Woodstock Jag

YAAS!

Bannigan's just scored for Ayr. That's him cup tied then!

Not much happening though!

Bit late to be starting now!

I gave my reasons at the time and I stand by them.

Could it please be shown in the ratio it's filmed?

I don't think this statement is particularly helpful. Not convinced it is terribly representative of the fanbase either. Ho hum.

The danger is it leads to a gentleman's agreement to let each other score really early on and not only do you feel cheated about the scoreline, but also about the drinks refund! That's not going to cheer up punters!

Actually, are there any tax law experts among the Thistle support, and are they willing to *ahem* assist with a 3000 word Tax Law assignment for say *ahem* Monday? A friend of a friend could do with the assistance.

My thinking was more to do with away fans, Willjag. There was a handful of Morton fans who, when they saw the prices to get in on Saturday, violently recoiled in anger and stormed off, refusing to pay it. If you raise the prices, you could end up with a bit of a mutiny on your hands from 20-30 away fans and that adds up as much as you'd gain from raising the prices for your own support. They should absolutely be pushing half-season tickets as Christmas gifts though. That would mean they could be sold with the following sales points: 1. Help the Club beat the VAT increase by saving £2.90 if you buy before New Year 2. Buy before Christmas Eve and get the Boxing Day fixture against Raith Rovers added in for free (an effective combined saving of £40 on PATG or more than 2 games for free) 3. If you buy between Christmas and New Year, make a saving of £23 on PATG The principle being, of course, that for every half-season-ticket they sell, a sizeable number will miss at least one game, and the Club gets a helpful cash injection at Christmas (remember there's likely to be a cash-call of sorts once the exact state of the finances become clearer).

I've done some pretty crude calculations on an Excel spreadsheet, and they suggest that: Of £17 the Club currently gets £14.47 after VAT deductions. Of £17 the Club would stand to get £14.17 after VAT deductions when the new rate comes in. Working off a crude assumption of gate receipts amounting to roughly 1000 paying adult punters a game... What if we leave the prices as they are? The VAT rise if the prices stay unchanged is the equivalent of a shade over £300 lost every game (the equivalent of about 21 paying punters). There are 9 home games between New Year and the end of the season so that works out at £2700 lost. What if we increase prices by £0.50? If they increase prices by 50p to countermand the VAT rise, £14.58 would go to the Club coffers after VAT. That would be a 11p gain per punter versus where we are now. Extrapolated, and assuming such a rise has no effect on attendances, that would actually make the Club £115 better off per game, or about £1035 better off by May than it would have been but for the change in tax and prices. On the same attendance assumption, however, if a 50p increase put off 8 punters from all games after New Year, we would be back to where we started before the VAT rise. If it put off more than 29 punters, it would be worth nothing to the Club against leaving prices as they are and sucking up the VAT hit. If 100 punters were to chuck it in response to a price hike, it would cost the Club £1040 per game or just over £9.3k to the end of the season versus leaving prices as they are. What if we increase prices by £1? If they increase prices by £1 to countermand the VAT rise, £15 would go to the Club coffers after VAT. That would be a 53p gain per punter on where we are now. Extrapolated, and assuming such a rise has no effect on attendances, that would actually make the Club £330 better off per game, or about £2970 better off by May versus where we are now. On the same attendance assumption, however, if £1 increase put off 36 punters from all games after New Year, we would be back to where we started before the VAT rise. If it puts off more than 56 punters, it would be worth nothing to the Club against leaving prices as they are and sucking up the VAT hit. If 100 punters were to chuck it in response to a price hike, it would cost the Club £660 per game or just over £5.9k to the end of the season versus leaving prices as they are. What conclusions to draw? 1. Fiddling about with gate prices will probably do very little to mitigate the VAT. The risk of alienating even a handful of fans renders any tinkering more risky than it would be beneficial. The sums saved by any scheme even if it did work are not substantial, and it would be more beneficial to focus on recouping the money lost there by increasing other match-day revenue streams. 2. I am a sad act, need to put my Excel sheet away and go to bed!

The fundamental issue has been there for years. Even the last time the Trust had an actual election all those who stood, with the exception of TNBT who stood on a "no board rep" ticket for the Board Rep position, were elected effectively by default. If you want accountability and a mandate that the supporters can get behind, you need the supporters either to get behind what's there or stand up and offer an alternative. I'm not that convinced that elections are necessarily the best way of getting the best people and ideas into the right positions, but in so far as it's the set of cards the supporters have been dealt, sham elections command no more confidence in the Supporters Association than appointments. These ones are also temporary and I wish those who have stepped up to the plate all the best, but I would hope that if the Trust is to salvage anything from its current predicament, it does so by putting the wider fanbase back at the heart of its purpose and fighting the apathy that's spreading and growing roots in the Jackie Husband Stand.

Absolutely. The lack of movement we have at our own throw-ins is also alarming. The thing I find infuriating about Flannigan is even on the rare occasion where someone does make a run, he doesn't anticipate it and just tries to dribble his way to the D to take a shot, losing the ball 9 times in 10.

He was there. He was busy dropping fivers all over the place at 2 minutes to 3.

And Flannigan stormed past them to take pole position.

The thing to remember about a share issue is that, actually, very few shares are held by the current board. The large shareholdings (EP, NS, TH, BM, JT) are all off the board. Beattie owns a sizeable shareholding, but Allan's money's in PropCo. A share issue might actually kill two birds with one stone if it is seen to dilute the shareholding of those not on the board.

Paton did reasonably well, and Buchanan had some reasonable early graft and Kinniburgh was good *without the ball* but as far as actual teams go it was absolutely dire. Both sets of fans will have left that match thinking "well we're but they're just as bad".

This thread had more action than that 90 minutes of failed passes and head tennis.

It's a wee bit "out there" but always worth a shot!

Well I'm going to Firhill, so we can all get behind the Jags

Could the video please be shown in the ratio it's filmed?

Excellent post. Will read again.

To be fair, it wasn't Resolution Asset Management's business either, nor is cricket Ignis' business, but they still sponsor Middlesex. I seem to recall that Gavin Stewart (one of the investors in PropCo) being involved with Ignis at one point, but I don't know if that's still the case.

If you look at the actual attributed quotes, the headline uses a LOT of artistic licence.