Training Ground

[Fawlty Towers]

30 minutes ago, jagfox said:

Interesting points made from both sides, imo. People are all a bit too binary these days, wrong or right. Yes or no. There’s a lot of grey out there too 

50 shades - so I am told 

[Auld Jag]

44 minutes ago, jagfox said:

Interesting points made from both sides, imo. People are all a bit too binary these days, wrong or right. Yes or no. There’s a lot of grey out there too 

Just like what is left of my hair.

[jlsarmy]

If you’re a landlord of anything, you tell the tenant what price it is to rent , not sure the rent goes up or down if your circumstances change .

This situation is slightly different because of the Weirs investment but I would be much more comfortable if at the end of say a 10 year period that it actually became an asset of PTFC rather than pay a rent indefinitely.

[Jordanhill Jag]

8 hours ago, javeajag said:

What is your point ? Paying £125k for our brand new training facility which we pay now anyway is wrong because we paid less in the past ? We paid less for everything in the past!

will the centre be value for money , will it help even a little bit ..., yes 

time you stopped whining 

£125k is based on a revenue of £3mn - going forwards it will be half that - we cant afford that sort of money 

[jagfox]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

£125k is based on a revenue of £3mn - going forwards it will be half that - we cant afford that sort of money 

It’s okay the Weirs will bale us out...

[eljaggo]

Please stop.

[Pinhead]

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

£125k is based on a revenue of £3mn - going forwards it will be half that - we cant afford that sort of money 

I am sure there would have been some kinda sliding scale built into the financing of this based on what league we were in....at least i hope that would be the case!

[Guest]

On 12/28/2018 at 7:11 PM, Jordanhill Jag said:

No thats an opinion based on experience - you dont agree - fine - but its not nonsense as the reality of what happened points in that direction   

Yes but once again for the hard of understanding jim, this will have had nothing to do with the input/involvement of colin weir.

Clearly a little envy or perhaps jealousy creeping in?

 

You are right, you are entitled to an opinion and based on the facts to hand you are clearly wrong and nothing i or anyone else says or indeed the facts as presented by yourself will convince you that your opinion is wrong.

Therefore i am left thinking you are jealous of the weirs involvement, or their status, or are pursuing an agenda against them by blaming their involvement in Thistle as the reason for all of our ills. This being the case you must be unwell, deluded or pure mad mental on the eggnog.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Guest
Shooking spooling........

[jlsarmy]

On 12/29/2018 at 1:46 PM, Thistleberight said:

Yes but once again for the hard of understanding jim, this will have had nothing to do with the input/involvement of colin weir.

Clearly a little envy or perhaps jealousy creeping in?

 

You are right, you are entitled to an opinion and based on the facts to hand you are clearly wrong and nothing i or anyone else says or indeed the facts as presented by yourself will convince you that your opinion is wrong.

Therefore i am left thinking you are jealous of the weirs involvement, or their status, or are pursuing an agenda against them by blaming their involvement in Thistle as the reason for all of our ills. This being the case you must be unwell, deluded or pure mad mental on the eggnog.

Doubtful if you’ll see a training Centre in Kirkintilloch in June but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Going to throw a question out there , when does it become a commercial investment for the company building it , is at after the initial outlay has been paid for ? It seems to me we’re getting tied into a deal on a long lease where it’ll never become something we actually own, might be great facilities but it’s obviously coming at a cost .

[javeajag]

11 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

Doubtful if you’ll see a training Centre in Kirkintilloch in June but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Going to throw a question out there , when does it become a commercial investment for the company building it , is at after the initial outlay has been paid for ? It seems to me we’re getting tied into a deal on a long lease where it’ll never become something we actually own, might be great facilities but it’s obviously coming at a cost .

If planning permission is granted in January as planned  then the training centre will be open in June 

you do not know if there is a lease agreement nor if there is one what it’s terms are 

the cost is the same as the training facilities we currently do not own 

start 2019 positive !

[Guest]

11 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

Doubtful if you’ll see a training Centre in Kirkintilloch in June but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Going to throw a question out there , when does it become a commercial investment for the company building it , is at after the initial outlay has been paid for ? It seems to me we’re getting tied into a deal on a long lease where it’ll never become something we actually own, might be great facilities but it’s obviously coming at a cost .

Yes, i agree with the aspect of paying rent as opposed to a mortgage when at some point in the future we as a club would own it but i'd doubt we would get finance to do this alone as if we owned the facility i don't think there would be much interest in other parties hiring the facilities to make this a profit making project.

So the way i am looking at it is this. The black cats are building it so no cost to PTFC. We then pay rent and yes the concern is how long we tie into this deal. But we are paying rent for garscube anyway. We need to have training facilities anyway and unless we return to using ruchill park, St Marys home for wayward boys or some other scrap of waste ground like some on here seem to want us to do then it's still a good deal. 

Of course the other option/opinion from i think stolen scone, is

we set up another company to handle the rent so PTFC can't be held liable if in the future we go part time etc etc and can't just walk away.

Though this is the point of this thread it was somewhat hijacked by the "what have the weir's ever done for us poster", it's good to be back on point

[Auld Jag]

I think a lot of this discussion is down to a general feeling of nothing going right at Firhill just now. When this was first muted I only remember very positive comments and how this would help us to attract players. We have been relegated. Went from looking to  be promoted to being happy to finish third bottom. Imo this should at the moment be a positive for us, as long as if our financial position changes we can re negotiate any rent we are paying, if this is required.

[Norgethistle]

On 12/29/2018 at 12:35 PM, Pinhead said:

I am sure there would have been some kinda sliding scale built into the financing of this based on what league we were in....at least i hope that would be the case!

You would hope so, but this is Thistle we’re talking about and we have a history of making stupid deals.

£125k on a turnover of £4million in the premiership is ok 

£125k on a turnover of £2million in 2nd year of Championship is heavy

£125k on a turnover of £1million in the 1st division would kill us

[Norgethistle]

4 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

I think a lot of this discussion is down to a general feeling of nothing going right at Firhill just now. When this was first muted I only remember very positive comments and how this would help us to attract players. We have been relegated. Went from looking to  be promoted to being happy to finish third bottom. Imo this should at the moment be a positive for us, as long as if our financial position changes we can re negotiate any rent we are paying, if this is required.

That is assuming we can negotiate. If you sign a lease on a flat then 2 months later your situation changes and your family income halves would your landlord half the rent?

[stolenscone]

48 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

That is assuming we can negotiate. If you sign a lease on a flat then 2 months later your situation changes and your family income halves would your landlord half the rent?

A fair comment, but it’s not uncommon to base a commercial rent on the tenant’s turnover for that year. So, the tenant pays a sum on account during the year, with a year end reackoning up once the annual turnover is known.

Flexibility could be built in, eg to deduct the 1st team playing budget from the annual turnover calculation.

Anyway, there are lots of options, if the landlord is willing to co-operate and people are willing to think a bit laterally. 

[jaf]

32 minutes ago, stolenscone said:

A fair comment, but it’s not uncommon to base a commercial rent on the tenant’s turnover for that year. So, the tenant pays a sum on account during the year, with a year end reackoning up once the annual turnover is known.

Flexibility could be built in, eg to deduct the 1st team playing budget from the annual turnover calculation.

Anyway, there are lots of options, if the landlord is willing to co-operate and people are willing to think a bit laterally. 

But is the person heading the negotiation of the lease terms for the club not a (former) representative of the owner of the investment company we are negotiating with?

Having said that, the Weirs clearly have the clubs best interests at heart, and so an appropriate deal must be hoped for.

 

[stolenscone]

It’s clear that this is never going to be a normal commercial negotiation. My concern is less about someone trying to take advantage of the situation and more that too little thought may be put into how it might be structured.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

You would hope so, but this is Thistle we’re talking about and we have a history of making stupid deals.

£125k on a turnover of £4million in the premiership is ok 

£125k on a turnover of £2million in 2nd year of Championship is heavy

£125k on a turnover of £1million in the 1st division would kill us

We still need to train somewhere, even if we are in the 1st Division. 

Where would that be that is cheaper than where we are training just now ?

[jlsarmy]

4 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

We still need to train somewhere, even if we are in the 1st Division. 

Where would that be that is cheaper than where we are training just now ?

That’s right but when Kilmarnock were struggling financially , they didn’t take up their option to renew their lease at Garscube and decided to take their training back to Rugby Park obviously helped by the artificial pitch. As long as there is flexibility written into the lease it shouldn’t be a problem because obviously Partick Thistle have had lots of peaks and troughs in their history and any lease would have to take this into account 

 

[Auld Jag]

2 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

That is assuming we can negotiate. If you sign a lease on a flat then 2 months later your situation changes and your family income halves would your landlord half the rent?

I would hope that the negotiations could be done on a season to season basis. Also with the Weirs being fans of Thistle I don't think they would leave us with a financial Albatross round our neck.

[partickthedog]

I am sure that any issue would not be with the Weirs themselves, but in due course with their successors or representatives whomsoever. No one knows the day when accident or illness may intervene and a seemingly stable situation can change drastically. 

The new Leicester City owner has apparently continued his late father's largesse. The Mileson family chose a different path as regards the family investment in Gretna. It is then that the small print might become more important. 

[javeajag]

5 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

You would hope so, but this is Thistle we’re talking about and we have a history of making stupid deals.

£125k on a turnover of £4million in the premiership is ok 

£125k on a turnover of £2million in 2nd year of Championship is heavy

£125k on a turnover of £1million in the 1st division would kill us

You are making an assumption that the amount would not be adjusted for the division we are in and where did £125k come from ?

[Woodstock Jag]

Being debt free is better than not being debt free, all other things being equal.

All else is often not equal, and I think Jim's point about the Weir money is how it has changed he culture of the club in terms of its attitude to its finances and the consequences of how decisions are taken about how the club is run.

By analogy, of course a student is better off, all other things being equal, if they have financial support from their parents while at University. There is less pressure to take on part time work or to go deep into the overdraft or student loan, which might otherwise detract from either their studies, their future finances, or both.

But we all know what students are like. A lot of them won't use their time as effectively as we would like to believe. That time not spent behind the bar invariably ends up being time spent propping it up, not just extra vital hours in the library. Having the burden sometimes strengthens the culture and work ethic.

When someone else is on the hook for your financially (and otherwise) costly decisions, there is an element of human nature which makes people and organisations complacent. As someone who has admittedly seen less of the Club first hand the last 18 months or so, it looks and feels like a more complacent place than it did even 2 years ago. Sure, the player budget is bigger by (up to) whatever our annual interest payments were before on the principal debt, but are we spending the money as intelligently? Are we using that as a cushion or as a springboard? In a sense, the Weirs basically are funding our day-to-day expenditure through that one off investment; you can't separate the two completely.

I think the Academy is ultimately a good thing, and the training facilities probably won't become a millstone around the neck unless in the third tier we'd literally otherwise be budgeting for tyres on rope in Ruchill Park. But the wider point about the impact of the Weir money on the psychology of the club as an organisation has some merit. Becoming debt free is inarguably a good thing, but just as winning the lottery itself can be a really good thing, it can also bring out the demons and weaknesses from those who stand to benefit from it.

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Being debt free is better than not being debt free, all other things being equal.

All else is often not equal, and I think Jim's point about the Weir money is how it has changed he culture of the club in terms of its attitude to its finances and the consequences of how decisions are taken about how the club is run.

By analogy, of course a student is better off, all other things being equal, if they have financial support from their parents while at University. There is less pressure to take on part time work or to go deep into the overdraft or student loan, which might otherwise detract from either their studies, their future finances, or both.

But we all know what students are like. A lot of them won't use their time as effectively as we would like to believe. That time not spent behind the bar invariably ends up being time spent propping it up, not just extra vital hours in the library. Having the burden sometimes strengthens the culture and work ethic.

When someone else is on the hook for your financially (and otherwise) costly decisions, there is an element of human nature which makes people and organisations complacent. As someone who has admittedly seen less of the Club first hand the last 18 months or so, it looks and feels like a more complacent place than it did even 2 years ago. Sure, the player budget is bigger by (up to) whatever our annual interest payments were before on the principal debt, but are we spending the money as intelligently? Are we using that as a cushion or as a springboard? In a sense, the Weirs basically are funding our day-to-day expenditure through that one off investment; you can't separate the two completely.

I think the Academy is ultimately a good thing, and the training facilities probably won't become a millstone around the neck unless in the third tier we'd literally otherwise be budgeting for tyres on rope in Ruchill Park. But the wider point about the impact of the Weir money on the psychology of the club as an organisation has some merit. Becoming debt free is inarguably a good thing, but just as winning the lottery itself can be a really good thing, it can also bring out the demons and weaknesses from those who stand to benefit from it.

I think some evidence needs to be provided for the assertion that the money from the weirs has had a negative cultural effect beyond opinion or suggesting ant negative thing in the club is down to that 

despite the weirs money there is no indication they are subsidising day to day spending therefore we can only spend money that is equivalent to our income which creates financial discipline 

mind you only Thistle fans would think having financial support is worse than being broke 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

I think some evidence needs to be provided for the assertion that the money from the weirs has had a negative cultural effect beyond opinion or suggesting ant negative thing in the club is down to that 

despite the weirs money there is no indication they are subsidising day to day spending therefore we can only spend money that is equivalent to our income which creates financial discipline 

mind you only Thistle fans would think having financial support is worse than being broke 

I’m not saying that it has. I think there is evidence of complacency having grown in the way the club is managed, on and off the pitch, in the last 18 months. I’m not stating categorically that it is solely, or even mainly, a direct result of the “Weir effect”. I do suspect, however, that the two are linked.

What kind of “evidence” would you require for proof? It’s a meaningless question to ask unless we know what you mean by evidence.

There is plenty indication (though not, I accept, categorical statements to the effect) that their money is subsidising parts of the core budget of the club. Clearing our debt was tantamount to ploughing in more than our annual debt interest in perpetuity. That’s not a subsidy in the literal sense of Mr Weir writing a marquee signing’s wage cheque every week, but its effect on the club budget is essentially the same and its capacity to change behaviours about how our money is spent is just the same. If anything paying off the debt is actually *more* of a subsidy, because it also removes the financial risk of the principal debt accrued in the first place.

Once the parachute payments are gone, the Club is very probably ****** unless it makes some drastic cuts to the player budget or finds other real ways of raising revenue.

And let’s not forget that Low has basically said Caldwell is getting money over and above the existing budget to strengthen in January. I don’t think that’s coming from a bearded man from Greenland with a love of flying antlered beasts, do you?

Edited January 1, 2019 by Woodstock Jag