jaf

Argh, sorry, had not been around the forum for a while - no matter given Hibs lost!!!

This was my thought too - playing so many games in a short period too. He has mentioned it one or two times before in recent weeks in post match interviews though, so not sure what's changed.

but the 500k is mentioned in TBC accounts albeit in ambiguous fashion. this is why clarity would be good. And given we are supposedly weeks away from the intended date of transferring the shares one would have hoped the clarity might have been able to be given without breaching any confidences

The accounting profession were told to show it separately as “other income / government grants received”, not netted off against wages.

But if you compare them to other clubs, we seem to have wasted the covid dividend others have enjoyed. That much is clear.? falkirk were full time in the division and made a profit without a £500k subsidy from 3bc. I am not making any inference on the financial position of the club simply providing context as to how they have performed. We should surely be allowed to talk about context and performance off the field as much as on it? There could be lots of conjecture and grey areas, excuses and spin put forward. That’s why the absolute facts of us compared to other similar clubs is contextually important. No hijacked narrative, no speculation - facts. But to speculate for a moment (!) , what if the current (2022 season / accounting year) contained a further £500k or so of non recurring exceptional income, would you be equally relaxed (given your excuses / reasons have ceased to exist this year)? What’s the number at which you personally cease to relax in that regard? (It will be different for all of us but with the 3bc money tree beginning to look close to bare per their accounts, and fan ownership off to a stuttering start and players on contracts which extend beyond this season, I do think given our history we should be sensitive to ensuring we are sustainable).

Falkirk made a profit. They were full time. In the same division.

150k plus 500k = 650k with lower costs from operating a division lower 500k plus 0k = 500k with higher costs Thats the first point The second point is look at the increases in cash from teams in our division, and below. They still are way better than us. So I don’t accept the championship point because they didn’t have 500k from 3bc, but even if I did why are we worse off than teams in our and lower division?

They started doing “a form of due diligence” four and a half months ago. And yet they don’t know much. It’s absolutely correct it cannot be legally demanded. But at least be honest with members about why you can’t do it. They are operating more like the three black cats PR department twisting words like “a form of due diligence” instead of considering their members first and foremost in my opinion. Knowing from my time involved the opinions some of them hold re fans who are awkward and ask questions, that’s not really a surprise to me.

Unlikely - it is more likely to be contained within the other operating income But the accounts are not detailed enough to determine that definitively - which is normal for a company of that size

Turnover is not £2.2m, it was a little under £1.5m in year ended 31 May 2021 (per accounts)

Yes, all in public domain, no secrets!!

Absolutely correct that could have been the case. Or another variant thereof. However, whether that makes the club sustainable is another question, as is why every other club who have published accounts so far seem to have a 'covid dividend' increasing cash reserves by six figure sums, whilst we have not, despite having a £500k injection from a source other clubs do not have. You know - as you were on call with me - that the basis of fan ownership is that the club is trading at a sustainable breakeven position - this is so fans money can be spent on what they choose. If the starting position is minus £500k, or minus £300k plus a ground share, then thats a big hole to fill, so we need to accept costs being trimmed, fans money not being spent on what they want it to as being needed for general budget, other clubs with the Covid dividend still on their Balance sheet having better war chests than us, and maintenance costs potentially high (who knows?). We might be debt free but if we are handed the club debt free but with a budget hole to fill in future, that's not a great starting position really, nor what was expected. To be honest transparent and realistic TJF need to communicate, and reset expectations if required.

PM’d you with the info I sent to tjf.

I know javeajag hates speculation so here are some facts. Facts I have previously shared in even more detail with TJF 11 clubs below premier league level have published 2 years accounts impacted by covid 10 have increased their cash reserves substantially over that period . 1 has decreased their cash reserves. The one - the single one - who has reduced their cash reserves ALSO got 500k from a source none of the others did (tbc). It was fundamental to fan ownership that the club was being run on a sustainable breakeven basis. Do not get me wrong I am thankful that TBC have put that money into the club but it’s not because of covid it was required as evidenced by the other clubs accounts. it seems to me that other clubs now have a fighting fund of increased cash due to the covid dividend. for the record, I have no knowledge other then what is in the public domain. I am also very happy to reproduce the full analysis I provided TJf with here if anyone is interested.

When I was involved I often answered queries raised on here to the extent I could. A members organisation needs to be accessible, honest and transparent. Leaving share ownership aside, that is what the jags foundation is, a membership organisation. The people involved are giving their precious time freely to this but to ask for more engagement in February and then not answer emails from Norge (and others) by March is now meaning they risk losing members rather than growing members. Members are the lifeblood of a members organisation, not an inconvenience. My entirely personal view is of you are being transparent and honest with your members, emails are easy to answer. If you are taking the Clintonesque approach to communication “I did not have sex with that woman”, “I did not inhale”, and you use phrases like “a form of due diligence” everything will take longer to find the right words when there is a simple transparent and honest response that they could give instead. Fwiw, I totally agree about due diligence, it’s the main reason I am no longer involved. However leaving professional standards to one side, as a member I am more interested in the progress to wards agreeing the working together protocols that a shareholding of this size ought to be able to expect

This is a good point. This is why in fan ownership situations one of the key things to agree is the working together protocols. Then fans can see where their areas of influence are. There are some fantastic templates around with excellent examples and so TJF do not have to reinvent the wheel. I think that would really bring this to life for fans. I see no reason why the protocols relevant to a club - for example with 54 per cent fan ownership - would not be relevant to one with 55 per cent (ignoring for the moment the other supporter share holdings).

Moyo and Ryan were fantastic for Hamilton we were atrocious. The dip in form in Akinola looks to be entirely confidence related. Smith - it’s all been said above. Starting a 442 with four central midfield players looked the wrong formation - but changing it made no difference. The walkout was staggering - a large number before half time even. I always stay to the bitter end but understand why they felt as they did. The context was a threadbare squad due to injury and illness but the reality is Hamilton - who really have nothing to play for - wanted it much more than we did, and we do have something to play for

No competition. the last one I did (in Leeds in February) was a £2m turnover company the acquirers concluded it was worth paying my fees for a professional exercise. But to be honest, it doesn’t matter (to some extent) what you and I think. We are merely members I wouldn’t sit on a board and take members money unless I had satisfied myself that I had been diligent in ensuring the statements I was making about what that money could do for the club were as close to correct as I could understand Its called a principle. That’s why I don’t sit on the board anymore My regulator agreed with me Your opinion matters less to me than my regulator!!! But as I say it’s not our decision to make FIrstly Tjf board must decide if they want to do it If they conclude they do, then TBC/PTFC need to agree to it (so ultimately there is a veto nothing to do with TJF or their members and I have sympathy with that) If TJF accept they are not getting to do it, I guess they can walk away , or accept it and press on. If the latter, I suggest they communicate with members transparently and honestly their rationale Then, us, members, fans, potential members, can decide whether to be members / involved on the basis of what we are told for what it’s worth, I think due diligence is the least of our issues

No. I do both. I do around 60 audits a year too. Both have very different approaches. AUdit is a regulated statutory process with strict and fairly narrow requirements. It occurs annually and is only done to companies over a certain size. Due diligence can occur any time, is not subject to a set of standards as audit is, and consequently the starting point is a blank sheet of paper rathe than endless checklists. The final difference of course is audit is carried out on the instruction of the directors for the benefit of the shareholders of the company (two groups with pre existing knowledge of the company) whilst due diligence is instructed by a potential transferee of the shares prior to concluding the legal process either to confirm / know what they are getting for sure or to allow for changes to legal documents based on issues unconverted, or to reprice deal. The final difference i suppose is audit is permitted to rely on management representations in certain areas of the audit. No such concept exists in due diligence work. The Partick thistle accounts are subject to audit. So were some of the ones in the examples I have given.

I am sorry this shows a complete misunderstanding of due diligence as someone who does it regularly, you are right I always sit down and discuss the target with my instructing party and say are there any particular areas of concern so those can be specifically addressed. That seems to be what you think is the limit of due diligence - what can be expected to be known by people outside the business. (I know that some on the TJF board share that misunderstanding). in the last two years I have done 7 large due diligence exercises. In all seven things were found which the instructing party knew nothing about. All of these impacted the deal in one case to extent deal did not proceed, but in the other cases to have changes made to the Legal’s or the price. We have a different risk profile to a commercial purchase but we still deserve that level of comfort assurance and knowledge. Some of the issues uncovered included a company having under declared paye by £500k, in two cases companies using vat schemes they were not entitled to, a furlough fraud, a loan fraud (ie proceeds used for reasons other than those permitted), and various other things. None of these were “areas of concern” by the instructing party. The directors of the selling companies did not even realise some of these things! How could you or a fan know about any of these to know what the areas of concern might be. This is why people pay for due diligence after all. I am NOT saying any of these exist in Partick thistle. How can I? But equally how can TJF say whether they (or other issues) exist or do not?

If taking a conventional approach to commercial risk, for shareholder gain, I would largely agree with you. And this is one of the arguments against due diligence that some put forward. However, I would suggest TJF have a different set of risk considerations to satisfy themselves of to discharge their duty to their members who have a different set of drivers to a commercial purchaser. And in a nutshell, that is why I am no longer on TJF board.

I have already emailed them last week on behalf of a few financially literate fans. We await a response.

It’s not about “pulling a fast one “ tjf need to stand up and say what fan ownership will mean to get sign ups ; they need to sell the benefits to potential members What fan ownership means depends on the current financial position if they get it wrong, fan ownership will have been sold on a false prospectus. I thought you of all people knew the dangers of NOT doing due diligence

I don't think anyone knows yet for sure, but I suspect the shares will actually be transferred to the charitable foundation; otherwise the asset still exists. He does not even need the shares or ownership to exert control anyway - the loans give him that de facto control.

I’m confident for Saturday and Tuesday! My confidence levels are of course entirely irrelevant and do not have a faultless track record! league table could look very different by end of next weekend.