blakey
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by blakey
-
-
Is this story definitely dead, or can the players still leave after having their contracts terminated "by mutual consent". i.e. if they find another club? It does seem odd to have 4 central halves for example. That can happen outside the transfer window...or do we move on and hope this is not happening?
-
3 minutes ago, javeajag said:
From Graeme Mcgarry
Told that Stuart Bannigan and Tam O'Ware will not be leaving Partick Thistle today. Club looking at two potential loan signings.
you have to laugh ... apologies anyone ?
I hope you are right. You can see how easy it is to start these stories on social media/web though.
-
Just now, javeajag said:
Is O’Ware that good ? Genuine question I’ve on,y seen him a couple of times and he was ok ish
He looked great at start of last season. Morton fans also rate him highly.
I had high hopes for this season for him.
-
I really hope this is nonsense. Banzo getting a lot of unfair criticism imo. He never hides so you notice him more than most. We’ll miss him if he does go.
Also tam deserves a shot. I thought he was our best player at the start of last season. He’s not really had a go this season. In a team apparently devoid of leaders he should get a chance to be one of the leaders.
-
And to think we all thought we were signing f*** hall
-
2
-
-
You have to question Caldwell’s management of banzo. For example, he publically cited a lack of leadership at the recent meet the manager session. I do find some of gc’s honestly refreshing but he is in real danger of pissing off some of his players. Banzo has already seen a load of his mates leave the club recently. Gary is going about this situation with all the grace of the proverbial bull in the china shop. It’s times like these when he really needs the senior players on his side.
-
29 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Well I disagree strongly with them - we should move on with things - so what happens if he did come back - then decided he didmt like something in the future then pulled his cash again - it cant work - move on get a Youth Set Up we control ourselves
JJ - I don't see anything wrong with having a wealthy benefactor. Okay - we need to manage the relationship but most clubs would love to have a wealthy supporter who is willing to invest. It seems folly in the extreme to jeopardize that. You seem to want us to be self sufficient when a few of us welcome having additional investment.
This relationship can and did work until the recent souring of the relationship/
-
56 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Well if it matters why are you going on about the not signing of four additional Players - they were never in the Budget that Caldwell agreed in May - he may have been advised that he could get the Transfer Money as additional funding previously - but the Financial reality is that Money is required to balance the Books - the Statement stated the Truth - there had been No cuts to the agreed Player Budget agreed in May - which GC was happy with at the time - the Player Budget is the same as last Year - despite a significant drop in income ref Parachute and EUFA Money - not sure what part of that is confusing tbh
Jj - it is confusing because different folk gave contradicting answers to related questions. GB said that the budget was not cut. GC said his recruitment (that had been agreed) is incomplete. David kelly then said that they had to change the way the finances were being managed, so that we don’t run at a deficit. It looks like if the old board were still in place GC may well have recruited a few more players.
The fact that we are debating this indicates that the updates have not been clear.
-
8 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:
The shareholders who put £ in 20 years ago and have given up time away from their careers to focus on Thistle cannot be beholden to one man though and neither can we as fans.
They wanted to find out more info from a potential investment. The other board didn't. They are still gathering information and will use their business experience to give a response. They have a lot of long term success in business. You can't say No to something that could and they emphasised could be positive. Maybe it wont happen. They'll run the club to break even with no debt instead of small loss like the previous board.
Colin Weir has went "nah not for me." That's his choice. He's decided not to communicate with club. That's his choice. His £ was always short term. No training ground. That's his choice. Sorry club and McParland family. No youth funding. Sorry 15 yr old from Possil learning football and life skills plus getting chance to sample culture abroad. That's his choice. There was a chap called "Donners" who wouldn't let it go. I don't see him going to Largs to hunt down someone who is not talking and is famous for a low profile.
For me Malcolm Cannon was the best communicator. Just standing up made it better. Hopefully he'll help improve things.
(On a side note Caldwell came across well as usual. However what he says v what is on the pitch does not match. I compare us to McNamara promo season of 4-3-3 and we are nowhere near that.)
Sorry but some of that I just don’t agree with. Colin weirs investments were not for the short term. He did not do the Dundee style glory signing (caniggia) type stuff. It was investment in youth, and removal of club debt to make us sustainable.
The recent actions of the board have jeopardised that funding stream. That could be a huge negative for us. This is not about the board or fans being ‘beholden’ to colin weir. It’s about people in power making the right decisions for our club.
-
10 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:
For me it was Colin Weir. He did some great stuff clearing debt and funding a youth academy short term. The new board were very respectful and full of praise for him.
He's not a businessman. He was an ordinary punter who got very lucky and has used his money wisely. However if he wants to stop his plans due to change in priorities, interests or wanting to blow it all in Las Vegas like a Nicholas Cage film that's his choice. If he decides not to communicate with the club that's his choice. It was hard enough getting in contact with my solicitor when buying a house!
The fans now expect him to be our saviour. That genuinely scares me.
That’s not really the point though. It’s the fact that the new board jeopardised that relationship (with colin). Maybe the fans have a far fetched notion that he would continue to help fund the club. But that notion was based on the fact that he had a recent history of doing that.
-
26 minutes ago, KemoAvdiu said:
In what sense is it clear that Jacqui Low is now a passionate Thistle fan? Because she was at the game on Friday night (and happily some of her fan club on Twitter tweeted about it?).
Any ongoing desire to be involved in the club will come from a mixture of ego and resentment at being ousted - I am absolutely not buying any narrative painting her as a diehard Jags fan.
It’s just my opinion. I’ve met her previously too and thought she had a genuine passion for the club. I was less aware of the old/new guard but they also convinced me of their motivations yesterday (although their decisions do concern me).
I’m not taking sides here just giving my opinion that the 2 boards want the same thing. They just have different ways of going about it.
jacqui does not deserve the vilification that some folk direct her way. I’m not sure of the basis for it.
-
Jeez - I go out for the night and this thread explodes again. I was reflecting on yesterday’s meeting again though. A lot of this is still rather unclear but what became clearer =
Old board were apparently running the club at a potential budget deficit. The recent changes to the board have impacted the player budget. I know that directly contradicts Gerry’s answer yesterday, but that’s the only way I can make sense of the other answers. That is - Gary said that he had shared a recruitment plan with the board that is incomplete. Also david Kelly said they came in and had to make some changes so that the budget was corrected.
The sooner the conversations with the consortium are sorted out the better. It sounds like the new board are still hoping to get back on board with colin weir but feel like they are stymied there. Presumably that will only happen if Jackie is reinstated in some fashion. It might also rely upon the consortium bid failing.
The other major difference between the old board and the new board = old board did not see value in speaking to consortium and new board do. It’s a matter of opinion which course of action is correct but we’ll need that to play out now.
In summary its a mess. What is even sadder is that we’ve completely ballsed up the relationship with colin weir and impacted the financials of the youth setup, and the possible underwriting of costs at the parent club. I don’t really care if that’s an unsustainable way of running the club. Having a lottery winner help out at the football club should be a welcome unusual set of circumstances.
Another sad point is that I believe that all the parties involve only want the best for thistle. The guys that spoke yesterday all seem like passionate thistle guys. Even the cricket chap. There had been some suggestion and incredulity that the old board was not make up of thistle fans. I think it is clear that Jackie is definitely a passionate thistle fan now.
Ive got to feel a bit sorry for Gary Caldwell now. His plans for the player pool is definitely impacted just now. New board needs to sort the consortium and colin weir stuff ASAP or the run the risk of taking us backwards.
-
5 minutes ago, dl1971 said:
That's the key for me. Why they are investing, what they are investing and some idea of what their objectives are. Surely some detail on that is not unreasonable?
The board did agree to a follow up meeting with the 2 trusts plus the consortium. To address those queries together.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, allyo said:
To be fair you'd expect this all to be happening. In fact you'd be worried if it wasn't
I’m not sure. There is a lot of uncertainty just now. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to state that we’ll have this all sorted, one way or another, by a certain time.
At the moment the decisions made by the new board look foolhardy. They really did not explain why the consortium approach is appealing.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, javeajag said:
So that means contrary to what their statement said they are actually not maintaining the player budget but cutting It ?
That’s what I would make of it but they were very contradictory on that point. I’d like to have challenged but there were loads of questions in the room.
-
Just now, Bitter Jag said:
Was there any timescale given/hoped for for the take over if it happens?
I asked that exact question. Response was very vague. The board guy cited that it depends on sfa, the consortium reviewing the books, and then shareholders deciding if they actually want to sell so...basically no idea.
-
1
-
-
Oh and some totally contradictory updates. GC saying that his recruitment plan that he outlined in may is still incomplete. GB then saying budgets had not been changed. The the board guy later saying that the budget was previously running at deficit, and they had to sort it (bus etc). We expect to now run at a slight loss, with no more investment in players.
-
In retrospect - the sessions should have been recorded for a wider audience.
-
20 minutes ago, allyo said:
Cheers for the update. Was there an impression that they understand the prospective buyers plans (after the takeover) or would you say they are as in the dark as the rest of us?
I was there too. I would say that I left the session more happy that the boards motivations are nothing to do with self interest. But and it’s a big but - it’s not at all clear what is happening with the consortium. I can appreciate that there is little they can say at this stage but the topics they did cover left more questions than answers. One chap asked why they chose us and the answer was that they investigated and thought that Glasgow was a good fit. It really makes little sense.
Another chap in the audience (Ross I think) spoke very eloquently. As did donners (jagscat). Tbf - the board fronted up but...at the moment we only know the budget is cut, we’ve lost our biggest benefactor, and the takeover may or may not happen.
Uncertain times. Patience will be required but by the time this is settled our season could be bust.
-
59 minutes ago, Firhillista said:
For me, the difference between the two teams last night was epitomised in the way they took bye-kicks.
Both sides tried to take advantage of the new rule, but only one could do it successfully.
United's keeper played the ball to a defender and their defence passed it around until they were in a position to start an attack. When Sneddon tried to do the same, our defenders looked like they were crapping themselves that they were going to lose possession, so we wound up booting it up the park anyway.
Why can't we retain the ball? Other teams do it as a matter of course. Alloa did it last Saturday. What's wrong with Thistle players that their default position when being closed down is to assume they're going to lose the ball?
And, yes, I can hear the answers to that question - because they so often do. What they need to work out - and the manager too - is why is that? Other teams routinely show an ability to retain the ball and deny it to the opposition. Thistle only seem capable of that rarely.
At one point in the first half, Sneddon rolled the ball out to Bannigan who immediately lost control of it and almost gifted United a scoring chance. No wonder he then chose to boot the ball up the park for the rest of the game. A tactic which resulted in us gifting possession to United from every bye-kick from then on.
If you cede control of the midfield in a game of football you will inevitably concede goals. That's what happened last night. Until we can put out a team that can retain possession of the ball and at least ensure they compete in midfield, we'll continue to fail to win games.
That ball to banzo was very dangerous. I help coach boys football and drill the goalies to play it wide. Btw - I thought the Utd keeper looked like a weak link. I know he made a super save from Sean but he couldn’t catch a cold. Unfortunately we did not put enough pressure on him.
-
1 minute ago, Firhillista said:
This might seem slightly off topic, but why haven't we signed someone?
If the manager's transfer budget is still intact, where's the signings required to complete the squad?
Last week we were linked with Ben Hall, yet nothing more has transpired on that front. Caldwell and the chairman have both said we're looking to make three or four more signings. Where are they?
What player would move to us just now?
-
I can’t keep up with all this but any thought on why colin weir did not buy (or be gifted) shares in the club? It seems that he did not want to be involved in day to day running, but jacqui appointed to do that. She would not have been ousted if he had more power/shares?
-
Where does Gerry Britton fit in with all this. He worked under the old regime, knew budgets etc. He’s still there and presumably knows the new budget. He must have some sort of insight into all this but presumably is fearful for his own job?
-
2 hours ago, jags on tour said:
I’ve got a tenner on Gordon and O’Ware anytime with bet365. Praying to aw the Mammies and aw the Daddies for it to come in!
Aw naw...don’t blame me now if tam does not score
Thistle For Ever - Fans Ownership
in Main Jags forum
Posted
This looks like a good idea to me. I also agree with much of what they have stated regarding the current status at the club. I've given an initial pledge. Would be great if this can unite our fanbase in some way.