New Owner

[Norgethistle]

20 minutes ago, Firhillista said:

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.

If you were part of it then you could put some substance and clarity behind some of the answers and arguments.

We shouldn’t be reliant on a sugar daddy, but we should be able to pull from funds (either in bank or soft loan from directors) if we run into a cash flow issue. The plan is to effectively break even, so if we have a hard winter with say 3 home games canceled in a row, there is no income for that period but normal (or increased if undersoil heating has been on to try and get games on),  How would £4K a month plug that? The biggest issue for companies our size is cash flow, that is where directors have helped out before, either at Thistle or other companies, the difference with us is we have no banking facilities.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

7 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

If you were part of it then you could put some substance and clarity behind some of the answers and arguments.

We shouldn’t be reliant on a sugar daddy, but we should be able to pull from funds (either in bank or soft loan from directors) if we run into a cash flow issue. The plan is to effectively break even, so if we have a hard winter with say 3 home games canceled in a row, there is no income for that period but normal (or increased if undersoil heating has been on to try and get games on),  How would £4K a month plug that? The biggest issue for companies our size is cash flow, that is where directors have helped out before, either at Thistle or other companies, the difference with us is we have no banking facilities.

 

The no bank facilities is a myth. Of course we don’t pay our players and staff in cash, or our suppliers. What we don’t have is a loan facility.

One if the decisions that the new board (from whoever takes over) is to decide if one is needed and then to negotiate with the bank on the terms. Remember also that there will also be the reserves (held in a bank, not a tin in the office) which we know to be around £350k.

[Norgethistle]

10 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

The no bank facilities is a myth. Of course we don’t pay our players and staff in cash, or our suppliers. What we don’t have is a loan facility.

One if the decisions that the new board (from whoever takes over) is to decide if one is needed and then to negotiate with the bank on the terms. Remember also that there will also be the reserves (held in a bank, not a tin in the office) which we know to be around £350k.

No banking facilities means we do not have access to an overdraft or short term loan facilities at the bank

[javeajag]

On Twitter Thistle For Ever say they are preparing another q and a for more questions they have received 

[Norgethistle]

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

On Twitter Thistle For Ever say they are preparing another q and a for more questions they have received 

They can’t be faulted for attempting to answer

[javeajag]

Just now, Norgethistle said:

They can’t be faulted for attempting to answer

Agreed 

[Norgethistle]

I’m struggling to see how though with an additional £50k a year income from TFE how a sustainable top 6 team is achieved in 5 years.

[javeajag]

Just now, Norgethistle said:

I’m struggling to see how though with an additional £50k a year income from TFE how a sustainable top 6 team is achieved in 5 years.

It depends on whether there are additional income streams etc ...

to be further discussed 

[allyo]

3 hours ago, West of Scotland said:

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.

I don't distrust Beattie and the rest of the board.

But I'm still uncomfortable with international venture capitalists buying or club.

I dont think that is a conflicting position.

If they do sell to the consortium then I think they will do so in good faith, but I'll be concerned at their decision and its implications.

[javeajag]

If it was Jlow at the helm whilst we have basically a communication freeze from the club on this issue she would be getting pelters ..... it’s hard to say communication from the club has improved since the old guard returned 

[Norgethistle]

8 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It depends on whether there are additional income streams etc ...

to be further discussed 

Where would these come from? Colin Weir?

[allyo]

I've pledged. Figured that by only providing a name and an e-mail address my data isn't particularly threatened. I'm sure it's at greater risk elsewhere on the Internet.

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Where would these come from? Colin Weir?

I doubt and would hope that Colin weir didn’t  fund the club on any day to day basis 

continuing with current revenue approach we would be a club with income between c£4m-5m ....clubs survive in the premiership with that level of revenue 
 

atm I’m more concerned about being sold to ... well we don’t know who they are 

[Auld Jag]

38 minutes ago, allyo said:

I don't distrust Beattie and the rest of the board.

But I'm still uncomfortable with international venture capitalists buying or club.

I dont think that is a conflicting position.

If they do sell to the consortium then I think they will do so in good faith, but I'll be concerned at their decision and its implications.

As with a lot of things in life it is the fear of the unknown. At the moment we don't really know much about what the future holds for our club except that we will have different owners at some point. I just hope that whoever takes us over, comes out with their plans for Thistle once the deal is done and that it is to take the club forward and not use  us as a steping stone for their own ambitions.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Auld Jag

[Norgethistle]

15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I doubt and would hope that Colin weir didn’t  fund the club on any day to day basis 

continuing with current revenue approach we would be a club with income between c£4m-5m ....clubs survive in the premiership with that level of revenue 
 

atm I’m more concerned about being sold to ... well we don’t know who they are 

The statement (plan) isn’t to survive in premiership it’s to be a sustainable top 6 team. 

[javeajag]

4 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

The statement (plan) isn’t to survive in premiership it’s to be a sustainable top 6 team. 

I’m not responsible for what they say or what their ambitions are .... you do the detail  and I’ll stick with the big picture 

[Norgethistle]

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I’m not responsible for what they say or what their ambitions are .... you do the detail  and I’ll stick with the big picture 

So what’s the big picture. 

[javeajag]

Just now, Norgethistle said:

So what’s the big picture. 

Either being owned locally or by venture capitalists 

[allyo]

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Either being owned locally or by venture capitalists 

In a nutshell

[Norgethistle]

31 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Either being owned locally or by venture capitalists 

Surely the bigger picture is being sustainable 

[javeajag]

4 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Surely the bigger picture is being sustainable 

Explain how the venture capitalists make us sustainable 

[allyo]

7 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Surely the bigger picture is being sustainable 

That's not the choice though.

Sustainibility may or may not be achieved through either model. Though I'd argue that with fan ownership at least it would be the main purpose.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

I doubt and would hope that Colin weir didn’t  fund the club on any day to day basis 

continuing with current revenue approach we would be a club with income between c£4m-5m ....clubs survive in the premiership with that level of revenue 
 

atm I’m more concerned about being sold to ... well we don’t know who they are 

Ok so Im struggling with this - including a £250K parachute payment the Budget for this Year would have  a Budget deficit of £700K - shortfall to be funded by Cash reserves and Debt ( which you seemed to think had something to do with David Beattie - not sure why  )  

So if the aim is a Top ^ Sustainable Club - where is the Money Coming from to Fund that - because currently we are breaking even on the £700K deficit due to Liam Fitzy Sales & the Celtic Game - thats not going to be repeated - so by my Calcs No £250K Parachute payment - Liam Fitzy or Celtic Game income is a MASSIVE Hole to fund via Fans Contributions    

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, allyo said:

That's not the choice though.

Sustainibility may or may not be achieved through either model. Though I'd argue that with fan ownership at least it would be the main purpose.

But they have No Money ? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Explain how the venture capitalists make us sustainable 

They wont run out of cash thats one thing