Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
javeajag

Big Announcement

Recommended Posts

This is to be cautiously welcomed provided that:

(a) it returns unencumbered by any debt

(b) there are no plans to secure any debt against any part of the stadium or adjacent land

(c) the Club has not incurred significant expense in the transaction.

The approach taken back in November 2019 was distinctly ****-up over conspiracy when it came to LBTT and VAT. It’s a bit of a mystery why they did the original transaction the way they did. There is a case for saying that the stadium (in its entirety) should be in a different company than the footballing operations but part of the same group.

But in the round, it is better that decisions about the stadium, secured credit and redevelopment rest with the Club Board rather than Three Black Cats, albeit the latter still controls the former at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is to be cautiously welcomed provided that:

(a) it returns unencumbered by any debt

(b) there are no plans to secure any debt against any part of the stadium or adjacent land

(c) the Club has not incurred significant expense in the transaction.

The approach taken back in November 2019 was distinctly ****-up over conspiracy when it came to LBTT and VAT. It’s a bit of a mystery why they did the original transaction the way they did. There is a case for saying that the stadium (in its entirety) should be in a different company than the footballing operations but part of the same group.

But in the round, it is better that decisions about the stadium, secured credit and redevelopment rest with the Club Board rather than Three Black Cats, albeit the latter still controls the former at the moment.

Jesus……reading this I’m convinced it’s bad news 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Jesus……reading this I’m convinced it’s bad news 

No one is saying its Bad News - however given the fact that there is a complete breakdown between the Organisation Set Up with the Club ( TJF ) to transfer the Shares - and 3BC ( the Club Owners) then its right to qualify what appears on the surface to be "Good News" we still have no idea of the Club Finances 

However it does simplify any share transfer to the Fans as all Assetts are owned by the Club - and for the avoidance of doubt - Im still not convinced in Fan Ownership - however the success of Hearts & Motherwell show it can be done - my concern is that we become Stirling Albion - however Im fully supportive of TJF re-elections as it gives a Democratic Mandate for Negotiations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Jesus……reading this I’m convinced it’s bad news 

I’m not suggesting it is bad news. Simply that this very belated good news shouldn’t be understood in isolation from the Club’s wider financial and ownership position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

I’m not suggesting it is bad news. Simply that this very belated good news shouldn’t be understood in isolation from the Club’s wider financial and ownership position.

No that’s not what you said ….you flew a few kites, cast a few doubts and generally said it might be good news but on the other hand there might be all this bad stuff with zero evidence presented 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, javeajag said:

No that’s not what you said ….you flew a few kites, cast a few doubts and generally said it might be good news but on the other hand there might be all this bad stuff with zero evidence presented 

History in general suggests a measured dose of caution on any announcements is usually a wise choice. Some call it the ‘training ground’ theory.

Edited by sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, javeajag said:

No that’s not what you said ….you flew a few kites, cast a few doubts and generally said it might be good news but on the other hand there might be all this bad stuff with zero evidence presented 

I said it was to be “cautiously welcomed”.

I didn’t say “there might be all this bad stuff”. I said that it was good news as long as we have the full story and that there aren’t caveats we haven’t been told about.

That doesn’t mean I think those things will happen. It’s me not getting carried away about something in respect of which we are not in possession of full facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I said it was to be “cautiously welcomed”.

I didn’t say “there might be all this bad stuff”. I said that it was good news as long as we have the full story and that there aren’t caveats we haven’t been told about.

That doesn’t mean I think those things will happen. It’s me not getting carried away about something in respect of which we are not in possession of full facts.

It reminds of the story when w c fields was on his death bed and he asked for a bible causing great confusion amongst his friends as he was a confirmed hedonist …. When asked as he flicked through the pages of the bible what he was looking for he replied …..’ I’m looking for the catch ‘ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It reminds of the story when w c fields was on his death bed and he asked for a bible causing great confusion amongst his friends as he was a confirmed hedonist …. When asked as he flicked through the pages of the bible what he was looking for he replied …..’ I’m looking for the catch ‘ 

Well yes, if I was being told a son of a carpenter getting publicly crucified meant I had an eternity of peace ahead of me, I’d be checking the terms and conditions too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Well yes, if I was being told a son of a carpenter getting publicly crucified meant I had an eternity of peace ahead of me, I’d be checking the terms and conditions too.

Well I’ll take it that getting half the ground back with the ensuing increase in the asset value of the club , control of the ground etc is good news

unless you have any actual evidence to the contrary ? No you don’t 

you’ve got yourself into the situation where you demand that 3BC transfer ownership of the stadium but when they do you suggest it might be bad 

nuts 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Well yes, if I was being told a son of a carpenter getting publicly crucified meant I had an eternity of peace ahead of me, I’d be checking the terms and conditions too.

Right, I've got two teenagers here who are sons of a carpenter. I quite like the sound of this eternity of peace thingy. What do I do? Nail one of them to something?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Well I’ll take it that getting half the ground back with the ensuing increase in the asset value of the club , control of the ground etc is good news

It is good news as long as it's the full story.

33 minutes ago, javeajag said:

unless you have any actual evidence to the contrary ? No you don’t

I'm not claiming to have evidence to the contrary. I'm simply pointing out that the transaction cannot be taken in isolation.

33 minutes ago, javeajag said:

you’ve got yourself into the situation where you demand that 3BC transfer ownership of the stadium but when they do you suggest it might be bad 

nuts

No. I've not said "it might be bad".

In and of itself, it's a good thing.

But this was something that was promised to happen 29 months ago. And it didn't happen on that timescale, for reasons the Club were not fully transparent about until questioned.

We are entitled to be a little bit sceptical about "why now" and why this couldn't have happened earlier.

Longstanding experience of custodians, not just the current ones, at Firhill suggests that we should always ask the "just in case" questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, javeajag said:

Well I’ll take it that getting half the ground back with the ensuing increase in the asset value of the club , control of the ground etc is good news

unless you have any actual evidence to the contrary ? No you don’t 

you’ve got yourself into the situation where you demand that 3BC transfer ownership of the stadium but when they do you suggest it might be bad 

nuts 

 

Jesus wept!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

Jesus wept!

This thread is certainly taking a non-secular turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a practical level it would be good if the club, in the spirit of transparency, could outline what they plan to do with the various stands/the bing as I think one thing most people here do agree on is that our ground is not looking it's best. Clearly there will be things that need to be done and others that are in the nice but not absolutely necessary category.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before anyone gets too excited about Firhill being back in "our hands", could I just point out that the legal transaction has not yet been completed in the place that matters most in respect of having title to property, namely the Land Register of Scotland. 

Just had a quick look at the Registers of Scotland SCOTLIS (Scottish Land Information Service) website. Title Number GLA205256 is for the Main Stand/Bing etc. Title still stands in the name of 3 Black Cats Limited, and there is no pending transaction currently being processed by the Registers. It could be that all documentation has been signed and is currently sitting on a solicitor's desk waiting for the usual online submission for registration of title being made. Or it could be that the submission was made late yesterday or earlier today and does not yet show up on the Registers' systems. 

Either way, it does seem to me that the announcement of "ownership" is slightly premature. I will check again on Monday and Tuesday, by which time any transfer "in the system" should definitely have shown up.

By the way, for the sake of completeness, there is another Title Number GLA162711 for the rest of Firhill. That is and has been for several years in the name of Partick Thistle Football Club Limited.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It is good news as long as it's the full story.

I'm not claiming to have evidence to the contrary. I'm simply pointing out that the transaction cannot be taken in isolation.

No. I've not said "it might be bad".

In and of itself, it's a good thing.

But this was something that was promised to happen 29 months ago. And it didn't happen on that timescale, for reasons the Club were not fully transparent about until questioned.

We are entitled to be a little bit sceptical about "why now" and why this couldn't have happened earlier.

Longstanding experience of custodians, not just the current ones, at Firhill suggests that we should always ask the "just in case" questions.

It is good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite confused by all of this. It would seem to me that the club should own all of it's own area? Extending to protected space that it needs?

Is that not obvious?

What am I missing?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, douglas clark said:

Quite confused by all of this. It would seem to me that the club should own all of it's own area? Extending to protected space that it needs?

Is that not obvious?

What am I missing?

All other things being equal, yes.

But there are plenty of reasons why you might not want that, where all else is not equal.

For example, when the Club sold the Main Stand and City End to Firhill Developments Ltd (PropCo), maintaining a 50% share in PropCo, the effect of that was to cut the Club's debt by about £1 million (basically halving it at that time). The effect of that was to slash the debt interest that the Club accrued with the Bank of Scotland. The effect of that was that it stopped running at a loss about a year or so before we got promoted to the top flight, and even started to turn a profit.

All of that happened before Colin Weir made any financial contribution to the Club.

In the case of other Clubs, a stadium is often held in a separate corporate entity, to insulate the Club from risk. For example, this was how Rangers held onto Ibrox when they went bust. At our level, Stark's Park isn't technically owned by Raith Rovers, for similar purposes.

As long as Thistle's financial situation is rosy, it doesn't really matter too much whether Partick Thistle Football Club Ltd owns the stadium, as long as we can also be sure that the Club has full use of the stadium for the long term.

But if we enter financial difficulties in the future/and or don't have at least a very long lease (if not ownership) on the ground, the corporate governance and ownership structures begin to matter a lot more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue with a third party owning the stadium is how to deal with maintenance and refurbishment costs.  The stadium will need major expenditure in the next 5 or so years, and I think it would be better if the Club had full control over the costs of that and the timing.  An unscrupulous stadium owner could extract an exhorbitent rent, and at worst could force the club into administration to recover debts.  I suspect that the directors of the Raith Rovers Stadium Co.  are the same as, or controlled by, the directors of Raith Rovers Football Club.

A key issue in the debate on fan ownership is how to deal with large capital expenditure (stadium refurbishment).  Owning the stadium gives the option of borrowing against it if that is deemed sensible. 

I am not a tax accountant nor a lawyer, and there may well be good financial reasons to separate ownership of the Club and the stadium, but the stadium surely would be best controlled by the Club.

So I disagree with Woodstock Jag's assertion that stadium ownership is unimportant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

The main issue with a third party owning the stadium is how to deal with maintenance and refurbishment costs.  The stadium will need major expenditure in the next 5 or so years, and I think it would be better if the Club had full control over the costs of that and the timing.  An unscrupulous stadium owner could extract an exhorbitent rent, and at worst could force the club into administration to recover debts.  I suspect that the directors of the Raith Rovers Stadium Co.  are the same as, or controlled by, the directors of Raith Rovers Football Club.

A key issue in the debate on fan ownership is how to deal with large capital expenditure (stadium refurbishment).  Owning the stadium gives the option of borrowing against it if that is deemed sensible. 

I am not a tax accountant nor a lawyer, and there may well be good financial reasons to separate ownership of the Club and the stadium, but the stadium surely would be best controlled by the Club.

So I disagree with Woodstock Jag's assertion that stadium ownership is unimportant.

I’m not saying it’s unimportant. Quite the contrary.

I’m saying that its importance is context and contingency specific. Indeed it’s precisely because I don’t think our finances are rosy that I think it is important for us to own our own stadium in the conventional way.

I agree with you that, all other things being equal, it is better that the stadium is held by PTFC Ltd than by another company…

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2022 at 7:49 PM, partickthedog said:

Before anyone gets too excited about Firhill being back in "our hands", could I just point out that the legal transaction has not yet been completed in the place that matters most in respect of having title to property, namely the Land Register of Scotland. 

Just had a quick look at the Registers of Scotland SCOTLIS (Scottish Land Information Service) website. Title Number GLA205256 is for the Main Stand/Bing etc. Title still stands in the name of 3 Black Cats Limited, and there is no pending transaction currently being processed by the Registers. It could be that all documentation has been signed and is currently sitting on a solicitor's desk waiting for the usual online submission for registration of title being made. Or it could be that the submission was made late yesterday or earlier today and does not yet show up on the Registers' systems. 

Either way, it does seem to me that the announcement of "ownership" is slightly premature. I will check again on Monday and Tuesday, by which time any transfer "in the system" should definitely have shown up.

By the way, for the sake of completeness, there is another Title Number GLA162711 for the rest of Firhill. That is and has been for several years in the name of Partick Thistle Football Club Limited.

I still don’t see it transferred or any notification of pending transfer on that site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I still don’t see it transferred or any notification of pending transfer on that site

Agreed. I checked this morning and will look again tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×