Jump to content

stolenscone

Members
  • Content Count

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Neutral

About stolenscone

  • Rank
    Jags fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Team
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. stolenscone

    Sena

    He's from Senegal, I think.
  2. Indeed. I don't disagree at all. The Foundation can only speak for itself. Greame has said that they hope to meet with TBC soon, and we must hope that there is something positive to come from that. I'm not necessarily expecting an in depth update from that meeting, even if progress is made though. I think that we either trust the new TJF board to get on with it and to communicate when there is something useful to communicate, or we don't. It's also important to be clear that TJF can't operate in vacuum. TBC need to be willing to engage. I don't know enough of the detail to comment, but the TBC public statements so far have been pretty poor, and reflect badly on those making them. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. One thing that I do know for certain, however: a number of the TJF board members are respectable and experienced professionals. It's difficult to understand what TBC are looking for if they aren't viewed as being capable of acting as the custodians of the shareholding.
  3. From the outside, it seems to me that there's a different between confidentiality and trying to run a negotiation of this nature in a responsible and professional manner. It can be frustrating from the sidelines, and it's not helped by a history of poor communication, but it seems to be too early to judge the new JTF board either way.
  4. Hello erty - it seems to me that taking control of the company in these circumstances, without have the opportunity to undertake financial DD would be possible, but inadvisable. It's easy to foresee a new board making budget commitments "blind" which could jeopardise the financial viability of the Club. "We think we know what the priorities are, so we'll replace the roof ... which doesn't leave enough money to pay this tax bill that we knew nothing about, so we're terribly sorry, but that's the liquidator just called for a chat." It's an extreme example, but I'm sure that you get the point. A change of control with little or no visibility on the finances would be dangerous for the health of the business.
  5. Hi - to respond to this point: diligence on a corporate acquisition will typically take three forms- legal, financial and technical (by which I mean technical building surveys). Some of this might be covered off by allowing the buyer to rely on existing reports. But the bulk of DD in a purchase of this nature is financial. I understand that there are three accountants associated with the TJF board, one of whom is a partner in the kind of accountancy firm that you would engage to undertake financial DD for an acquisition of this nature. I also saw names on the letter of support for partners of law firms and firms of building surveyors who will have acted in the purchase and sale of hundreds of more complicated businesses. While your assessment of the potential DD costs is not off the mark by any means, what the TJF is seeking to undertake is unlikely to have a corresponding cost. Indeed, it may not cost anything other than the time of specialist volunteers.
  6. stolenscone

    Sena

    Indeed we are a football club. I'm more than happy for decisions to be made for purely footballing reasons (and I think that the club has been guilty in the past of making emotional decisions without a proper rationale), but it's quite possible to make a valid point in an inelegant way. I think that you've achieved that with a certain panache. All it does is to reflect badly on you, which I suspect was LIB's original point.
  7. Sorry for any misunderstanding: I was referring to the club accusing TJF of secrecy but not then disclosing the information themselves. Seems a bit odd to me to go out of ones way to make that point, but not then fix the issue for your customers. I took that to mean that they don’t actually want to provide the details, which rather counters the point that they are trying to make (or that the person making the statement is guilty of the very thing they're accusing the other of).
  8. To be fair, the Club could do this as well. TJF position appears to be that the questions were not answered; the Club position is that full answers have been given but not passed on. If the latter is true, it would be a simple matter to bypass TJF and make the responses public to the supporters. With such an easy self help mechanism, it seems odd to accuse TJF of secrecy but not to make the information public themselves.
  9. Juggernaut- one of the points made by the 3BC statement was that the Jags Foundation doesn't have the support of the wider fan base, presumably in order to sideline the question of fan ownership. Personally, I added my name to the letter in order to contribute towards debunking that suggestion, so that a proper discussion on the subject can progress.
  10. Hi Jim - long time no speak. If what Sandy says is true (that there are no proposals being tabled to create new voting categories for shares), then normal rules apply. Once the shares are transferred, as majority shareholder, TJF will be in the box seat to appoint a board in the future. I see no issues with a structured and managed process for handover. It doesn't immediately seem to be suspicious to me.
  11. I woluld guess that the sales include title conditions that limit the use of the land for community good / leisure facilities. You would prefer that local leisure facilities are sold for housing and lost to the community? Seems that councils can't win either way. The issue for me is more to do with chronic under funding of local government, but this is a football forum, so let's not get into that!
  12. stolenscone

    New Owner

    For what it’s worth, my take is that Colin Weir’s behaviour in this matter is entirely consistent with his previous behaviour: A previous poster queried why he hadn’t made funds available when we were in the top league or last winter when things were looking dire. But as far as I’m aware, all previous “investments” (donations?) have been of a long term, structural nature — paying off debt; maintaining the Academy; proposed training ground. I’m sure there has been as hoc support behind the scenes, but at no point has the support been in the manner of short term funds to blow on overpriced short term player signings. In other words, it’s largely been about structural legacy support, not short term gain. I view the share purchase and subsequent promise to return shares into a fan controlled structure in the same light. Others may have inside knowledge to the contrary, but I’ve never seen evidence of self serving gain or him going back on public statements, so at present, I have no reason to disbelieve his most recent statement about fan ownership. Yes, the eventual structure might not suit everyone, but to my mind (a) it’s his money and he has bought the right to make the decision on fan ownership / next steps; and (b) his past conduct buys credibility and goodwill in the short term while the detail is worked out. The rest is largely unknown and will only become apparent in time. (Bye the way, with all the talk of interim board appointments, I’m astonished that my phone hasn’t rung once in the last couple of days.)* * Joke, for those unable to tell.
  13. stolenscone

    New Owner

    Hi Sandy - could I ask why you think that the Board needs to be appointed from the fan base? The idea of fans having to perform the executive function just because they own the shares seems to be a common misconception. I suppose for a business like ours, it’s more likely that supporters would volunteer their time, and that any external board member might want to be remunerated, but that’s not necessarily the case. But on this point we agree: the ongoing success of any fan ownership model will be dictated by the quality of the board, and the company’s ability to either operate the business at break even, or to attract additional investment from within the fan base.
  14. stolenscone

    New Owner

    Correct me if I'm wrong: I had not understood Thistle For Ever to be a supporters' group, but rather a vehicle whose specific purpose is fan ownership. I agree, though. It's disappointing to have two supporters' groups, with neither of them really doing much to visibily represent the interests of the supporters. Having spent some time with the Jags Trust many years ago, I can see it from both sides. By one reading, we get the fan association(s) we deserve. For all the hot air and indignation on internet forums, very few people are actually willing to give up their time and engage beyond a Saturday between 3 and 5pm. That's inevitably going to impact on the quality of the output.
×