New Owner

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, jagfox said:

You wonder why Hibs knocked them back?

Owners didn’t want to sell

[jlsarmy]

5 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ok.....there seems to be a view that Chinese and US billionaires are interested in buying the club because they are either passionate about urban re development in maryhill or want to make some money by borrowing against the stadium or building houses or doing some exotic transaction .....not going to happen this is about football 

if we could have sold the stadium to a supermarket or housing development  previous boards would have done it years ago......the amount of money involved in site preparation , the location and planning  issues  never mind the poor financial return mean it’s a non starter .....just wander around maryhill and yiu will see better and easier sites 

this is about football look there 

 

You should keep your mind open till we find out the facts , if they can build student flats within our stadium as it now , there is no reason why a developer couldn’t do another housing development.

I remember when they said the old Love St wasn’t fit for purpose , they sold the land and got a purpose built stadium out of it .

[javeajag]

5 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

You should keep your mind open till we find out the facts , if they can build student flats within our stadium as it now , there is no reason why a developer couldn’t do another housing development.

I remember when they said the old Love St wasn’t fit for purpose , they sold the land and got a purpose built stadium out of it .

your are way off beam

[jlsarmy]

10 minutes ago, javeajag said:

your are way off beam

At least debate it mate , it’s like cliche central with you , have you got any reservations at all about what’s going on ?

[Norgethistle]

1 hour ago, jaf said:

Colin and Christine Weir are shareholders - 5% each I believe.

I thought they gifted that to the new trust

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

I’d be surprised if he or any other non-shareholder was. Why would they be?

Colin Weir does not fund the club, merely the Academy (As per the boards statement), the Weir Academy is a different entity to the club but does have strong links to it.

I'm not buying that Norge. The fact jlow is colin weir's appointment tells me he is more invested in the actual football club than they are letting on. Or am I off the mark?

[Guest]

Did they though? This is the main issue, we are all involved in speculation. Until the club or the consortium make a statement and open up to an interview by a competent and neutral journalist we'll have no solid information.

[jaf]

34 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I thought they gifted that to the new trust

I am basing this on Companies House records.

[jaf]

Matter of public record Norge :   Shareholder	B%		A%	Total %
PARTICK THISTLE FOOTBALL CLUB TRUST	17.9		1.38	19.28
McMaster family	7.36		0.64	8
Eddie Prentice	7.07		0.39	7.46
Arch Investments (Tom Hughes)	7.07		0.39	7.46
Jags Trust	7.07		0.39	7.46
Springfords	7.08		0.38	7.46
Ronnie Gilfillan	7.07			7.07
Small shareholders less than 1%				6.89
Christine Weir	4.64		0.36	5
Colin Weir	4.64		0.36	5
Jim Oliver	3.54		0.8	4.34
Thomas Longley	3.54		0.19	3.73
David Beattie	3.54			3.54
Grant Bannerman	2.97			2.97
Billy Allan	2.72		0.21	2.93
Lord Kelvin	1.41			1.41
				100

[allyo]

2 hours ago, laukat said:

From what I've read the real strategy in this comes from Paul Conway who at Barnsley insisted that they recruit players under 25 which has 2 positive implications. First younger players tend to have lower wages and secondly younger players allow plenty of option for re-sale. So if you're looking to make money that starts to makes more sense.

If you can get a club like Thistle to be in the SPL with a squad full of under 25's you would probably turn a profit on a day to day basis and occasionaly make a chunk of money in one off transfer fee's or development fees.

Beyond Barnsley and Nice they've tried to buy Real Vallodolid so they obviously have big plans. Its also rumoured they were wanting to buy hibs but got rejected and turned to us.

If this is the strategy (and it sounds as convincing as anything else I've heard) then it means that the success of Thistle as a football team is not the ultimate goal. We are effectively being run as profit making enterprise to increase players' values, potentially to supply other clubs (higher up the portfolio chain), potentially to make money for shareholders, but not with the primary purpose of improving Thistle's league position, win rate or success as a football club.

These things are not mutually exclusive (i.e. players values are more likely to increase if we win), but that's not the point. If Thistle are not run for the benefit of Thistle, what's the point in supporting them?

[stolenscone]

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

You should keep your mind open till we find out the facts , if they can build student flats within our stadium as it now , there is no reason why a developer couldn’t do another housing development.

I remember when they said the old Love St wasn’t fit for purpose , they sold the land and got a purpose built stadium out of it .

The world has moved on dramatically since Love Street was sold.  There is no possibility of replicating values anything like those achieved by St Mirren in 2007. By the time the land was sold on to a new developer in 2015, the land had negative value (as it would cost more to remove the spoil and prepare the site for development than then land was worth to build out). 

You are quoting a deal which took place right at the top of the market and against a radically different “dash for space” which supermarkets were involved in at the time. That environment doesn’t exist and is unlikely to return.

I struggle to see the club as having sufficient assets of any value to justify an approach from an asset stripper. £3m land value seems very toppy to me.

Although, I also struggle to understand why any overseas investor with no emotional connection to the Club would be remotely interested in buying it.

[jaf]

31 minutes ago, stolenscone said:

 

Although, I also struggle to understand why any overseas investor with no emotional connection to the Club would be remotely interested in buying it.

If this is what they want to replicate over and again throughout Europe, they need successes to point to. Nice has been a qualified success. Barnsley WIP.

The price to achieve relative success is probably lower in Scotland than in many other countries.

 

[jaf]

36 minutes ago, allyo said:

If this is the strategy (and it sounds as convincing as anything else I've heard) then it means that the success of Thistle as a football team is not the ultimate goal. We are effectively being run as profit making enterprise to increase players' values, potentially to supply other clubs (higher up the portfolio chain), potentially to make money for shareholders, but not with the primary purpose of improving Thistle's league position, win rate or success as a football club.

These things are not mutually exclusive (i.e. players values are more likely to increase if we win), but that's not the point. If Thistle are not run for the benefit of Thistle, what's the point in supporting them?

They also tried to buy Middlesbrough, Palermo, and a couple of other European clubs.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, jaf said:

They also tried to buy Middlesbrough, Palermo, and a couple of other European clubs.

So factoring in that you cant "own" a Player anymore after Sanchez -   they are "owned" by the Club - if you have a Network of Clubs  then you could churn out Players - sell them - make a Profit get a return - couple of decent Sales and good sell on clauses then its a decent investment   - Accies did it for Years - so why not ?  

[jagfox]

Firhill Developments Limited haven't posted new figures in a while although a lot of the board seem to be the major shareholders in the football club?

[jlsarmy]

4 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So factoring in that you cant "own" a Player anymore after Sanchez -   they are "owned" by the Club - if you have a Network of Clubs  then you could churn out Players - sell them - make a Profit get a return - couple of decent Sales and good sell on clauses then its a decent investment   - Accies did it for Years - so why not ?  

Was Accies template not coach their own young players, give them a pathway to the first team and then sell them on , this sounds a bit different 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So factoring in that you cant "own" a Player anymore after Sanchez -   they are "owned" by the Club - if you have a Network of Clubs  then you could churn out Players - sell them - make a Profit get a return - couple of decent Sales and good sell on clauses then its a decent investment   - Accies did it for Years - so why not ?  

Another example is the sale of allan Hutton by rangers which covered the cost of building the then Murray park. Not that sevco is a good example and I hate to use them but the point being that the sale of one player every few seasons can justify the means.

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Was Accies template not coach their own young players, give them a pathway to the first team and then sell them on , this sounds a bit different 

Agreed - but things changed in Europe when you Companies could own a Players Contract and they got the Transfer Money - so you need a Club to get that now - buy up smaller Clubs - bring through Players - move them about within your Teams - sell them on - its not a bad Business Model 

As you know if we run things tightly at Firhill - we can break even without a lot of additional cash 

So it makes sense to me as to the Model they are looking at 

Man City own Girona ?  they were going bust - bought them for buttons - now they have a La Liga Team ?    

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

5 minutes ago, Thistleberight said:

Another example is the sale of allan Hutton by rangers which covered the cost of building the then Murray park. Not that sevco is a good example and I hate to use them but the point being that the sale of one player every few seasons can justify the means.

Correct £7 MN 

[allyo]

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Agreed - but things changed in Europe when you Companies could own a Players Contract and they got the Transfer Money - so you need a Club to get that now - buy up smaller Clubs - bring through Players - move them about within your Teams - sell them on - its not a bad Business Model 

As you know if we run things tightly at Firhill - we can break even without a lot of additional cash 

So it makes sense to me as to the Model they are looking at 

Man City own Girona ?  they were going bust - bought them for buttons - now they have a La Liga Team ?    

 

So in this business model, is success measured as promotion for Thistle or a high dividend for shareholdrs? As I say, not mutually exclusive, but also not 100% aligned. So where is the priority?

[AndyMac]

Many years ago, Ray Kroc, the owner of the McDonald's fast food chain was talking to some college business school students.

Ray Kroc asked the students "what business do you think I am in?" The students somewhat surprised replied "you're in the hamburger business Ray". To this Ray replied "No, I am in the real estate business".

Ray Kroc bought prime real estate in cities throughout the world. He then built a McDonald's restaurants on them and leased them out to franchisees. Ray Kroc always considered himself to be in the real estate business. The fast food business was just the icing on the cake.

Now ask yourself in what business did Chien Lee earn his billions?

Surprise surprise........... it's real estate.

[Third Lanark]

1 hour ago, allyo said:

If this is the strategy (and it sounds as convincing as anything else I've heard) then it means that the success of Thistle as a football team is not the ultimate goal. We are effectively being run as profit making enterprise to increase players' values, potentially to supply other clubs (higher up the portfolio chain), potentially to make money for shareholders, but not with the primary purpose of improving Thistle's league position, win rate or success as a football club.

These things are not mutually exclusive (i.e. players values are more likely to increase if we win), but that's not the point. If Thistle are not run for the benefit of Thistle, what's the point in supporting them?

Out of likes but well said 

[AndyMac]

1 hour ago, stolenscone said:

The world has moved on dramatically since Love Street was sold.  There is no possibility of replicating values anything like those achieved by St Mirren in 2007. By the time the land was sold on to a new developer in 2015, the land had negative value (as it would cost more to remove the spoil and prepare the site for development than then land was worth to build out). 

Spot on.

They will pick up Firhill for a song. It will be like taking candy off a baby.

[Third Lanark]

30 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So factoring in that you cant "own" a Player anymore after Sanchez -   they are "owned" by the Club - if you have a Network of Clubs  then you could churn out Players - sell them - make a Profit get a return - couple of decent Sales and good sell on clauses then its a decent investment   - Accies did it for Years - so why not ?  

Did Accies not have a board that were genuinely Accies minded.  I doubt Chien Lee or whoever would bat an eyelid if Partick Thistle went bust and would be left by the supporters to mourn

[Jordanhill Jag]

8 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Did Accies not have a board that were genuinely Accies minded.  I doubt Chien Lee or whoever would bat an eyelid if Partick Thistle went bust and would be left by the supporters to mourn

Nope - if anything they were more Thistle Minded - they started at Maryhill Juniors - then Clyde - then the Accies