javeajag
-
Posts
7,711 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by javeajag
-
-
7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
OK - so we will start with the "Stadium Issues" Yes Morag raised them - we were then given a list which was in essence normal FM tasks - there was nothing flagged up of Major Significance - and the Board will have numerous Reports on the Stadium Condition - these will would have been factored into this Years £150K Loss & next Years Forecasted Breakeven Budgets
If Stadium Repairs are not factored in - and require significant additional cash ( above the £350K that will remain from Tranche 1 ) and they were not flagged up at the AGM then that's a serious issue ( and lets not forget they were only mention because a Trust Rep Raised them )
Ref the comment on Glasgow City Council Planning Permission - there are No Plans for the Bing worth noting - as stated at the AGM - again if there was and we were not told at the AGM - that's an issue
You see here is the thing
the AGM is where the Board Report to the Shareholders - they cannot hold things back - yet there stating they are likely to ask for Tranche 2 within Weeks of the AGM
So if there is this "significant investment" proposal - logic would suggest it was known at the AGM - as the Tranche 2 Requirement was stated at the AGM
And I'm Guessing that they have flagged it up to there Major Shareholder ( albeit without detail) at an early stage as any Board would do
Its not Commercial Growth - as you would need a massive increase in Commercial revenues to get a return on £500K - also the Board detailed its Commercial Revenue Plans at the AGM- and they were part of this Years & next Seasons Breakeven Budget Forecasts - so costs have been factored in
So this is why the "Tranche 2" is not making sense - the Board Clearly stated there Budgets and those included Stadium - Revenue Growth via Commercial & Hospitality - Stadium Repairs & a forecast loss of £150K & Break Even next Season
BUT -they are looking for another £500K a few weeks later
None of that stacks up
If there is a proposal that requires significant funding outwith the Budgets - then a) its either raised at the AGM or b) its put through at an EGM ( same as Propco was ) whilst the various Trusts have a Majority Shareholding - they are not the only Shareholders and Shareholders are entitled to ask Questions in person
If its discovered that this "investment" has been known at the time of the AGM and wasn't mentioned - that's an issue - and there will need to be a very good reason for it not being reported to ALL the Shareholders at the time rather than just those that are "in the loop"
The Line between TJF & the Board is becoming rather blurred in my opinion
So if I go to the club and offer them £500k either or both parties should refuse it unless there is a specific detailed proposal that states what the money is to be used for ? Seems nuts
-
40 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:
Watched the highlights, better keeper & we don’t lose any of those goals.
Correct
-
Having seen all three goals we conceded ….
We cant defend like that and expect very much…..it really is poor. We have conceded 3 times as many goals as DU…..reduce that by a third and we would be challenging for the title.
sneddon is at fault you can argue for all three or at least two of the goals.He clearly won’t come off his line ever but to lose a goal on the line when all he has to do is jump and catch it is amateur. How the third goal went in is awful, sneddon tried to kick it and missed.
if you want to score against us simply pack the box and cross the ball you will get lots of chances. Teams have not surprisingly worked that out. We need a central defender who can both head the ball and command the six yard box.
the space for their first goal was unbelievable, you wonder if we ever work on defending at all during the week. The midfield not properly defending the back line has long been an issue.
we need to change the goalkeeper we had two on the bench yesterday, one needs to start on Friday. I would also either go to three at the back as we ended up yesterday or drop muirhead and play o’reilly. Then spent three days working on defending !
Doolan seems too nice after games like this …..it’s mostly positives…..
graham on the other hand was clearly fuming and correctly saw it as two points dropped.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Auld Jag said:
After being 2-0 down a good point. We need to sort the defence out tho.
Sneddon needs to be dropped …..we had two keepers in the bench give one a start on Friday …..the defence needs a shake up as well.
we have conceded 1.6 goals per game and every team knows we can’t defend cross balls.
all of their goals today were simply awful
-
Our defence can always be relied on ……
-
2 minutes ago, Albert's Ghost said:
How many set-piece goals do we have to lose? Is Ross Stewart any good?
We will probably never know ….
-
Defending continues to be dreadful
-
6 minutes ago, Weebaw1 said:
It’s not as if the defence has been water tight.
We conceded 1.5 goals a game yet the defence is the area of least change
-
Get your Sneddon and Muirhead excuses in now ….
-
Since we are not to going to play o’reilly I’m not sure why we signed him….could have done a pre contract agreement for the summer and saved 6 months wages.
-
Doolan is doing ok and hopefully he can continue to learn and develop as a manager.
however at our level he will be judged ultimately - as any manager will be - on getting us promoted.
-
1 hour ago, allyo said:
I just looked it up. Three of their starting outfield players were 6'4" and one was 6'5". I don't think I've ever seen a teams with so many really tall players.
If we get to the premiership,that’s what we will have to deal with……
half our team should be in the gym working on their upper body strength.
-
9 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:
Sneddon made at least three excellent saves to stop Livi winning the game much earlier than they did. The failures were the defensive midfield and the defenders failing to do their jobs properly, repeatedly.
He did make some good saves but he also missed three crosses one of which literally went through his hands and flapped at a couple more.
he is physically too slight and small. He looked like a child against their forwards.
he doesn’t come off his line even when crosses land in the six yard box, doesn’t deal with cross balls and doesn’t dominate.
-
2 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:
Maybe so, but he wasn’t the problem today. Probably kept us from losing it earlier with a couple saves.
My big question is……when Graham goes off, who is the leader? I don’t care who’s wearing the armband - who is the leader?
He was and is part of the problem … our inability to defend cross balls both from the keeper and defenders costs us dearly .
-
2 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:
At least one outstanding save, but we are so weak at corners, his inability to come & grab a cross really hinders us.
Livi were terrible in the first half, we should’ve buried them.
He’s a good shot stopper but a liability with crosses,
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Big Col said:
I was more concerned with defenders who couldn’t seemingly see players who are over 6 feet tall ghosting past them or being right beside them.
Sure part of the problem as well, as we’re the substitutions but Sneddon isn’t good enough .
-
16 minutes ago, Big Col said:
You clearly weren’t at the gene today with a comment like that. Sneddon made several good saves to keep us in it.
I must have been somewhere else then … Sneddon did make some good saves but that is it … he can’t command his box , refuses to come for cross balls and is a bomb scare at crosses. How many crosses did he fumble and miss ?
he is also too small and too slight for the modern game.
-
1
-
-
Just now, jagfox said:
We've got three...
We need four ….
-
We need a goalkeeper.
-
1
-
-
So if I understand it now the academy doesn’t cost the club anything but JJ is worried it might in the future. Well let’s have the debate in the future if that’s about to happen.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
If we dont get a benefactor funding next Season we have to make a decision
So…..
1 how much does the academy cost
2 who pays for it
3 what’s the clubs commitment
-
37 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Because there is a View that its a key part of the Club along with PT Women's Team
Reality is if PTFC have to fund it next Season it will be cut as we are losing money - the choice is simple we either dedicate our limited Funds to the Core part of the Club - Cut the Funds to Dools to fund other parts that are Non Core - or Run up Debts - thats the Choices
the increasing debt is not an option - so for those pushing to fund non Core Activities - its reducing Dools Budget and push for promotion
Im confused you said its not in the clubs budget then you add an if to say it might be !!
-
Disappointing second half where we never created much … given other results the outcome is ok
-
Has anyone seen Fitzpatrick ?
Second Tranche Investment
in Main Jags forum
Posted
The fan owned share holding cannot go below 51% so what’s the issue exactly
personally I would take the £500k and raise the additional funds necessary to turn the bing into a safe standing area