David Beattie, The Management Duo, And Contracts

[Barney Rubble]

Point taken, but to be fair, they've been a "top-flight" team for only about 10 of the 70-odd years since the War.

 

And they've at least managed a couple of draws (vs. the Govan mob) or draws and wins (vs. the Porkheid mob) in the last 20 years or so.....

 

You forgot the cameo by a certain Mr Sprott at Castle Greyskull 30 years ago this month.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

 

 

I would imagine that without their involvement we would be back to the one year contracts and belt tightening, so don't underestimate what Colin and Christine have done and are currently doing for our great club.

 

Oh I def do appreciate what they have done but it looks to me they have been clever in their involvement. Clearing the debt is massive. Its been done. Its closed. The Weir Academy is great but its funded seperately from club. The 2 big decisions are not causing any dependencies in the running of the club. They have been advised well. Thistle are a very well run club. What we spend we earn with no reliance on a "sugar daddy" type.

[Woodstock Jag]

So where did the fee for Adam Barton come from then?

 

Without having specific inside knowledge or a detailed break-down of the player budget (and for that matter the actual fee paid, which after all was not publicly disclosed) it would be pure speculation on anyone's part what the answer to that question is.

 

The club did not renew the contracts of two of its reputedly higher earners (Frans and Seaborne, which we know from public statements that the terms offered were not as generous as their previous ones), and was no longer paying wages for Stevenson, who had been touted as a marquee signing in our first season back up on that three year deal. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that reallocation of the player budget explained (in large part) the signing of Adam Barton.

 

By a similar sentiment, nothwithstanding crowds being a few hundred down, that doesn't necessarily mean the club's revenue streams are down. It is possible that has been offset by more successful sponsorship revenues, with that side of the club's work becoming a lot more polished in the last couple of years.

 

Unless you know otherwise that the Weirs were specifically tapped for Barton, in which case why ask the question instead of just saying so?

[ian_mac]

WJ, again, I was only asking a question. It's the first time we've paid a fee for a player, to my knowledge, in nearly 2 decades. I remember us paying £50k for Scott McLean round about 99/00 which we were told at the time was down to an anonymous benefactor, rumoured to be the owner of the club sponsor. Since then I can't remember us paying fees for a player at all, certainly none of note. If you can correct me on this then please do, provided you have evidence.

 

As I don't know the answer to the original question, I didn't speculate on what the answer was. You and Martin both have, however, despite having no more facts available to you than me. Your post is pure speculation and conjecture. If you don't know the answer to the original question I fail to see what value you are adding to the discussion.

[The optimist]

Think we may have paid a transfer fee for Martin grehan from stirling a few seasons back. £30k if memory serves me correct.

 

I could be wrong on that though

[G SUS]

WJ, again, I was only asking a question. It's the first time we've paid a fee for a player, to my knowledge, in nearly 2 decades. I remember us paying £50k for Scott McLean round about 99/00

 

Was Liam Buchanan not a paid for signing? I want to say around 20k from Cowdenbeath, but I could be wrong.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Was Liam Buchanan not a paid for signing? I want to say around 20k from Cowdenbeath, but I could be wrong.

 

Think you're correct. Digressing a little but it's sometimes rather misleading thinking you're getting a player for free. Depending on the potential of the player in question you could be paying a considerable signing on fee. Chic Charnley for instance was rarely, if ever, involved in big money moves but done alright from signing on fees.

[jagfox]

We paid a fee of around £25,000 for Adebayo Azeez too.

[Jag]

As well as the Barton transfer fee we are putting players on three year contracts and, during the summer, paid a six figure sum to get the playing surface re-laid and drainage put in.

 

Much as I would like to believe the notion that we are now living within our means without assistance from the Weirs, I just can't.

[The optimist]

Anyone know how much we paid for Barton?

[Garscube Road End]

Anyone know how much we paid for Barton?

 

Heard it was around 40k.

[Woodstock Jag]

WJ, again, I was only asking a question. It's the first time we've paid a fee for a player, to my knowledge, in nearly 2 decades. I remember us paying £50k for Scott McLean round about 99/00 which we were told at the time was down to an anonymous benefactor, rumoured to be the owner of the club sponsor. Since then I can't remember us paying fees for a player at all, certainly none of note. If you can correct me on this then please do, provided you have evidence.

 

As I don't know the answer to the original question, I didn't speculate on what the answer was. You and Martin both have, however, despite having no more facts available to you than me. Your post is pure speculation and conjecture. If you don't know the answer to the original question I fail to see what value you are adding to the discussion.

 

I am fairly certain we paid a fee to acquire Liam Buchanan from Cowdenbeath, for starters. My memory of this is, admittedly, hazy, but I recall one of McCall's first video interviews on the club website indicating that a five figure fee was paid. We will have paid nominal fees to get several players released from the remainder of their contracts wherever they haven't been free agents or where they haven't already reached an agreement to be released by their respective clubs. Clearly, though, how nominal is nominal will depend on the player and club in question. There have been several players we have acquired who were still in contract, or who were in the latter stages of their contract with, other clubs. The only difference with Barton is that the rumoured fee was much more than what we would call "nominal" by our club's standards.

 

But I think you are proceeding on a false assumption that we have not paid fees to other clubs for any of our players except for Barton since the turn of the millennium.

 

You are being disingenuous here when you say that either Martin or I have inferred that Barton was acquired by any particular means. We have both simply stated that it is not known whether the resources came from within the existing player budget, or from additional resources elsewhere. We certainly do not know, as you were very clearly inferring given it came as a follow-up to a discussion about whether or not we are financially dependent on the Weirs, that they paid Barton's transfer fee. There are a myriad of possibilities, and it was you specifically that implied one of those possibilities was more probable by asking that question.

 

It is worth remembering, of course, that we have in fact received a (not insignificant) fee for one of our players within the last 18 months. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of that money was recycled into the player budget. But without knowing how much that budget itself has been adjusted year-to-year based on the club's other revenue streams, or a detailed break-down of how Archie and the Board have allocated that budget towards individual contracts, you quite simply do not have one single scoobie whether the transfer fee paid for Adam Barton was taken from those resources or if an outside benefactor, be it the Weirs or anyone else, was responsible for it.

 

You do not know that.

 

Unless you have specific evidence to the contrary.

 

You are the one that is not adding to the discussion, but distorting it. You can play as innocent as you like, but you were making a deliberate or reckless inference (whether or not accurate) based on the facts available to you, that the Weirs are connected to the Club having paid a fee (the amount which no one here even knows) to Portsmouth Football Club for Adam Barton.

 

Martin and I are adding to the discussion, by pointing out that your inference is pure speculation, and have given explanations for why it is speculation. We have not said that you are wrong; simply asked why you are prepared to imply that the Weirs having a part in it is more likely when you do not appear to have provided any evidence for that whatsoever.

 

But hey, feel free to take on the role of an American shock-jock radio host under the ruse of "just asking questions".

Edited January 30, 2017 by Woodstock Jag

[ThickAsThieves]

Did we not pay a small fee for Taylor-Sinclair too?

[Lindau]

Did we not pay a small fee for Taylor-Sinclair too?

 

Pretty sure we paid 10 grand for Aaron.

[ian_mac]

I am fairly certain we paid a fee to acquire Liam Buchanan from Cowdenbeath, for starters. My memory of this is, admittedly, hazy, but I recall one of McCall's first video interviews on the club website indicating that a five figure fee was paid. We will have paid nominal fees to get several players released from the remainder of their contracts wherever they haven't been free agents or where they haven't already reached an agreement to be released by their respective clubs. Clearly, though, how nominal is nominal will depend on the player and club in question. There have been several players we have acquired who were still in contract, or who were in the latter stages of their contract with, other clubs. The only difference with Barton is that the rumoured fee was much more than what we would call "nominal" by our club's standards.

 

But I think you are proceeding on a false assumption that we have not paid fees to other clubs for any of our players except for Barton since the turn of the millennium.

 

You are being disingenuous here when you say that either Martin or I have inferred that Barton was acquired by any particular means. We have both simply stated that it is not known whether the resources came from within the existing player budget, or from additional resources elsewhere. We certainly do not know, as you were very clearly inferring given it came as a follow-up to a discussion about whether or not we are financially dependent on the Weirs, that they paid Barton's transfer fee. There are a myriad of possibilities, and it was you specifically that implied one of those possibilities was more probable by asking that question.

 

It is worth remembering, of course, that we have in fact received a (not insignificant) fee for one of our players within the last 18 months. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of that money was recycled into the player budget. But without knowing how much that budget itself has been adjusted year-to-year based on the club's other revenue streams, or a detailed break-down of how Archie and the Board have allocated that budget towards individual contracts, you quite simply do not have one single scoobie whether the transfer fee paid for Adam Barton was taken from those resources or if an outside benefactor, be it the Weirs or anyone else, was responsible for it.

 

You do not know that.

 

Unless you have specific evidence to the contrary.

 

You are the one that is not adding to the discussion, but distorting it. You can play as innocent as you like, but you were making a deliberate or reckless inference (whether or not accurate) based on the facts available to you, that the Weirs are connected to the Club having paid a fee (the amount which no one here even knows) to Portsmouth Football Club for Adam Barton.

 

Martin and I are adding to the discussion, by pointing out that your inference is pure speculation, and have given explanations for why it is speculation. We have not said that you are wrong; simply asked why you are prepared to imply that the Weirs having a part in it is more likely when you do not appear to have provided any evidence for that whatsoever.

 

But hey, feel free to take on the role of an American shock-jock radio host under the ruse of "just asking questions".

Many thanks for taking 9 paragraphs (nine) to make a point that could have taken 2 sentences.

 

Again, where did I say the Weirs had paid for Barton? Nowhere, I asked a question.

 

Quite rich of you to accuse me of being a shock-jock radio host when you've just ranted like a drunken teenager at the debating society sub-crawl.

Edited January 30, 2017 by ian_mac

[Big Col]

We paid a fee of around £25,000 for Adebayo Azeez too.

 

And worth every penny.

[sandy]

 

Many thanks for taking 9 paragraphs (nine) to make a point that could have taken 2 sentences.

 

Again, where did I say the Weirs had paid for Barton? Nowhere, I asked a question.

 

Quite rich of you to accuse me of being a shock-jock radio host when you've just ranted like a drunken teenager at the debating society sub-crawl.

 

Right you two, square go behind the Northy....

[Woodstock Jag]

 

Many thanks for taking 9 paragraphs (nine) to make a point that could have taken 2 sentences.

 

Again, where did I say the Weirs had paid for Barton? Nowhere, I asked a question.

 

No one is saying you said it. They are saying you implied it. Because you did.

 

You implied it by asking the question in direct response to a discussion about whether or not the Weirs were bankrolling us. Unless you think they had a part in it, that question is totally irrelevant to the previous discussion.