Leaderboard

In 1914 and 1939, when the nation needed men and women to serve in the country’s armed forces, Partick Thistle FC were one of the many clubs whose players and former players became soldiers, sailors and airmen, and not all of them came home. Seventeen Jagsmen paid the ultimate price serving their country. We commemorate them all in our feature piece, 'The Partick Thistle Fallen', updated for remembrance Sunday, 2024. The Partick Thistle Fallen →

Just popping in to check whether anything new has been posted in the last 5 pages? No? OK, I'll see you all again in another 5 pages time for an update. 🙋‍♂️

The situation currently unfolding at Dumbarton is another compelling argument in support of the fan ownership model. There are unquestionably financial challenges at Dumbarton, just as they are at just about every football club ours very much included. The move to Administration at Dumbarton though is less to do with profligate spending, no matter how often anyone suggests it is simply to support their own argument, and more about unravelling an extremely murky ownership model involving absentee owners, shelf companies and a stadium located in a prime housing area. A fan owned club while not immune to predatory advances from nefarious suitors, is altogether better placed to deal with them. Of course fan ownership isn’t a panacea to the challenges that football clubs face. Personally I see it as protection. A fan base isn’t a homogenous group. It’s diverse in terms of age, gender and, probably most importantly, opinions. But there is no group of people who care more about their football club than its collective fan base. The above doesn’t, of course, make a fan owned club immune from poor decision making. I’d argue that how the first tranche of the McClymont investment was handled and communicated was one such example of poor decision making. Not that it was accepted, but the fact that it wasn’t subject to beneficiary scrutiny and vote. It was a poor visual for the first major undertaking for the Trustees. How the proposed second tranche of the McClymont, and others, investment has been communicated, however, has been the polar opposite and is precisely how these things should be handled. It’s not a ‘done deal’. Repeating that line time and time again doesn’t make it any less of a nonsense. It’s true that the Trustees are recommending that tranche 2 should go ahead but ultimately that is not their decision, nor that of the PTFC Board, to make. It’s a decision for the beneficiaries to make. That’s you if you are any of the following: Season Ticket Holder 71 Club Member Member of The Jags Foundation Member of The Jags Trust That’s how it is supposed to happen. That’s how democracy works in a fan owned football club. As of now I’m inclined to vote for accepting tranche 2 but my final decision will be informed by the meeting on November 29th. The reasons for accepting tranche 2 are compelling, but there are some areas that give me cause for concern. A new owner of a football club, or any organisation, rarely has a clean slate to start from. There are invariably historical issues to be faced. The argument that inherited issues can’t be continually used as a reason for decision making has been well made, actually maybe not ‘well’ made but made all the same. That’s more than true with Partick Thistle. There comes a time when it can’t be the responsibility of those that went before but of those setting and implementing the current agenda. I’d suggest that point would come should the proposed tranche 2 be accepted. If after that, and we are talking massive hypotheticals here, the Club Board don’t meet the targets set by the Trustees or if the Trustees themselves aren’t fulfilling the role you believe that they should be, it’s at that point that you look to redress that through the democratic processes that are available. Again, precisely how it should work in a fan owned football club.

The Club is not obliged to disclose commercially sensitive information at a General Meeting, simply because a minority shareholder asks a question. You don't understand the Companies Acts. There will be a General Meeting to approve or reject any special resolution enabling Tranche 2 to happen. Your recourse to the Directors is there. No it doesn't. That's not how limited companies work. Especially not those with different classes of share. The assets are not divided on a simple pro-rata basis. They are all owned by the company, in respect of which shareholders then have specific kinds of rights, which are not, as lawyers would put it "real rights" but are "personal rights". They are not rights in "things" but in relation to other legal persons. No you aren't. You're entitled, by default, to half of any dividend or to half of the remaining assets of the company in the event it is wound up. You are not automatically entitled to access the company's cash reserves. No we aren't. £500k of new value is being put into PTFC, in return for shares, thereby diluting the proportion of control of existing shareholders. If a company is worth £100, and I own 72 of its 100 shares, my shareholding is worth £72. If someone puts £20 of new money into the company, and gets 20 shares in return, the company is now worth £120. It is worth £20 more than it was before. If I hold 72 of the 120 shares, my shareholding is still worth £72. I have not "sold" any assets, whether my own or the company's. The value of my assets has not gone down. What has gone down is my percentage shareholding, and therefore my legal control and influence over the company, from 72% to 60%. No it wouldn't. You're talking nonsense. Again, total failure to understand the difference between a shareholding and a real right in property. No shares are being "sold" here. You sell shares when someone who already has shares gives them to another person in exchange for money. That's what "selling" is. Subscribing for shares is not the same as selling. It is the issuing of new shares. A completely different economic concept with different impacts, as no existing shares change hands. And that's why the fans have been given lots of information about this proposal and are being invited to an open meeting at the Football Club to ask questions and to ask for more information if they see fit. And that's why the fans are going to decide whether or not this can go ahead through a ballot of over 2,400 individuals. This isn't hidden either. This has been publicly trailed by the Club for well over a year now. Shareholdings are not valued as a simple proportion of the assets of the company. The value of a majority shareholding will often, for example, be more, pro rata, than the value of a minority shareholding. Because shares aren't the same as real rights in property. Because we are not a public company. We are, like almost all football clubs in Scotland, a private limited company. It's called the Annual Accounts, which you receive in draft ahead of every AGM as a shareholder of the company. There is no legal obligation for the Board of Directors of a company to give a forward looking forecast of revenue and expenditure at an Annual General Meeting. They often do so, but there is no obligation to do so. And were challenged on it by the majority shareholder, accepted the criticism of the underlying assumptions, and then presented a budget to the majority shareholder with a completely different set of forecasts and projections. Wrong. They changed the forecast when they presented the draft 2024-25 budget to the Trustees. The Club is not under a legal obligation to provide in-year updates to AGM financial forecasts. It is, however, under a legal obligation to seek Trustee approval for its budgets. And as one of the people who was in the room I can confirm that the budget options presented in April were not forecasting a break-even outcome. As the Club has since openly chosen to disclose with specifics, at a Q&A, earlier this year. It wasn't our figure to disclose. It is for the Club Board to decide the level of public disclosure of commercially sensitive information, not the majority shareholder. They chose to disclose it at the Q&A, despite being under no legal obligation to do so. This shows that your distinction between an EGM and an informal meeting is a completely false one. The Board didn't "omit a key part of our finances" - they disclosed it. To the trustees between April and June as part of the budget-setting process. And to the wider fanbase subsequently. So your premise is false. You are of course free to name the directors you believe should be removed, and to ask other shareholders to join you. No, they're the same. The Club Board is in complete control over what commercially sensitive information it chooses to disclose in either setting, subject only to its statutory obligations and those under the Articles of Association. What is different is that shareholders have the power, acting collectively, to appoint and remove directors. That has nothing to do with powers of disclosure of financial information. Okay, stand for election against us then. Campaign for our removal. Let's see if the rest of the fanbase agrees. Nope. A matter of opinion. You're entitled to it. Completely false. The Board has stated there will not be a Tranche 3. TJF has made clear that, in our view, fan ownership should not be further diluted. You are lying. Again. This is true of the governance of literally every company ever. Votes are how decisions are made. Feel free to put yourself up for election to replace those you think have done a bad job. Instead of tediously repeating the same ill informed talking points on this forum.

I don't profess to be a financial expert however I wonder if perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way around. We got lucky once with finding a millionaire (Colin Weir) who was willing to put money into the club but found ourselves no better off for that cash injection due to the miss-management of Jlow and co. It now appears that we have been lucky enough to find someone else (McClymont) willing to put in nearly a £1m. So shouldn't we be focusing on how best to use that cash injection rather than why someone would give it to us or assuming they have a ulterior motive? If we look at that question and start with if someone gave us £1m what would you spend it on? Then I would suggest paying off debts, stadium repairs and having a cash reserve are entirely sensible If TJF or the club board were suggesting using the next £500k to throw at the playing squad as per Jlow with Caldwell and McCall then I would be really worried.

This I think was the issue on Saturday and partially caused by recent successes. We have grown so confident in our defensive record that once we score we largely sit back and soak things up. In general Doolan's subs are too late and don't really alter the game in our favour. I have a running joke with my boy as to when Doolan will make his first sub and the answer is nearly always when we lose a goal. Subs should be there to stop a goal being conceded or change the pattern of the game. I struggle to think of too many times Doolan has managed that. It was fairly obvious to all watching that Raith had changed formation and personnel at halftime and figured out our plan A. Raith realised by going 4-2-3-1 and giving our fullbacks some defending to do that we had limited width or outball. However our subs made us weaker. Fitzpatrick was back to his infuriating worse by shying away from physical challenges and hoping the ball will drop at his feet. He also left Milne to do all the defensive work and by that time he was having a hard time against Raith's halftime sub Ablade got thrown on in a desperate attempt to try something different but with actually little clear idea of how best to use him. We have umpteen options of the bench so plenty of scope to change personnel and formation. When Raith went 4-2-3-1 we should have changed formation and given Raith something different to come to terms with knowing that they had 1 less sub to counter with as they had to change first. Instead we just waited assuming our defence we get us by and ultimately we can consider ourselves fortunate not to have thrown away 3 points.

Well with the match being off it means we can all stay in our homes and post about tranches and financial matters

That is what my father used to say, just before he was sacked by the Fire Brigade!

Really enjoyed the game on Saturday. Couple of pints in the Woodside, a slow walk up to Firhill and a magnificent performance from the team on the park. Great crowd too, bolstered no doubt by some Scotland and Croatia fans, some of which were close to me in the JH. I had three mates with me in the end. A Motherwell a Celtic and an Aberdeen fan. The Celtic fan hadn't been to Firhill since Bertie Auld was in charge. They all loved watching a game where there was no pressure on their team to win. Two other people I met from Corby on the train up, were in hospitality. One a Celtic and the other a Rangers fan. Ah well, it's all money to Thistle in the end. Each and every one of them said they had a great day out. Up The Jags.

This is but one small example of where your abrasive nature on here really makes it hard for people to engage with the substance of your argument. LJ is just pointing out that it's not an unrealistic possibility that investors who have invested in the past *may* invest again in the future. It doesn't mean he's saying he thinks it's a fantastic idea and we should just carry on indefinitely. You have the substance of some reasonable points but at this moment you have made 69 of the 213 posts in this thread. This is an important issue for the club and this thread is completely exhausting to read. Simply saying "if you don't like it don't read it" is not good enough here. Your style is actively disengaging people from the argument. If you really, genuinely believe in your argument as much as you seem to on here I would politely suggest you make your point in as detailed and substantive a manner as possible and then leave it for people to digest. As a fanbase we have to collaborate and seek consensus, this is not an owner managed business run on one individual's say so (or even a few individuals as in the past). Again I think you have the substance of some good points, but you're losing goodwill with every post.

Not doubting Fitzpatrick’s ability but an absolute shocking work ethic which is absolutely affecting Harry Milne’s game as there is no cover when he moves forward. Pre requisite for any footballer is to be fit and work hard which Fitzy doesn’t do at all . Even if any player is having a bad game, it shouldn’t stop them working hard for the team Fitzpatrick won’t go any further in the game unless he changes his attitude and lifestyle. It can be done if you look at the upward cycle of Kevin Nisbet and James Penrice’s careers

But your turnover isn’t a fixed known figure in advance. It varies by several hundreds of thousands of pounds based how well your income sources perform, and several of them are very unpredictable (for example, football prize money and gate income). Thistle has varied between having a turnover of anything between £2 million and £3.1 million in this division in relatively recent history. If we are taking the lower of those two figures, you are suggesting that the total wage bill for the entire football club should be cut by more than £800k as against 2022-23 levels. Without in any way compromising footballing outcomes or off-field revenue generating operations. If we are talking the higher of those two figures, that means only roughly a £100-150k cut in wages/social security/pensions. A very different, much more manageable, proposition. Which figure should Thistle be using? How should those cuts be achieved? Specifics. Pounds and pence. You are literally telling us that we should be trying to achieve a wage to turnover improvement akin to what Aberdeen achieved between 2022-23 and 2023-24. You are calling on Thistle to do that! We are talking about Aberdeen’s situation where they (a) made £1.1 million profit in 2022-23 with a 74% wage to turnover ratio and (b) in 2023-24 made a £900k loss with a 54% wage to turnover ratio. So either you: (a) accept that the wage to turnover ratio isn’t everything, and that you have to take other things into account when assessing sustainability or (b) are saying we should cut the wages to turnover ratio even if it increases our operating losses! Which is it? When it doesn’t lead to the required footballing outcomes? Yes. Absolutely. But in Aberdeen’s case, it’s been a resounding success, as they’ve slashed their wages to turnover ratio by spending more on their squad, using that as the means to generate revenue from gate income, prize money and player sales, and have improved their bottom line. Despite their £900k loss last season they have almost £7 million from the Miovski transfer in place for this year, and they’re right up at the top of the league. All Clubs are taking some element of risk with what they spend. The question is what the sensible amount of risk to take is. Capped at 60% of what turnover figure? Turnover calculated at what point? The previous season’s actual result? The average of the last 3 seasons? A forward looking forecast? Based on what revenue assumptions? The Club’s turnover has varied between (slightly below) £2.5 million and (slightly above) £3.1 million in this division between seasons 2021-22 and seasons 2023-24. Your 60% wages to turnover target has a more than £300k discrepancy depending on whether you take the lower or the higher of those figures. So which figure does the Club pick? A Club’s wage budget, once set, has relatively little flexibility to be reduced in-season in response to changes in revenue expectations. You can try to save money in the January transfer window. You can try to reduce staffing levels (though savings are always likely to be small given lay-offs involve severance payments). But it’s basically 80-90% baked in from August until May. So what’s the approach here? Be specific. Do you take the most pessimistic possible turnover assumption (relegation prize money, low 2000s crowds, a £2 million turnover football club), and give yourself the task of cutting more than the entire non-footballing staff budget and more? Or do you set the expected turnover figure higher, and keep on more of your playing and administrative staff, on the basis that this will generate additional income, with a successful football team and people being paid to deliver better commercial income for the Club, but in the knowledge that, worst case scenario, it might not? Thats your dilemma. This is about trade-offs. It’s not “simple”.

My main observation from Saturday's game is that the roof of the new South Stand seems incredibly low.

Will the meeting now be held in 2 tranches with a long break in between?

1st game of the season for me. Bringing a couple of mates. Can you still get a ticket from the annex behind the JH Stand? Thinking of buying from there and going for a pint at the ground before kick-off. Can't wait to walk towards Firhill again. It's been too long.

Bannigan has been really good for the last month. However why hasn’t he done this for the majority of the last year and a half? No doubt some will be demanding he gets a new contract- sorry but I want to see this level of performance from him to be shown till the end of the season before a decision is made

I used to dream of getting through and getting a money spinning cup run in the hope that I might see Thistle at Hampden for Semi-final or Final Now I dream of getting through and getting a money spinning cup run in the hope that we never have to mention Tranche's again or a t least for 12 months

Good to hear, just wondering how Morton managed to get £22 in old irn-bru bottles and coppers to you!

Yes indeed. It comes in 12 tranches, and you can even see which assets have been sold (or just burned through).

Excellent coverage and alternative views of the goals on the "Partick Thistle Gameday" channel:

As originally a sceptic of the notion of Fan Ownership, I think it's clear that the difference between now and JLow's period is night and day. There's a reason that no-one (?) is calling for Director's heads or protesting on the canal bank. And it's not just the comfortable relationship between those trusted with managing the ownership and the club. My reading of this is that the current board are trying to manage a soft-landing from the awful position the previous management had left the club in fiscally, as well as recovering from the obvious contempt they held the fans in. Trading cash for a small amount of ownership seems like a very effective, and strategically undamaging way to enable this. The devil may be in the detail, but there's a lot to commend this approach. Sometimes in a business buying time to fix long term risks and develop future opportunities is the most important thing. This feels like that. It sounds like there's more prudence, with an eye to creating security and in this context Tranche 2 is strategy rather than failure it seems to me. The notion of 'not spending money you don't have' sounds great in principle, but most business have to work on the basis of projections rather than starting the financial year with all the money for that year in the bank or 100% committed. Therefore it's your assumptions that require the skill and experience . Too optimistic and you can run out of money really quickly. Too pessimistic and you can run out of productivity and performance. It's hard enough in business, God knows how you'd do that in a football club where many of the levers between success, failure, and business performance are heavily linked but impossible to predict. My biggest gripe about the current administration off-pitch is that they leave money on the table and should work hard on the fundamentals of customer service, but that's another story and post

Just had another look at that. We were well up the park, with players in good positions. Instead of making a pass or moving forward, Kyle & Banzo started passing the ball backwards. Eventually Dan chose to pass back to Myles, who was about the last in the stadium to realise the pass was well underhit, and completely mismanaged his clearance. I actually blame Kyle & Banzo more than Dan & Myles. The ball should never even been in our half.

Re the wide players. I'd expect Chalmers to start ahead of Wee Stevie for a game or so. After that whoever starts will regularly be subbed for the other. Fresh legs to keep up the intensity. As jagfox says Fitzpatrick was getting double marked yesterday. Not an unusual occurrence and reminiscent of the treatment given to Tiffoney. Even if Aiden isn't playing well he's still freeing up space to exploit elsewhere in attack. And being two footed more or less guarantees he'll take more than one marker. Personally I feel he gets over criticised on too many occasions but that' another matter. If anything yesterday he suffered from a rare breakdown with his partnership with Milne. Felt nothing was coming off for Harry in attack. Even at that Aiden still managed two goal assists. Maybe not MotM but a valuable contribution all the same.

I think I know what you mean by this. A good victory tomorrow will possibly make the point v Raith Rovers last week look a bit better, and confirm we are turning the corner. Doolan isn't one to make a lot of changes, but I suspect he will bring Fitzpatrick back in, possibly for Turner. 3-0 home win. Graham and Tranche (2).

There are, I think, two important differences. Firstly, the scale. But for a Rangers cup game, the "old board" had run a budget that would have seen Thistle lose more than £600k in a season. They also knew that the Academy was running a £200k loss and had subsidised the Club by almost £100k in that season. By comparison, the last full financial year saw the Club deliver what is expected to be only a circa £170k loss. Those are two completely different situations. I readily grant you that the larger loss this year isn't an ideal situation (though it should still be better than 2022-23, without an Old Firm cup game). But as we've alluded to elsewhere, this is partly because the Club is making more conservative assumptions about football revenue and because its more optimistic (unrealistic) fan revenue growth projections were held to account, at source, in close to real time. Secondly, there's the transparency element. The "old board" pretended that the Club was being run sustainably when it wasn't. It used the Directors' Statement in the 2021-22 accounts to accuse people on the outside expressing concerns about the finances of making it all up (it turned out they were understating the scale of the problem!). They only ever disclosed detailed financial information with the AGM pack, well after the end of the financial year. They denied due diligence to the prospective fan-ownership vehicles to understand the finances in anything approaching "real-time". Under the current board, things aren't all rosy, by any stretch of the imagination. Much more needs to be done to get closer to break-even and (with or without tranche 2) a Championship budget in 2025-26 will likely be much less competitive than you've seen in the last 3 or so seasons. But you are receiving financial disclosure updates, both over the summer well ahead of the AGM and in quite a bit of detail in public Q&A meetings. The Trustees are getting management accounts on a monthly basis, and are able to test and question performance in something closer to real-time. And you've got a Club Board that's being quite open with the fans that the finances aren't strong and need to be improved. Both financially and culturally, this is night and day. One group buried their heads in the sand, concealed and didn't just spend beyond our means but ran the Club into the ground. Another group is accepting the situation is challenging, seeking out ways to improve the situation, and trying, imperfectly, to make that reality better understood. The two situations aren't the same, for all the challenges the present faces us. That's not true. If the Club starts operating at break-even from 2025-26 onwards, then even allowing for the stadium repairs, about a third of the £1 million would still be in the bank as working capital. That's definitely not the perspective. There is no tranche 3. A decision was taken to push the boat out on the playing budget for this season specifically because it was seen as a better chance than most to get out of the Championship. The clear expectation and directive from 2025-26 onwards is that budgets have to break-even across a 3-year cycle based on credible and properly evidenced revenue forecast assumptions. The Club Board is being instructed to keep £300k of cash in the bank at all times, and to maintain a current ratio above 1.2 at all times. In practice, given the expected post-tranche-2 cash levels and current assets/liabilities, this means that they will not be allowed to set loss-making budgets. A football club's costs are generally far better known and predictable than its revenue. Especially in the Scottish Championship where a higher proportion (than in most other leagues above and below and beyond Scotland) of income is determined directly by footballing revenues (gate and prize money). So if you take the most conservative assumptions on footballing outcomes, that leaves you less flexibility to: (a) invest in the first team and secure better footballing outcomes (b) invest in off-field revenue generating activities, which require effective, experienced, professional people and their time to be done well Is it possible to break even consistently in the Scottish Championship if a football club is run well, without extraordinary sources of footballing or other revenues? Absolutely. But it's not something that happens overnight from a starting point of grotesque financial mismanagement. It's not, generally, something that happens when you have modest cash reserves. And it's not something that the vast majority of Scottish Championship Clubs have been able to do, including Thistle, on a sustainable multi-season basis pretty much my entire lifetime. And the quickest, and most transformative route to sustainability, as we, St Mirren and others have seen in the last decade and a half, is promotion to the Premiership. The pursuit of that carries risks, and when it doesn't work (and there isn't a plan to underwrite the cost) it can be bad news for a football club. But some element of risk is unavoidable if the ambitions are a Club that wants to be consistently in the top half of this division or in the Premiership, rather than fighting Championship relegation battles and facing the spectre of part-time football if things go really badly.

Tranche warfare.

At least it's in a thread about finances and not highjacking a match one!

Surely having only 3 options regarding the outcome of the match is a little restricting? Might I suggest: Home win-playing sparkling football and scoring magnificent goals at will Home win-a turgid bore of a game no flair, no structure, effectively a nil-nil draw with a goal in it. Draw - exciting end-to-end game 6 goals, fast flowing football with the result in the balance right up ‘til the 90th + minute Draw - dire 90mins of dreadful unimaginative negativity Away win-outplayed in every aspect of the game succumbing to a heavy home defeat Away win - points stolen by a fortunate away team as they are totally outplayed by an unlucky home side yet score the only goal late on Away win - dire game - late disputed penalty Given these options perhaps the ritual post match blood letting could be avoided

For a century and a half, Partick Thistle have always played a role as one of Scotland's foremost clubs in many ways, even if they've never been crowned champions of the land. In this extensive piece, we will show how enduring and wide-reaching the club's impact has been in terms of the players who have featured both in the Partick Thistle first team, and on the full international stage. The presence of Jagsmen has been permanent down throughout the decades, all the way from the 1880s to the 2020s without a single pause. The depth of representation is a real eye-opener with well over 150 players winning some 1,500 caps between them, from Antigua to Togo, from Wales to Albania and dozens in between! The journey will be divided into 15 parts, focusing on one decade at a time. The players are listed in chronological order, by date of when they completed the "double" of playing for the Jags and winning a full cap. As always, these declarations require rules and our definition of a full international cap is guided by each national football association, even if this differs from any lists that FIFA might have made. The definition of a Partick Thistle player is one who has played in a legitimate first team match. Whether for club or country, voided games are excluded and friendlies are allowed. On each page, we'll include a basic overview of where Partick Thistle stood at that particular time, and each capped player will be profiled briefly with an internationally-focused bio, together with their fully detailed cap list showing their age and club at the time, as well as the individual match details with attendance where known. Who was the first, who is the latest? Who played in the Maracana? Who went to the World Cup? Who is most-capped? All will soon be revealed in this fascinating Tour du Monde, enjoy!

Partick Thistle went from strength to strength in the 1890s. After having been snubbed by the Scottish Football League for inaugural membership in 1890, our amazing committee men were undaunted. They were a key driving force for a new independent set-up, the Scottish Alliance League, which came to fruition just one year later. The club's participation lasted 2 seasons before it became a co-founding member of the Scottish Football League Second Division for season 1893-94. All of this kept Partick Thistle very much at the front and centre of the senior game in Scotland. In the springtime of 1891, our goalie JOHN McCORKINDALE became the second to be capped whilst a Partick Thistle player, bringing prestige to the name of Partick Thistle. Promotion to the top-flight of Scottish football arrived in 1897, and this was followed by a move to an extensive new stadium at Meadowside, Partick (Jun 1897 to May 1908). All of this enabled 'The Jags' to attract a decent level of player; six joined our "internationalists club" this decade. These are the stories... The Definitive Who's Who Of The Partick Thistle Internationalists, part 2: 1890s →

Really?

You are reversing the narrative. Usually we have a thread about something else, and people talk about tranches. Now we have a thread about tranches, and you are taking about something else! Quite enjoying it actually.

I still have cupboards full of tinned spaghetti hoops from Y2K fear. Am happy to sell chunks of em off to release much needed storage space.

A loss is a loss is a loss…. we are planning on running the club at a loss …. Crazy

No. The whole 'give a monkey an infinite amount of time and a keyboard and they will type the complete works of Shakespeare' theory has actually be debunked. The thinking goes that for a monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare he, or she, would require a time period longer than the lifetime of the universe to do so. Therefore there is only a finite time for our chimp pal to complete his, or her, task. Personally I suspect the only reason why our simian friend would undertake such a task would be to avoid reading this thread which will almost certainly have the same post being made time and time again right up to end of the lifetime of the universe.

72% is way too high ….even rangers are only at 66%……and needs to be reduced to around 60%. Funnily enough that just about gets you to break even. running the club at a loss is a choice and a very dangerous one l

We need one of these again (you had to be there).

Full Accies hub up, more as we get it. BBG has finished his 37th year on 29 goals in 'all games', where does that sit in his 5 seasons as a Jag? All is revealed in this week's 'Stats Watch'... 👀 Thistle 5 Accies 1 (SPFL Championship - game 14) →

Over our 1st 8 home matches this season our attendances are over 500 higher than last season(including a Dundee Utd game) and over 1000 higher than the season before that.

and to support above, just over 2000 at the Tues night gig v Accies the following Feb, in the immediate post McNamara era.

I dont want to get involved in the intricate details of this debate. The ba is burst as far as funding goes for Scottish Football. Thistle are not immune to this. But it saddens me that after the support from Colin Weir that we find ourselves in a potentially unsustainable situation.

It is quite normal indeed essential for a board to have parameters and targets particularly when they are not the owners of the business. Better not to overspend than having to deal with it afterwards as we are now seeing. it’s neither disincentivising or being trigger happy…..it’s simply saying we want the club run without incurring any debt. Simple.

That will be the ones where we didn’t get promoted

I think we know that we could get 15 points out of 4 games and some people on here would still moan.

Not too much to add to what has been said before. Fantastic team move for the goal. Great to see us playing some more attractive football, if not quite able to finish it off. Final outcome disappointing, and there is still a way to go, but on the whole the tanker is turning and we can still look up rather than down. Second place very attainable. Anything higher depends on Falkirk faltering, which, with almost two-thirds of the season still to play, is highly possible. My only new point is as regards Raith Rovers. Their initial ambitions and subsequent trajectory resemble our own, but thankfully their tanker turning has been taking rather longer. I still see them as more likely to sustain an ultimate challenge than Ayr United and Queen's Park, who have a long history of finishing less well than they start. Therefore I will make a bold prediction that at the end of the season the top 4 will be in alphabetical order: Falkirk Livingston Partick Thistle Raith Rovers Will there be any variation in the actual order? To finish, yesterday's was the best game to watch so far this season, and both teams contributed to this.

mibees an idea to get a dug to take out son FFS

Reminded of a tribute band night... ... after the 'Identical Cocteau Twins', came the final act, 'I Can’t Believe It’s Not Focus'. Following a commendable stab at Sylvia, Helen shouted to the guitarist: “Are you knackered, man?” To which he replied: “No, I’m Jan Akkerman”.