Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
jagfox

New Chairman announced...

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Busted.

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

Ad ******* nauseam.

Jesus in reference to selling the club AND propco ... you can read ? Add them together Beattie said what he said you make of it what you will and no where does it say he made substantial profits from propco ..  next 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

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.

it’s pedantic mate really 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Jesus in reference to selling the club AND propco ... you can read ? Add them together Beattie said what he said you make of it what you will and no where does it say he made substantial profits from propco ..  next 

If the profit is made from selling “both” of them that means each of them made a profit. If the profit is just from selling the shares and he only broke even or made a loss on the land then guess what... it’s not “both”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

If the profit is made from selling “both” of them that means each of them made a profit. If the profit is just from selling the shares and he only broke even or made a loss on the land then guess what... it’s not “both”.

Guess what .... we didn’t know that at the time and I’m not sure we know what the clubs shares were sold/bought / transferred got and it is possible to look at all your investments in an entity and say overall I made a profit even though one part didn’t 

Share this post


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

Guess what .... we didn’t know that at the time and I’m not sure we know what the clubs shares were sold/bought / transferred got and it is possible to look at all your investments in an entity and say overall I made a profit even though one part didn’t 

Even if we entertain this particular and ironic head of a pin nonsense from you, that would require you to have evidence that the PTFC shares were sold for a rate that was higher than the rate Beattie paid for his.

What evidence do you have even for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

Even if we entertain this particular and ironic head of a pin nonsense from you, that would require you to have evidence that the PTFC shares were sold for a rate that was higher than the rate Beattie paid for his.

What evidence do you have even for that?

I have none which is what the words ‘ we don’t know ‘ mean .... the point being we don’t know if shareholders made a profit on selling their shares .   Unless you do ?

Share this post


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

I have none which is what the words ‘ we don’t know ‘ mean .... the point being we don’t know if shareholders made a profit on selling their shares .   Unless you do ?

A 7% shareholding returned just under 100k if that helps , I believe it  was a slight profit 

Edited by jlsarmy

Share this post


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

A 7% shareholding returned just under 100k if that helps , I believe it  was a slight profit 

This won't tell you whether every seller of shares made a profit, because that will depend on what consideration they paid for their shares at the outset. In many cases, shares were acquired at different points in time and in different circumstances, with different share premiums.

Three Black Cats holds, according to the confirmation statement of February this year:

  • 427,006 A shares (nominal value £1 each) - of about 
  • 7,354,329 B shares (nominal value £0.10 each) - of about 13.2 million in total

This resulted from the following shareholders transferring their shares:

Shareholder A Shares B Shares
Norman Springford 27495 500000
Dorothy Springford 27495 500000
Eddie Prentice 54990 1000000
Jim Oliver 113054 500000
TC McMaster 22973 260000
Jill McMaster 22973 260000
SC McMaster 22974 260000
John McMaster 22973 260000
Arch Investments (Tom Hughes) 54990 1000000
Thomas Longley 27495 500000
Billy Allan 29594 354735
Ronnie Gilfillan 0 1000000
David Beattie 0 500000
Grant Bannerman 0 420000

I've obviously missed something out and/or there's something not quite right in the confirmation statement, because there are 39,594 fewer shares on that list than the total held by Three Black Cats and as far as I can see no new shares have been issued. Part of this discrepancy seems to result from something not quite adding up with Billy Allan's B shareholding (which I can't make sense of). He is listed in the January 2018 confirmation statement as holding 384,329 shares, but as having transferred 354,735 in November 2019 in the February 2020 confirmation statement and now having none. That explains 29,594 of the gap. It's possible I've missed another transfer of 10,000 shares to Three Black Cats somewhere else, but that would be the smallest shareholding to be part of this deal.

As best I understand it, the A shares are basically worthless despite continuing nominally to exist and the split between the types of share was originally brought about after STJ. The holding of B shares is generally understood as being more relevant to who owns how much of the Club.

As you can see, David Beattie was not one of the very big ticket shareholders (rather a sort of mid-level one). Unless the shareholders otherwise agreed between them that he should receive more consideration than his nominal shareholding would suggest, he's definitely not receiving as much as the McMasters (collectively), Springfords (collectively), Prentice, Gilfillan or Arch Investments/Hughes (specifically, he's getting about half as much as each of those groups).

If you spoke to one of the McMasters, then David Beattie probably received £200k or so for his shares (which is about what he put in when he subscribed shares in 2007).

If you spoke to someone with the same Ordinary B shareholding as David Beattie, your information suggests he got about £100k back. This is less than what he put into the Club in 2007.

If you spoke to Eddie Prentice, Tom Hughes or Ronnie Gilfillan, or to the Springfords, and what they told you was true, this means David Beattie would have got about £50k back, which is much less than what he put in.

Unless David Beattie was somehow getting a premium for co-ordinating the deal on behalf of all of these shareholders (in PTFC Ltd and/or in PropCo) there is no evidence he made any money in either transaction whatsoever and on the face of it he may well have lost money on his original investment.

All of this while ignoring the directors' fee he paid throughout his time on the board (a fee also paid by other people on this list from time to time).

If David Beattie is smiling on the beach it's because he got (most of) his money back.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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 

Ok so point 3 - is the key bit - the Club should have got there £900K at point of Sale - thats agreed by everyone 

Now Propco was highly controversial - that again we are all agreed on  

Fans were never comfortable with it - that again we are all agreed on 

But its been bought and the Propco Shareholders get paid - that again is something we all agree on  

So its very simply - this was a very large and highly controversial property deal - it was publicised as being good for the Club - therefore as its now concluded - the Club has a duty to issue a statement as to the Clubs Investment return -  as its substantial ( £900K ) this is unrelated to any land deal from 3 BC - or Colin Weir Estate  or Fan Share Transfer - Not related in any shape or form 

We cannot wait until the AGM and as Propco was set up via an EGM then there is precedent that Propco is large enough to get treated separately from the General Accounts 

Propco has ZERO do do with 3BC and ZERO to do with Land Transfer - Share Transfer or CW Estate - ZERO 

Its a long standing PTFC Investment - the 45% Shareholders have a reasonable right to know what the outcome is ( of which your one of them ) 

Happy for anyone to state alternate views as to  the premise on why I believe we should have a statement from the Club ref Propco  

So straightforward Question - as a Shareholder do you support the need for a Clear & immediate Statement regards the return the Club received from Propco Investment  

Puts it to bed once and for all - as to who got what - and where any cash ended up ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

A 7% shareholding returned just under 100k if that helps , I believe it  was a slight profit 

JlS - incorrect - 7% was diluted down from 10% - the £100K was the exact investment sum for the 10% - there was no profit 

My understanding - everyone got there money back they put in - irrespective of Share % - No Profit    

 

Share this post


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

I have none which is what the words ‘ we don’t know ‘ mean .... the point being we don’t know if shareholders made a profit on selling their shares .   Unless you do ?

I was told directly they got the money back they put in - JLS has supported this by the Sum he stated for 7% ( £100K ) which was one of the original STJ Investors  who put in £100K for 10% ( diluted down to 7% ) 

No we "Dont Know"  but all evidence points to zero profit ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the forensic analysis, WJ, superb effort.

And the contributions from those of you (JJ, jlsarmy) who have inside knowledge and have given actual facts rather than innuendo and rumour, much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, top analysis from those who can get their head around the figures and actually know; as opposed to those who make throwaway comments to generate speculation. 

Share this post


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

Yep, top analysis from those who can get their head around the figures and actually know; as opposed to those who make throwaway comments to generate speculation. 

God loves a humble person 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

No I don't ! That is pure speculation

Said if I may say so with great humility 

Share this post


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

Said if I may say so with great humility 

Perhaps not a quality that you practice...

Share this post


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

God loves a humble person 

Ok I will ask again - do you agree that the Club should make a Statement regards its Propco Investment - given its value and High Profile ? 

Share this post


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

Ok I will ask again - do you agree that the Club should make a Statement regards its Propco Investment - given its value and High Profile ? 

I thought that they had in the statement earlier this week from the working group and Low. My translation was ... we ****ed up but we're sorting it. I'm not expecting more than that for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether and when PropCo's cash assets are distributed will be a matter for PropCo, in which the Club is a significant but ultimately (just) minority shareholder.

PropCo's next set of accounts don't have to be published until about August, and there's a good chance it will be liquidated before then (or at least its cash assets distributed and the company made in some meaningful sense dormant). Firhill Developments has been able to claim an exemption on submitting full accounts so they produce only very high level details.

The Club's own accounts are normally published around October time, so we won't know if the Club is to receive the £900k or whatever it is and when unless and until PropCo or the Club tell us what has happened to it.

Share this post


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

I thought that they had in the statement earlier this week from the working group and Low. My translation was ... we ****ed up but we're sorting it. I'm not expecting more than that for now.

The Club statement made no reference at all to what was expected to happen to any distribution of PropCo's cash assets.

Share this post


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

I thought that they had in the statement earlier this week from the working group and Low. My translation was ... we ****ed up but we're sorting it. I'm not expecting more than that for now.

No - thats in relation to the land Transfer - it has zero to do with the propco Investment - the two are not related 

The Club should-assuming it all went to plan  ( return wise ) - have received  £900K from Propco 

That has nothing to do with 3BC - any land Transfer etc etc - Now at some point there may be an offset of the £900K in Lieu of the Land - that will be a decision as to wither its better to have the £900K or the Land - but currently its the £900K - the land is a maybe - as there are lots of factors at play ref CW Estate

Edited by Jordanhill Jag

Share this post


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

Here’s great PR for you 

She's an absolute embarrasment. Surely as an experienced PR professional she must know how that looks. I hope Ian McCall and Gerry Britton are asking her WTF she is doing and telling her to get stay away from commenting on football.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, laukat said:

She's an absolute embarrasment. Surely as an experienced PR professional she must know how that looks. I hope Ian McCall and Gerry Britton are asking her WTF she is doing and telling her to get stay away from commenting on football.

I wish she would stay away from football

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.

×