Leaderboard

Several points here. 1. Maggie Forsyth isn't Morag McHaffie. 2. You still don't seem to grasp the difference between things which are "absolutely essential requirements" and things which are "highly desirable, but not essential". The word "requirement" implies that these things are absolutely essential. They aren't absolutely essential, because a safety certificate can be secured without them. 3. There was literally a discussion at the AGM about several of the more capital intensive maintenance or facilities activity that the Club is not currently doing. No, it simply indicates that, absent capital investment, the Club does not plan to spend significant amounts of money on larger projects to improve or better maintain the stadium than they do currently. There are plenty of reasons why we'd want to scrutinise the budgeting, not least the highly ambitious commercial and and fan-based revenue growth targets. You could even make the argument that the Club should be setting aside more money for regular year-to-year stadium maintenance than it is currently. That remains to be seen. But this is why TJF has indicated that it will robustly scrutinise the detail of the 2024-25 budget when it is presented to the trustees. A commitment secured by the CTA. But - yet again Jim - you are allowing a credible and serious point to get lost in waffle. Your inability to distinguish between (a) things that are necessary to get a safety certificate to allow fans to enter the ground and watch a game of football and (b) things which it would be good to improve to make the matchday experience better and to attract new fans, but which we don't currently have the money for Is completely undermining your point. It doesn't assist. My point is not about whether or not the toilets should be upgraded. My point is that you - James Alexander - were calling for the Club to spend significant sums of money in facilities improvements, which would have required significant amounts of UP-FRONT (rather than ongoing) spending, and which were not absolutely essential to securing a safety certificate. The absence of investment, combined with the Club's (still quite) weak cash reserves, means that no sensible Club Board would - at this time - commit to any major capital projects. Investment could - potentially - change that calculation. Which is why instead of rejecting it out of hand we should - and I'm a broken record here - wait to see what the actual proposal is, instead of wetting our knickers over a general statement of intent from the Club Board, which cannot turn into anything concrete without fan approval. As far as I can see, there has never been an EGM held for the purposes of allotting new shares in the Football Club in the ordinary course of business. The decisions to allow, for example, David Beattie to subscribe for shares in 2007 and Colin and Christine Weir and the PTFC Trust in 2015, were done by resolution of the company and simply announced on the Club website, with relevant filings done by the Club Board and with the support of a sufficient proportion of the shareholders. The Articles of Association of the company do not require an EGM to approve investment. It requires only the approval of shareholders representing the requisite amount of the voting share capital in the company. Indeed, for a period the rules were even more relaxed. Following the Weir deal in 2015, the package included a resolution of the company to allow further allotment of shares by decision of the Club Board, bypassing the requirement for shareholder approval completely. This resolution (thankfully) lapsed a few years later. This isn't a "cosy wee arrangement" it's how the vast majority of companies work. And, to labour the point, under the Club-Trust Agreement it will be illegal for the Trustees to consent to any investment without a beneficiary vote in favour of it. So it is the will of the shareholders that this should be the mechanism by which decisions about future investment are taken. If you don't want that to be the case, exercise what influence you have on the majority shareholder. The only influence we are interested in is that of our beneficiaries. So become one if you aren't already. Or carp from the sidelines. Your choice. Your analysis is positively gyroscopic you u-turn so often Jim. In the hours following the AGM you literally told a mutual acquaintance of ours that I had asked a good question at the AGM about the financial forecasts. Once again, and with feeling. There are lots of things that are not "requirements" that the Club would like to do. Some of those involve spending money. If you don't have any spare capital, you don't budget for things that are "non-essential" even if they are "highly desirable". I'm reserving judgment on this. Until we've seen what their proposals are. Not correct. (1) TJF's contributions are normal revenues. You just don't like the fact that they are willing donations. The Club had failed to mobilise this source of income at all prior to this season. (2) If we assume that the projections for the rest of this season are correct, and then we strip out TJF contributions, the Club is still closer to break-even in 2023-24 than it was in 2022-23 (even after including the Rangers cup income). We aren't. There has been no proposal presented. We will only spend time discussing it if and when a proposal is put. You are the one wasting everyone's time by jumping the gun, raising it here when there's nothing to talk about! You're entirely within your rights to question whatever you want Jim. But it would be a lot more sensible if you questioned the content of an actual proposal rather than a vague statement of intent made at the Club's Annual General Meeting, about something that was prominently advertised and spoken about a full four months before that. Then make sure you're a beneficiary and vote against it!

Would love to see these lengthy posts turn into a podcast debate with a moderator. I think trying to analyze everything all at once is really hard in a static forum.

Fair play then. My question would be how do you expect to get change at Partick Thistle then as the holder of a tiny percentage of shares if not within the group that holds the majority of shares?

And here I thought Groundhog Day was 2 weeks ago…. 😄

It was pretty much a game of two halves, with Hibs clearly dominating in the first, and us in the second. I think overall it was a fair result.

Now that Gladiators is back on our screens I think I can see an opportunity to raise some serious money for the club. £5 per person to watch Jim and Graeme go at with pugil sticks (I know who I am rooting for). Contenders Ready!

Because it takes the media team at least 5 hours after the final whistle to do post match interviews, pack up their equipment, drive back to Firhill and start working on uploading interviews, match footage and highlights onto Jagzone. That's after they've driven up to Inverness in the morning, set up their equipment etc., recorded the game, done interviews with manager and a player etc. At least a 16 hour shift for some of them today, so maybe we should give the guys a break? 😂

Just in from Inverness. Mixed bag of thoughts. Poor first 20 minutes, but then we came into the game. Strangely we conceded all 3 goals at times when we were actually playing well. I am generally supportive of Jamie Sneddon, but sadly he did look to be at fault with at least the first two goals. The first goal was a speculative long ranger which had good direction but nothing like the power Kerr McInroy generated last week. Jamie seemed to scoop his hand over or round the ball. A solid shovel of the ball to the side looked to be eminently possible. The second goal was at the far end so harder to comment on, but it appeared that an Inverness player had an unopposed header from 2 yards in front of the centre of the goal, in an area you would expect the goalkeeper to be commanding. First half we were very slow and ponderous, shuffling the ball from side to side with no pace or creativity and then launching a long diagonal ball. Even when well directed, by the time the target player had got the ball down, the initiative had been lost. McMillan's absence seemed an ideal opportunity to start O'Reilly, and move Muirhead to right back where he has always been decent, plus adding the long throw option. Williams did not play particularly badly, but he kept checking back and could not get any link up going with Lawless. I would agree with the poster who said that Lawless was off form, but only as regards the first half where he was anonymous. In the second half we stopped playing the long diagonal balls and began passing much more quickly and incisively through the midfield. Lawless came right into the game and had an excellent second half. McBeth really grew into the game and was particularly good in the second half. He was harshly penalised on occasion, so perhaps has to learn the dark art of winning the ball strongly without apparently committing a foul. Fitzpatrick was not on his best form, but kept trying (as witness his goal) and was unusually passionate in trying to galvanise the rest of the team into action. Scott Robinson was the real difference maker today. He is nimble and quick thinking on the ground as you might expect (as in winning the penalty), but also has a spring heeled leap to win unexpected and well-directed headed passes. We really need several consecutive injury-free performances like that. Graham took the penalty well and his volley for the third goal was brilliant. Great credit to the fans today. They really stuck with the team and inspired the fightbacks. For all the shortcomings in the team today, you do also have to credit their fighting spirit in keeping coming back, especially when the goals lost could easily have been dispiriting. Not quite sure where O'Reilly was playing when he came on, but he seemed to be everywhere, not least in the attack. Looks like a quality and committed player who should be starting. I am such a slow typer, 6 others have posted since I started. Apologies if I have duplicated anything they have said!

Could we have that second £500k tranche for PTWFC please?