Dick Dastardly

Jlo et al were doing it out of the goodness of there hearts ? That would be a surprise

I think they also said that they had delayed some capital expenditure, so perhaps it was £300k of main stand maintenance. Basically we don't know and can therefore make any supposition to fit our argument

I was wondering about the budget shortfall and why it appeared around the time of the change of directors. Could it be that it cost £200k to remove them from office ? I am assuming that the directors were on some sort of paid contract and that normal employment rules apply, so we would have to pay them off (unless there was gross misconduct) plus legal fees/sheriff officer fees. I could quite easily see that getting to £200k.

The risks of the status quo are largely known. The risks of the consortium could be anything

But that is exactly the point. The JLo board did something that the shareholders did not agree with and were removed from office. The difference with Chien/Conway is that they can do what the hell they like and stick up 2 fingers if it is not in Thistle's interest. There is no accountability

Because they were accountable to the shareholders who are Thistle fans.

Can you expand on that? What did he say ?

Just the tiny, almost insignificant loss of Colin Weir’s backing. But then that is probably a bonus as at least he won’t be able to withdraw it at any time

How do you know that a new appointed board would be Thistle fans ? Has this been said anywhere

So ... swap non fans with accountability to "Thistle minded" shareholders for non-fans with no accountability. I know which I prefer

You do keep peddling this vision of the JLo board willy nilly doing what they want in their own interest. That will be very far from the truth. They were appointed by and accountable to the very same shareholders who are now in control. They will have had goals and targets set Which I have no doubt were linked to bonuses. If we were trundling along, it would be in no small measure due to the parameters put on them by the shareholders .... those who are now in charge

I have to agree that as much as I have been opposed to this from the start, the Chien/Conway takeover is probable the best outcome, whatever that brings. The alternative is that the current shareholders remain with a nominated board and having lost our benefactor we will be run on a shoestring budget as there is no sign that the current shareholders are prepared to invest a penny.

They are still doing better than Liam Lindsay’s Stoke. His start has been a nightmare and already the Stoke fans want rid. If only we were able to put in a loan bid

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the consortium give a damn about the fans/trust

I'd be surprised if GC is on a 2 year rolling contract as it doesn't help either party as it will cost more to remove him and cost more if he was wanting to move on to a better offer. It only really works if Thistle think he is going to be brilliant and want to tie him to the club AND Caldwell thinks he is going to be a failure and need the job security. While the first is possible, I still think that GC is ambitious. More likely is a fixed term 2 year contract with an optional 1 year rolling contract guaranteed depending on performance.

He was on a 1 year rolling contract, so yes he gets paid for a year after he was sacked. As does Patterson.

I can guarantee that and also that spending, including paying off a manager, will be kept to an absolute minimum until a new regime is in control. Whether that is Chien/Conway or another board assembled by the shareholders, we will not spend anything we don’t have to

Sadly I suspect any quick resolution is highly unlikely

Being positive ? We have O’Ware, Harkins and Slater to return and the great hope that is Austin once he is up to speed. Where have I seen similar before ? My only positive is that I had very low expectations at the start of the season so I was prepared for this

Do we actually know that it has not been completed ?

Without wanting to be a kill joy, after all this is rather good entertainment on a slow work day, I hope we can all agree that there are so few facts that they can be twisted to support whatever position you are trying to argue

Does anyone really think that if David Beattie had not wanted to make contact with Colin Weir to say that "we have a proposed takeover and need to urgently discuss the implications with you" that there was not a communications channel to do so. On receiving such a message it would be hard to ignore. More likely, it was not a priority and Low got to him first. I know this is speculation, however I'm sure it could have been handled better.

JLo had strong connections with 3 Black Cats which had strong connections with Colin Weir. If you don't think that Low and Weir were therefore inextricably linked then you are probably in a minority. We had no budget shortfall before Beattie took over and from what we have learned over the past 130 pages is that budgets are based of forecasts. The budget shortfall is therefore of the current boards on making, and David Beatie is the figurehead of that board. The manager had been lead to believe, from the previous board, that there would be more funds available. Those funds were withdrawn as a result of the budget shortfall which I believe was of the current boards making. Therefore I do blame the board and Beattie is the figurehead.

Maybe it did, but the club accountant wasn't putting his own money into the club

Unceremoniously removing his representative from the board would probably piss off most people I don't know what happened between Colin Weir and the board, or what was said when whatever happened. I also don't know who from the board had the responsibility to do/say anything with Colin Weir. Whatever the case, it was clearly insufficient to keep him engaged, even if only as a stop gap until more was known about the take over. I find it incredulous to thing that the club had no means to get in contact with Colin Weir, even indirectly, for urgent discussions. Whoever was directly responsible, David Beatie is the chairman and figure head and is therefore culpable, in my opinion, for losing our benefactor. Can I ask why you think that we are in a better situation now than when JLow was in control ? The way I see it is We have a board who don't appear to want to be in control long term. We have a possible takeover that we know very little of their plans and in any case is only 50-50 to go through. We have burned our bridges with a major source of ad-hoc funding that threatens the future of our academy and we have a squad which by the manager's own admission is incomplete. If this sale doesn't go through, the situation is completely untenable. If it does, who knows what will happen