admin

That is just as likely to happen for a home game as it would an away game would it not? Should we book a bus to pick up all the players to take them to home games? Actually what is the difference in asking the players to make their own way to an away game and asking them to make their own way to a home game? You could be talking about much the same travel time in some instances.

Morton was always an away trip that no team bus was needed/required. Or at least since it didn't become automatic to book a team bus. Granted those would generally been Saturday rather than evening fixtures. As much (or as little) logic then as is now. I just don't see it as any major issue while there are far more pressing things to concern ourselves with.

And coaches automatically levitate above traffic?

Could have been worse. We could have taken a plane to Alloa and asked the players to make their own way to La Manga. The bus thing is a non-event. There is no need for a team bus for games that are relatively close by. It will suit the majority of players. Why ask them to travel, say, 40 minutes to Firhill to get the bus and then travel another 45 minutes or so to the game? Better they make their own way and don't have the bother of going back to Firhill afterwards to get their car? If it saves a few quid into the bargain so much the better. There's so much more to worry to get bogged down with the bus story.

Of all the things that worry me, of which there are plenty, the bus thing isn't one of them. As indicated elsewhere it is a return to a previous policy, albeit when we were skint. Alloa is about on the cusp of where if following this policy I would expect consideration to using a bus would kick in. I can certainly remember us not taking a bus to Stirling previously and to Falkirk the day we won the league. It probably suits a lot of the players too. They don't need to get to Firhill to get the bus or whatever scheduled pick up point (used to be Westerwood) just straight to the venue which might be less travelling for them. And after the game they can head straight to wherever they are going without having to head back to Firhill or wherever. It actually makes a lot of sense.

I feel I'm repeating myself but anyway here goes. The point I'm trying to make is the current performance of the BoD is, or should be, irrelevant when debating the takeover. It needs to be judged on its merits alone. Of course I'll be opened minded. I've said from day one that it could potentially be great for Partick Thistle but that shouldn't prevent anyone from trying to articulate why they are concerned. My concerns in no way relate to the current BoD. Personally I have no major issue with them. Or at least I see no maelovent intent in their actions that would prompt me to want their removal. I don't know anyone on the Board far less have any relationship, cosy or otherwise, with any of them.

I find it strange that people can spend time analysing the minutiae of every club statement but blithely dismiss the issue of 'dual ownership' as mere red tape. There are reasons why these regulations are in place. In part to protect clubs from being used for the benefit of others. A change in ownership needn't be a bad thing but I see nothing of substance to suggest to me that people aren't simply wanting to see change in the current BoD and are ignoring the fact that this is potentially a seismic change in how Partick Thistle operate. That's dangerous thinking.

Finally, something other than ,'What have the current Board done for us' mantra. Interesting and actually strikes at the core of where many of my concerns lie. If we become just part of an organisation's portfolio of clubs then our wellbeing becomes linked to theirs. Obviously things like TV deals etc. impact on how a club operates but currently pretty much every decision made, good or bad, by Thistle is Thistle's call based on what is considered the best for Thistle. As part of a wider stable of clubs we would lose that independence that sense of autonomy. Personally I would find it difficult to make an emotional connection the Club in those circumstances. We stop being what we are and are just a cog, a small one at that, in a machine.

Excellent post. Thank you. I can't find anything to find issue with in what you say.

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. Can someone, JJ or whoever, articulate why; and without reference to the current BoD, this is a good deal for Partick Thistle? Or even why they think it is a good deal. I suspect in the absence of anything concrete nobody can aside, perhaps, from those selling their shares.

Interesting. I doesn't make me feel any more comfortable though. I'm repeating myself I know but if the 'why now' is a motivation to remove the present BoD then I hope that that desire hasn't clouded their judgement over whether this is for the long term betterment of Partick Thistle. I fervently hope it is. It could be unbelievably exciting. One thing is certain though it will define the future of Partick Thistle for some time. Maybe I'm just resistant to change but until we know more then I'm going to remain extremely nervous about this.

I don't care if our Club's owners have a connection with Thistle/Maryhill/Glasgow provided they have the best interests of the club at heart and, most importantly, the ability to progress the Club. It can be argued that the current BoD don't have those qualities. Even if that is true it doesn't mean that this prospective takeover is right for us. There has to be more substance than 'they are not the current BoD' for me to embrace this as a good thing. They need to demonstrate why they are the people to take the club forward. I want clarity in that respect and free from reference to the performance of the current BoD. I'm hoping that we will soon have that as this current state of uncertainty is unhelpful on a number of levels.

Why now? It's the first time they've been approached to sell their shares?

That's pretty poor to be honest. I'll make this my final word on this. If a desire to try and get the club to fulfill their 'duty' you could simply have said something along the lines of 'I know there is some discussion surrounding a potential takeover. The club should, where possible, provide some clarity on the issue'. You were professing to not know if there was truth to the rumours. That wasn't true. And I'm still not sure why one party has a 'duty' to communicate and the other doesn't. Anyway, I'm going to try enjoy the rest of my Friday night with the house to myself.

I'm not saying that we need to know everything about new directors or new owners although that kind of level of transparency would be good. I'm simply saying that a desire to change ownership of the club doesn't mean that any prospective change is a good thing. Right now I don't have anywhere near enough information to even start to formulate an opinion as to the benefits, or otherwise, of this suggested takeover. Some clarity would be extremely useful just in case anyone whose reading this can provide any clarity.

A perfect example of the kind of Spin you so vociferously decry JJ I'm afraid which doesn't really answer any of my questions. I'm not going to flog this to death (honestly) but I'll ask again, why ask the club to issue a statement re the rumours when you knew there was substance to the rumours? Why not just say that?

The performance of the current BoD isn't reason, on its own, to jump into bed with the first suitor that comes along. Hopefully the Thistle people involved with the consortium have become involved because of something much more substantive than a desire to see change.

I'm still a bit confused to be honest. You were requesting a statement from the club earlier today re the rumours stating that they could be quashed with a simple denial. It would seem now that you knew something was happening and knew that there could be no denial. Why not just say that? Why the smoke and mirrors approach? I've concerns right now about three, separate but still interconnected, things. 1. Is the proposed takeover in the best interests of Partick Thistle? 2. How the rumours came into the public domain? Who are The Daily Mail's sources and who contacted who? If the approach came from the consortium then what was the objective in doing so? 3. Are the Thistle people involved in the takeover motivated by this being a good deal for the Club or a desire to see change within the current BoD? If the former, then great. If the latter then that worries me. Taking your post at face value then I appreciate that you are no better placed to answer those concerns than the next man. However, you said either on here or elsewhere that the Club had a 'duty' to respond to these rumours. Is there not a duty of the Thistle people involved to communicate their intentions? That might help address concerns like mine detailed above. This could be an exciting new dawn for our club but right now something stinks and I'm worried about how things are being communicated.

Fair dos. Thanks for the reply. Me I wouldn't jeopardise the long term future of the Club for short term gain. I've no interest in the background of the Club's owners providing they have the best interests of my club at heart. That's not what I mean by autonomy. I can't see the attraction in Thistle to a consortium headed by billionaire. Unless we are part of a wider strategy involving other clubs. In that case our success, or otherwise, could be influenced by events at those other clubs. Then we cease to be an autonomous football club. For me that wouldn't be Partick Thistle. I love this club but couldn't sacrifice that for the sake of a trophy despite the fact that I've spent over 40 years craving that kind of success.

Out of curiosity is it a case, for you, of success justifiying the means of success even at the loss of our club's autonomy? Not saying that is wrong. Just trying to get a flavour of where people stand on this.

I'm sorry and I don't mean to be cheeky but I struggle to follow the flow of your posts at times. For clarity are you saying that there are Thistle fans involved, in some way, with the consortium and that you know who they are and have had communication with them? Apologises if I've picked that up incorrectly.

Indeed, what is the difference? Why would one be something to be concerned about and the other something to be welcomed? Unless we are working on the basis of get the current BoD out and replace them with whatever the hell is out there. That's reckless thinking. Investment is great providing there is a sustainable business plan behind it. I assume the same level of scrutiny will be demanded of any future inward investment that is demanded of the Weir's money? Anyway, right now all that has happened is that The Daily Mail have cobbled together social media speculation and other media outlets have simply reported what The Daily Mail reported. We know nothing more substantive now than we did this time yesterday. Unless anyone knows differently and cares to share further.

Sigh. Just as the Club receives praise for inclusiveness some of our fans are quite happy to indulge in mockery based on how 'funny' foreign names are and how 'funny' foreign accents are. Cut it out.

Interestingly there hasn't, as far as I've seen, been so much as a single dissenting view expressed from within the LGBTQ community. Quite the reverse in fact. I'd go with their take on whether it is at all cynical or exploitive.

People might buy into you being genuinely concerned about the future of our football club if you didn't make posts like this. Tagging people in a post part of which is about folk losing their job just looks like faux rage and pathetic point scoring.