Propco Deal

[Ma Ba']

Is there a 'plan B' if the planning application is refused?

 

or will the bank suddenly get interested again?

[stolenscone]

Is there a 'plan B' if the planning application is refused?

 

or will the bank suddenly get interested again?

 

The initial cash from the property deal (such as it was) has already been realised by the football club - the investors have paid for their half share in the development company. The club will benefit again if and when the development makes a profit, but only to the extent that the club's half share in the profits is greater than the cost of creating the new facilities that will be required at the South end following demolition of the main stand.

 

Those who attended the club's last AGM may be able to correct me here, but my recollection is that Gavin Stewart advised that it was unlikely that the level of profit would be sufficient to generate much additional cash, although clearly there is an incentive for the investors to maximise their return.

 

The lion's share of the risk in the property deal failing therefore lies with the investors, although the football club also has an interest to ensure that it succeeds.

 

The issue is not so much what happens if the property deal fails, but rather what will happen if, having cut the debt following this initial injection of cash, the debt starts to creep up again and the bank refuses to extend it's line of credit. I dread to think what the answer to that question sie.

 

Hopefully that makes some sense.

[Alan Murray]

The initial cash from the property deal (such as it was) has already been realised by the football club - the investors have paid for their half share in the development company. The club will benefit again if and when the development makes a profit, but only to the extent that the club's half share in the profits is greater than the cost of creating the new facilities that will be required at the South end following demolition of the main stand.

 

Those who attended the club's last AGM may be able to correct me here, but my recollection is that Gavin Stewart advised that it was unlikely that the level of profit would be sufficient to generate much additional cash, although clearly there is an incentive for the investors to maximise their return.

 

The lion's share of the risk in the property deal failing therefore lies with the investors, although the football club also has an interest to ensure that it succeeds.

 

The issue is not so much what happens if the property deal fails, but rather what will happen if, having cut the debt following this initial injection of cash, the debt starts to creep up again and the bank refuses to extend it's line of credit. I dread to think what the answer to that question sie.

 

Hopefully that makes some sense.

 

Not sure if this has been asked before but what happens to proco if we go into admin?

[stolenscone]

Not sure if this has been asked before but what happens to proco if we go into admin?

 

The football club's half share in the main stand and south end (together with all other assets) would fall to be dealt with by the administrator. If the club could not be saved, then a liquidator would likely be appointed to flog the assets and realise what cash it can for the club's creditors.

 

If that ever happened, then it would be the end of PTFC. You'd have to ask yourself who would be interested in a half share in a property company. The likely answer is the owners of the other half.

[Allan Heron]

The football club's half share in the main stand and south end (together with all other assets) would fall to be dealt with by the administrator. If the club could not be saved, then a liquidator would likely be appointed to flog the assets and realise what cash it can for the club's creditors.

 

If that ever happened, then it would be the end of PTFC. You'd have to ask yourself who would be interested in a half share in a property company. The likely answer is the owners of the other half.

 

Many of whom just happen to be directors of the company that's gone into administration.......

 

Cart? Horse? Hiddleston?

[jaf]

Many of whom just happen to be directors of the company that's gone into administration.......

 

Cart? Horse? Hiddleston?

 

Exactly Allan

 

And its not just half share of a property company...its the remaining unsold area of the ground too??

 

People who have a track record of losing money are in control of a Board which if it loses money will render those same peoples assets worth more. It is a conflict of interest beyond all conflicts. The ethics of propco have always been my major problem with it.

 

I would disagree with one point that David makes, I actually am not of the view that in the medium to long term the investors are taking a majority of the risk here. Without safeguards on the conflicts that exist, I think the risk rests far more heavily with the football club IMO.

[jaf]

The football club's half share in the main stand and south end (together with all other assets) would fall to be dealt with by the administrator. If the club could not be saved, then a liquidator would likely be appointed to flog the assets and realise what cash it can for the club's creditors.

 

If that ever happened, then it would be the end of PTFC. You'd have to ask yourself who would be interested in a half share in a property company. The likely answer is the owners of the other half.

 

There would be a cumpolsory transfer according to the mem and arts. At market value which for the club shares is probably round about zero. No need to speculate, it would happen.

 

I wonder if there is an option or pre-emption right over the remaining club land assets too.............

[honved]

There would be a cumpolsory transfer according to the mem and arts. At market value which for the club shares is probably round about zero. No need to speculate, it would happen.

 

I wonder if there is an option or pre-emption right over the remaining club land assets too.............

 

That for me would put the final nail in the coffin of the "Thistle minded" defence.

[Blackpool Jags]

Maybe the JT should formally write to the club seeking confirmation these very relevant terms of reference. The new club board rep, when she's finally afforded an invite to one of their meetings, could raise this matter without being bound by the arcane confidentiality clauses which hamper communications to the Trust and fanbase surely?

[northernsoul]

Or why not the Jags Trust propose to the BoD a meeting with the fans, to discuss this and everything else going on at the Club.

[McKennan]

You'd have to ask yourself who would be interested in a half share in a property company. The likely answer is the owners of the other half.

 

[Blackpool Jags]

Or why not the Jags Trust propose to the BoD a meeting with the fans, to discuss this and everything else going on at the Club.

 

A much better idea, but I think they'd shite themselves at the thought of this and just continue to make a baws of most things they deal with till we are no more and they can cash in their equity on our stadium.

[stolenscone]

I would disagree with one point that David makes, I actually am not of the view that in the medium to long term the investors are taking a majority of the risk here. Without safeguards on the conflicts that exist, I think the risk rests far more heavily with the football club IMO.

 

 

Apologies, Sandy. I know that you understand the full consequences of this and I have been guilty of perhaps over simplifying here in order to ensure that my response was fairly easy to understand. I appreciate that may have been at the risk of misleading slightly, which was not my intention.

 

It's difficult to have this sort of discussion in public when you hold an official position - I would not want to be seen to accuse anyone of being underhanded, although clearly there are risks in the way that this is all set up should someone decide to be less philanthropic and more motivated by personal gain. The lack of apparent checks and balances is concerning.

[jaf]

Apologies, Sandy. I know that you understand the full consequences of this and I have been guilty of perhaps over simplifying here in order to ensure that my response was fairly easy to understand. I appreciate that may have been at the risk of misleading slightly, which was not my intention.

 

It's difficult to have this sort of discussion in public when you hold an official position - I would not want to be seen to accuse anyone of being underhanded, although clearly there are risks in the way that this is all set up should someone decide to be less philanthropic and more motivated by personal gain. The lack of apparent checks and balances is concerning.

 

Understood David, and I undestand the diplomatic/political intricacies whether or not I think that is the right approach!!!

 

But what is easy to understand, and what is a statement of fact, is the articles of propco and what they state, which clarifies one of your earlier posts on the consequences of insolvency, and then comes back round full circle to even enforce further the need for checks and balances.

[Ma Ba']

em, sorry, I think it was posted elsewhere but I cant find the info, but when is the Propco planning being considered by the Council?

[stolenscone]

em, sorry, I think it was posted elsewhere but I cant find the info, but when is the Propco planning being considered by the Council?

 

The application was validated by the Council on 28 June 2010. The Council has a statutory timescale for making a decision of 4 months. The matter is, as I understand it, currently out for consultation with certain bodies (e.g. the roads dept) and as of a few weeks ago, the Council were waiting for responses from some of the consultees. The Council expect a decision to be made before the end of October deadline, but as ever, you can never get them to commit to giving an earlier response.

 

For those interested in following progress, the application number is (I think) 10/01480/DC and Glasgow council has a fairly good planning portal on its website.

 

Hope this helps.

[Ma Ba']

Thanks for that

[BearsdenLoyal]

Is there a 'plan B' if the planning application is refused?

 

or will the bank suddenly get interested again?

 

I hope the planning application for the old home-end falls flat on its backside. It's half-arsed and it doesn't look as if the club would benefit as much as it should. Property speculators are often dodgy chancers.

 

I've told you what Plan B should be. The old home-end AND old main stand have to be completely transformed simultaneously -- into a live music venue, casino, lapdancing club, apartments, sports bar, restaurant, selected retail outlets, etc., etc., etc.

 

Planning consultants with a bit of imagination need to be appointed first -- to draw up a real alternative for the future of Firhill and, most of all, the preservation of the club I've supported for over 40 years -- Partick Thistle FC. Stands to fackin reason, dunnit?

Edited September 17, 2010 by BearsdenLoyal

[BearsdenLoyal]

The Council expect a decision to be made before the end of October deadline.

 

Just hope there are enough objections to this messy, half-arsed plan and PTFC goes back to the drawing board and starts using a bit of REAL imagination for the old home-end/main stand (see my post above).

Edited September 17, 2010 by BearsdenLoyal

[Dr.D]

Just hope there are enough objections to this messy, half-arsed plan and PTFC goes back to the drawing board and starts using a bit of REAL imagination for the old home-end/main stand (see my post above).

does anyone know if it costs much money to submit these applications?

[northernsoul]

I hope this shambles is rejected. Just like the previous one was which has reduced the City End to a grassy mound.

[BearsdenLoyal]

does anyone know if it costs much money to submit these applications?

 

 

Why?

 

Are you talking about the cost of submitting a planning application or lodging an objection to it?

Edited September 17, 2010 by BearsdenLoyal

[BearsdenLoyal]

I hope this shambles is rejected. Just like the previous one was which has reduced the City End to a grassy mound.

 

Best post, so far ...

[yoda-jag]

I hope this shambles is rejected. Just like the previous one was which has reduced the City End to a grassy mound.

 

My thoughts entirely.

 

The planning application should be thrown out, and these so-called Thistle-Minded chancers should not be allowed to make a penny out of the continuing ruination of Firhill that they and others eejits on the board are party to.

[BearsdenLoyal]

I just hope nobody thinks they can make money out of PTFC -- for their own selfish financial gain. Ye can shove yer filthy lucre where the sun don't shine. PTFC is not for sale. Now **** off.

Edited September 17, 2010 by BearsdenLoyal