Firhillista

The least of our problems is who's in goals! The Ayr players looked like they had an invisible force field around them that stopped the Thistle players getting closer than two or three yards to them. The amount of space they were given in midfield and by our defence was criminal. And it wasn't the first time we've been guilty of that kind of play. The first 20 minutes against Dundee was exactly the same. Fortunately, Dundee weren't playing anywhere near the same level as Ayr. (And let's acknowledge that Ayr United were very good on Saturday. Not only is it true, but it's reassuring to think that a team put together by Ian McCall can play as well as that.) If we stand off the opposition, we'll get slaughtered. If we get in their faces and deny them room, we can compete. These players have shown they're capable of playing like that already this season.

C'mon, I know we're all pissed off about Saturday, but a bit of perspective - these same players won at Inverness and Dundee. They're perfectly capable of putting in a shift. It's up to McCall to get that from them. And then we can replace some of them in January...

Ayr were really good. We were really bad. Still think we've got some good players, but we're miles away from having a good team. Best we can hope for now is that we go into the January transfer window still in touch with the group. On today's evidence, it's a big ask.

Tam O'Ware is not a midfielder. In any way, shape or form. We need to change it. Soon.

I thought yesterday's performance was impressive. Not so much the actual play - Joe Cardle had his worst game in a Thistle shirt, some of the misplaced passes, particularly in the first half, were embarrassing, we still lacked much of a threat in the penalty box - but in the attitude and heart of the team. That two of our players should end the game bleeding from head wounds pretty much sums it up. The Dundee game will be a completely different match. They're unlikely to limit themselves to horsing the ball into our box in the hope that some big guy can batter our defenders out of the way, or try to half any of our players who look like getting close to their goal. So we'll actually have to play some football. But if the Thistle team show the same determination they showed yesterday, I'll be happy.

Kakay looks some winger! Better than that guy of the same name who played at full back the other week...

What the hell is wrong with Joe Cardle? Has someone put something in his tea?

Okay, did a quick head count - nearer 500. Quality, not quantity, though...

Rough guess, there's maybe 300 folk here? Maybe there'll be a big rush nearer the kick off.. in 8 minutes time..

It's one thing to have to put up with the way money influences the modern game, quite another to accept the predations of a group of venture capitalists. Quite a feat of moral gymnastics for someone who's' anti-tory'. And I'll choose who my team is for myself, thanks. I've been following Thistle for the past 50 years and I'm not giving up now. Irrespective of who the owners are.

I haven't lied about anything. The main criticism of the consortium is NOT that they'll sell young players - you made that assertion, no one else. The main criticism of them is that they're only here to make money - sporting success for Thistle won't be their priority.

You think trumpeting 'lesser of two evils' over and over makes a convincing case? Or are you now accepting that the consortium WON'T be good for the club? Is it a 'big lie' that those who fetishise 'business people' are likely to be Tories? I doubt it. And even if they aren't, this view that only 'business people' can be trusted (and not any corruptible elected folk) is well deserving of the accusation of 'toryism'.

Sorry? You want to point to something I made up? Where, exactly?

Jesus wept. I go out for a couple of hours and when I come back on here the argument for the consortium is now - 'we'd be no worse off'?! Seriously? We're just going to ignore all the stories about the consortium's track record of piling up debt, of refusing to allow the signing of experienced players, of fallings out between the major players in the group and just say, yeah, great, you're 'business people' you know about money, it's great that you want to buy the club! Democratically elected people are corrupt, but business people are to be trusted? Sorry, your Toryism is showing. Not ONE suggestion from the 'business people' supporters on here as to how this consortium will be good for the club. Not one.

I think we're just circling the wagons now. Those of us who think the consortium would be a disaster for Thistle can't see anything positive in their offer: those who think it's the best way forward can't see any better alternative. I'm prepared to be persuaded that the consortium would be good for the club (not that my opinion, or anyone else's on here, will make a difference), so can someone explain how this deal will improve on the status quo? Just ONE thing?

I'm not going to quote the nonsense that's appearing on here in support of the consortium bid - plenty of other folk have rightly picked it apart as the drivel it is. Let's be clear, if we sell the club to a group of venture capitalists because they're 'business people' then we deserve all we get. And what we WON'T get is a successful football club. At best, it'll be an incubation pod for young footballers who we'll get to watch for precisely as long as it takes to transfer them out for as much money as possible. Money which will then go to the owners, not the club. To dismiss every concern about New City Finance as just fans being fickle is ridiculous. There's no evidence that these people have benefited either of the clubs they've been involved with! Why should we welcome them to Firhill? Because they're 'business people'?! They're here to make money, not to benefit Partick Thistle. And anyone who thinks the two inevitably go hand in hand are mistaking a financially successful company with a successful sporting organisation - they're not necessarily the same. I'm sick to the back teeth of reading about people who 'aren't against fan ownership', but have done everything in their power to belittle and sneer at any attempt to put it in place at Thistle. Much as I disagree with fellow Thistle fans about, well, almost everything, I'd rather have Thistle fans owning the club than a bunch of money vampires.

Would it be fair to say that those most opposed to the TfE proposal no longer support the consortium approach and would rather have the status quo? Of course, given that the current board clearly want to sell, it's difficult to see how that's a runner. Round an round it goes. We're still entirely dependant on what the board decide is best. If that's to sell the club to a group of venture capitalists, then that's what'll happen.

I don't think the criticism of Bannigan equates to scapegoating or 'hate' - we've all seen what he can do over the years - but he's clearly not the player to drive the team's play. He's best at threading play together, short passes to bring other players into the game (for older fans, a bit like Alex Rae!), but he's not going to run things. I've always known he favoured his left foot, but this season he's beginning to look like a negative image of Paul Paton - always moving to get the ball onto his preferred foot. It means the ball sticks with him for longer than it needs to and our play becomes ponderous and predictable. Cole, on the other hand, is capable of recycling the ball quickly and getting it forward at speed. (Whether our forwards are up to doing anything with it when they get it is another matter.) Bannigan can be a hugely effective player, but I think he needs to be playing further up the park. (He used to score goals. What happened to that?) He's not suited to the 'quarterback' role he's being asked to play. If anyone can get the best out of him, McCall can.

Thought we were flat throughout the game yesterday, no spark to the play at all. The game certainly showed up the weaknesses McCall will have to address. A defence prone to losing concentration; a midfield that doesn't create (or dominate the opposition); and a forward line that doesn't score goals. So, no pressure then. Without significant personnel changes, the best we can hope for is that he can coach an improvement into the defence - McGinty is the one who needs it most, but O'Ware has already shown he can be a class act. I think Cole could be a quick fix for our midfield problems. Without wishing to scapegoat anyone, I'd replace Bannigan with Cole. I think we'd immediately start to create more, move the ball faster and start to put pressure on the opposition. Cardle, Millar and Zanatta will hit shots in future games that go to the right side of the post. Seemed like yesterday was one of those days when we could have played until midnight and still not scored. Like others, I think Mansell should have been in the mix, but we might have to wait until January before that problem can be addressed. I think it's too early to start being concerned about relegation. If we'd scored first yesterday, we would have won that game. There's not a team in this league that we're not capable of beating, even with the current squad. McCall has a power of work ahead of him, but he's perfectly capable of turning things around.

Are we now reduced to debating the 'purity' of fan ownership? I take it if the model in place at Hearts, Motherwell and St. Mirren aren't actually 'fan ownership' models, you'd be comfortable with something similar at Firhill? Presumably, given your previous comments, the fact that St. Mirren has an owner you see as a positive - would you be happy to see Colin Weir play the same role at Thistle?

Is the model at Hearts a bowling club? Or Motherwell? Or St. Mirren? Or Dunfermline?

I know it's like picking at a scab, but the whole takeover thing is just like an itch you have to scratch because it won't go away... Let's imagine that a few months ago David Beattie and the members of the former board are watching developments at Firhill with increasing concern as the whole Caldwell, Doolan, Low debacle unrolls. By some means no one not ITK understands, a billionaire backed international consortium indicates they'd like to buy the club. Beattie et al watch in horror as the approach is shrugged off by the Low board. Enough's enough, it's the last straw, they step in to take back control. They like the look of the proposal - it's transformational - so it's put up to the SFA for approval. And that's where we are. There's now another proposal in place, lead by TfE and supported by Colin Weir, but we're still waiting for the SFA to pass judgement before any of this can move on on. Given this thread's focus on unsubstantiated speculation, I'll guess that the SFA and the English authorities will say no. I think that the silence from the consortium is based on the expectation that this is going nowhere. A kite worth flying, but no real expectation of it getting off the ground. Which will leave David Beattie and the current board with a conundrum: if the TfE offer is the only game in town, do they go with that? Or do they try to approach Colin Weir with an alternative proposal? I think what we all want is for this whole thing to move - in one direction or another. Some kind of clarity might ease the itch. If anyone has Maxi's phone number, could they give him a bell and tell him to get a bloody shift on?

I haven't seen anyone putting forward any kind of reasonable case for Thistle being purchased by this consortium. Indeed, those arguing most strongly against fan ownership now seem to be suggesting that the best way forward is for Beattie and the current board just to stay in place and for things to go back to the status quo. I get the motivation - it's a bit like wishing Brexit would just disappear and we could all go back to 'normal'. Unfortunately, like Brexit, it's not going to happen. We're where we are because of Beattie and the current board. They invited Colin Weir to invest money in the club; they stepped back and put Jacqui Low in charge; they then returned with the proposal to sell their shares to New City Finance. What happens next is entirely up to David Beattie and the board, no matter how much is said on here and elsewhere. He's asked us to trust him. We don't have much option. Let's hope he gets it right.

Further update from TfE:

I'm involved as much as I've pledged support. One of the 10%. Would it invalidate my arguments if I was involved more? You mention that it would be better if the club was run by business people who have finances to cover any eventuality - is that how you think most busineses operate? I thought the main opposition to Colin Weir's involvement was that we shouldn't be reliant on a sugar daddy? The TfE responses posted this morning make it clear that the money raised in pledges is ADDITIONAL to the money generated by the club in its normal operations. Why are you representing it as the club's sole income? I still don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss this approach. The arguments you've put up against it aren't entirely logical.