jaf
-
Posts
1,379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jaf
-
-
- If the football half of the shares go bust, do propco get them (and the other half of the ground) for free.
There is a compulsory transfer triggered at Market Value. The market value of shares with limited upside and no control is negligible at best.
-
Probably, but we can't just give up. I'm astounded the press and football authorities are not 'more interested' in this Propco deal, surely there is (or should be) a story there. Although if its nowt to do wi the Ugly Sisters the press aint interested
Yes we are largely inconsequential in the eyes of the media, but the shareholders ratified it and the supporters organisation did not oppose it so wheres the story???
-
I'd be reluctant to do any of that because it takes away finance from the Club and can still be used as a stick to beat us (the fans) with if/when the brown stuff hits. However if the outcome of this meeting is as I expect it to be then I feel we have no choice but to do some of the stuff you mentioned.
Take this scenario as an example:
The meeting results in the Jags Trust being denied a Fan Rep on the Board of the Club. That puts the Jags Trust in a position where 'playing them at their own game' comes into play. By that I mean the BoD get held to account over the non-payment of shares to the Trust as part of the CF arrangement, the arrangement is basically nulled by this therefore an 1876 Club II can be formed under those grounds (yes?). Now how many of us are likely to switch from CF to 1876 mark 2? If it is as many as I suspect then the BoD will have to take notice.
Not buying programmes will not majorly impact on the BoD imo, the money made from this is minimal and I think this is more a service provided for the fans who want a programme on a Saturday.
Greaves would lose money if we didnt buy merchandise not the Club, at least not in the short term (not saying Im against this action tho).
With regards to boycotting with a difference, if there were enough of us involved then Id envisage something along the lines of turning up at firhill earlish on matchday, congregating outside the JHS and voicing our displeasure loudly. Hospitality, press etc will all be there. Stay there till fifteen minutes after kick-off then enter en masse still voicing our displeasure.Then take our seats and change the tone from anger at BoD to support for the guys in rednyella. Mix it up by at times leaving 15 minutes early in some games to do the exact same thing, remain outside the JHS for long enough for fans, hospitality guests, press and board members to leave.
If enough of us are involved the Board (and press) would have no option but to take notice, what to others think of this type of thing?
Cash is all that matters.
But its too late now. Its checkmate. Or perpetual check at the very least. The Board won the game the moment propco was voted through.
-
Apologies, Sandy. I know that you understand the full consequences of this and I have been guilty of perhaps over simplifying here in order to ensure that my response was fairly easy to understand. I appreciate that may have been at the risk of misleading slightly, which was not my intention.
It's difficult to have this sort of discussion in public when you hold an official position - I would not want to be seen to accuse anyone of being underhanded, although clearly there are risks in the way that this is all set up should someone decide to be less philanthropic and more motivated by personal gain. The lack of apparent checks and balances is concerning.
Understood David, and I undestand the diplomatic/political intricacies whether or not I think that is the right approach!!!
But what is easy to understand, and what is a statement of fact, is the articles of propco and what they state, which clarifies one of your earlier posts on the consequences of insolvency, and then comes back round full circle to even enforce further the need for checks and balances.
-
The football club's half share in the main stand and south end (together with all other assets) would fall to be dealt with by the administrator. If the club could not be saved, then a liquidator would likely be appointed to flog the assets and realise what cash it can for the club's creditors.
If that ever happened, then it would be the end of PTFC. You'd have to ask yourself who would be interested in a half share in a property company. The likely answer is the owners of the other half.
There would be a cumpolsory transfer according to the mem and arts. At market value which for the club shares is probably round about zero. No need to speculate, it would happen.
I wonder if there is an option or pre-emption right over the remaining club land assets too.............
-
Many of whom just happen to be directors of the company that's gone into administration.......
Cart? Horse? Hiddleston?
Exactly Allan
And its not just half share of a property company...its the remaining unsold area of the ground too??
People who have a track record of losing money are in control of a Board which if it loses money will render those same peoples assets worth more. It is a conflict of interest beyond all conflicts. The ethics of propco have always been my major problem with it.
I would disagree with one point that David makes, I actually am not of the view that in the medium to long term the investors are taking a majority of the risk here. Without safeguards on the conflicts that exist, I think the risk rests far more heavily with the football club IMO.
-
One final point. Everyone should forget the Trust as being an entity in its own right. All it is, is a group of fans trying to do what they think is right by the supporters and the football club. It just so happens that it has a structure and some shares in the club but it gives it no divine right to speak on behalf of the supporters.
I am really surprised at this. Shocked in fact. I know you guys are understandably jaded but not to want to become the standard bearer for the supporters...is this not the raison detre of any supporters organisation?
How many times we have been told to fall behind the Trust rather than any other vehicle, despite the Trust often appearing to suffer many of the same problems as the football club board. And some have. And some haven't. But no alternative has been put forward.
The Trust SHOULD be a broad church; it should be representative of the fans; it should be seeking to be and striving to be - why send out membership renewal forms to people whilst at same time saying that this body will not be representative of them; it should be engaging with them, an energised supporters body - this is not to criticise because I think it is impossible for the present Jags Trust to be because...........
The shares and the faux-Board position are a millstone round the neck of the Trust. Because in addition to the emotional blackmail we have suffered time and time again as supporters from the boardroom, the integrity levels are such in the more recent incarnations of the JTB that conflicts of interest are also noted and account taken of them.....something certain board members are an expert on.
There should only be one supporters organisation. It should be a broad church. It should be free to criticise the board without fear of upsetting the applecart. We have tried for so long to be toothless and compliant and co-operative and helpful and we are told that the club may have come tumbling down if we hadn't.....maybe. Or maybe not, perhaps we could have made a positive impact, who knows. But one things for sure, this ain't working and the club is dying anyway in front of all of our eyes.
-
It's pretty simple. They'll start by concreting over the bing, and then they'll demolish and concrete over the main stand. Housing and offices will make up two sides of Firhill "Stadium".
Or it might just be delayed long enough and our performances and resulting financial position so dire, that they hoover up the whole ground and get a much more lucrative development scenario out of this?
-
The kids will love it and it will look great....congrats to the club for a good idea! Anything that makes Firhill look a bit less drab and engages with people (the kids) is good.
-
Three figures: Berwick Rovers through on penalties; Bunter blames the fans and says "We played them off the park, but just couldn't score. What tonight may have taught us is that we might need to adopt a system that first and foremost helps us to score goals. If that is what we need to do then I’ll not hide away from doing that. That’s my job after all. I think.”
Wednesday the Board announces further cut in the playing budget due to falling attendances.
Thats the odds on favourite!
-
Bloody hell don't stay away, if you do that and the bank calls the debt in then we are finished and the fans get the blame and the board just go ach well it was them not us - but hey at least we have got what we wanted the land ! If you can make it get to every game and force these jokers out, remember they sit amongst us !
Thats been the plan for years now and it never gets us anywhere because they know the nature of fans is they will keep turning up, they can't be any more unpopular than they are so they tough it out making losses til they get the rest of the ground/propco shares at a discount while the club dies.
I have come to the conclusion, and its a sad one to reach, that the only way to save the soul of thistle is to kill the cash flow to the clowns. Things have to get worse before they are ever going to get better. Sadly. The disappearance of the soul, the spirit, the pride of the football club is much more worrying than the disappearance of cash and assets.
The Trust could step up to the plate, organise themselves as a go-between between the disaffected fans and the Board and make a proactive case for change in the boardroom, setting out all the reasons for it (including throwing the mud of the conflict of interest issue around) and try to win the hearts and minds of all the supporters - once the support is united this would becoime easier. At the moment, the issue seems to be there is not consensus among the support that the clowns are clowns so Trust are in unenviable position - I wonder if there was an agenda for change how many additional members they would get? As yoda points out above, there are lots of things that can be done, but are we all too beaten and broken from the years of abuse of our club to be bothered to do any of them.
-
Exactly REALITY CHECK REQUIRED do our support seem to forget that we had no concrete offers when we advertised the club If the board go the club will fold.
Ownership and running a club are two different things.
-
@dundeejag
Propco was only half a plan; in conjunction with propco the club had to live within their means, something they have not managed to do for many years. They never articulated the other half of the plan at the time which we are now seeing the manifestation of...I think propco was missold, it gave the impression it would see player budgets increased, etc in the short term; hat was never going to happen.
If they do not, then there is a possible upside for those in our boardroom through their interest in propco by buying the rest out a discount.
This was always my problem with propco, there is a HUGE conflict issue. There are two reasons to worry - 1 are they competent enough to operate a balanced budget or 2 are they ethical enough to safeguard decision making is not conflicted and compromised at a club board level.
I think we all have an opinion to both those questions.
-
Hasn't he brought in a fair amount of cash with this Ambassadors Club thingy?
Join the dots.
-
Maybe something has happened to demotivate McCall? Maybe there are other people who should be sharing the blame?
Has anyonme done a cost benefit analysis of Denis McQuades role btw?
-
Saw cowan in the starks bar before the game and i felt like giving him a slap just as well i never saw him after the game.
Did he come over and say thanks for coming through and supporting the team today guys?
-
Is the Board of Directors under the control of people who also control the propco board of directors? If the club does badly financially is there any upside for propco? Does anyone care?
-
I don't like the deal that was struck to sell the main stand and south end, jaffs, and I've made my views on it repeatedly clear, but I'm also a pragmatist. The reality is that the land has already been sold to a 3rd party development company. Sure the company is largely owned by Thistle directors and the Club has a significant stake in it, but the bottom line is that the football club no longer owns the land. I think it's easy to lose sight of that until we actually see physcial development on site, but that's the position we find ourselves in.
Having sold the land, the best outcome for the football club (which is all I care about), is for the development to make the most money possible. If the club's share of the profits is less than the cost to re-build the footballing facilities, then the club will end up owing the property company the shorfall while still owning the balance of the overdraft to the bank.
If the development is successful, then the club's share of the profits might exceed the cost of the facilities, and the development would then generate an additional capital receipt for the club. My feeling is that it's now in the best interests of the football club to see that happen.
It's my strongly held opinion that the worst of all possible worlds would be for the development proposal to fail to get planning, for the development company to sell to an unconnected 3rd party at a loss, and for the land to be developed out in a manner which (1) the football club has no control over (other than as an objector via the planning system) and (2) causes the club to receive no overage on the developer's profit.
No emotional blackmail, just my reasons for believing as I do.
I can follow everything you write David but with repsect its a totally different point from the one I was making (perhaps not eloquently enough) if you care to look back. All I was saying was that I think you cannot criticise people for voicing their concerns/opposition to a planning application as happens on a daily basis up and down the country just because we are a football club that have been run into the ground and without this development (and lets face it quite possibly even with it) will possibly go out of business.
Allan was at pains to make people divorce the football and Board-attitude issues from the planning process (correctly), and all I am saying is that similarly you have to expect that those affected should divorce the needs of a badly run football club from the effect on their locale in considering the planning application.
I am surprised that is such a controversial view for a supporters trust who put community involvement at the heart of their existence.
I can see what benefit this brings to the shareholders of propco, I am less sure what benefit it derives to the local community and why they should be expected to be blindly supportive of such a plan. But then, I, like you and Tom, do not live in that community, so my view is of no relevance, but I do feel people should raise objections if they have them regardless of the impact on the football club. They are going to have to live with the outcome for a very long time after all.
-
I can't say I'm surprised we've been shafted by such loopholes though.
We seem to be impacted adversely by 'loopholes' more than any other club. Maybe they are not 'loopholes', perhaps we just mess up over and over again, after all other clubs do not seem to have such problems with 'loopholes'.
-
Allan - you rightly are at pains to point out that objections can only be related to planning issues, not football issues. But you also stress the critical nature of the proposals being passed for the good of the football club whilst admitting the plans are far from ideal. I am not personally affected, but I think anyone who is should be free to express their concerns (if they have them) in the usual manner without the emotional blackmail of 'it needs to happen to save the football club' rammed down their throat. There has been enough of that type of emotional balckmail and scaremongering from the Board over the years.
-
I never thought the day would come when I would feel so detached from Thistle. For the last number of years I have renewed my season ticket even though i make only a few home games per season....to support the club, to invest in hope. There is no longer any hope........
Here are two words that many many people involved with Thistle should have learned a long time ago - Thank You.
Everyone takes everyone else for granted because 'its different from anything else, its a football club'. Utter nonsense, polite gratitude preserves relationships, taking folks for granted terminates relationships.
Fan Director / Jt Board Rep Position
in Main Jags forum
Posted
This is of less consequence than propco given the limited upside in us having a board rep in any case.
At that time the JTB felt there was nowhere else to go and open warfare would damage the club and so acquiesced.
The club is in probably a more perilous position now than then.
So why can this be an issue for which the JTB feel so strongly not to be allowed to be "kicked into grass"??
The time for taking stands is past. Its time to roll over one more time. Pick your fights wisely....this is an inconsequential skirmish after the war has been lost.
I should add I also have a highly cynical view of board motivations and have expected this day to come from the moment propco was signed.