New Owner

[javeajag]

16 minutes ago, West of Scotland said:

The only people they have to convince right now are the board.

Perhaps they think it's better to wait to show off their grand plans to encourage fans to come along to Firhill until they actually in a position to deliver.

Or perhaps they don't care at all.

There is no evidence from Barnsley that they care 

[West of Scotland]

So people don't trust Beattie and the rest of the board to do what's best for the club. I'm just wondering why that is.

Because we don't know a lot about the consortium?

As I just posted maybe they think it's not worth announcing their plans before they're in a position to implement those plans.

If it's such a worry to those who aren't shareholders, the best thing - the only thing - to do is tell the club they won't be back to Firhill until they are better informed.

I don't think anyone in this 165 page thread has announced they're boycotting until all their questions are answered.

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, blakey said:

Because of the little of what we know about the proposed takeover. It makes little sense.

I think looking at Barnsley it’s the best we have given the no information from the consortium- though it’s not clear if Chien lee is now part if it - and it’s a not very original buy em cheap sell high strategy in players and while that going on they take an income and dividend stream out of the club ....hardly transformational and not without risk as Barnsley debt has increased 

[blakey]

I think this thread is a colossal waste of time. 2 sides firmly entrenched. I can’t see either side convincing the other unfortunately. Let’s hope the board stuff comes to conclusion soon. 

We can then return to debating the important stuff eg. Is big Sean a donkey or the next beckenbauer. Both appear to be right; depending on the Saturday.

 

[javeajag]

5 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Quick question.

TFE states it plans to buy 75% of the shares. Does that then mean that one of the trusts has agreed to sell to it?

Unless someone from TFE is on this thread your questions are better directed to them no ?

[scotty]

3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Quick question.

TFE states it plans to buy 75% of the shares. Does that then mean that one of the trusts has agreed to sell to it?

Think you know that they can't! But seeing your point I wonder though if what is meant is 75% of the available shares?

[jlsarmy]

8 minutes ago, scotty said:

I'm not concerned about them selling their shares in the club. It's who they're selling them to that is worrying me. I'm also getting curious as to whether or not they are going to even consider a fans' buyout alternative.

I don’t think they will unless it involves the Propco deal as well which I think was their main objective when Beattie and co came back on the scene.

[West of Scotland]

5 minutes ago, javeajag said:

There is no evidence from Barnsley that they care 

I don't know anything about Barnsley.

But if it's such a concern to you, email the club and explain that you won't be spending your money at Firhill until you know more.

Sport might feel like it's something more, but I'm afraid at the end of the day we're all just consumers. Stop buying, tell them why, then maybe you'll find out.

 

[scotty]

Just now, jlsarmy said:

I don’t think they will unless it involves the Propco deal as well which I think was their main objective when Beattie and co came back on the scene.

Sorry, but do you mean the the shareholders wont consider a fans' owned club unless propco is included or are you talking about the consortium buying (or not) out propco?

[javeajag]

11 minutes ago, West of Scotland said:

I don't know anything about Barnsley.

But if it's such a concern to you, email the club and explain that you won't be spending your money at Firhill until you know more.

Sport might feel like it's something more, but I'm afraid at the end of the day we're all just consumers. Stop buying, tell them why, then maybe you'll find out.

 

Now that’s funny ....cheered me up no end !

[javeajag]

11 minutes ago, scotty said:

Sorry, but do you mean the the shareholders wont consider a fans' owned club unless propco is included or are you talking about the consortium buying (or not) out propco?

Well according to Beattie the nameless consortium are not buying out propco ( which I understand it’s just money out the door for no good reason if your looking for a return, they don’t need it ) and TFE have said they will buy out propco 

[javeajag]

16 minutes ago, scotty said:

Think you know that they can't! But seeing your point I wonder though if what is meant is 75% of the available shares?

We don’t know if the 9 or 11 selling shareholders have 51% of the shares or higher but let’s say it’s the 55% that has been mentioned , add in Colin weirs 10% then you get to 65% ....it may be other shareholders have agreed to gift their shares 

[scotty]

15 minutes ago, West of Scotland said:

I don't know anything about Barnsley.

But if it's such a concern to you, email the club and explain that you won't be spending your money at Firhill until you know more.

Sport might feel like it's something more, but I'm afraid at the end of the day we're all just consumers. Stop buying, tell them why, then maybe you'll find out.

 

Community ownership gives fans the opportunity to become more than mere consumers and to have a stake in their club.

[Firhillista]

26 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

From the post on FB

 “Who would be on the board between the date of the share purchase and when elections are organised?
 
 
An interim or transition board would be appointed and made up of skilled people.  We are looking at the composition of that transition board now and would certainly consider any offers of support from those who wish to help.  It's important for Partick Thistle that we have continuity and stability both on and off the park.
 
Who would choose who those board members should be?
 
There would be a transitional board the composition of which would be part of the negotiations with the selling shareholders.”

 

This does not clarify how a board would be selected and by who

It's a transitional board. What's your point, caller? What Machiavellian plan are you concerned is hidden behind this? How will this lead ultimately to the destruction of Partick Thistle?

You've picked over every utterance from TfE, even throwing out the red herring of data protection to paint them as incompetents and charlatans, claiming that 'the judgement on social media is against them', and you're now reduced to highlighting one issue you claim is unclear from a lengthy response to fans questions.

Meanwhile, the venture capitalists get a free pass. A group whose record in football club ownership is less than stellar and information on which is available online gets no scrutiny whatsoever.

What don't you like about fan ownership?  Does it undermine the capitalist order? Genuinely bemused.

[scotty]

47 minutes ago, blakey said:

I think this thread is a colossal waste of time. 2 sides firmly entrenched. I can’t see either side convincing the other unfortunately. Let’s hope the board stuff comes to conclusion soon. 

We can then return to debating the important stuff eg. Is big Sean a donkey or the next beckenbauer. Both appear to be right; depending on the Saturday.

And while we're debating the merits or demerits of Mr McGinty how safe is the club without which we'd have nothing to debate?

[Norgethistle]

1 hour ago, Firhillista said:

It's a transitional board. What's your point, caller? What Machiavellian plan are you concerned is hidden behind this? How will this lead ultimately to the destruction of Partick Thistle?

You've picked over every utterance from TfE, even throwing out the red herring of data protection to paint them as incompetents and charlatans, claiming that 'the judgement on social media is against them', and you're now reduced to highlighting one issue you claim is unclear from a lengthy response to fans questions.

Meanwhile, the venture capitalists get a free pass. A group whose record in football club ownership is less than stellar and information on which is available online gets no scrutiny whatsoever.

What don't you like about fan ownership?  Does it undermine the capitalist order? Genuinely bemused.

My point is how long is the transitional board in place for? A month or a year and who selects them and how?

Im not against fan ownership but it seems less than  10% of our fan base is interested in this model (263 people) generating £50k a year if they all follow up on their pledges and stay interested.  Without Weir that would have taken 80 years to buy out the club and Propco.

Also based on this level of support, what happens if we need emergency cash, who is the go to person that can fund something there and then, even from a cash flow point of view. Previously that was Oliver, Allan, Beattie etc.  If the floodlights fail for example or we need to repair part of the stand after a storm.

The GDPR was not a red herring, I contacted them to highlight it, so they could fix it.  This was highlighted by others to them weeks ago on Twitter,  I contacted them directly on Thursday and after initially stating they didn’t need it they have now said they will fix it when I reminded them of the actual legislation. Hopefully they follow through on this, not only for themselves but for the 263 people who have registered their data.

 

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

My point is how long is the transitional board in place for? A month or a year and who selects them and how?

Im not against fan ownership but it seems less than  10% of our fan base is interested in this model (263 people) generating £50k a year if they all follow up on their pledges and stay interested.  Without Weir that would have taken 80 years to buy out the club and Propco.

Also based on this level of support, what happens if we need emergency cash, who is the go to person that can fund something there and then, even from a cash flow point of view. Previously that was Oliver, Allan, Beattie etc.  If the floodlights fail for example or we need to repair part of the stand after a storm.

The GDPR was not a red herring, I contacted them to highlight it, so they could fix it.  This was highlighted by others to them weeks ago on Twitter,  I contacted them directly on Thursday and after initially stating they didn’t need it they have now said they will fix it when I reminded them of the actual legislation. Hopefully they follow through on this, not only for themselves but for the 263 people who have registered their data.

 

Sounds like you should ask them your questions .... but it sounds a bit like the triumph of form over content .... is it better to be owned by people who care about the club and are supporters or some anonymous  investment vehicle ?

It seems apparently when  its fans like Beattie it’s fine but when it’s other fans it’s bad 

[BowenBoys]

1 hour ago, blakey said:

I think this thread is a colossal waste of time. 2 sides firmly entrenched. I can’t see either side convincing the other unfortunately. Let’s hope the board stuff comes to conclusion soon. 

We can then return to debating the important stuff eg. Is big Sean a donkey or the next beckenbauer. Both appear to be right; depending on the Saturday.

 

It's not always a simple matter of black or white. I would suggest he is closer to the donkey end of the spectrum.

Your first paragraph is, of course, entirely correct.

[Norgethistle]

11 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Sounds like you should ask them your questions .... but it sounds a bit like the triumph of form over content .... is it better to be owned by people who care about the club and are supporters or some anonymous  investment vehicle ?

It seems apparently when  its fans like Beattie it’s fine but when it’s other fans it’s bad 

I do ask them directly 

[Firhillista]

8 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

My point is how long is the transitional board in place for? A month or a year and who selects them and how?

Im not against fan ownership but it seems less than  10% of our fan base is interested in this model (263 people) generating £50k a year if they all follow up on their pledges and stay interested.  Without Weir that would have taken 80 years to buy out the club and Propco.

Also based on this level of support, what happens if we need emergency cash, who is the go to person that can fund something there and then, even from a cash flow point of view. Previously that was Oliver, Allan, Beattie etc.  If the floodlights fail for example or we need to repair part of the stand after a storm.

The GDPR was not a red herring, I contacted them to highlight it, so they could fix it.  This was highlighted by others to them weeks ago on Twitter,  I contacted them directly on Thursday and after initially stating they didn’t need it they have now said they will fix it when I reminded them of the actual legislation. Hopefully they follow through on this, not only for themselves but for the 263 people who have registered their data.

 

Sorry, this doesn't explain anything. Why does it matter how long the transitional board is in place? It's transitional. What do you think they're going to do?

10% of the support have pledged their support already. Not enough you say, but we've only just started. And, oh, I don't know, maybe more would commit if there wasn't so much negativity about the process? And previous experience at other clubs - and let's remember this model is already in place at other clubs in Scotland - shows that more people commit when the fan ownership is established.

'Without Weir...' seems a bizarre argument - he's here! He's offering to fund the buyout. Why is his money less attractive than New City Finance?

And the whataboutery of maybe needing emergency cash. Well, quite. Maybe the floodlights will fall down. What then, eh? Well maybe any well run organisation would have contingency funds in place. It doesn't need the backing of a rich benefactor. (Which, it might be worth pointing out, we actually have.)

The information they have collected is the name, telephone number and email address of interested fans. Again, whether the holding of this information complies with data protection (which it should) seems hardly to be the smoking gun which condems the entire approach.

Any process such as this has to start small before growing. It needs to build support. I still don't understand why some people apparently want to see it drowned at birth.

[Norgethistle]

16 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Sounds like you should ask them your questions .... but it sounds a bit like the triumph of form over content .... is it better to be owned by people who care about the club and are supporters or some anonymous  investment vehicle ?

It seems apparently when  its fans like Beattie it’s fine but when it’s other fans it’s bad 

It’s better to be owned by people who know how to run a business at a profit and have finances to cover any eventuality. If that’s Jags fans (Like Beattie) then that’s a plus.  Forget the heartstrings being tugged here, currently the model will only generate £50k a year if all follow through with their pledges and to the level mentioned. I know bowling clubs that generate more.

[Norgethistle]

1 minute ago, Firhillista said:

Sorry, this doesn't explain anything. Why does it matter how long the transitional board is in place? It's transitional. What do you think they're going to do?

10% of the support have pledged their support already. Not enough you say, but we've only just started. And, oh, I don't know, maybe more would commit if there wasn't so much negativity about the process? And previous experience at other clubs - and let's remember this model is already in place at other clubs in Scotland - shows that more people commit when the fan ownership is established.

'Without Weir...' seems a bizarre argument - he's here! He's offering to fund the buyout. Why is his money less attractive than New City Finance?

And the whataboutery of maybe needing emergency cash. Well, quite. Maybe the floodlights will fall down. What then, eh? Well maybe any well run organisation would have contingency funds in place. It doesn't need the backing of a rich benefactor. (Which, it might be worth pointing out, we actually have.)

The information they have collected is the name, telephone number and email address of interested fans. Again, whether the holding of this information complies with data protection (which it should) seems hardly to be the smoking gun which condems the entire approach.

Any process such as this has to start small before growing. It needs to build support. I still don't understand why some people apparently want to see it drowned at birth.

You mention “We” can I take from that you are involved 

[javeajag]

13 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

It’s better to be owned by people who know how to run a business at a profit and have finances to cover any eventuality. If that’s Jags fans (Like Beattie) then that’s a plus.  Forget the heartstrings being tugged here, currently the model will only generate £50k a year if all follow through with their pledges and to the level mentioned. I know bowling clubs that generate more.

You don’t know who is going to run it. If you do can I have the euro millions numbers ! 

We have had jags fans in the past who were business people who got us into debt ...remember ?

their model as you put would generate £50k in addition to all the other revenue streams 

Faced with the choice of them or some faceless bankers .... 

 

[Firhillista]

8 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

You mention “We” can I take from that you are involved 

I'm involved as much as I've pledged support. One of the 10%.

Would it invalidate my arguments if I was involved more?

You mention that it would be better if the club was run by business people who have finances to cover any eventuality - is that how you think most busineses operate?

I thought the main opposition to Colin Weir's involvement was that we shouldn't be reliant on a sugar daddy?

The TfE responses posted this morning make it clear that the money raised in pledges is ADDITIONAL to the money generated by the club in its normal operations. Why are you representing it as the club's sole income?

I still don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss this approach. The arguments you've put up against it aren't entirely logical.

[dl1971]

47 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

Sorry, this doesn't explain anything. Why does it matter how long the transitional board is in place? It's transitional. What do you think they're going to do?

10% of the support have pledged their support already. Not enough you say, but we've only just started. And, oh, I don't know, maybe more would commit if there wasn't so much negativity about the process? And previous experience at other clubs - and let's remember this model is already in place at other clubs in Scotland - shows that more people commit when the fan ownership is established.

'Without Weir...' seems a bizarre argument - he's here! He's offering to fund the buyout. Why is his money less attractive than New City Finance?

And the whataboutery of maybe needing emergency cash. Well, quite. Maybe the floodlights will fall down. What then, eh? Well maybe any well run organisation would have contingency funds in place. It doesn't need the backing of a rich benefactor. (Which, it might be worth pointing out, we actually have.)

The information they have collected is the name, telephone number and email address of interested fans. Again, whether the holding of this information complies with data protection (which it should) seems hardly to be the smoking gun which condems the entire approach.

Any process such as this has to start small before growing. It needs to build support. I still don't understand why some people apparently want to see it drowned at birth.

Nail on head. Well said.