Jordanhill Jag

I have my own Shares paid for with MY OWN CASH 😊 which is just as well given the lack of questions on Finances and the Share Purchase by the USA Investor asked by TJF One question asked remotely by Greame Cowie - Nada from there Reps in the Room

And there is the Root of the Problem - its Nothing to do with the Bing 1. We have a Club Struggling to balance Budgets- and dependent on external Funding to do so 2.In a large statement to the Fans before the AGM - the only statement on Growing Revenues was a Vague Reference to looking at converting the Bing for Hospitality - that was it - that was the Cunning Plan - something that is never going to happen and not feasible 3.Now rather than the Trust seeing it as a Major Red Flag - they simply meander along agree with every Board Request ( if the previous Board had made a similar statement - then they would have been crucified 4.You asked me for Specifics - I've Given you one - there is a Major Red Flag on Revenue Growth Plans - Me- I would be reviewing any agreement on re-electing the Board - and drilling down on Budgets because if they are Willing to State this in Public - then other Questions have to be asked You See that's how it works - the Major Shareholder asks very robust Questions - if they don't get satisfactory answers - they get New Directors and don't re-elect existing ones - but everything is fine - nothing to see here - next we will be getting told we are getting a New Training Ground The fact the Board published this - Build Hospitality on the Bing as the Revenue Plan - and it didn't immediately raise concerns with the Trust (s) sort of speaks Volumes ref the Cosy Relationship Is that specific enough ? - What do I think should happen ? Well maybe detailed Questions on how they intend to balance the Budget and where the Revenue Growth is coming from ? If you don't get the Right Answers - you don't agree re-election - You know - the same robust Questioning TJF had at last Years AGM

"The shareholder votes of the Trust will be exercised on the basis of the agreed position of Neil Drain, TJF and The Jags Trust." The Trust (s) have already agreed there position to Vote in line with any Board Proposals ( otherwise the Board would not be proposing them ) So there will be No Awkward Questions at the AGM - it will be a Box Ticking Exercise Im not a member of TJF - the Thistle Trust - No idea how they keep in touch with there Members - also No idea what The Jags Trust do - so your suggestion that I contact Trusts - which Im not a member of - suggest they Vote against proposals- that they have already given the Nod to -is pretty far fetched But I will leave you with this thought and you can debate amongst yourselves if your going to carry on supporting the Board without Question "We are also looking at plans to develop the city end of the ground and to create new hospitality spaces within the existing stadium footprint". See that means you start to ask serious Questions - moving the Earth Alone on the Bing runs into hundreds of Thousands- and it was a Major Barrier to Propco - Construction Costs for the Bing are Eye Watering - but in PTFC World you get to State any nonsense you like - no one will ever actually say - WTF are you talking about - IF the Board are stating in Public - that they see this as a Serious Proposal to increase Revenue? - then the Trusts need to look at there agreement to re-elect them

But if the Majority Shareholder has already agreed in advance then its clear that its a done deal - there is going to be No Robust Questioning in Public at the AGM by the Majority Shareholder -its a done deal I'm a Shareholder - I don't need to state what Resolutions I will vote for or against - that's my Business - I'm not answerable to anyone - I bought MY SHARES - WITH MY CASH - however the Trusts have a Duty of Care to ask robust Questions as the Majority Shareholder and to do so in Public - Clearly that is not going to happen as the deals have already been done

So just come out and say it, Jim: which motions on the paper for the AGM should the PTFC Trust vote against. No bluff, no spin. State your case. Thats the point - questions are asked at the AGM and based on responses you can take a View on how you Vote - however if there is already "agreements " in place with the major Shareholder - then the AGM is simply as you say a legal requirement Unlike the previous AGM where questions were asked in Public - its now done at Secret Meetings in advance

But let’s not pretend that an AGM is a place where grand debates are held Are you being serious - that's exactly what happened at the last AGM with TJF leading the Charge & shortly after the Club Board stepped down

No I didn't condemn Andrews Appointments onto the Board - its perfectly normal practise for a Trust to appoint a Director onto the Club Board - what is not normal is that a former Club Board Director goes straight from the Board back onto the Trust - its simply far too cosy and Human Nature is that you are not going to put people under pressure that you previously sat on a Board with - you should not leave the Club Board and rejoin the Trust Board without at least 12 Months of a Gap - that's simply good Corporate Governance - No idea why your defending it - its simply wrong I never said that the existing Directors had to enter an open Competition for there jobs - however there are two New Directors - there was zero to stop those posts being advertised - The Trust is the Major Shareholder it can instruct the Board to advertise New Directors - there was No Good reason why not to - instead its "Who you Know" As you have confirmed - the Trust & the Board have already agreed on various aspects - the AGM is a tick box exercise - No matter what is questioned - the Trusts have already agreed it will back the Board - changed days for TJF from the last AGM A Major Shareholder holds Boards to Account - it does it openly at the AGM - not in Wee Secret Meetings Otherwise whats the point in having a Trust as a Major Shareholder

As you have pointed out - the Trusts have already agreed to the Board Proposals - which I'm assuming is across varies aspects of the AGM So the Clubs Major Shareholder will not be asking robust Questions at the AGM - the discussions wont be in the Public Domain - its all been discussed and agreed in advance - the AGM is simply a Tick Box Exercise for Compliance - may as well issue the minutes in advance This is from the same organisation who held the previous Board over the Coals at the last AGM ? Is it that our New Board are so Wonderful that they are not to be questioned at the AGM by the Major Shareholder ? Welcome to the PTFC Bowling Club Annual General Meeting So what happens if Questions are asked that show things are not Rosy in the Garden - the decision is already made - the discussions on getting Shareholder Support was done in Secret

So whats the Chances of TJF going against the recommendations of the Club Board - when its Chairman is also a Director of the Club Board - why put yourself in the position where you have to be recused in the first place ? The Simple solution is that if your a Director of the Cub either "nominated " or appointed by the Trust - you don't go back onto the Trust Board for at least 12 Months If the "Nominated " Directors from the Trust are now to be "permanent Directors" not associated with the Trusts - I'm assuming its due to a unique Skillset - so why were the posts not advertised - in addition why were none of the New Directors Posts not advertised ( with the exception of TJF replacement for Andrew Holloway ) - the excuse that we are still living with an "emergency club board" is no longer valid - the Club Board sought New Directors - yet No one Knew anything about it ? Surely any organisation goes to the Market to Seek the best out there - surely you advertise and get the best available There is No Need for waiting for a New "Draft Trust Agreement" the Trust could simply instruct the Board that it wants posts advertised & people to submit there CVs - or are we still operating on a "who you know" basis ?

No its not - however thats the Case for Companies - its not "usual" if you have Fan Ownership - as for the "Appointment not being Permanent " how do you know ? Its standard practice in the Civil Service that you cannot take on a Directorship of a Company you worked with as a Senior Civil Servant - we are not a a "Normal " Company - or are you Happy with the Bowling Club Model ?

So we were advised that this was a Temporary Board - that those "nominated by the various Trusts " post the resignation of the last Board were simply to have a functioning Board - now they are " Directors in there own right " with no links to the Trusts or limited tenure on the Board as defined by the Trusts - the Trust "Nominees" are simply Directors in there "own right" If we are looking for Directors surely it should be a case of going out to "The Market" to match Skill Sets Required - rather than "Trust Nominees" simply moving over to be Full Time Directors without Limit of Tenure ? Its all just a bit too cosy in my opinion Where are the various Trusts ? Where is the proposals or advertising that the Club are Looking for Directors with Specific Skill Sets ? If the "nominated Directors" are now simply "Directors " not linked to the Trusts - why are these Directorships ( or any other Directorship for that matter) - not being advertised - or are we back to "Who you know" - is this the New Openess Under Fan Ownership ? It would seem that the Temporary Board is looking more and more permanent Yes - All Directors have to be Voted in at the AGM each Year - but the idea was that there was fixed tenures and open options to get Directors applying with relevant Skillsets

So this poses a number of Questions regards Separation of Powers The New TJF Chairman is currently a Club Board Director - he is part of the decision making process on New Directors - Finances etc etc which he signed off as a Director -before the AGM and before he steps down To get these Proposals through at the AGM - then the Board require the various Trusts Support as the Major Shareholder - of which TJF are a key player The Agreement on getting the Trusts Support will have been done prior to the AGM - and various discussions taken place So the Question is - What Hat is TJF Chair Wearing ? How can you be a Club Director making Club Decisions to be agreed at the AGM - yet be the Chairman of a Shareholder Group - whose very job it is to hold the Board to Account and ask awkward Questions about the proposals at the AGM ? - TJF had No issue at the last AGM asking lots of awkward questions - and writing detailed reports on the responses - Yet here we are a Year Later where we have a defacto merger of the Board & Shareholders Group into one ? Now it could be that the New TJF Chair recluses himself from TJF discussions on the AGM - however its highly unlikely that TJF are going to go against the wishes of there Chair - otherwise it makes it very awkward going forwards There should be a 12 Month period before any Trust Directors appointed to the Club Board can rejoin any of the Trust Boards - perception is everything The Trusts are there to hold the Club Board to Account - its there job as Shareholders - its as simple as that - backroom deals before the AGM are not OK - as it makes a mockery of the AGM - there cannot be a set of standards for the previous Board - and a different one for the current & future Boards If every Club Board proposal goes through on the Nod at the AGM- then it becomes clear that the AGM is a tick box exercise for Company Compliance There should be robust Questioning led by the Major Shareholder - which is the Trusts - without it -we have no proper Corporate Governance as the Major Shareholder has not done there job in Holding the Board to Account at the AGM

Excellent Article - Well done 😀

For the Record - my gripe has always been on how he was treated on the day he was sacked - Football Managers get sacked - thats Football for the Board to ask him to make a rousing speech to Fans in Hospitality Pre match ( whilst Directors stood and watched ) knowning he was being sacked - why would the Board do that ? Then to make a point of rushing back from there comfy seats in the Directors Box at Ibrox -just to sack him that Night screams being vindictive making cuts because your going bust is unfortunate economics - its not personal How Ian McCall was treated ( not the decision to sack him ) asks serious questions of those involved our reputation in Football took a serious knock on how the Board acted that day I can assure you

So unless I actually state who I would have made redundant -my argument is not valid -is that what is being stated ? your argument is that every single member of staff - every penny we spent was critical to the Running of the Football Club ? And nothing could have been done ? you accuse me of speculating - I have a fair idea of the number of bodies it takes to run the Club & the cost -albeit on a Skelton Staff - but enough to comply with the basic requirements - so No its not “ speculating” its applying experience both in assisting to run the Club factoring in current wages - and Decades of Experience in Running a Profitable Business - the mechanics on how you go about it dont change -from one business to another the financing from the end of February was mainly from Rangers - late April May June was Directors Soft Loans - £100K Saving would have made a dent in the Soft Loans and if the loans hadnt been available you have reduced the shortfall which gives you a fighting chance the rampant uncertainty was going bust - thats a bit bigger than upsetting staff or partners - but you continually ignore that salient fact my arse it took transition blah blah blah - the vast majority of the Turnover is in Football Costs - that is looked after by the Team Management Coaches etc the remainder is Stadium - Accounts and putting a Game on every two weeks the majority of staff on Matchday are brought in for the Match everything else is optional - so you decide what you need to put a game on every two weeks its as simple as that - its not complicated anyone who says it is has no idea what there doing Your correct the Directors represent the Shareholders and the Shareholders are supposed to hold the Directors to Account ?

Ok - so I left PTFC in 2016 and had a fair idea on Club Finances up to that date - inflation hasn't been 30% since then the Non playing overhead is significantly higher than it was previously - therefore it can be cut - its as straightforwards as that - if your going under - you run on a Skelton Staff -and do the minimal you have to in order to survive you cannot control income and you cant forecast “ investments” -you can control outgoings so you start with that there was enough people being approached by the Club as “ investors” and financial information being bandied about to have a decent idea of the Finances start of 2023 - it wasn't a well kept Secret i actually do have a decent idea of the quantum of Savings that could have been made -and its circa £100K that includes minimal redundancy payments we had to go to Alastair Creevy in Late March to pay the wages when the Rangers Money Ran out - without him we were going bust - we had from Jan to March to make savings - we chose not to ( despite various people with previous experience in running the Club -advising where to make them - and offering assistance - for the Record I wasn't one of those people ) the £100K could have been the difference between staying in Business or not -if Alastair Creevy hadn't stepped in who said the Business was being gutted ? it is a correction to an overhead that had grown under previous boards - you assume we required that level of overhead - based on what ? No TJF are not a Shareholder - if the Nominee Director has no link to TJF - who does she represent ? TJF were up to date on the Finances So how do I know there are savings in overhead - simple - any experienced manager can look at a Business and see where the overhead can be cut in proportion to the Turnover - its as simple as that - also when you run a Business with your Money ( and not someone elses ) you learn how to minimise costs - thats what you do its not complicated PTFC are in the Scale of an Owner Managed business - so its not complicated

See this argument that the USA money is there to prop up “ Reserves” well you just identified where they will be spent

We managed to keep the overhead afloat with the Rangers Money - part of that could have been used for Redundancies - we got the Creevy Money circa March April - without it we couldnt pay the wages very few staff were there long term - couple of weeks wages would be the Redundancy Package

Im not going to name who I would have made redundant -thats just nonsense and you know it - your argument is nothing could have been done ? Whilst only one example - I said the Sports Scientist was not critical to the Club and any competent Manager could identify others - your going bust - you cut the cash burn - what bit of that is difficult ? I also said you do a cost benefit analysis of all aspects - if they are not making money or marginal amounts - you cut them Redundancies would be minimal Govt requirements - most people have not been there over a lengthy period so it is a marginal cost your argument is we are going bust - but there is nothing we can do about it and lets hope someone loans us some money between Jan & April that was the strategy and your defending it ? i will repeat - if it was your Business and you could lose your House if you go under are you saying you could not find savings also ref Hospitality Staff - if you cancelled you refund the money - I didn't say that was a saving I said you review all aspects of the Club ref TJF they were involved in trying to bring in Investors to suggest they had no influence over finances is stretching it plus they had a Nominated Director on the Board And the value of Money has not “ depreciated by 50% “ complete nonsense

“knee jerk” are you joking ? We were going bust - the long term impact of not reducing the Cash Burn was not to be in Business - what part of that do people not get ? - I struggle to see how we managed to double the Non Football Overhead from the last Time we were in the Championship - we dont do anything different from previous And the bottom line - which I will repeat - we were going bust - and what is being argued is that those making the decisions could not see ways of cutting costs - so thats OK OK as an example we don't “need” a Sports Scientist - if we can afford one - then Great - if your going bust -then you can survive without one Im honestly amazed that people are attempting to justify the lack of any attempt to reduce overhead costs when we were going bust If it was your Company - if your House was Collateral on a Business Loan - trust me - you could find Savings in a Heartbeat but its not “ real” its OPM - other peoples money - so its in reality all a big game - not a proper business - we are a Bowling Club - nothing more

1. As stated there was a shortfall in finances due to an inherited budget 2. That would indicate that the overhead against income was massively out of sync from the previous Board 3.Applying logic then there would be opportunities to reduce the inherited overhead - as it was obviously too high - a 10% reduction is not a high bar to achieve 4.Ive stated that the previous Non Playing overhead in past years in the Championship - was circa 50% of what it was in Jan 23 5.The Club turnover is that of an owner managed business - where the owner runs multi facets of the Business Hands On - so the Directors of a small organisation should have the Skill Set to actually do hands on roles at the Club- as opposed to employing staff to do then - do we have a Board of Directors or a Committee ? 6.Your going bust - you look at the cost benefit of everything you do at the Club outside Stadium - H&S & Matchday if the numbers don't stack up ref Hospitality& your actual profit as a return - you cut it Im not sure what TJFs role is these days - your a Major Shareholder - your job is to hold Boards to Account -not be there apologists and enablers - by bailing them out the key issue is thus “OPM” - other peoples money - if the Club was the Boards own Business - if it was there money - they would run it with minimal overhead - minimal staff - its not so they can play with it - however I repeat we were going bust - questions have to be asked -and TJF are clearly not willing to act like a proper shareholder Ask yourself thus - if PTFC was a family owned business - if the persons house was Security against any Business Loans - if there was a threat of the Business Going Bust - do you think the Business Owner would be able to find 10% Savings in the Company overhead ?

Based on previous % of Non Playing overhead -when we were last promoted - rough guess it could have been reduced by around a half - if your going bust -you make do -and only have the bare bones to comply with what you need to do to put a game on every two weeks - anything above that is choice

Half the current Board were there when the Scale of the Financial Black Hole was identified - the immediate reaction of any Board to stop you going bust is to make drastic cuts on every level - this didn't happen - we did not cut the Cash Burn Without Alastair Creevy we could not pay the Wages for the last few Months of the Season - he didn't appear until circa April Only Luck of having someone like him stepping in at the last minute -stopped us from going bust & it was Smillie that approached him So based on actions when we were in dire straights - I will make my judgements on SkillSets - if you cant reduce costs when your going bust - there is little incentive to do it with the USA & TJF Cash being handed to you if we had cut the Cashburn in January - we may not have needed as much as £500k as a back up the Fans Raising £120k each year simply removes responsibility from the Board of Running a balanced budget - the £120k should be the Icing on the Cake - Not the Actual Cake itself in a Business -Revenue is difficult to forecast ( even harder in Football) however you can Control overhead with certainty TJF money should be a buffer - not part of your Fixed Revenue Forecast otherwise why would you try & reduce overhead ?

Thats fair enough - however no business should put itself in a position where they are dependant on ad hoc funding to balance the budget - external funding is outwith your control as Business we cannot work on a position where we are relying on the luck of a funder appearing eg USA Funder -or the former Chairman giving us a Loan -to stop us going bust A Business controls its overhead & lives within its means - if we don't have Directors that have the Skillset to do this - then Shareholders ( same as any other Business ) brings in New Directors who can its not complicated ( no idea why this is an issue for PTFC ) ?