Club AGM

[laukat]

@Jordanhill Jag 

You clearly have a decent grasp of the numbers so hoping you can help me understand. If I'm reading your numbers right we were operating last season at £600k above income which only became a £300k loss due to the Scottish cup game.

From what you have said we are getting towards a best case £150k over income.

So not ideal but suggest cost cutting/income increase of around £450k? 

If that's correct am I right to presume that is due to income from TJF, increased crowds, increased hospitality and reduction in player costs or has that still to feed into the numbers?

Would playing staff costs not reduce further as the costs for McCall, Archibald and Scally start to disappear or is that already in the forecast that gets to a £150k loss?

 

[ChiThistle]

I think JJ has a point.  Simply put, I would like to know what our board’s approach to budgeting is, given the loss incurred from last season and the need to constantly marry promotion ambitions with sustainability.  Are there scenarios in which we take calculated risks (e.g., if DU goes up but a club like Livi - who likely wouldn’t overspend to go back up - comes down, do we “go for it” and spend a little more ourselves?)

I am willing to accept that the position was so dire that we needed urgent funding to stabilize things, but I’d like to be reassured that this isn’t the go-forward plan.  I’d prefer the majority of McClymont’s money be used as a safety net or an investment into something revenue generating, not the player budget.

Side question - was there a web conferencing component to this AGM?   Or was it only available to direct shareholders and not beneficiaries?

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, laukat said:

@Jordanhill Jag 

You clearly have a decent grasp of the numbers so hoping you can help me understand. If I'm reading your numbers right we were operating last season at £600k above income which only became a £300k loss due to the Scottish cup game.

From what you have said we are getting towards a best case £150k over income.

So not ideal but suggest cost cutting/income increase of around £450k? 

If that's correct am I right to presume that is due to income from TJF, increased crowds, increased hospitality and reduction in player costs or has that still to feed into the numbers?

Would playing staff costs not reduce further as the costs for McCall, Archibald and Scally start to disappear or is that already in the forecast that gets to a £150k loss?

 

Unfortunately your figures are not correct 

The Rangers Game was a one off - it generated £300K - so to replace it we need to generate the same from increasing Revenues elsewhere - if we dont Revenues are down 

We had £300K debts from last Year which were paid out of this Years Revenue 

So in Total thats £600K - we average circa £2.5MN Turnover - so my Question is simple - where is the £600K in Revenue that we are down going to come from ? There was no detailed response 

The £150K loss is a best case Forecast Half Way through the Year - any losses it comes out of the USA Money - we continue with a loss - we need the other £500K and sell more Shares 

That's fine - no issue with that - BUT - we are supposed to be Fan Owned and we are selling of Shares to offset Trading Losses - if that's the Plan & TJF are OK with it - Tell people that 

If its not the Plan - then the Trusts get a Board that can balance the Budget ? 

This Wee Cosy Relationship is a recipe for Disaster 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fawlty Towers]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Unfortunately your figures are not correct 

The Rangers Game was a one off - it generated £300K - so to replace it we need to generate the same from increasing Revenues elsewhere - if we dont Revenues are down 

We had £300K debts from last Year which were paid out of this Years Revenue 

So in Total thats £600K - we average circa £2.5MN Turnover - so my Question is simple - where is the £600K in Revenue that we are down going to come from ? There was no detailed response 

The £150K loss is a best case Forecast Half Way through the Year - any losses it comes out of the USA Money - we continue with a loss - we need the other £500K and sell more Shares 

That's fine - no issue with that - BUT - we are supposed to be Fan Owned and we are selling of Shares to offset Trading Losses - if that's the Plan & TJF are OK with it - Tell people that 

If its not the Plan - then the Trusts get a Board that can balance the Budget ? 

This Wee Cosy Relationship is a recipe for Disaster 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had asked TJF to ask a question about the budget and got a response which was that the £150K loss was based (footballing wise) on a 3rd place league finish and not getting beyond Ross County in the Scottish Cup. There would be other factors - crowds, hospitality uptake, etc as well. If we end up finishing 2nd in the league and get beyond Ross County next weekend is it your assertion that we still lose £150K (assuming the non football targets are met) as that is not what I took the response I received to mean?

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I had asked TJF to ask a question about the budget and got a response which was that the £150K loss was based (footballing wise) on a 3rd place league finish and not getting beyond Ross County in the Scottish Cup. There would be other factors - crowds, hospitality uptake, etc as well. If we end up finishing 2nd in the league and get beyond Ross County next weekend is it your assertion that we still lose £150K (assuming the non football targets are met) as that is not what I took the response I received to mean?

The £150K was pitched as there most accurate Forecast - of course there are numerous Factors - and maybe Crowds etc etc will all go up 

However based on previous Seasons and similar Turnover League Position then its unlikely we are going to increase Revenue Half Way through a Season 

There was no detail as to how targets would be met 

However in similar Seasons with Similar Turnover we lost circa £300K 

Graham Cowie did ask how robust the budgeting was - there was no quantitive response that I recall 

 

[Lenziejag]

16 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

First stop equating PTFC with the Board - they are not one in the same - so asking "what I want from PTFC" is not correct - I've questioned the Club Board & the TJF Board - they ARE NOT PTFC 

I asked questions at the AGM - the main one being that with a £600K reduction in Revenue on an average £2.5MN Income   - how are the books being balanced & what is the USA Money being used for - there was no clear answer - apart from vague discussions on looking at converting Cupboards into Hospitality Areas  

I did not see a firm Plan in any shape or form on how to balance the Books ( which is a concern ) 

What was revealed is actually the USA Money is not an "investment" or "Reserves" - a forecasted best case scenario is £150K losses - could be a lot higher than that - we don't know - so what happens is we eat into the £500K underwriting losses - then sell off some more shares for another £500K etc etc to keep covering Trading Losses 

If that's the plan - Say That  

If  TJF - who have Two Chartered Accountants on there Board ( moving from TJF to Club Board like Ships passing in the Night ) are accepting that this is the Plan - Say That 

I actually don't care if the USA Investors take us over - I think it would be a Good Thing- and if its happening-  then do it now 

I do care about TJF crucifying the last Board on there Financial Plans ( Rightly So ) at the last AGM - identifying gaps in the Finances - I do care about TJF with Two Chartered Accountants not asking pertinent questions on Finances & Revenue Strategy- at the current AGM & giving the Board a Free Pass where the only key difference is we now have  "Money from America"  so we don't need to worry ( we can simply sell off more Club Assetts in the form of Shares ) & follow "The German Model" 

Why are TJF so reticent to ask awkward Questions ? They were all over it last Year ? 

Why when it was stated that the Trust were involved all along regards the USA Investment did the TJF Reps in the Room not Question this - as TJF clearly stated at the time - they were advised late on-  and presented with a Fait Accompli - why did the TJF Reps in the Room allow this to go unchecked ?   

First - I didn't ask the Question Ref "Going Concern" it was the chap next to me ( no idea who he was ) but he raised a massive issue - which again TJF seem unconcerned about  

Last Years Accounts were voted through and there were no issues as "a going concern" they were voted through by the Thistle Trust - who owned most of the Club Shares 

Our Current Finance Director ( who was a Board Member of the Thistle Trust )  was asked if he did Due Diligence before the Thistle Trust Voted to accept the Accounts as a going concern - and why a Couple of Weeks Later a Black Hole of circa £600K was discovered - the response was that he only had the Published Audited Accounts to go on - so Due Diligence was extremely limited 

BUT and this absolutely key - Sandy Fyffe at last years AGM with THE SAME INFO  identified a £500K shortfall ( which became £600K )  TJF published a detailed report identifying the Shortfall 

Yet this is ignored - simply move along - nothing to see here - we now have the American Money - everything is fine - TJF Policy the Board Recommend Directors - its not there decision ( unless of course its Sacking a Club Chairman )    

Now from where I'm sitting - it might be "negative" but its similar Questions to those TJF were asking a Year ago- How are the Books being balanced with a Reduction in Revenue of circa £600K - but its now move along  - nothing to see here 

TJF might want to stop closing down debate with various Fans on Social Media -  and actually start asking if they are doing the right thing by there Members- and that as it did last Year - starts with sorting the Club Finances & ensuring they have the Correct Board to do so 

And a Final Note to the TJF Parody Account 

Woodend Jag Is Graeme Cowie - I'm Jim Alexander ( aka Jordanhill Jag )  - if your going to quote us - at least get our names right ( and No I have zero link to the TJF Parody Account ) they have there own Agenda - nothing to do with me   

 

 

 

 

Didn’t realise I had asked so many hidden questions. 

Anyway, I wasn’t equating PTFC with the board. I was asking what you want for PTFC. It was a direct question. 
2nd point. You were at the AGM where the 2nd £500K was announced. My question on that was why did you wait until the press release before jumping up and down about it. ? 
No idea what that final paragraph is about. It’s nowt to do with me. 

On the finances you ask how are the books being balanced. In season 22/23, we posted a loss of £300K which would have been £600K without the Rangers game. In 23/24, the forecast is a loss of £150K. That’s a 75% improvement.So, in order to break even we need £150K savings or we need to increase our static Championship revenue, which I guess we must be doing in 23/24.

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

50 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Didn’t realise I had asked so many hidden questions. 

Anyway, I wasn’t equating PTFC with the board. I was asking what you want for PTFC. It was a direct question. 
2nd point. You were at the AGM where the 2nd £500K was announced. My question on that was why did you wait until the press release before jumping up and down about it. ? 
No idea what that final paragraph is about. It’s nowt to do with me. 

On the finances you ask how are the books being balanced. In season 22/23, we posted a loss of £300K which would have been £600K without the Rangers game. In 23/24, the forecast is a loss of £150K. That’s a 75% improvement.So, in order to break even we need £150K savings or we need to increase our static Championship revenue, which I guess we must be doing in 23/24.

 

We could start with appointing a   Board thats capable of balancing the budget -and not relying on selling off chunks of the Club to Fund Trading losses ? 

Again and Clearly its too difficult a Question for some people to get there Heads around 

We had a Turnover of £2.5MN last Year that included £300k from Rangers - so to get the same turnover as last Season we need to increase Revenues in other Areas or make large cuts ? - the actual Cash Revenues for this Season are also taking a £300K Hit -due to paying £300K of last Years Debts out of this Years Revenue 

So we need to find £600K to balance the books - no one has said how this is going to be achieved ? 

And you can save this rubbish about some sort of “ personal “ agenda ref TJF - asking why they are not being robust ref Financial Questions of the Board in a similar manner to last Years AGM is reasonable comment - perhaps you should ask them why the Clubs Major Shareholder has nothing to say at the AGM on the Finances ? 

as for the £150K forecasted losses - this doesn't stack up with a reduction of £600K in this Years Revenue -and neither was it explained where the shortfall is being made up either by cuts or increasing Revenue - I can “ forecast” we are going to get into the Champions League next Year - so the £150K loss is simply a guess 

What we are also being ask to accept is that the same Financial Process that missed the Black Hole in last Years Accounts and agreed that there were no “ going concern” issues - is to be accepted as giving an accurate Forecast of this Years losses 

As for the second Tranche of Funding from the USA  - it was slipped in amongst numerous Financial info at the AGM -then the Herald are briefed and its the Headline News - so its obviously part of an actual plan 

That then Rings Alarm Bells - why would the Club who are Forecasting Breakeven next Season -need £500K of additional funding ? Why is it even being discussed ?

But of Course - a bit like “ The German Model” its slipped out there - not a Peep from TJF asking why we would need to sell off more shares and need more funding - Nada - Zero 

Maybe the same enthusiasm on asking questions on the Finances should be applied to when they’re launching a New Pin ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[javeajag]

I have read this thread with interest and I think in governance terms it is highlighting a practical not a  theoretical problem.

it seems as though the club board and TJF are now the same thing ( yes WJ I know they are not which I used seems ) which gives the impression that TJF will neither ask the tough questions ( in public at least ) nor be critical ( using that would in its correct meaning ).

I think the dangers of this are clear to see.

secondly , the agms of the  club are the place where the big strategic decisions we face are NOT discussed so we need to create that space. 
 

the issues in no particular order seem to me to be….

1 how to put in place sensible robust budgeting that if income is £2.5m then expenditure is £2.4m… doesn’t seem that hard

2 how to increase revenue… a whole range of things in here 

3 how to increase the fan base … there must be a football club somewhere who has adopted a strategy of getting more fans …. Let’s steal any good ideas 

4 the stadium …. What’s the vision as opposed to this weeks hood idea …. Should we staying go ? If stay what’s the plan ?

5 generating investment … who and where else can we get people to invest in the club 

and I’m sure there is more !

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We could start with appointing a   Board thats capable of balancing the budget -and not relying on selling off chunks of the Club to Fund Trading losses ? 

Again and Clearly its too difficult a Question for some people to get there Heads around 

We had a Turnover of £2.5MN last Year that included £300k from Rangers - so to get the same turnover as last Season we need to increase Revenues in other Areas or make large cuts ? - the actual Cash Revenues for this Season are also taking a £300K Hit -due to paying £300K of last Years Debts out of this Years Revenue 

So we need to find £600K to balance the books - no one has said how this is going to be achieved ? 

And you can save this rubbish about some sort of “ personal “ agenda ref TJF - asking why they are not being robust ref Financial Questions of the Board in a similar manner to last Years AGM is reasonable comment - perhaps you should ask them why the Clubs Major Shareholder has nothing to say at the AGM on the Finances ? 

as for the £150K forecasted losses - this doesn't stack up with a reduction of £600K in this Years Revenue -and neither was it explained where the shortfall is being made up either by cuts or increasing Revenue - I can “ forecast” we are going to get into the Champions League next Year - so the £150K loss is simply a guess 

What we are also being ask to accept is that the same Financial Process that missed the Black Hole in last Years Accounts and agreed that there were no “ going concern” issues - is to be accepted as giving an accurate Forecast of this Years losses 

As for the second Tranche of Funding from the USA  - it was slipped in amongst numerous Financial info at the AGM -then the Herald are briefed and its the Headline News - so its obviously part of an actual plan 

That then Rings Alarm Bells - why would the Club who are Forecasting Breakeven next Season -need £500K of additional funding ? Why is it even being discussed ?

But of Course - a bit like “ The German Model” its slipped out there - not a Peep from TJF asking why we would need to sell off more shares and need more funding - Nada - Zero 

Maybe the same enthusiasm on asking questions on the Finances should be applied to when they’re launching a New Pin ? 

 

 

 

 

 

I asked the question what do you want for PTFC - not the board. Will you answer that.

You don’t pay the £300K hit from last year out of this years revenue. It will have impacted the cash balances, which is why we needed some investment.

You are right about needing to find £600k. We got £170 from TJF for starters; Prices went up 10% another - that’s likely to be close to £100K. That’s almost 1/2 the shortfall in additional revenue before any cost cutting. I get that it would have been preferable to have had some explanation how to get from £600K loss to £150K loss at the meeting, but again why should your initial reaction be mistrust.

Is it the same financial process ? It’s different people at the helm. Maybe you know, maybe it’s just more mud.

You might turn out to be right, but your going about it the wrong way.

[Jordanhill Jag]

58 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I asked the question what do you want for PTFC - not the board. Will you answer that.

You don’t pay the £300K hit from last year out of this years revenue. It will have impacted the cash balances, which is why we needed some investment.

You are right about needing to find £600k. We got £170 from TJF for starters; Prices went up 10% another - that’s likely to be close to £100K. That’s almost 1/2 the shortfall in additional revenue before any cost cutting. I get that it would have been preferable to have had some explanation how to get from £600K loss to £150K loss at the meeting, but again why should your initial reaction be mistrust.

Is it the same financial process ? It’s different people at the helm. Maybe you know, maybe it’s just more mud.

You might turn out to be right, but your going about it the wrong way.

OK stop saying “investment” we sold off Assetts to get Cash in to Cover our losses its as simple as that 

So now we are getting nearer to the actual position - we are using the USA Money to help fund the residual debts of last Year - without the USA Cash the Residual Debt would come out of this Years Revenue - the problem with that is you eat into the Reserves -if you don't increase the Revenues to offset the Residual Debt - which means we will need additional funding 

as you agree its £600K we have to find between the Residual Debt and the Reduction in Revenue not having a Rangers Game 

Yes your getting £170K from TJF - but thats a donation - PTFC are a Business its Directors are supposed to have the required Skills to Run the Business at a Profit 

So why are TJF not asking the Questions that gives a Clear Picture of our Finances - that without the USA Money and TJF Money we will run up massive losses - why is that not stated at the AGM - why is it being painted as everything in the Garden is Rosy Finance Wise - PTFC as a Business are being bailed out - there was nothing at the AGM that indicated that this position is likely to improve - and the Actual Finance Position has had to be dragged out kicking and screaming 

So best case its £150K loss - if its more -we use up the USA Cash and sell off more shares ( which has now been put out as another tranche of “ investment” ) its not its selling off Assets in the form of Shares 

No its not “ different people at the helm” the Thistle Trust agreed Sign Off for last Years Accounts when there was a massive Black Hole - nothing has changed 

And stop the “ slinging mud” accusations - Ive said we are Short - £600K - you have just agreed thats correct - Ive repeated statements from the AGM - if Ive got anything incorrect from the AGM Statements - I will withdraw them

Im taking an identical Approach to TJF after last Years AGM - asking pertinent questions - drilling down to the core info - how was it “ the Right Way” for TJF -and the wrong way for me ? 
 

The only thing thats “ wrong” is that Im asking the awkward questions -where it should be TJF asking them 

 

 

[BowenBoys]

21 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

...
 

The only thing thats “ wrong” is that Im asking the awkward questions -where it should be TJF asking them 

 

 

But nobody, here, has the answers, JJ.

[ChiThistle]

52 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

OK stop saying “investment” we sold off Assetts to get Cash in to Cover our losses its as simple as that

 

I’m a little fuzzy on your definition of “investment” because buying/selling shares of a company in a cash transaction is precisely what investing is.  Unless we sold other assets I’m not aware of?

[Lenziejag]

54 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

OK stop saying “investment” we sold off Assetts to get Cash in to Cover our losses its as simple as that 

So now we are getting nearer to the actual position - we are using the USA Money to help fund the residual debts of last Year - without the USA Cash the Residual Debt would come out of this Years Revenue - the problem with that is you eat into the Reserves -if you don't increase the Revenues to offset the Residual Debt - which means we will need additional funding 

as you agree its £600K we have to find between the Residual Debt and the Reduction in Revenue not having a Rangers Game 

Yes your getting £170K from TJF - but thats a donation - PTFC are a Business its Directors are supposed to have the required Skills to Run the Business at a Profit 

So why are TJF not asking the Questions that gives a Clear Picture of our Finances - that without the USA Money and TJF Money we will run up massive losses - why is that not stated at the AGM - why is it being painted as everything in the Garden is Rosy Finance Wise - PTFC as a Business are being bailed out - there was nothing at the AGM that indicated that this position is likely to improve - and the Actual Finance Position has had to be dragged out kicking and screaming 

So best case its £150K loss - if its more -we use up the USA Cash and sell off more shares ( which has now been put out as another tranche of “ investment” ) its not its selling off Assets in the form of Shares 

No its not “ different people at the helm” the Thistle Trust agreed Sign Off for last Years Accounts when there was a massive Black Hole - nothing has changed 

And stop the “ slinging mud” accusations - Ive said we are Short - £600K - you have just agreed thats correct - Ive repeated statements from the AGM - if Ive got anything incorrect from the AGM Statements - I will withdraw them

Im taking an identical Approach to TJF after last Years AGM - asking pertinent questions - drilling down to the core info - how was it “ the Right Way” for TJF -and the wrong way for me ? 
 

The only thing thats “ wrong” is that Im asking the awkward questions -where it should be TJF asking them 

 

 

I give up. Why should I stop saying investment ? When you buy shares in a company you are investing in that company - that’s what McClymont did.
Without that money we have been told we would likely run out of cash. I think the discussion has already been had about whether donations are legitimate income for football clubs - you are in the minority in your stance. We have already established that the USA money is not part of the Profit/Loss, but to shore up the bank. 
It might still be PTFC Trust in charge, but is it the same people in the trust - and you know fine well that’s what I mean, not to mention we have a different chief executive. 
It’s ridiculous that you won’t acknowledge those two items reducing the £600K to £150K this year, plus £100K playoff income(if you are right that it wasn’t included in 22/23 and some supposed transfer windfall for Hendrie and Nesbit to Millwall. 
For me, it’s pretty easy to improve by £450K from last season.

I think the Directors job is to keep Thistle playing football at the highest level possible. I don’t care how they get the finance as long as it is legitimate.

By the way, you still haven’t answered what you want for PTFC. 

[Woodstock Jag]

It is important to stress that the Club is not carrying "residual debt". This phrase is apt to mislead people the way it is being used by some on here.

Soft-loans were made by directors to ease the cashflow position of the Football Club last year, which is why the cash-in-the-bank was actually significantly higher at year-end 2022-23 than in year-end 2021-22. The key point for cashflow is not where it is at year-end, but where it is at its lowest point in the season. If that goes negative at any point in the season, there's a real risk that bills don't get paid, and you're technically insolvent. This is true even if you are running a break-even budget, or even one that operates at a modest profit.

Those loans entered into in the second half of the season in 2022-23 did not appear as operating income in the accounts, and repaying them does not count as operating expenditure. They are irrelevant to the profitability of the football club. That they were needed was a symptom of an erosion of the margin of safety, and that erosion was caused by the Club operating substantial operating deficits across several years. But they are a distraction from the forward-looking picture.

As LenzieJag correctly points out, what the loans affected, in the short term, was the margin of safety: whether there is physically enough cash in the bank to meet payroll, trade creditors and other costs of the business at any given point in the year. The primary purpose of the investment is to alleviate cashflow issues in a more stable long-term way than soft-loans, which are repayable on demand.

Jim is correct that, if the Club runs sustained losses over several seasons, the benefit of this kind of cash injection would evaporate and you would be back at square one. It is legitimate, in the context of tranche 2 of the investment (which was contemplated at the outset and communicated to fans at the time of tranche 1) to ask how much of that money is actually going to go into strategically useful outputs, rather than just plugging losses.

Those are questions that TJF and the Trustees will be asking as and when the detail of any proposal is put to us. If the answers aren't credible, we will say so. And we will say so in advance of a beneficiary vote taking place.

It is an entirely reasonable question to ask about whether credible efforts are being made to bring the Club to a sustainable break-even business. But the scale of the task was absolutely massive after last year, because there was no breathing space to restructure the business in a credible and sustainable way. Jordanhill Jag would have you believe that it's possible to turn Partick Thistle into a break-even business while sustaining a competitive team on the park at the drop of a hat, after (by his own admission) it essentially ran a £600k deficit last season absent a favourable cup tie. That isn't, in my view, a credible position. These things take time, and are done incrementally.

The Club has taken some steps to ensure both that it gets more income and that more of that income is predictable, repeatable and sustainable. There is obviously the TJF money that is a non-trivial part of that. Season ticket sales are also drastically up, and at a higher price-point (as LenzieJag pointed out). There is some (though not much) income from last season that for reasons of timing will be reflected in this year's accounts.

Collectively, this put a substantial dent in the shortfall that would otherwise have arisen this financial year, absent unpredictable sources of footballing income.

As I pointed out at the AGM in my question to the Directors, sponsorship revenue fell by 20% between seasons 2021-22 and 2022-23. The Club can close a non-trivial part of the operating losses gap by rebuilding sponsorship to 2021-22 levels and beyond. We've seen some steps towards that already, with the Wyre Stadium naming (for example) that has no equivalent in the 2022-23 accounts. Some of our sponsorship deals are legacy and multi-year. When they expire, there is the opportunity to remarket those at a significantly higher annual price point. The proof of the pudding will be whether this Club Board is able to realise the potential growth in this area. I understand it is an area Donald McClymont is keen to become involved in, as he alluded to in his video with the fans.

This financial year, the costs of the management team are expected to be non-trivially lower. This is partly because, in the second half of last season, there was a period of gardening leave for a (three-person-strong) group. Kris Doolan doesn't have two assistant managers; only one. The figures at the AGM support the view that there is a significant saving there.

Ultimately I will leave it to others to judge whether the Trustees and TJF are being robust enough with the Club Board. We actively requested that members get in touch with questions ahead of the AGM and only one member actually asked us to ask specific financial questions. Those questions were (essentially) addressed by the presentation provided by the Club, and I then asked as best I could a follow-on question about reliability of forecasts.

But I would just also observe that we are in a very different place from late 2022, when even the majority shareholder, let alone the fans more widely had absolutely zero people in the boardroom. Robust public exchanges happen when there is no opportunity to ask those questions in any other forum: when the Club isn't talking to you.

TJF's understanding of the underlying finances of the football club was significantly improved when Sandy and Andrew signed NDAs in early 2023. But the fact of having signed those NDAs (for reasons of commercial sensitivity) inevitably meant that they could not ask questions publicly in the same way as when they were a group of outsiders with no inside information. We had to work with the Club to agree a process of financial transparency, which is what you eventually saw in the summer. Similarly, Andrew, and now Stuart C, have had/now have (respectively) legal obligations as directors of the football club, but with that also comes the opportunity to see much more detailed financial information than a protest group outside the tent.

The most effective forum to challenge any rogue forecasts, cost control or revenue growing strategies is, for now at least, the Club Boardroom. And when the fan elections take place later this year, there will be directly accountable voices to the fans involved in that scrutiny. And under the CTA there will be more opportunities for the Trustees externally to scrutinise and question the credibility of the 2024-25 budget before it is set (as it requires their approval).

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

23 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I give up. Why should I stop saying investment ? When you buy shares in a company you are investing in that company - that’s what McClymont did.
Without that money we have been told we would likely run out of cash. I think the discussion has already been had about whether donations are legitimate income for football clubs - you are in the minority in your stance. We have already established that the USA money is not part of the Profit/Loss, but to shore up the bank. 
It might still be PTFC Trust in charge, but is it the same people in the trust - and you know fine well that’s what I mean, not to mention we have a different chief executive. 
It’s ridiculous that you won’t acknowledge those two items reducing the £600K to £150K this year, plus £100K playoff income(if you are right that it wasn’t included in 22/23 and some supposed transfer windfall for Hendrie and Nesbit to Millwall. 
For me, it’s pretty easy to improve by £450K from last season.

I think the Directors job is to keep Thistle playing football at the highest level possible. I don’t care how they get the finance as long as it is legitimate.

By the way, you still haven’t answered what you want for PTFC. 

OK - An Investment is something that you can see some sort of return on Mclymont invested in the Company for his Benefit as he owns the Shares - The Fans Ownership Share % reduced  - what we have is a position where we are selling Assets ( in the form of Shares )  to offset Trading Losses - now in a Normal Business this is OK - however the Shares are owned by the Fans - to accommodate the current strategy - a decision was taken ( by we dont know who )  that we would follow "The German Model "  with the potential of 49% of the Shares being owned elsewhere - I don't remember TJF  discussing "The German Model" with the Fans to get there OK 

  What TJF Donations & being underwritten by the USA Monies demonstrates is that PTFC are not Trading as a normal Business & the Directors are not balancing the Books via Normal Trading 

Depending on Cash from "donations" etc are a High Risk Strategy as the can be pulled overnight- if those donating change there mind -  leaving a massive exposure to the Club - it also means that the Directors are under No Pressure to actually run the Club at Break Even - so we actually have a Bowling Club - not a Trading Company   

Who says "I'm in the Minority in my stance " a small number of Posters on a Fans Forum ? Is that the extent of your Business Research ?  Donations do not exist in Company Trading in the Real World - the Board may be comfortable with it as it saves them running the Club at Breakeven - but that's not how you run a proper business    

No -the USA Monies will shore up any losses - as they are the Cash Reserves - and losses come out of your Reserves - If we keep trading at a loss- you Run out of Reserves & you need to sell more Shares ( However that seems to have been factored in by the Second Tranche Announcement ) and the change to the German Model which allows selling up to Circa 40% of the Shares ( Jlo owns the other 9% )     

Im struggling with your dramatic "what do you want at PTFC" rubbish - like any Fan I want success - in fact I have one single ambition - as a Kid I saw Thistle Play Honved in Europe - the Pals I went to the Game with Bring there Grandkids to the Game - Two Generations of Fans - never seen us Play properly in Europe - Two Generations of Fans - Never Seen us in a Cup Final 

In order to do that - we need a Financially Strong Club - in Order to achieve a Financially Strong Club we need experienced Directors with the right connections who can deliver that 

As a Wise Man Said 

"Ultimately a Football Club is still a Business and difficult ( often unpopular) decisions will still need to be taken by custodians in the Clubs best interests "  

[javeajag]

Ok a couple of points ….,

can someone actually explain what the commercial sensitivities are that require so many NDAs in a tiny tiny business like Ptfc ? It is literally ludicrous and not very helpful 

now if I read this correctly we have a company with c £2.5m turnover that requires the financial explanation of Microsoft …..

it is surely not beyond the ability of anyone on the board of the club to explain our financial position on one side of an A4 piece of paper and if they can’t well they shouldn’t be there …

[Jordanhill Jag]

15 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It is important to stress that the Club is not carrying "residual debt". This phrase is apt to mislead people the way it is being used by some on here.

Soft-loans were made by directors to ease the cashflow position of the Football Club last year, which is why the cash-in-the-bank was actually significantly higher at year-end 2022-23 than in year-end 2021-22. The key point for cashflow is not where it is at year-end, but where it is at its lowest point in the season. If that goes negative at any point in the season, there's a real risk that bills don't get paid, and you're technically insolvent. This is true even if you are running a break-even budget, or even one that operates at a modest profit.

Those loans entered into in the second half of the season in 2022-23 did not appear as operating income in the accounts, and repaying them does not count as operating expenditure. They are irrelevant to the profitability of the football club. That they were needed was a symptom of an erosion of the margin of safety, and that erosion was caused by the Club operating substantial operating deficits across several years. But they are a distraction from the forward-looking picture.

As LenzieJag correctly points out, what the loans affected, in the short term, was the margin of safety: whether there is physically enough cash in the bank to meet payroll, trade creditors and other costs of the business at any given point in the year. The primary purpose of the investment is to alleviate cashflow issues in a more stable long-term way than soft-loans, which are repayable on demand.

Jim is correct that, if the Club runs sustained losses over several seasons, the benefit of this kind of cash injection would evaporate and you would be back at square one. It is legitimate, in the context of tranche 2 of the investment (which was contemplated at the outset and communicated to fans at the time of tranche 1) to ask how much of that money is actually going to go into strategically useful outputs, rather than just plugging losses.

Those are questions that TJF and the Trustees will be asking as and when the detail of any proposal is put to us. If the answers aren't credible, we will say so. And we will say so in advance of a beneficiary vote taking place.

It is an entirely reasonable question to ask about whether credible efforts are being made to bring the Club to a sustainable break-even business. But the scale of the task was absolutely massive after last year, because there was no breathing space to restructure the business in a credible and sustainable way. Jordanhill Jag would have you believe that it's possible to turn Partick Thistle into a break-even business while sustaining a competitive team on the park at the drop of a hat, after (by his own admission) it essentially ran a £600k deficit last season absent a favourable cup tie. That isn't, in my view, a credible position. These things take time, and are done incrementally.

The Club has taken some steps to ensure both that it gets more income and that more of that income is predictable, repeatable and sustainable. There is obviously the TJF money that is a non-trivial part of that. Season ticket sales are also drastically up, and at a higher price-point (as LenzieJag pointed out). There is some (though not much) income from last season that for reasons of timing will be reflected in this year's accounts.

Collectively, this put a substantial dent in the shortfall that would otherwise have arisen this financial year, absent unpredictable sources of footballing income.

As I pointed out at the AGM in my question to the Directors, sponsorship revenue fell by 20% between seasons 2021-22 and 2022-23. The Club can close a non-trivial part of the operating losses gap by rebuilding sponsorship to 2021-22 levels and beyond. We've seen some steps towards that already, with the Wyre Stadium naming (for example) that has no equivalent in the 2022-23 accounts. Some of our sponsorship deals are legacy and multi-year. When they expire, there is the opportunity to remarket those at a significantly higher annual price point. The proof of the pudding will be whether this Club Board is able to realise the potential growth in this area. I understand it is an area Donald McClymont is keen to become involved in, as he alluded to in his video with the fans.

This financial year, the costs of the management team are expected to be non-trivially lower. This is partly because, in the second half of last season, there was a period of gardening leave for a (three-person-strong) group. Kris Doolan doesn't have two assistant managers; only one. The figures at the AGM support the view that there is a significant saving there.

Ultimately I will leave it to others to judge whether the Trustees and TJF are being robust enough with the Club Board. We actively requested that members get in touch with questions ahead of the AGM and only one member actually asked us to ask specific financial questions. Those questions were (essentially) addressed by the presentation provided by the Club, and I then asked as best I could a follow-on question about reliability of forecasts.

But I would just also observe that we are in a very different place from late 2022, when even the majority shareholder, let alone the fans more widely had absolutely zero people in the boardroom. Robust public exchanges happen when there is no opportunity to ask those questions in any other forum: when the Club isn't talking to you.

TJF's understanding of the underlying finances of the football club was significantly improved when Sandy and Andrew signed NDAs in early 2023. But the fact of having signed those NDAs (for reasons of commercial sensitivity) inevitably meant that they could not ask questions publicly in the same way as when they were a group of outsiders with no inside information. We had to work with the Club to agree a process of financial transparency, which is what you eventually saw in the summer. Similarly, Andrew, and now Stuart C, have had/now have (respectively) legal obligations as directors of the football club, but with that also comes the opportunity to see much more detailed financial information than a protest group outside the tent.

The most effective forum to challenge any rogue forecasts, cost control or revenue growing strategies is, for now at least, the Club Boardroom. And when the fan elections take place later this year, there will be directly accountable voices to the fans involved in that scrutiny. And under the CTA there will be more opportunities for the Trustees externally to scrutinise and question the credibility of the 2024-25 budget before it is set (as it requires their approval).

 

Did you get answers on the Reliability of Income Forecasts ?

Do we have any info on the Reliability of the Forecasted £150K Losses ? 

Can you advise what the Detailed Plan was to increase Revenues ?  ( beyond increasing Hospitality ) 

Given the Cash Injection & TJF Monies - we should be Break Even this Season ( and that's allowing for a Competitive Team on the Park ) This is a £2.5MN Turnover Company -its in the Owner Managed Bracket of Companies - if we don't have people capable of turning it into Break Even without donations - change them 

And what we are now saying is that TJF cannot ask awkward questions because of NDAs - so seriously what is the point ? 

Even when there was a statement that they were involved with the Investment Process from the USA ( as opposed to the Fait Accompli they were presented with ) the TJF Reps in the Room said Nada 

If we cannot get to Break Even this Season - TJF address that and replace the Board ( included there Directors ) under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should there ever be a requirement for a Second Round of Funding unless there is some massive issue that we are not aware of 

The Board between the USA & TJF are getting £675K Cash input into a £2.5MN Turnover Company & forecasting a loss - are you kidding - you would be fired immediately in the real World     

So we are a Bowling Club - Zero Ambition - if that's what people are happy with - Keep Buying the Pins   

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Did you get answers on the Reliability of Income Forecasts ?

Do we have any info on the Reliability of the Forecasted £150K Losses ? 

Can you advise what the Detailed Plan was to increase Revenues ?  ( beyond increasing Hospitality ) 

Given the Cash Injection & TJF Monies - we should be Break Even this Season ( and that's allowing for a Competitive Team on the Park ) This is a £2.5MN Turnover Company -its in the Owner Managed Bracket of Companies - if we don't have people capable of turning it into Break Even without donations - change them 

And what we are now saying is that TJF cannot ask awkward questions because of NDAs - so seriously what is the point ? 

Even when there was a statement that they were involved with the Investment Process from the USA ( as opposed to the Fait Accompli they were presented with ) the TJF Reps in the Room said Nada 

If we cannot get to Break Even this Season - TJF address that and replace the Board ( included there Directors ) under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should there ever be a requirement for a Second Round of Funding unless there is some massive issue that we are not aware of 

The Board between the USA & TJF are getting £675K Cash input into a £2.5MN Turnover Company & forecasting a loss - are you kidding - you would be fired immediately in the real World     

So we are a Bowling Club - Zero Ambition - if that's what people are happy with - Keep Buying the Pins   

It might be helpful if people on the the forum who have signed an NDA with the club had an NDa emoji agsinst their name so we know they can’t say anything ?

[dl1971]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Did you get answers on the Reliability of Income Forecasts ?

Do we have any info on the Reliability of the Forecasted £150K Losses ? 

Can you advise what the Detailed Plan was to increase Revenues ?  ( beyond increasing Hospitality ) 

Given the Cash Injection & TJF Monies - we should be Break Even this Season ( and that's allowing for a Competitive Team on the Park ) This is a £2.5MN Turnover Company -its in the Owner Managed Bracket of Companies - if we don't have people capable of turning it into Break Even without donations - change them 

And what we are now saying is that TJF cannot ask awkward questions because of NDAs - so seriously what is the point ? 

Even when there was a statement that they were involved with the Investment Process from the USA ( as opposed to the Fait Accompli they were presented with ) the TJF Reps in the Room said Nada 

If we cannot get to Break Even this Season - TJF address that and replace the Board ( included there Directors ) under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should there ever be a requirement for a Second Round of Funding unless there is some massive issue that we are not aware of 

The Board between the USA & TJF are getting £675K Cash input into a £2.5MN Turnover Company & forecasting a loss - are you kidding - you would be fired immediately in the real World     

So we are a Bowling Club - Zero Ambition - if that's what people are happy with - Keep Buying the Pins   

In financial power terms PTFC have always been in a bowling club ( sic ). I suspect the same terminology could be uses to describe all football teams in Scotland bar the OF. To say the club has no ambition is simply not true. Nb I think you have some valid points on sustainability, but your message is being lost in the delivery. 

[Fawlty Towers]

Let me cut through all the lenghy posts as it is so simple as to what needs to be done.

We get on to our good friend David Hasselholf who gets on to another person who probably hangs around Hollywood - Taylor Swift - and he tells her to get her dosh in to Firhill and not Firpark!

 

[partickthedog]

25 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Let me cut through all the lenghy posts as it is so simple as to what needs to be done.

We get on to our good friend David Hasselholf who gets on to another person who probably hangs around Hollywood - Taylor Swift - and he tells her to get her dosh in to Firhill and not Firpark!

 

Not expecting much success with this tactic. Taylor Swift will just shake it off.

[Lenziejag]

16 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It is important to stress that the Club is not carrying "residual debt". This phrase is apt to mislead people the way it is being used by some on here.

Soft-loans were made by directors to ease the cashflow position of the Football Club last year, which is why the cash-in-the-bank was actually significantly higher at year-end 2022-23 than in year-end 2021-22. The key point for cashflow is not where it is at year-end, but where it is at its lowest point in the season. If that goes negative at any point in the season, there's a real risk that bills don't get paid, and you're technically insolvent. This is true even if you are running a break-even budget, or even one that operates at a modest profit.

Those loans entered into in the second half of the season in 2022-23 did not appear as operating income in the accounts, and repaying them does not count as operating expenditure. They are irrelevant to the profitability of the football club. That they were needed was a symptom of an erosion of the margin of safety, and that erosion was caused by the Club operating substantial operating deficits across several years. But they are a distraction from the forward-looking picture.

As LenzieJag correctly points out, what the loans affected, in the short term, was the margin of safety: whether there is physically enough cash in the bank to meet payroll, trade creditors and other costs of the business at any given point in the year. The primary purpose of the investment is to alleviate cashflow issues in a more stable long-term way than soft-loans, which are repayable on demand.

Jim is correct that, if the Club runs sustained losses over several seasons, the benefit of this kind of cash injection would evaporate and you would be back at square one. It is legitimate, in the context of tranche 2 of the investment (which was contemplated at the outset and communicated to fans at the time of tranche 1) to ask how much of that money is actually going to go into strategically useful outputs, rather than just plugging losses.

Those are questions that TJF and the Trustees will be asking as and when the detail of any proposal is put to us. If the answers aren't credible, we will say so. And we will say so in advance of a beneficiary vote taking place.

It is an entirely reasonable question to ask about whether credible efforts are being made to bring the Club to a sustainable break-even business. But the scale of the task was absolutely massive after last year, because there was no breathing space to restructure the business in a credible and sustainable way. Jordanhill Jag would have you believe that it's possible to turn Partick Thistle into a break-even business while sustaining a competitive team on the park at the drop of a hat, after (by his own admission) it essentially ran a £600k deficit last season absent a favourable cup tie. That isn't, in my view, a credible position. These things take time, and are done incrementally.

The Club has taken some steps to ensure both that it gets more income and that more of that income is predictable, repeatable and sustainable. There is obviously the TJF money that is a non-trivial part of that. Season ticket sales are also drastically up, and at a higher price-point (as LenzieJag pointed out). There is some (though not much) income from last season that for reasons of timing will be reflected in this year's accounts.

Collectively, this put a substantial dent in the shortfall that would otherwise have arisen this financial year, absent unpredictable sources of footballing income.

As I pointed out at the AGM in my question to the Directors, sponsorship revenue fell by 20% between seasons 2021-22 and 2022-23. The Club can close a non-trivial part of the operating losses gap by rebuilding sponsorship to 2021-22 levels and beyond. We've seen some steps towards that already, with the Wyre Stadium naming (for example) that has no equivalent in the 2022-23 accounts. Some of our sponsorship deals are legacy and multi-year. When they expire, there is the opportunity to remarket those at a significantly higher annual price point. The proof of the pudding will be whether this Club Board is able to realise the potential growth in this area. I understand it is an area Donald McClymont is keen to become involved in, as he alluded to in his video with the fans.

This financial year, the costs of the management team are expected to be non-trivially lower. This is partly because, in the second half of last season, there was a period of gardening leave for a (three-person-strong) group. Kris Doolan doesn't have two assistant managers; only one. The figures at the AGM support the view that there is a significant saving there.

Ultimately I will leave it to others to judge whether the Trustees and TJF are being robust enough with the Club Board. We actively requested that members get in touch with questions ahead of the AGM and only one member actually asked us to ask specific financial questions. Those questions were (essentially) addressed by the presentation provided by the Club, and I then asked as best I could a follow-on question about reliability of forecasts.

But I would just also observe that we are in a very different place from late 2022, when even the majority shareholder, let alone the fans more widely had absolutely zero people in the boardroom. Robust public exchanges happen when there is no opportunity to ask those questions in any other forum: when the Club isn't talking to you.

TJF's understanding of the underlying finances of the football club was significantly improved when Sandy and Andrew signed NDAs in early 2023. But the fact of having signed those NDAs (for reasons of commercial sensitivity) inevitably meant that they could not ask questions publicly in the same way as when they were a group of outsiders with no inside information. We had to work with the Club to agree a process of financial transparency, which is what you eventually saw in the summer. Similarly, Andrew, and now Stuart C, have had/now have (respectively) legal obligations as directors of the football club, but with that also comes the opportunity to see much more detailed financial information than a protest group outside the tent.

The most effective forum to challenge any rogue forecasts, cost control or revenue growing strategies is, for now at least, the Club Boardroom. And when the fan elections take place later this year, there will be directly accountable voices to the fans involved in that scrutiny. And under the CTA there will be more opportunities for the Trustees externally to scrutinise and question the credibility of the 2024-25 budget before it is set (as it requires their approval).

 

I understand you are explaining some of the areas contributing to the improvement in the loss for 23/24 compared to 22/23. One of the difficulties with using terms like trivial are that people have different ideas of what that actually means. 

[Woodstock Jag]

49 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I understand you are explaining some of the areas contributing to the improvement in the loss for 23/24 compared to 22/23. One of the difficulties with using terms like trivial are that people have different ideas of what that actually means. 

Okay I’ll quantify each use of the phrase “non-trivial”.

TJF money is a gain this financial year compared to last of over £170k.

According to the draft accounts, getting sponsorship back to 2021-22 levels would raise an extra £60k in the income column.

And according to the presentation given to shareholders at the AGM, the spend on the management team is projected to be down this season by a significant sum (a large five figure sum).

They are therefore “non-trivial” because they materially change the position in terms of the size of the deficit being run. Delivering on those three things alone plausibly could address as much as half of a £600k+ deficit, and that’s before you get into late phasing of playoff income, substantially higher season ticket sales and any gains to have been made in other parts of the business.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Okay I’ll quantify each use of the phrase “non-trivial”.

TJF money is a gain this financial year compared to last of over £170k.

According to the draft accounts, getting sponsorship back to 2021-22 levels would raise an extra £60k in the income column.

And according to the presentation given to shareholders at the AGM, the spend on the management team is projected to be down this season by a significant sum (a large five figure sum).

They are therefore “non-trivial” because they materially change the position in terms of the size of the deficit being run. Delivering on those three things alone plausibly could address as much as half of a £600k+ deficit, and that’s before you get into late phasing of playoff income, substantially higher season ticket sales and any gains to have been made in other parts of the business.

Here is your issues - TJF £170K is giving a false picture of the actual financial performance of the Club - without it - there are major issues - the USA Monies again are giving a false picture - without it we are Bankrupt 

That in essence means that the Club as a "Going Concern" and viable business Model is Questionable 

The response at the AGM was giving a Rosy Picture how how its all going to be sorted over the next Few Years - but there was nothing of substance to say how this would happen beyond some Vague References on expanding Hospitality & getting better deals on Sponsorship 

On the latter - let me save you some time - No Your Not - We are Partick Thistle our Market Value to Sponsors is limited - its as simple as that - as for Donald McClymont becoming involved "in this area " Im sure he is very successful in his Business in the USA - but exactly what clout & contacts does he have in Glasgow & Scottish Business ? Again its all up in the Clouds - Vague Chat 

 No disrespect to Donald McClymont - but we had Guys like Billy Allan - David Beattie & in the Background Alan Foy of Smart Meters all backing us - using contacts to put in cash - if you want success - go get a Board that can deliver it - if you want a Bowling Club - Stay as you are  

TJF are simply part of the Club - to suggest its NDAs blah blah that stops it saying things in Public is nonsense - it was highly critical on the way in which the Club sacked Ian McCall-  and said so publicly - but for some odd reason it can no longer ask Questions in Public 

I will simplify things 

You have Two Options to Grow Revenues - Grow Fans - Grow Hospitality / Sponsors 

The Presentations on future Growth Showed income from Ticket Sales etc & on the same Slide - income from Commercial - however for some unexplained reason the scale of Commercial was altered to give the impression that Commercial was on footing with Ticket Sales regards - Revenue - its not - ts circa 25% of Revenue - but TJF have No Questions to ask - why ? 

Plans for Growing the Fan Base - our ACTUAL Key Revenue Generator - NON EXISTENT - Talk of "Investment " in going into unused Rooms to look at Hospitality Opportunities - But Talk of Investment or a Strategy to get More Bums on Seats on Matchday - ZERO  

KPIs - Non Existent - The AGM was simply warm words - Zero Substance - the Plan is - rely on TJF £175K - Rely on USA Money to underwrite losses-  and if required - sell off more Shares for Tranche 2 & follow "The German Model" 

The Club spent Money on improving the 71 Suite - It Spent Money on Improving the Hospitality Suite 

That impacts on MAX couple of hundred Fans  

You want more Female Fans ? You want to promote HGT get all the PR - Talk the Talk 

Well here is a suggestion - GO AND REFURB THE LADIES TOILETS ( and then the Men's ) 

Actually Treat your Fans Like Paying Customers - Actually Create a Customer Service Ethos at Your Club - Have Your CEO in the Carpark before the Game making sure everything is OK - Have your staff going through the Concourse at Half Time - actually show your interested 

But we have a Fans Group and they get to nominate Directors and they are now part of the Board - so its all OK 

There is NO PLAN - if TJF are OK with that then that's fine - but lets stop kidding ourselves on     

 

 

 

 

         

 

[Woodstock Jag]

I honestly give up with you Jim.

There is no point in me engaging with you because you repeatedly ignore or misunderstand the context in which comments are made.

You personalise and catastrophise absolutely everything.

You’ve already made your mind up about people, some of whom haven’t even been in the door three months.

You’ve misrepresented the nature of TJF’s support/opposition and involvement in decisions. You’ve repeatedly said things that have turned out not to be true, or to be a very incomplete account of what actually happened.

You’ve swallowed hook line and sinker a bizarre interpretation of “the German Model” which was literally a term of phrase used to describe a new legal protection of the majority shareholding that didn’t exist before. 51% is a floor, not a target, for the fan ownership shareholding. Any dilution will be voted on by the beneficiaries and will not happen if they object.

You are, quite simply, lying when you say that “TJF have no questions to ask”. We literally asked a detailed question at the AGM, on the thing you are concerned about.

You didn’t like the answer given to that question. We haven’t said anywhere what we think of that answer. You are, as always, jumping the gun and assuming the worst in people.

It is infuriating that you cannot see how the situation is different in January 2024 than it was in November 2022.

TJF (a) has Club Board representation (and therefore that person has access to confidential financial information including the management accounts of the company (b) is a trustee of an organisation that has the majority shareholding and (will shortly) have a legal agreement in place governing budgetary and spending approvals.

Precisely none of this was in place in November 2022.

The presentation to shareholders was described by someone sitting next to you at the AGM as like “night and day” compared to what the Club Board offered at the previous one. This was a shareholder who made an excellent point about the lack of due diligence done before the share transfer. That was a fair and balanced account of what happened at the AGM. Yours is not.

Frankly it is utterly exhausting and not a good use of my or anyone else’s time trying to engage with you on this, because the kernels of legitimate points on longer-term sustainability are lost in a web of inaccuracies and preconceived notions.

TJF funding of the Club is not the full answer (no one has suggested it is) but it is making a substantial material difference and is an entirely legitimate component of sustainably funding a fan owned football club.

If you don’t believe this, you’re frankly in the company of Jacqui Low and Peter Shand, who made clear to TJF in the summer of 2022 that the Club neither needed nor wanted fan fundraising to be a part of the budget.