Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Neutral

About stolenscone

  • Rank
    Jags fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Team

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Google search for “companies house beta”. On the website homepage, plug “Partick Thistle Football Club” into the search bar. The first entry will be the club. Click “filing history”. The entry that you are looking for is the “confirmation statement” which is dated 9 Jan 2018 - the entries are in date order, so it’s easy enough to find. Click the “view pdf” button and you’ll find the list.
  6. I think that you are conflating fan ownership (as shareholders) with an inexperienced committee of fans running the club (as directors). The executive function should always be performed by people with the relevant skills and experience. These are the people who will have the day to day responsibility for running the club. It is not essential that they support the club, provided they can discharge their executive function in a manner which promotes the success of the club. All that fan ownership will do is to give supporters the ultimate say in the big strategic decisions - for example a sale / appointment of the board etc. The board would still be responsible for, eg managerial appointments, but the shareholders periodically have the opportunity to hold the board to account. Have a look at company law for a better understanding of shareholder rights. If you were to construct a logical argument against fan ownership, it would probably be around the turning off of the philanthropic tap of wealthy individuals who don’t really have an affinity with the club, but view it as a vanity project - for example Mike Ashley at Newcastle. You might view that as a good thing, or you might think that it’s something which might limit the club’s ability to push ahead, but it does result in greater responsibility for the success of the club being placed with the supporters. If funds need to be raised, it would be down to us, but if we own it, then that’s only fair. I do think that you’re doing the concept a disservice, however, if you just take the view that fans can’t agree on the simplest things on an Internet forum, so can’t possibly run a football club. The concept doesn’t call for them to run the football club in the first place.
  7. I get that people like to feel & let others know that they’re ITK, and I get that this is an Internet forum, and so will inevitably be awash with rumour and speculation, but I really don’t think that playing all this out in public (whether or not there is actually anything to the story) is anything other than unhelpful and destabilising for the Club. The same could be said for the takeover talks. Since we can’t influence the outcome, in many ways it would have been far better for the playing side if those discussions had been conducted in private. Anyhow, I’ll let you all get back to your informed and uninformed speculation, and such like...
  8. There you go. Back at the starting post.
  9. stolenscone

    New Owner

    I don’t think there’s really any need for that either, if I’m being honest.
  10. stolenscone

    New Owner

    I have often found you to be one of the more sensible posters, and (to my mind) you often have an interesting view. It feels a little as though you have the bit between your teeth on a particular point, though, which is manifesting itself in some rather unnecessary digs at other posters. I think it reflects badly on you as you don’t usually come across as one of the swivel eyed crazy people that forums often attract, but who am I to comment. Anyway, as far as I can tell.l, almost 130 pages could be boiled down to this: a couple of wealthy people are interested in buying the club. Nobody really knows why and nobody really knows whether or not it will go ahead. I’ll wait and see what happens, and judge it from there.
  11. stolenscone

    New Owner

    I don’t think that you are doing yourself many favours with this. Your view is pretty clear and you have made it many times in a relatively short period. Perhaps time to take a break from the keyboard for a bit?
  12. stolenscone

    New Owner

    I saw a bird, it was black. All birds are black. I saw a guy wearing a yellow jacket. I saw him wearing a yellow jacket twice. Everyone is wearing yellow jackets. It’s this kind of reductionism that I find tiresome, but OK, I’ll play along: Tell me what you know about the Anti Money Laundering regime in the UK and how the regulators are trying to combat it in Scotland and England (or London, if you prefer)? Yes, there is a lot of crime in the world. Yes, a lot of it is targeted at stable western countries with strong reputations for respectability and the rule of law. No, the UK does not have an “unsavoury reputation”. If those looking to launder criminal proceeds were attracted to countries with unsavoury reputations, they would be trying to open bank accounts in Moldova, Russia, Belize and a host of other countries with opaque financial systems and little regulation. They target countries like the UK, the US and those in Western Europe because of their reputation for respectability. Read the Anti Money Laundering Regulations. Read the Proceeds of Crime Act. Look at the volume of Suspicious Activity Reports which are deals with by the National Crime Agency. Speak to bankers, accountants and lawyers who implement the regulations on a daily basis. Speak to the police who enforce them.
  13. stolenscone

    New Owner

    Complete and utter, I’ll informed, unsubstantiated nonsense.
  14. stolenscone

    New Owner

    Personally, I don’t know ANY of the circumstances, and I have tried to avoid judging on either side of this. It is clear, however, that something significant is going on behind the scenes, and that there are (at least) two deeply contrasting views about how the club should be managed/ the direction of travel.
  15. stolenscone

    New Owner

    It would be normal to require a shareholder resolution (at an AGM or an EGM) to remove a director from office, but most Articles of Association would also allow this to happen in certain named circumstances. I don’t propose to review the Articles to check what those might be, but they would be freely available to download from the Companies House beta website. There are also statutory provisions which govern a person who is banned from being a company director if they have engaged in unfit conduct, if they have been fraudulently trading, etc. The Act provides further details on director disqualification. I have no knowledge of the specific circumstances of this case.