Woodstock Jag

TJF has always been clear that Tranche 2 on its own isn't a sustainability strategy, but that it buys time and space to ensure one is properly developed and implemented on realistic timelines. More member comms will follow on this shortly.

With an organisation as #BoxOffice as The Jags Foundation with over 1850 members, it's fair to say that a few fans have the same/very similar names as one another. My favourite one is that we have three Scott Grants. All completely unrelated to one another. One isn't even on the same continent as the other two!

Two people. Same forename. Different spelling. Keep looking amigo!

We're a record-breaking sort of Club.

I think I'm right in saying that no team has ever finished in the top 4 of the second tier of Scottish football four seasons in a row without being promoted at the fourth time of asking.

We (TJF/Trustees) have always tried to be open and transparent and to answer questions and provide answers to the best of our ability on this forum. Unless anyone on here has any objections, I'm now not going to reply to Jordanhill Jag on this thread. The fact that I've not responded should not be taken by anyone to mean that anything he has stated is true. If anyone else has a question about an assertion of fact, or about Tranche 2, or about the Club's finances, we are happy to answer them to the best of our ability and as far as commercial confidentiality obligations allow. You can contact the Trust by email ([email protected]) or TJF by email ([email protected]). It is clear that regardless of what information is provided, or any attempts to engage with the substance of any points, Jordanhill Jag is determined to spam this forum with the same talking points, and to ignore or wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent our attempts to provide greater transparency for other supporters. If you have any concerns about this approach, please don't hesitate to get in touch. But frankly, I've had enough of trying to engage in good faith with someone who is determined not to reciprocate.

It was the lower number.

I have literally stated earlier on the thread the amount donated by the Club to the operations of the Women's team in seasons 2022-23 and 2023-24. It is not £50k. Anyone who tells you that it's £50k is pulling a figure out of thin air. The figure increased from £20k to £30k between seasons 2022-23 and 2023-24. This subsidy is being inflated by over 60% to pretend that there is more money to be saved than there is.

There's no point engaging here if you're simply going to repeat the same talking points and not engage with the actual points being discussed. It would be helpful if you could start by differentiating comments made about completely different financial years.

It's nonsense to claim that the Club's Financial Statement "clearly blames additional funding of the Womans [sic] Team for the losses". The statement said the following, about new expenditure in the 2023-24 financial year: "Academy and Women’s team investments – Prior to last year the Academy contributed to the club’s income by paying for apprentice salaries and for rental of space at The Wyre Stadium at Firhill. During the close season last year, the decision was taken not to close the Academy so that we could continue to benefit from the pathway to the first team that has seen talent such as Ben Stanway and Ricco Diack become first-team squad regulars. It has also given us the opportunity to earn significant revenues from player trading as was the case with the transfer of Cieran Loney to Everton, for a potential six-figure sum. This decision meant that £115,000 had to be found within the club’s accounts to fund the modern apprentice’s salaries, a necessity to qualify for Club Academy status, and to provide an increased donation to support Brian Graham and the Women’s team to the most successful season in the club’s history." The £115k figure is the like-for-like comparison between season 2022-23 and season 2023-24. Almost all of the figure, as has been explained on here several times, is down to the modern apprentice contracts. The up-lift on annual donation to the women's team was less than 10% of the figure. The statement was explaining that losses were drastically reduced on the previous season despite those additional commitments. The Club would not be making drastic savings relative to its 2024-25 season forecast losses if the Women's team budget was sustained without Club support. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't seen the figures or is lying.

My understanding is that our crowds are calculated by actual attendees not tickets sold/distributed. Fanbase's system is sophisticated enough for the Club to be able to work out how many of the promotional tickets are being used, and I understand that to be the 20% take-up figure. In other words, the initiatives are adding about 100 to the gate. Worth bearing in mind that concessionals also grows at the other end. It's not just young folk, it's also senior citizens.

I would love us to get to a position where TJF's pledge is an unbudgeted bonus for the Club. Realistically, I think that is some way off, unless we start getting into a position of strong player trading.

I hear Park's of Hamilton are putting on coach tours of the Firth of Clyde for the thousands of tourists at a loose end on Hogmanay.

It is simply false to state that "a large chunk of our losses are advised by the Board "donations" to external organisations linked to PTFC". Totally false.

I think this overstates it. I personally voted for Tranche 2. But I completely respect the view of those who don't. And the onus is on the Club Board to make either outcome work. Tranche 2 does involve trade-offs for fan-ownership. Less severe ones than some other alternatives, but still trade-offs. It isn't, in itself, a sustainability plan (though delivering one would be much harder with £500k less in the bank). What it would provide is the necessary breathing space to implement a sustainability plan while keeping at least a moderately competitive football team on the park. Others can legitimately disagree with this approach, but I think the onus is then on them to explain how they would deal with the cash crunch point that is a little over 3 months away, and to own the implications of their approach in terms of its impact on (a) on-field performance and (b) the underlying business.

Let’s put firmly to bed the idea that increased spending on the Women’s team was why Partick Thistle is making a six-figure loss. It isn’t. After a season in which Partick Thistle Women secured their first ever top six finish, the Club increased its direct funding from about £20kpa to about £30kpa. That has since been preserved. The two teams also (currently) share a first team front-of-shirt sponsor, based on a deal signed ahead of the summer 2023. The Women’s team is run on a complete shoe-string and, that aside, normally self-funds. This season they’ve been buffeted by extra costs of having to host games away from Petershill earlier in the season which has increased some one-off costs. But it’s all still small change against the backdrop of a £3 million turnover football club making well into six-figure losses. Insisting that the Women’s team “self funds” would be the equivalent of one full time equivalent salary coming off the Club’s books. Similarly, those who would close the Youth Academy should be aware of the facts. The reality is that this season it expects not to receive any direct funding from the Club, despite a sizeable five-figure sum having been budgeted for. This is because the Academy is already self-sustaining under its new and diversified funding model. In season 2023-24, the costs of the Academy were underwritten by a benefactor (this is thankfully not now needed). In season 2022-23 the Academy made a loss but was also underwriting the wage costs of the Club’s modern apprentices, to the tune of almost £100k. That no longer happens as the Club now pays for it directly. These are the employment contracts of fringe first team players. Even if you didn’t have an Academy, you would still have a handful of 16-18 year olds on contracts like these as part of your first team group.

That may well be your opinion. And time may well prove you to be right. But it is not what was said at the open meeting. Which is what you said. A completely fair criticism. But my point is that it's not just "a bit better" on disclosure than the previous arrangement. It involves these sorts of points being aired in the period immediately after a budget has been set, rather than 18 months afterwards and at least 6 months after the full financial results have played out. But it's therefore wrong to state that it is "frankly ludicrous" to point out that there is more room to cut costs in a close season, when promotion is not being proactively prioritised, than in a mid-season, when it is.

That's not what was said. The Club said it was aiming for a break-even budget in 2025-26. Before fan-ownership, you wouldn't have found out about this strategy until late 2025/early 2026, when the relevant AGM when the final accounts for season 2024-25 are published. Instead, fans were informed about this approach across (a) a summer financial update on the website (b) an open Q&A session with fans in early September and (c) in even more detail against the backdrop of the investment proposal. Almost a full year earlier than similar such "punts" were disclosed in the past. Could (a) have come slightly earlier? Yes, and we as Trustees tried to push for it to come earlier. Could (a) have been more explicit? Yes, though it's for the Club Board to make a judgment call and to own what it considers to be commercially sensitive. I personally don't think that it's practical to put the draft club budget out to the full fanbase for approval, given the obvious commercial sensitivity of that exercise. I'm not aware of any fan-owned football club that does this, and it's not what the Club-Trust Agreement provides for. Happy to be persuaded otherwise if there's a practical and compelling way it can be made to work. Season 2025-26, not season 2026-27. They did identify the expectation that playing costs would be cut drastically for future seasons. Clearly it's more difficult to cut those in the middle of a season once they're locked-in.

Totally hear your frustration. I understand the delay is simply a case of availability of relevant staff to finalise the recording and Club Board to quick review and give it green light. Expected to be out in the next day or so. Trustee side we've urged them to get it out ASAP. Considerable sympathy with this argument and have suggested we move towards something like this arrangement longer-term. There are some practical considerations to bear in mind TJF isn't (currently) a shareholder (our influence is as a co-trustee and in our members being 2/3 of the beneficiaries of the PTFC Trust). If TJF acquired its own shareholding the fan ownership shares would be split out across three different bodies - if anything good governance might point to consolidation longer-term, not fragmentation. Not a fatal argument, but comes with its own questions and admin. Donations are much easier to account for, and less administratively burdensome, than a rolling share issue - the pledge arrangement has the benefit of simplicity and was quick to put in place when the Club urgently needed cash Any cash for equity arrangement would have to be discounted from the Club's operating income - this has implications in accounting terms for calculating the Club's profit/loss ledger, making it harder (on paper) to break-even - this is the least persuasive argument to my mind though, as the Club gets the cash either way, it's just accounted for differently. The more fundamental consideration to bear in mind is that, given the fans are making donations through TJF, and the Club is losing money, the pledge is effectively functioning as a form of "negative dividend" - the price of fan ownership, if you like, is to have a duty to contribute to help the Club stay solvent. Donald has indicated repeatedly (and publicly) that he will (at least) match whatever the fans contribute in TJF fundraising (pro rata to his own shareholding relative to that of the PTFC Trust's). So far, it is worth recognising, he has very comfortably exceeded this.

Going to invoke the butterfly effect here. If we'd won the balls wouldn't have been drawn like that.

"Effeminate" Really? Away and have a lie down.

Monikie is looking forward to assuming his rightful position on the Football Committee should Tranche 2 go ahead. Cost controls of kibble cannot be guaranteed.

As the Club has clarified elsewhere, Donald’s wife is unwell, which is why he will be joining remotely instead of flying across from California. I’m sure almost all folk will understand, are grateful that Donald will still be able to participate, wish his wife well, and accept this wasn’t something either the Club or he would particularly have wanted to discuss or state publicly (it’s none of our business). Alas last night the Club felt they had little choice after certain bad faith actors (not anyone who has posted about it on here, I hasten to add) decided to go in two-footed on social media, insinuating impropriety with zero evidence whatsoever.

The Trustees have made clear that budgets from season 2025-26 onwards must be prepared on a break-even basis. It follows that any budget presented to us with a forecast of “losses continuing at a smaller level” in 2025-26 wouldn’t pass that test and would not secure Trustee approval. The budget for 2024-25 was only presented to the Trustees in April 2024. We haven’t been presented with a budget for 2025-26 yet. So I’m unable to say one way or the other whether any forecast is a credible one for break even or not.