admin
-
Posts
169 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by admin
-
-
1 minute ago, jagfox said:
I deleted nothing.
No I did it for you. Don't post it again.
-
Are you all on the collective mad pills tonight?
Do me a favour can you all froth in indication without recourse to personal abuse and/or potentially litigious content?
Seriously if my phone pings with another report I'm going to throw the bloody thing against a wall and I've the best part of a year before my next upgrade. :-)
Play at least semi nice for the foreseeable please.
-
@jagfox
I couldn't care less for your own personal disregard for potential legal difficulties but you could get this forum, and me, in bother. Do not contuine with the line you are following.Like some others maybe stepping away from the forum for a bit would be no bad thing.
-
7 minutes ago, jagfox said:
Check out @Garscube Road End @sandy
Must I? I'm pissed off enough as it is :-)
Seriously, if there are issues there then hit Report and I'll have a look. I can imagine the nature of it all.
-
@Third Lanark I'm receiving multiple reports about your posts tonight.
You might want to step away and stop posting for a bit and you certainly want to give thought to how you post and how you react to certain posters.
-
This thread is, understandably, generating some heated debate but it's stepping over the mark on occasion to the degree that posts are being reported due to "personal abuse".
PMs have been sent asking for this to stop but this is a gentle, public, request for all to try and cut out the abuse.
-
Just now, jlsarmy said:
No but the game gets held up as we’ve seen in the past if a team bus is late, that won’t be the case for individual players getting caught up in traffic
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.
-
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.
Kris Doolan Testimonial
in Main Jags forum
Posted
There is a match programme.