Player fund

[Woodstock Jag]

It's one of those irregular verbs isn't it?

I bring in more revenue to create a sustainable business

You put out the begging bowl

He's dependent on millionaires to pay his bills

[Duke Gekantawa]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We are already being funded by Millionaires - so lets not pretend 

you balance your budget - and play at the level that a balanced budget allows you to do 

If some fans would like to pay more to be more competitive, what is the problem? So long as we only spend what is donated and don’t incur debt, I really fail to see the issue. 2013 was my favourite season, but I’m not sure whether we would have won the league without Steven Craig. His signing, if I recall correctly, was funded by a fan. I really don’t know who lost out by this arrangement 

[elevenone]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We are already being funded by Millionaires - so lets not pretend 

you balance your budget - and play at the level that a balanced budget allows you to do 

Could we not argue that is exactly what we are doing this season hence why we maybe lost the likes of Holt, Tiffoney and Turner to other clubs with bigger budgets or even clubs with form for not balancing their books.

Hypothetically if the players fund (begging bowl) say raised even enough in January to allow Dools to sign someone of that level again and give us a real crack at promotion I for one cannot see that being a bad thing.  Also its a direct fund to the squad as if I was in a position to give club say 25k in Jan I would insist it went to playing budget and not say new bulbs for floodlights or toilet overhauls (although much needed there).

[G13 jag]

As part of a recent survey from TJF, and in light of the recent investment/share purchase, I noted I’d never had an opportunity to buy shares/invest in the club.  I suggested we get 100/200 fans paying £200/100 pm for a year.  This could mean the group are given shares.  I’m not sure how it would work regulatory wise. But it continues with the fan ownership, and fans get something tangible in return. And spreading the outlay makes it accessible to more fans. Is there any support for this?

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

This is fantasy for pretty much every single football club.

Really ? 
 

my arse it is - there are plenty of Clubs out there who trade within there means and PTFC have managed this and been successful in the past 

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, elevenone said:

Could we not argue that is exactly what we are doing this season hence why we maybe lost the likes of Holt, Tiffoney and Turner to other clubs with bigger budgets or even clubs with form for not balancing their books.

Hypothetically if the players fund (begging bowl) say raised even enough in January to allow Dools to sign someone of that level again and give us a real crack at promotion I for one cannot see that being a bad thing.  Also its a direct fund to the squad as if I was in a position to give club say 25k in Jan I would insist it went to playing budget and not say new bulbs for floodlights or toilet overhauls (although much needed there).

The Players fund is simply an example - without TJF Cash & the US Investor Money we are not sustainable 

The issue with “ Free Money” which the Club hasnt generated is that it can suddenly stop has we have found out in the past 

we need to balance the books same as any other business 

there is no means to guarantee any additional funding goes to the Playing Budget - its simply additional Revenue to the Club 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

If some fans would like to pay more to be more competitive, what is the problem? So long as we only spend what is donated and don’t incur debt, I really fail to see the issue. 2013 was my favourite season, but I’m not sure whether we would have won the league without Steven Craig. His signing, if I recall correctly, was funded by a fan. I really don’t know who lost out by this arrangement 

Because its not a sustainable business strategy - you are hoping a fan gives you some cash ? 

[Norgethistle]

22 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Because its not a sustainable business strategy - you are hoping a fan gives you some cash ? 

Clubs are always hoping fans give cash.

Many fans  buy season tickets out of habit, and attend out of habit not just because they expect us to win.

No none join’s Centenary fund to win a prize, it’s basically a way to donate to the club with a potential wee prize.

The investment gives us working capital which ensures we do not have cash flow issues like last season and buys time to ensure the club is run not only on a sustainable budget but with hopefully growth. As does the £150k from the Foundation.

Cutting budget helps short term, but means we can’t compete, so we drop down league, prize money drops, crowds drop and the spiral increases. 
Apart from cutting the player’s budget (again) I’m not sure what cuts could be made. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Clubs are always hoping fans give cash.

Many fans  buy season tickets out of habit, and attend out of habit not just because they expect us to win.

No none join’s Centenary fund to win a prize, it’s basically a way to donate to the club with a potential wee prize.

The investment gives us working capital which ensures we do not have cash flow issues like last season and buys time to ensure the club is run not only on a sustainable budget but with hopefully growth. As does the £150k from the Foundation.

Cutting budget helps short term, but means we can’t compete, so we drop down league, prize money drops, crowds drop and the spiral increases. 
Apart from cutting the player’s budget (again) I’m not sure what cuts could be made. 

All business hope Customers buy there product - therefore Football Clubs are no different - your job Board is to come up with innovative ideas for Revenue Streams - not simply “ ask for cash” 

as for the Investment - Run a balanced budget and you don't have Cashflow issues  - its not complicated 

you don't cut on the quality of your Product - ie Football - everything else is obviously up to the Board to ensure its run at minimal cost and to balance the budget 

anything else is not sustainable and puts us at risk ( again ) 

 

[Third Lanark]

1 hour ago, elevenone said:

Could we not argue that is exactly what we are doing this season hence why we maybe lost the likes of Holt, Tiffoney and Turner to other clubs with bigger budgets or even clubs with form for not balancing their books.

Hypothetically if the players fund (begging bowl) say raised even enough in January to allow Dools to sign someone of that level again and give us a real crack at promotion I for one cannot see that being a bad thing.  Also its a direct fund to the squad as if I was in a position to give club say 25k in Jan I would insist it went to playing budget and not say new bulbs for floodlights or toilet overhauls (although much needed there).

Turner is not getting much game time at Dingwall.  Would be delighted if we could get him on loan(he would return like a shot if he could)

Personally idve dighted if players fund could sign him or similar again 

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, G13 jag said:

As part of a recent survey from TJF, and in light of the recent investment/share purchase, I noted I’d never had an opportunity to buy shares/invest in the club.  I suggested we get 100/200 fans paying £200/100 pm for a year.  This could mean the group are given shares.  I’m not sure how it would work regulatory wise. But it continues with the fan ownership, and fans get something tangible in return. And spreading the outlay makes it accessible to more fans. Is there any support for this?

There are practical (mainly admin burden-related) difficulties associated with issuing new micro-shareholdings, which is why the Club hasn't done it for many years. The only times really since Save The Jags that new shares have been issued has been for substantial one-off investments of money into the Club. The four most notable examples of this happening were:

• David Beattie investing in the Club in the mid-2000s
• Billy Allan doing likewise shortly afterwards
• Colin Weir investing in the club in the mid 2010s (leading to the Weir family shareholdings, now held by Jacqui Low, and the creation of the PTFC Trust)
• Donald McClymont, Stewart Smith and Mark Tyndall (the preference share investors from the autumn)

I think the one thing that most people can agree on is that the last thing Partick Thistle needs is yet another fans co-ordination vehicle, given the complexity of the three-body relationship we have at the moment.

As things stand:

• PTFC Trust has the majority shareholding (68%) but no direct fundraising capability, and its voting beneficiaries are ST holders or members of TJF and TJT
• The Jags Foundation has the mass membership and fundraising capability (1650+ members, pledging £10kpm+ to the Club) and will soon be one of only two trustees of the PTFC Trust
• The Jags Trust has a key minority shareholding (slightly less than 7%) and is also a trustee of the PTFC Trust, but has a much smaller membership and very limited fundraising capability

If any new shareholder would be none of these, that means setting up a new legal entity. Is that really worth it?

If it's to be the PTFC Trust, who's going to administer that, and what's the advantage to (essentially) no material change in its existing shareholding?

If it's to be The Jags Trust, fine, that's a matter for their members.

I personally see the attraction of TJF acquiring shares commensurate with its existing fundraising for the Club, but I know why others don't (if anything we want to be simplifying the fan-owned shareholding, not complicating it further).

The decision was taken in the summer that TJF's contributions to the Club should principally take the form of a recurring donation, rather than a subscription for shares, because it's a lot simpler to administer.

Having more shares, at this stage, is also less important than getting the fan ownership model right. The fan-controlled bodies already have the shares: it's about translating that into a proper set of structures for power and accountability.

Beyond that, frankly, small shareholdings are a nice-to-have but not really the ball game. Unless there's a large cohort of Jags fans that will only put money in if there's shares in it, it's not really worth the hassle and that money can find its way to the Club other ways.

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Really ? 
 

my arse it is - there are plenty of Clubs out there who trade within there means and PTFC have managed this and been successful in the past 

 

 

There will be zero clubs that aren’t either overspending or relying on volunteers or benefactors of some description to make it through a season. Or maybe you think using volunteers is a legitimate way to trade within your means.

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

There will be zero clubs that aren’t either overspending or relying on volunteers or benefactors of some description to make it through a season. Or maybe you think using volunteers is a legitimate way to trade within your means.

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget 

As for “ zero clubs” Saint Johnstone have traded for Years at a profit - so your statement is incorrect 

 

[Fawlty Towers]

For those who have stumbled on here and thought "I want to give some money to the club" here is how you do it:

https://ptfc.co.uk/fans/players-fund/

If you don't then that is fine as I am sure you contribute money in other ways.

[jagfox]

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget 

As for “ zero clubs” Saint Johnstone have traded for Years at a profit - so your statement is incorrect 

 

They profit or used to, from having hospitality services next the local crematorium. 

Made a big loss last season.

[Woodstock Jag]

23 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget 

As for “ zero clubs” Saint Johnstone have traded for Years at a profit - so your statement is incorrect 

I'm not sure I'd be throwing about St Johnstone too freely given they are expected to post losses of £1.5 million in their financial year 2022-23 accounts.

They can at least stomach such eye-watering losses, however, because they've run surpluses for many years and because Geoff Brown pumped millions of pounds into their coffers, giving them an abnormally large margin of safety for a Club that size.

The big lesson from St Johnstone is that it's a lot easier to build a sustainable Football Club when you already have several millions of pounds in the bank as working capital, and therefore do not have any cashflow challenges of which to speak. It is cashflow, far more even than failing to break even, that kills Football Clubs, though the latter eventually manifests itself as the former.

The recent investment into Thistle was specifically done to begin to restore the Club's margin of safety, so that there was enough working capital to start building the business and making it more self-sustaining. That isn't going to happen overnight though.

This simply goes back to the central point that the "begging bowl" analogy is misplaced here. Sometimes you need to put the money in to make the business viable. That's what Geoff Brown recognised at St Johnstone.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Woodstock Jag
Typo.

[Tom Hosie]

I'm curious.

If you operate a break even budget, which has to be the aspiration at the very least, do you stop looking for additional sources of income? 

What if a potential sponsor comes along looking to invest in the club does a club say "no we don't want your, cough, handout. We are breaking even" 

What if a transfer window is about to open and the manager wants to strengthen his squad. Do you tell him, "we are breaking even, we won't explore potential additional income sources"? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

10 minutes ago, Tom Hosie said:

I'm curious.

If you operate a break even budget, which has to be the aspiration at the very least, do you stop looking for additional sources of income? 

What if a potential sponsor comes along looking to invest in the club does a club say "no we don't want your, cough, handout. We are breaking even" 

What if a transfer window is about to open and the manager wants to strengthen his squad. Do you tell him, "we are breaking even, we won't explore potential additional income sources"? 

Of course not - you have a breakeven budget - any additional income thats not part of your normal trading is treated as such - additional income 

the problem is that additional income is not long term -and if its an individual it can be removed overnight 

therefore you set out your stall that your not dependant on one offs and if they happen they are a bonus 

 

[ChiThistle]

37 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget

 

I agree with you but also would consider volunteerism to be a “handout” of time & labor in the same way you’re considering the 500k investment to be a financial handout.

[Jordanhill Jag]

16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I'm not sure I'd be throwing about St Johnstone too freely given they are expected to post losses of £1.5 million in their financial year 2022-23 accounts.

They can at least stomach such eye-watering losses, however, because they've run surpluses for many years and because Geoff Brown pumped millions of pounds into their coffers, giving them an abnormally large margin of safety for a Club that size.

The big lesson from St Johnstone is that it's a lot easier to build a sustainable Football Club when you already have several millions of pounds in the bank as working capital, and therefore do not have any cashflow challenges of which to speak. It is cashflow, far more even than failing to break even, that kills Football Clubs, though the latter eventually manifests itself as the former.

The recent investment into Thistle was specifically done to begin to restore the Club's margin of safety, so that there was enough working capital to start building the business and making it more self-sustaining. That isn't going to happen overnight though.

This simply goes back to the central point that the "begging bowl" analogy is misplaced here. Sometimes you need to put the money in to make the business viable. That's what Geoff Brown recognised at St Johnstone.

Saint Johnstone have traded profitably for years and there reserves are due to Good Housekeeping - and being in the Premier for 20+ Years 

if you balance your budget then your working capital is factored in 

Thistle needed the Investor Cash due to residual debts - ie not balancing there budget - not to make them sustainable 

if by your arguement  its Reserves - we should always have £500K in the Accounts at the end of each Season  

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

I agree with you but also would consider volunteerism to be a “handout” of time & labor in the same way you’re considering the 500k investment to be a financial handout.

Stretching it a bit - we have always run the Club - until recently using a large % of Volunteers 

 

[scotty]

59 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget

 

But if asking fans to contribute to a playing budget is "begging bowl" then surely using volunteers is exploiting fans almost to the extent of slave labour? It's also not sustainable as the volunteers may just not turn up.

[Woodstock Jag]

10 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Saint Johnstone have traded profitably for years and there reserves are due to Good Housekeeping - and being in the Premier for 20+ Years 

if you balance your budget then your working capital is factored in 

Yes, but the, ahem, previous incumbents did the opposite of this, eroding the margin of safety by spending significant six-figure sums of money in successive seasons that the Football Club did not have.

We start from the position that there was barely enough working capital to see-out the 2022-23 season.

We cannot build from there without capital injection, unless you intend for Thistle to go down to a third-tier budget and build cash reserves over literal decades before even being able to look at 2nd tier football again.

10 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Thistle needed the Investor Cash due to residual debts - ie not balancing there budget - not to make them sustainable

But you're ignoring here why the residual debts (i.e. the soft loans to directors) were needed last season. They were needed because the working capital had been exhausted by the financial performance of the Club in the 2022-23 season (which was itself a consequence of the budget set in the summer of 2022 and the Club's failure to deliver on its underlying assumptions).

The starting point in summer 2023 was that there wasn't enough working capital. So investment was needed to avoid a cashflow problem. Even with a break-even budget. Even if the Club were to run a small surplus!

10 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

if by your arguement  its Reserves - we should always have £500K in the Accounts at the end of each Season  

No, this doesn't follow.

The investment ensures that at no point in the season do the cash reserves fall below £0, preventing the Club from meeting its short-term obligations. The actual amount of cash reserves at the end of the season depends entirely on the timing of different sources of income (for example).

[BowenBoys]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget 

As for “ zero clubs” Saint Johnstone have traded for Years at a profit - so your statement is incorrect 

 

Asking fans to contribute to the Players Fund = begging bowl

Relying on free labour to carry out necessary work = what?

 

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

100% its a legitimate way and we  worked very efficiently using Volunteers in the past - a small organisation like Thistle cannot afford a large Non Playing Staff Overhead as a % of overall budget 

As for “ zero clubs” Saint Johnstone have traded for Years at a profit - so your statement is incorrect 

 

For the life of me, I am not sure how you can see free labour is a sustainable business model, but you are ok with it - but not with any other kind of donation.