then run shy when others tell you the public domain information doesn’t support those inferences being drawn.

But if people raise concerns and ask questions about what it might mean for the Club’s relationship with its actual majority shareholder, you throw your hands up in the air and say “we don’t have all the facts, just wait and see until it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it if we have a real problem here”.

Some of us believe in holding people with money and power to account and forcing them to be as open and honest with the ordinary punter. If there is a risk the punters are being played I’d rather they knew that risk now than after their Club has been put in danger. And unlike you I’m not happy to take “we have the best of intentions” and “trust us” or “wait and see” as a satisfactory answer.

Fan ownership, if it means anything, means transparency. If we haven’t got that there’s no ******* point. Just give up now and let a couple of entrepreneurs take a punt. At least there’s a chance they’ll be spending their own money if it goes down the tubes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

In this particular instance NDAs, if in existence, are not there for the benefit of the Club, but for the benefit of one or more of the parties to the transaction.

You are happy, without evidence, to selectively and misleadingly to conflate things to imply David Beattie and others made substantial profits from all of this, but then run shy when others tell you the public domain information doesn’t support those inferences being drawn.

But if people raise concerns and ask questions about what it might mean for the Club’s relationship with its actual majority shareholder, you throw your hands up in the air and say “we don’t have all the facts, just wait and see until it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it if we have a real problem here”.

Some of us believe in holding people with money and power to account and forcing them to be as open and honest with the ordinary punter. If there is a risk the punters are being played I’d rather they knew that risk now than after their Club has been put in danger. And unlike you I’m not happy to take “we have the best of intentions” and “trust us” or “wait and see” as a satisfactory answer.

Fan ownership, if it means anything, means transparency. If we haven’t got that there’s no ******* point. Just give up now and let a couple of entrepreneurs take a punt. At least there’s a chance they’ll be spending their own money if it goes down the tubes.

I posted the investment in propco £1m and the exit figure £2m both factual......YOU...decided that implied Beattie et al made substantial profits but I never said that and you and others have been unable to find  where I did .....if you had looked at my posts on propco you would have seen I thought it was a poor investment and you could infer from that that I was unlikely to think substantial could or would be made 

I’m not throwing my hands up just stating the factual obvious we don’t know all the facts ....you said the transfer of the land might not have gone through as the transaction might have been structured badly ....that now seems to have been the case and clearly needs to be resolved

im not  just not in the camp of everything is a conspiracy 

Share this post


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

I posted the investment in propco £1m and the exit figure £2m both factual......YOU...decided that implied Beattie et al made substantial profits but I never said that and you and others have been unable to find  where I did .....if you had looked at my posts on propco you would have seen I thought it was a poor investment and you could infer from that that I was unlikely to think substantial could or would be made 

I’m not throwing my hands up just stating the factual obvious we don’t know all the facts ....you said the transfer of the land might not have gone through as the transaction might have been structured badly ....that now seems to have been the case and clearly needs to be resolved

im not  just not in the camp of everything is a conspiracy 

You are nothing but an apologist, it has been proven time and time again.

Share this post


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

I posted the investment in propco £1m and the exit figure £2m both factual......YOU...decided that implied Beattie et al made substantial profits but I never said that and you and others have been unable to find  where I did .....if you had looked at my posts on propco you would have seen I thought it was a poor investment and you could infer from that that I was unlikely to think substantial could or would be made 

I’m not throwing my hands up just stating the factual obvious we don’t know all the facts ....you said the transfer of the land might not have gone through as the transaction might have been structured badly ....that now seems to have been the case and clearly needs to be resolved

im not  just not in the camp of everything is a conspiracy 

Again, you are using sleight of hand to compare non comparables.

Ian and Alan set up an apple stall. But only Alan has apples and only Ian actually enjoys selling fruit to punters. In return for Alan putting 2 apples on the stall, Ian gives him £1 at the outset, and they agree to split the proceeds of the future sale of those apples 50:50. If they manage to sell the apples for more than £1 each, Ian has got a good deal. If they sell the apples for less than £1 each Ian has got a bad deal.

Kris then pays £2 for two apples. They shut the stall.

This didn’t mean that “£1 went in and £2 came out”. The £1 didn’t go “in” to the apple stall. It went to Alan. Two apples went in to the apple stall and £2 came out.

This means that unless Ian and Alan’s arrangement changed after Alan put the apples into the stall, Alan got £2 for his two apples (£1 at the outset, another £1 later) and Ian got his money back, breaking even.

We don’t have any evidence that Ian and Alan changed their deal around the time Kris bought the apples. In this analogy we even have public documents with the apple and pear board that say Ian and Alan each own half of the apple stall.

We can’t say for certain that Ian didn’t make money on the apples, but we would need specific evidence for believing he did and the evidence we do have points to the conclusion he didn’t.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are nothing but an apologist, it has been proven time and time again.

I’m not sure you even know what that means 

Share this post


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

Again, you are using sleight of hand to compare non comparables.

Ian and Alan set up an apple stall. But only Alan has apples and only Ian actually enjoys selling fruit to punters. In return for Alan putting 2 apples on the stall, Ian gives him £1 at the outset, and they agree to split the proceeds of the future sale of those apples 50:50. If they manage to sell the apples for more than £1 each, Ian has got a good deal. If they sell the apples for less than £1 each Ian has got a bad deal.

Kris then pays £2 for two apples. They shut the stall.

This didn’t mean that “£1 went in and £2 came out”. The £1 didn’t go “in” to the apple stall. It went to Alan. Two apples went in to the apple stall and £2 came out.

This means that unless Ian and Alan’s arrangement changed after Alan put the apples into the stall, Alan got £2 for his two apples (£1 at the outset, another £1 later) and Ian got his money back, breaking even.

We don’t have any evidence that Ian and Alan changed their deal around the time Kris bought the apples. In this analogy we even have public documents with the apple and pear board that say Ian and Alan each own half of the apple stall.

We can’t say for certain that Ian didn’t make money on the apples, but we would need specific evidence for believing he did and the evidence we do have points to the conclusion he didn’t.

Ok sleight of hand is ignoring you accused me of something and then cant admit you got it wrong but that’s up to you

you see a simple inference from the two figures I posted would be that £1m was spent on 50% of propco initially and two million was the cost of buying propco thereby the investors got their money back and the club received their c£900k YOU choose to take a different tack based in what someone else said which tbh isn’t my problem 

as you know I never thought propco was a good investment so substantial profits indeed any return was highly unlikely ....therefore your base assumption that I thought the propco investors made substantial profits is wrong I never did as a cursory look at my posts in the subject would show 

you invented a rabbit hole and went down it and found no apples 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either your original post was implying participants in PropCo made a profit or your definition of “in” wasn’t your antonym of “out” and you were juxtaposing irrelevant things.

If your position is that £2 million came “out” then £1 million did not go “in”; two bits of land did.

If your position is that £1 million went “in” then there is no evidence that £2 million came “out”. This is because the cash assets are still “in” PropCo. Only if the PropCo investors (other than the Club) have acquired a legal right to 100% of the assets of PropCo as a consequence of these transactions has £2 million come “out”.

The up-to-date evidence of PropCo’s statutory filing records suggest the Club still has its shares in it. The burden of proof therefore rests with you to support the contention that £2 million has in fact been taken out of the Club by PropCo, rather than that £1 million of that will be finding its way back to the Club.

You haven’t provided any evidence of that.

Share this post


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

Either your original post was implying participants in PropCo made a profit or your definition of “in” wasn’t your antonym of “out” and you were juxtaposing irrelevant things.

If your position is that £2 million came “out” then £1 million did not go “in”; two bits of land did.

If your position is that £1 million went “in” then there is no evidence that £2 million came “out”. This is because the cash assets are still “in” PropCo. Only if the PropCo investors (other than the Club) have acquired a legal right to 100% of the assets of PropCo as a consequence of these transactions has £2 million come “out”.

The up-to-date evidence of PropCo’s statutory filing records suggest the Club still has its shares in it. The burden of proof therefore rests with you to support the contention that £2 million has in fact been taken out of the Club by PropCo, rather than that £1 million of that will be finding its way back to the Club.

You haven’t provided any evidence of that.

Still can’t quite admit it.....my post never implied anything your head did and you have no statements I have ever made the statement that propco investors made substantial profits everything else you keep saying follows on from this false assumption.

1. I doubt propco investors made a profit but I don’t know for certain but I would be surprised if they did 

2. your use of forensic language isn’t helping particularly in relation to posts that are not written with a future court of law case in mind ...I know propco investors paid c£1m for 50% of the two assets and that 3BC paid £2m to buy those assets 

3. I assume the club will get c£900k but that’s not 100% clear either 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s telling, javeajag, that both those who think there isn’t evidence that David Beattie et al made a profit on PropCo (me and jaf and others) and those who thought they were agreeing with you (jlsarmy) believed you were suggesting that David Beattie and others were making a “substantial profit” (jlsarmy’s words) from the sale of the land.

At best, you have made a bit of a non point and expressed it very poorly. At worst, you have mislead (whether or not deliberately) others on the forum into thinking that PropCo investors doubled their money when there isn’t a shred of evidence (in the public domain at least) that they did.

It’s late, so I’m going to be charitable and accept that, as with so many of your other contributions, you were simply expressing a non point poorly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think it’s telling, javeajag, that both those who think there isn’t evidence that David Beattie et al made a profit on PropCo (me and jaf and others) and those who thought they were agreeing with you (jlsarmy) believed you were suggesting that David Beattie and others were making a “substantial profit” (jlsarmy’s words) from the sale of the land.

At best, you have made a bit of a non point and expressed it very poorly. At worst, you have mislead (whether or not deliberately) others on the forum into thinking that PropCo investors doubled their money when there isn’t a shred of evidence (in the public domain at least) that they did.

It’s late, so I’m going to be charitable and accept that, as with so many of your other contributions, you were simply expressing a non point poorly.

I think it’s telling that I never said they made substantial profits yet you think I did ......the point was we had a figure on what propco was bought for that’s all I posted plus what was originally invested you and a few others decided that meant, implied or said things it didn’t actually said ....indeed you actually said I had said they had made substantial profits but now can’t admit I said no such thing 

the defensive/aggressive reaction was interesting 

you have continually ignored my other propco comments as they don’t support your argument 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading back through the statement and this part at the end caught my eye.

A full communications/fan engagement programme will be now instigated by the WG, including regular updates to supporters to share progress.”

This to me seems a criticism towards the comms team on the working group, but I’d imagine they may be tied up in NDA’s etc which limit what they can communicate. The fact it took the club/3BC 15 weeks to inform us (only after being outed by fans detective work) the land transfer hadn’t gone through as was communicated seems either a deflection or pot calling kettle black.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think it’s telling that I never said they made substantial profits yet you think I did ......the point was we had a figure on what propco was bought for that’s all I posted plus what was originally invested you and a few others decided that meant, implied or said things it didn’t actually said ....indeed you actually said I had said they had made substantial profits but now can’t admit I said no such thing 

the defensive/aggressive reaction was interesting 

you have continually ignored my other propco comments as they don’t support your argument 

PropCo has never been “bought for” or by anything.

PropCo was set-up. PropCo was transferred (and it then sold) a piece of land.

Edit to make clear PropCo itself was never bought, sold or transferred; only land was.

Edited by Woodstock Jag

Share this post


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

PropCo has never been “bought for” or by anything.

PropCo was set-up. PropCo was transferred and it then sold a piece of land.

Jesus pedantic or what ... I say bought you say transferred .... fine you win 

Edited by javeajag

Share this post


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

There is enough information to entitle us to ask the questions and to expect transparent responses, and to draw adverse inferences from inadequate responses.

The whole point of a move to fan ownership is greater transparency about how Thistle is run so that it is run more explicitly for the benefit of the punters that underpin its identity. How this transaction was done, who benefited from it, and what risks it exposes the Club to if things go wrong is a test case for how serious 3BC is about getting a sustainable solution over the line.

Just throwing your hands up in the air and going “oh well we don’t know all the facts” would be a pretty shit approach in most other walks of life and it’s a shit approach to scrutiny of those who currently own and control our 144 year old Club.

Absolutely. Please keep digging WJ.

Share this post


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

I posted the investment in propco £1m and the exit figure £2m both factual......YOU...decided that implied Beattie et al made substantial profits but I never said that and you and others have been unable to find  where I did

 

 



You certainly implied it in the 'smiling all the way to the beach' comments in the posts above.   But presumably all you meant was he was just happy at getting in some sunbathing?

Edited by chapwithwings

Share this post


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

Jesus pedantic or what ... I say bought you say transferred .... fine you win 

You’re still missing the point.

PropCo is a company. It has never been bought or sold.

Only land was ever bought or sold.

A transaction in which the Club forms all or part of both legal persons is a fundamentally different one than a transaction between PropCo and a third party.

The numbers £1 million and £2 million relate to different things and therefore are not an “in” and “out” comparable.

This isn’t pedantry it’s basic shit about the transactions that happened.

Share this post


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

 

 



You certainly implied it in the 'smiling all the weay to the beach' comments in the posts above.   But presumably all you meant was he was just happy at getting in some sunbathing?

Busted.

”But I never said why he was smiling and I didn’t imply they walked away with a big profit.”

Ad ******* nauseam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chapwithwings said:

 

 



You certainly implied it in the 'smiling all the way to the beach' comments in the posts above.   But presumably all you meant was he was just happy at getting in some sunbathing?

It referred to selling the club AND propco and reported what was said 

  • Haha 1

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.

×