admin
-
Posts
162 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by admin
-
-
46 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:
That's more or less what I was saying yesterday. However neither your logic nor mine can explain no bus to Greenock. That would be a convenience to the majority of the players.
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.
-
20 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:
If we carry on this way , it’s only a matter of time that the players encounter traffic problems and don’t show for the game .
And coaches automatically levitate above traffic?
-
30 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:
Ok , maybe James Penrice will need to get a bigger car , what happened to the pre match meal etc , teams in the Lowland League ( Caledonia Braves ) are preparing better than us .
We really are a Club of contrasts , take the team to La Manga for pre season training and then tell them to get a bus to play for us on a Saturday
You couldn’t make it up
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.
-
2 minutes ago, jaf said:
You don't know if it will be good, you don't know if it will be bad.
I don't know if it will be good, or if it will be bad.
I am not blithely saying they are red tape, but the rules are there - you can read them, I copied and pasted them. I will trust our selling shareholders, and the SFA to do their jobs.
My post above shows that this is now commonplace practice around the globe and is simply now coming to Scotland.
I am not criticising anyone who views it with suspicion, in the absence of any concrete information. But also there is an absence of concrete information that suggest concern. Apart from fear of change, as your post alludes to.
Furthermore, for balance, I think there are many posters whose view on the merits of the takeover is based entirely on a positive view and/or cosy relationship with the current board. Perhaps if the current board engaged equally with all, then they would not have got the support divided in this way? Perhaps if they had treated some shareholders differently, they would not be facing a takeover now? But those are just more perhapses.
The fundamental point you are making re peoples view of the board is of course flawed because we have seen no plans from the consortium. Perhaps they would keep the Board intact, or individual members thereof. Malcolm Cannon has a great CV for example. or by board, do you mean Chair? In which case, even then, we have no idea whether any board member would be retained under a change of ownership.
I am embracing this as an opportunity to raise the ceiling of Partick Thistle, and until I see a concern of substance I will continue to do so. But I will be open minded should one emerge. Will you?
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Fair enough - first we as have Fans have No say - thats up to the Shareholders - so the "Deal" good or bad isnt relevant
However the Why is more of interest - having had dealings to a minor extent in Spanish football - it was possible to recruit a Player - hold is Contract - "lend" him to a Club and then get the Transfer Fee ie Saurez - thats being stopped
So to make Money from Player Transfers you need to own a Club - Football is now a Pan Europe Affair - owning a Number of Small Clubs - combined Economies of Scale makes sense - have Players interchange Clubs - Makes Sense - gain experience in Scotland - get used to British Football - Move Down South to Barnsley - sell on but with decent sell on Clause - it stacks up to an extent
So back to original point - Shareholders hold Shares - Fans dont if thats say 10 People or One Person - it makes no real difference - shares are bought and sold
The Advantage to Thistle is possibly being part of a larger more professionally run organisation which can deliver on the Park - and that is why the Club exists to deliver on the Park - who owns us doesn't really matter
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.
-
9 minutes ago, jaf said:
No one knows. Just as no one knows whether its a bad deal.
I would say one thing though. The shareholder group who may or may not be selling have earned the right to make the decision; they have earned that right by making financial and other commitments to the club over a period of time. They have made those financial and other commitments based upon being fans of our club. Some of them are also serial company acquirers/disposers, and so better qualified to know a good deal than many on here. Many on here are in favour for one reason or another with the current Board, or had an axe to grind against the past board. Some of course are less than impressed with the current board, and that probably colours many posts on both side of this debate - perhaps even yourself admin?
Therefore all I can do is trust my instinct. My instinct is - why would people experienced at doing business deals, having spent a lot of time and money putting the club into a better position, suddenly do a bad deal that threatens all of that? It is illogical. I trust people who care about the club, and have demonstrated it in the past with cash, resource and time. That's my default position, and I suppose my question would more likely be : What evidence is there, or why would you expect, that people of that background would do a bad deal for the club?
I have experience of people doing deals at varying levels, and sellers are often in my experience concerned about much more than just the £s they are likely to receive. I think, if I was one of those shareholders (which I am not, nor have I spoken with any of them) then I would think my track record, business skills and known feelings for the club would accord me being given the benefit of the doubt as a default position. On the basis, I always like to treat people how I would like to be treated myself, I therefore am giving them the benefit of the doubt for all of the above reasons.
Excellent post. Thank you.
I can't find anything to find issue with in what you say.
-
1 hour ago, allyo said:
The questions of whether there has to be change, and whether this sort of change would be good, should be addressed separately.
On the basis of speculation this change is potentially fundamental to what Partick Thistle is, changing from a football club run primarily to achieve footballing success to a profit making business run primarily for the benefit of its shareholders. The question of how committed or effective our current board is in running a football club is fairly irrelevant. It is currently a football club, worthless without the fans (the only people who really care), as it has been for nearly 150 years.
The new regime arguably changes that forever. We don't know that for sure, but it's worthy of consideration in my view.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, jaf said:
I can’t believe they were approached.
Who would waste tome approaching a 6% shareholder in the hope they could pull together enough shareholders to sell a majority in the club that’s not credible - our sporadic shareholding making it so difficult
I think they more likely have got together, realised they have more than 50 per cent and then sought a buyer Which would also support Jjs question of why now (for which I believe there are a couple of theories doing the rounds)
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.
-
11 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Fair Enough - but whilst the focus is on the New Buyers - it does seem very very strange that this has been pulled together - lets face it not an easy task - so what do the former Directors Know that we dont ? its not all about cashing in - there are say 9 - at least three of them gave the Money to support the Club - zero interest in ever seeing it again - a Third the owners haven't a connection to the Club anymore so fair enough get a pay out - why not ? - a Third get some cash- but only if it benefits PTFC
Knowing them all - thats my take on it - but something changed - why now - why so dramatic a change after all these Years - lets face it - we have seen worse times ?
So why Now ?
Why now?
It's the first time they've been approached to sell their shares?
-
2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
because what I knew or didnt know wasnt the point - the Club had a duty to communicate with its Fans ?
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
So how much do we know about our New Directors ? Pretty much zero - it cuts both ways ?
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
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?
-
42 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
What long term future - exactly where are we going with the current set up ?
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.
-
29 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
If whats being stated is correct- then to get a majority they would have to get the nine major Shareholders with circa 6% to act in concert - Im led to believe that this may be the case ( although nothing concrete that I can say 100% ) so have I spoken to ex Directors who form part of that block - Yes - have I spoken to them recently - No - Im I in touch with the supposed Consortium - No -Im I spreading rumours in there behalf - No
Im not convinced its an outright Sale to the Barnsley Owner either - the fact that the Words Consortium keep get used- would indicate a wider ownership model - for the record others used this Word - not me - Im assuming that they know more than they are letting on and playing daft
Hope that clarifies things and saves personal accusations
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.
-
6 minutes ago, avie-man said:
At this point I don't care. Success at all costs. Don't care about the trust, or people on the board being fans or having a connection to the club. Thats an old firm way of thinking thats crept into Thistle a lot when if it isn't someone who we deem as being one of us we chastise them with an incredible amount of paranoia, Caldwell has been going through that since the day he got the job. We won't get rid of managers or players or people with a connection to the club because they've served us well. Club needs to be a lot more ruthless. Again, like Kilmarnock, we sat with our finger up our arse with Archie and they binned Lee McCulloch and got Clarke in. Kilmarnock should not really be much bigger if at all than Thistle yet in the last 25 years they've not been relegated, been in Europe umpteen times, beaten the old firm more than I care to remember, won two cups, several high finishes etc, and guess what they've run up a lot of debt as well at several points, but success will never come for free, it hasn't for any provincial club anywhere, and look how many managers Killie went through in the time we were in the top league. Lots, because they have a fanbase with higher expectations whilst we were largely just greatful to be in that league. Thats what years of suffering in the lower leagues has done to us, the slightest improvement and we get nose bleeds and misty eyed.
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.
-
1 minute ago, avie-man said:
I am all for this. The club IMO is on the verge of another sleepy period after relegation as has happened each of the last three periods we've dropped out of the top league. There isn't the money or the infrastructure to get us up on our own. If we do somehow go up, it won't be sustained. It was only sustained for a brief period last time out whilst a load of bigger clubs worked their way through some problems and when they all returned refreshed to the top league we got relegated.
I have quite a laid back attitude to it. I see people online who have been very critical of Low and Caldwell suddenly having reservations about this. Well IMO we have suffered enough, and again someone pointed out Hearts, Livi, Dundee etc had questionable ownership, well big ******* deal, they all got into Europe, won cups in some cases and then shafted their creditors in the end anyway or hell in other cases clubs have went bust and its as if it never happened. Everyone's done it whilst we've played by the rules and still almost ran into serious problems on several occasions needing new investment on the board and a ******* rugby team to bail us out, and here we are again closing stands, cutting back on staff at the club. We're now verging on a generation of PTFC supporters who know us as a lower league club. A skint one as well.
Theres a very low self esteem attitude at PTFC. People treat ambition as a bad word. Years and years of underachievement will do that I suppose. When did we last take a gamble of any sort?
You've got a team like Killie for instance who are in now in Europe simply on the basis of taking a financial gamble on an outstanding manager. They went from relegation contenders to the best of the rest with that one decision pretty much. Much the same players as the previous manager.
In relative terms to their wealth their investment is going to cost them pennies.
Theres a core of fans at the club who will take 6th or worse in this league until the end of time because you know "I just want a club to support". This guy I don't think is going to splash the cash, we're just going to be another part of the system, but hes our best hope in a long time of genuine wealth coming into the club which can propell us to a sustainably higher level. Get rich or die trying I say. I can't take another decade of mediocrity at this level and just sporting an acceptance of existence.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Really ? So no other fan is commenting on this
You have accused me of spreading rumours about a takeover - well thats not true- as other people had posted it before I commented - you accused me of of acting in Concert with a "Consortium " for personal gain - well thats not true - your accusing me of discussing the finances as a Whispering Campaign - whereas Ive stated lots of times publicly about the Finances - but here is the thing - any takeover has nada to do with me - of course Im going to comment - so has halve the Fan base BUT the pulling together of any takeover bid - being involved in it - your barking up the wrong tree mate - and who exactly Im I spinning the pot to ? any takeover either will or wont happen the 55% shareholders have acted in concert - thats unprecedented- so you may want to ask what motivated them - to a Man they are long term supporters of Thistle - most of them put up there own cash -but rather than ask the serious question as to why they have taken this decision ( assuming they have ) you seem intent on attacking me ? I didnt influence anything on any level - I may agree with things - Ive spoken to a few of them over the last 12 Months - but I suggest you shut up - as Im not part of the takeover- nor orchestrating a campaign on there behalf - which is what your implying - go ask yourself - if you believe there is a consortium of Shareholders - WHY are the doing 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.
-
37 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
But our current Board dont really have a connection to the Club - nor any shares - nor have invested - so where is the difference -apart from the real possibilty of some success- we are dying anyway - so why not ?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Garscube Road End said:
I am slightly uncomfortable if the club are using this particular platform for publicity. Kingsley was a masterstroke, and the pink strip was for a great cause. Hopefully I am reading this wrong.
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.
-
1 hour ago, sandy said:
That’s it then, defend the club to the hilt @javeajag. I tell you what, fans like @Norgethistle and @Jordanhill Jag know more of the truth.
So today the Club bin Ross Quaile, who has been a brilliant sponsorship & fundraising person. He persuaded me to put in nearly £2k into Thistle last Autumn as I wanted to support the Club after relegation.
No more this coming season, that revenue has gone. This Club we all love is going to the dogs; and I’m afraid the Board & Caldwell have to share the blame for Erskine, Dools, financial projections that were wrong, the closure of the Excellent Main Stand.
We have flushed our Thistle legacy & uniqueness down the toilet this season. This is not the Club I have followed for 20 years.
So it’s over and out from me now. no doubt @Third Lanark and @jagfoxwill be over the moon.
But I’ll be back when this regime has ended. I’ll be here when the 3 stooges have long gone.
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.
New Owner
in Main Jags forum
Posted
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.