Player fund

[partickthedog]

2 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

If we were just doing £5 per post on this topic we would be putting a bid in for Mbappe!

Anyway, nothing fancy from me (a former volunteer). If you are in broad agreement with the idea of a players fund and can afford a donation then here is how to do it (and "thank you"):

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

If you don't agree with it that is fine also,  I think we are still allowed to disagree these days (unless of course you think Star Wars is better than Star Trek in which case you are dead to me).

JJ will be with you in that as he is in favour of Enterprise!

[Woodstock Jag]

7 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The issue with the £500K & TJF money is that they can be pulled - and we have found this in the past - which then exposes the Club on Cashflow 

Just on this very narrow point.

The £500k cannot be "pulled". The conditions on the investment prevent the shares being redeemed unless Thistle's cash balance is in excess of £2 million and even then, only in relation to any excess cash balance over £2 million. It can only be pulled from a set of conditions that leave Thistle in a position of very considerable financial strength.

Whilst the TJF pledge is a voluntary recurring donation, we have deliberately structured the commitment in such a way as to make it predicable for the Club. That's why it's a specific monthly amount, for an agreed period, rather than just ad hoc contribution.

The intention is that, from the next TJF AGM onwards, the members will be invited on an annual basis to vote on the Club pledge. This will provide a degree of certainty around how TJF funds will be used.

[ChiThistle]

At this point I’d imagine the TJF contribution is more of a known quantity than the prize money at the end of the season.

I don’t envy the budgeting process required when you, y’know, can’t totally be certain of your revenue curves and such.

[Jordanhill Jag]

15 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Just on this very narrow point.

The £500k cannot be "pulled". The conditions on the investment prevent the shares being redeemed unless Thistle's cash balance is in excess of £2 million and even then, only in relation to any excess cash balance over £2 million. It can only be pulled from a set of conditions that leave Thistle in a position of very considerable financial strength.

Whilst the TJF pledge is a voluntary recurring donation, we have deliberately structured the commitment in such a way as to make it predicable for the Club. That's why it's a specific monthly amount, for an agreed period, rather than just ad hoc contribution.

The intention is that, from the next TJF AGM onwards, the members will be invited on an annual basis to vote on the Club pledge. This will provide a degree of certainty around how TJF funds will be used.

Thats fair enough - however no business should put itself in a position where they are dependant on ad hoc funding to balance the budget - external funding is outwith your control as Business 

we cannot work on a position where we are relying on the luck of a funder appearing eg USA Funder -or the former Chairman giving us a Loan -to stop us going bust 

A Business controls its overhead & lives within its means - if we don't have Directors that have the Skillset to do this - then Shareholders ( same as any other Business ) brings in New Directors who can 

its not complicated ( no idea why this is an issue for PTFC ) ? 

[Woodstock Jag]

54 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Thats fair enough - however no business should put itself in a position where they are dependant on ad hoc funding to balance the budget - external funding is outwith your control as Business 

That game was already a bogey when the 2022-23 budget, set by the old board, was found clearly to be unachievable. You can't just casually save hundreds of thousands of pounds mid-way through a season.

The issue is not just that the budget was not balanced. The issue is that it would have led to insolvency even if it was balanced, because there wasn't enough working capital in the company left.

54 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

we cannot work on a position where we are relying on the luck of a funder appearing eg USA Funder -or the former Chairman giving us a Loan -to stop us going bust 

Correct, so we should probably build-up reliable, repeatable, predictable sources of income and build those into the Club budget.

Like, say, a fan fundraising vehicle pledging at the start of a seasons to put £10kpm minimum into the Club every month for the full season.

But the nature and extent of the problem was such that this alone would not solve the problem.

As TJF explained in June to the fanbase, new investment of £500k plus was an absolute necessity if the Club was to continue to be able to trade as a functioning Football Club in the 2nd tier of Scottish Football for the 2023-24 season and beyond.

54 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

A Business controls its overhead & lives within its means - if we don't have Directors that have the Skillset to do this - then Shareholders ( same as any other Business ) brings in New Directors who can 

You have absolutely no idea whether the current directors are capable of doing this. There hasn't even been a full financial year in which any member of the current Club Board has presided over the Club's financial situation.

Indeed it is exactly one year to the day that all bar one member of the old board went off in a huff and quit because they didn't like the fact that the PTFC Trust trustees had decided to do the adult thing and work with TJF to improve the ownership model and address fans' widespread discontent.

54 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

its not complicated ( no idea why this is an issue for PTFC ) ? 

You're right it isn't complicated. But you're frankly just speculating about the abilities of the current Club Board based on very limited evidence. We don't even have the accounts of the 2022-23 season yet (and they weren't even in charge of setting the budget that year).

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That game was already a bogey when the 2022-23 budget, set by the old board, was found clearly to be unachievable. You can't just casually save hundreds of thousands of pounds mid-way through a season.

The issue is not just that the budget was not balanced. The issue is that it would have led to insolvency even if it was balanced, because there wasn't enough working capital in the company left.

Correct, so we should probably build-up reliable, repeatable, predictable sources of income and build those into the Club budget.

Like, say, a fan fundraising vehicle pledging at the start of a seasons to put £10kpm minimum into the Club every month for the full season.

But the nature and extent of the problem was such that this alone would not solve the problem.

As TJF explained in June to the fanbase, new investment of £500k plus was an absolute necessity if the Club was to continue to be able to trade as a functioning Football Club in the 2nd tier of Scottish Football for the 2023-24 season and beyond.

You have absolutely no idea whether the current directors are capable of doing this. There hasn't even been a full financial year in which any member of the current Club Board has presided over the Club's financial situation.

Indeed it is exactly one year to the day that all bar one member of the old board went off in a huff and quit because they didn't like the fact that the PTFC Trust trustees had decided to do the adult thing and work with TJF to improve the ownership model and address fans' widespread discontent.

You're right it isn't complicated. But you're frankly just speculating about the abilities of the current Club Board based on very limited evidence. We don't even have the accounts of the 2022-23 season yet (and they weren't even in charge of setting the budget that year).

Half the current Board were there when the Scale of the Financial Black Hole was identified - the immediate reaction of any Board to stop you going bust is to make drastic cuts on every level - this didn't happen - we did not cut the Cash Burn 

Without Alastair Creevy we could not pay the Wages for the last few Months of the Season - he didn't appear until circa April 

Only Luck of having someone like him stepping in at the last minute -stopped us from going bust & it was Smillie that approached him 

So based on actions when we were in dire straights - I will make my judgements on SkillSets - if you cant reduce costs when your going bust - there is little incentive to do it with the USA & TJF Cash being handed to you 

if we had cut the Cashburn in January - we may not have needed as much as £500k as a back up 

the Fans Raising £120k each year simply removes responsibility from the Board of Running a balanced budget - the £120k should be the Icing on the Cake - Not the Actual Cake itself 

in a Business  -Revenue is difficult to forecast ( even harder in Football) however you can Control overhead with certainty  

TJF money should be a buffer - not part of your Fixed Revenue Forecast otherwise why would you try & reduce overhead ? 

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

22 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Half the current Board were there when the Scale of the Financial Black Hole was identified - the immediate reaction of any Board to stop you going bust is to make drastic cuts on every level - this didn't happen - we did not cut the Cash Burn 

Perhaps you'd like to describe to us the £500k of off-field savings you would have made in January 2023, Jim?

(After all, but for the Rangers money, which didn't exist yet, that's how much the Club would have lost in the 2022-23 season)

Not vague generalities. Let's talk specific numbers here. Who would you have fired? How much money would that have saved?

Which non-staffing overheads would you have cut? How much would they have saved?

The bottom line is that the kind of cuts that would have been needed to avoid losses in the 2022-23 season were not deliverable because of (a) pre-committed spending that could not be altered mid-season (b) the quantum was simply far too big for small changes to make a difference.

The harsh reality is that if you had insisted on slash and burn in January it would have been to the player budget. It would have meant selling several players and not replacing them.

[Norgethistle]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Half the current Board were there when the Scale of the Financial Black Hole was identified - the immediate reaction of any Board to stop you going bust is to make drastic cuts on every level - this didn't happen - we did not cut the Cash Burn 

Without Alastair Creevy we could not pay the Wages for the last few Months of the Season - he didn't appear until circa April 

Only Luck of having someone like him stepping in at the last minute -stopped us from going bust & it was Smillie that approached him 

So based on actions when we were in dire straights - I will make my judgements on SkillSets - if you cant reduce costs when your going bust - there is little incentive to do it with the USA & TJF Cash being handed to you 

if we had cut the Cashburn in January - we may not have needed as much as £500k as a back up 

the Fans Raising £120k each year simply removes responsibility from the Board of Running a balanced budget - the £120k should be the Icing on the Cake - Not the Actual Cake itself 

in a Business  -Revenue is difficult to forecast ( even harder in Football) however you can Control overhead with certainty  

TJF money should be a buffer - not part of your Fixed Revenue Forecast otherwise why would you try & reduce overhead ? 

 

 

Our biggest cost is players wages, our other staff costs will be tiny compared to playing staff. 
So what specific cuts would you make half way through the season as all players were on contracts? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

16 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Our biggest cost is players wages, our other staff costs will be tiny compared to playing staff. 
So what specific cuts would you make half way through the season as all players were on contracts? 

Based on previous % of Non Playing overhead -when we were last promoted - rough guess it could have been reduced by around a half -  if your going bust -you make do -and only have the bare bones to comply with what you need to do to put a game on every two weeks - anything above that is choice 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Based on previous % of Non Playing overhead -when we were last promoted - rough guess it could have been reduced by around a half -  if your going bust -you make do -and only have the bare bones to comply with what you need to do to put a game on every two weeks - anything above that is choice and other staff costs are not “tiny” thats nonsense 

 

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

 

 

[Norgethistle]

32 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Based on previous % of Non Playing overhead -when we were last promoted - rough guess it could have been reduced by around a half -  if your going bust -you make do -and only have the bare bones to comply with what you need to do to put a game on every two weeks - anything above that is choice 

 

Our last accounts had turnover as £2.47million with wages of £1.8 million
with a playing squad of 26 that’s takes a very big % of that. And what of that could have been removed, they are contracted till May or further, can only go if you can sell or loan them out.

Whilst 74 other staff, that includes staff who get a shift a fortnight (hospitality etc) .

 

Do we lay off hospitality staff and lose that income stream? 

Physios and hope players don’t get injured?

Players and hope we stay up after paying their contracts out?

Explain what could be cut in January that would not have actually cost us more in the mid to long term (relegation).  
 

Stopping more spending and bringing extra cash in was only option available 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

Our last accounts had turnover as £2.47million with wages of £1.8 million
with a playing squad of 26 that’s takes a very big % of that. And what of that could have been removed, they are contracted till May or further, can only go if you can sell or loan them out.

Whilst 74 other staff, that includes staff who get a shift a fortnight (hospitality etc) .

 

Do we lay off hospitality staff and lose that income stream? 

Physios and hope players don’t get injured?

Players and hope we stay up after paying their contracts out?

Explain what could be cut in January that would not have actually cost us more in the mid to long term (relegation).  
 

Stopping more spending and bringing extra cash in was only option available 

1. As stated there was a shortfall in finances due to an inherited budget

2. That would indicate that the overhead against income was massively out of sync from the previous Board 

3.Applying logic then there would be opportunities to reduce the inherited overhead - as it was obviously too high - a 10% reduction is not a high bar to achieve 

4.Ive stated that the previous Non Playing overhead in past years in the Championship - was circa 50% of what it was in Jan 23

5.The Club turnover is that of an owner managed business - where the owner runs multi facets of the Business Hands On - so the Directors of a small organisation should have the Skill Set to actually do hands on roles at the Club-  as opposed to employing staff to do then  - do we have a Board of Directors or a Committee ? 

 6.Your going bust - you look at the cost benefit of everything you do at the Club outside Stadium - H&S & Matchday 

if the numbers don't stack up ref Hospitality& your actual profit as a return  - you cut it 

Im not sure what TJFs role is these days - your a Major Shareholder - your job is to hold Boards to Account -not be there apologists and enablers - by bailing them out 

the key issue is thus “OPM” -  other peoples money - if the Club was the Boards own Business - if it was there money - they would run it with minimal overhead - minimal staff - its not so they can play with it - however I repeat we were going bust - questions have to be asked -and TJF are clearly not willing to act like a proper shareholder 

Ask yourself thus - if PTFC was a family owned business - if the persons house was Security against any Business Loans - if there was a threat of the Business Going Bust - do you think the Business Owner would be able to find 10% Savings in the Company overhead ? 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Jordanhill Jag

[scotty]

JJ, the more I read your input on this thread the conclusion I am reaching is that you seem to be annoyed that the club hasn't gone bust!

And just as an aside, what DO you have against bowling clubs?

[Norgethistle]

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

1. As stated there was a shortfall in finances due to an inherited budget

2. That would indicate that the overhead against income was massively out of sync from the previous Board 

3.Applying logic then there would be opportunities to reduce the inherited overhead - as it was obviously too high - a 10% reduction is not a high bar to achieve 

4.Ive stated that the previous Non Playing overhead in past years in the Championship - was circa 50% of what it was in Jan 23

5.The Club turnover is that of an owner managed business - where the owner runs multi facets of the Business Hands On - so the Directors of a small organisation should have the Skill Set to actually do hands on roles at the Club-  as opposed to employing staff to do then  - do we have a Board of Directors or a Committee ? 

 6.Your going bust - you look at the cost benefit of everything you do at the Club outside Stadium - H&S & Matchday 

if the numbers don't stack up ref Hospitality& your actual profit as a return  - you cut it 

Im not sure what TJFs role is these days - your a Major Shareholder - your job is to hold Boards to Account -not be there apologists and enablers - by bailing them out 

the key issue is thus “OPM” -  other peoples money - if the Club was the Boards own Business - if it was there money - they would run it with minimal overhead - minimal staff - its not so they can play with it - however I repeat we were going bust - questions have to be asked -and TJF are clearly not willing to act like a proper shareholder 

Ask yourself thus - if PTFC was a family owned business - if the persons house was Security against any Business Loans - if there was a threat of the Business Going Bust - do you think the Business Owner would be able to find 10% Savings in the Company overhead ? 

 

 

I’ve seen to often in my career knee jerk cuts due to finances which actually do more long term damage than good.

Covid saw so many skilled guys laid off, now shops can’t compete as they can’t re-recruit as the skills have moved or been lost so they are now struggling to be competitive on lead time or quality or cost (as they have to poach skilled operators).

Even if hospitality is merely a break even, whilst it doesn’t make club cash it generates good will towards fans and current sponsors and generates potential new sponsors.

If the office doesn’t function the club can’t function and generate current or future income, a lot of these roles are volunteers.

We need physios, sports science, catering etc for the team or players don’t perform to their optimal.

Match day staff are required and a lot are volunteers.

Kids go free season tickets generate the next generation of fans as can be seen in JLS last and this season.

Players are on contracts negotiated and signed before the financial issues came to public light.

Im struggling to see what could be cut mid season that wouldn’t actually cost us more money (contracts) or massively impact the ability to actually operate 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

I’ve seen to often in my career knee jerk cuts due to finances which actually do more long term damage than good.

Covid saw so many skilled guys laid off, now shops can’t compete as they can’t re-recruit as the skills have moved or been lost so they are now struggling to be competitive on lead time or quality or cost (as they have to poach skilled operators).

Even if hospitality is merely a break even, whilst it doesn’t make club cash it generates good will towards fans and current sponsors and generates potential new sponsors.

If the office doesn’t function the club can’t function and generate current or future income, a lot of these roles are volunteers.

We need physios, sports science, catering etc for the team or players don’t perform to their optimal.

Match day staff are required and a lot are volunteers.

Kids go free season tickets generate the next generation of fans as can be seen in JLS last and this season.

Players are on contracts negotiated and signed before the financial issues came to public light.

Im struggling to see what could be cut mid season that wouldn’t actually cost us more money (contracts) or massively impact the ability to actually operate 

“knee jerk” are you joking ? We were going bust - the long term impact of not reducing the Cash Burn was not to be in Business - what part of that do people not get ?
 

- I struggle to see how we managed to double the Non Football Overhead from the last Time we were in the Championship - we dont do anything different from previous 

And the bottom line - which I will repeat - we were going bust - and what is being argued is that those making the decisions could not see ways of cutting costs - so thats OK 

OK as an example we don't “need” a Sports Scientist - if we can afford one - then Great - if your going bust -then you can survive without one 

Im honestly amazed that people are attempting to justify the lack of any attempt to reduce overhead costs when we were going bust 

If it was your Company - if your House was Collateral on a Business Loan - trust me - you could find Savings in a Heartbeat 

but its not “ real” its OPM - other peoples money - so its in reality all a big game - not a proper business - we are a Bowling Club - nothing more 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Jordanhill Jag

[stolenscone]

Wouldn't redundancy payments have had to have been made in order to sack non playing staff in January, and wouldn't those payments have outweighed any cash savings in the very short term?

I have no special insight into the cash position in January, but if it was as bad as is being made out, I suspect that adding an immediate redundancy liability would have tipped it over the edge into insolvency. 

I don't offer a view on whether the non playing staff budget is sensible or bloated. I'm only saying that savings from cutting the non playing staff budget wouldn't be felt until the next financial year - by which time it's presumably too late?

[Woodstock Jag]

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

1. As stated there was a shortfall in finances due to an inherited budget

2. That would indicate that the overhead against income was massively out of sync from the previous Board 

3.Applying logic then there would be opportunities to reduce the inherited overhead - as it was obviously too high - a 10% reduction is not a high bar to achieve 

Not vague generalities. Specifics, Jim. What would you have cut and how much would it have saved? Pounds and pence please.

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

4.Ive stated that the previous Non Playing overhead in past years in the Championship - was circa 50% of what it was in Jan 23

The value of money has depreciated by about 50% since before we were promoted to the Premiership.

You are drastically overstating the potential for cuts, even if it were to be done in close-season with relatively less pre-committed expenditure.

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

5.The Club turnover is that of an owner managed business - where the owner runs multi facets of the Business Hands On - so the Directors of a small organisation should have the Skill Set to actually do hands on roles at the Club-  as opposed to employing staff to do then  - do we have a Board of Directors or a Committee ? 

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with you on this Jim. If anything, the Directors of the Football Club have, in the last 18-24 months or so, been tasked with too much of the day-to-day running of the Football Club.

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

 6.Your going bust - you look at the cost benefit of everything you do at the Club outside Stadium - H&S & Matchday

Specifics please Jim. What would you cut and how much would it save? Pounds and pence. Show your working.

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

if the numbers don't stack up ref Hospitality& your actual profit as a return  - you cut it 

Ladies and gentlemen, we should have shut the Alan Rough Lounge, broken sponsorship contracts for pre-paid hospitality, laid off the matchday hospitality team and probably still not saved very much money. Jim's grand plan!

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Im not sure what TJFs role is these days - your a Major Shareholder - your job is to hold Boards to Account -not be there apologists and enablers - by bailing them out 

TJF isn't a shareholder. It's one of four trustees of the majority shareholder.

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

the key issue is thus “OPM” -  other peoples money - if the Club was the Boards own Business - if it was there money - they would run it with minimal overhead - minimal staff - its not so they can play with it - however I repeat we were going bust - questions have to be asked -and TJF are clearly not willing to act like a proper shareholder 

We're not a shareholder, proper or otherwise!

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ask yourself thus - if PTFC was a family owned business - if the persons house was Security against any Business Loans - if there was a threat of the Business Going Bust - do you think the Business Owner would be able to find 10% Savings in the Company overhead ? 

Not mid-season and at two-months' notice, no.

[Woodstock Jag]

7 minutes ago, stolenscone said:

Wouldn't redundancy payments have had to have been made in order to sack non playing staff in January, and wouldn't those payments have outweighed any cash savings in the very short term?

I have no special insight into the cash position in January, but if it was as bad as is being made out, I suspect that adding an immediate redundancy liability would have tipped it over the edge into insolvency. 

I don't offer a view on whether the non playing staff budget is sensible or bloated. I'm only saying that savings from cutting the non playing staff budget wouldn't be felt until the next financial year - by which time it's presumably too late?

This is precisely it.

The Club's challenge was cashflow. It was in trouble because it lacked the current assets to see out the season. The idea that the Club could have made the situation better by firing the hospitality or back-office staff in January 2023 and stopped providing hospitality to people who had already paid for it is frankly ludicrous.

This conversation simply serves to suggest (to me) that Jim has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the Club's financial difficulties.

[Woodstock Jag]

One more thing to put out there (lest there be any doubt about roles and responsibilities).

TJF had no formal relationship whatsoever with the Football Club until the summer, when the PTFC Trust trust deed was varied to make TJF a trustee and its members beneficiaries.

So it wasn’t even indirectly in a position of influence over any shareholding whatsoever during the period January 2023 (when the nature and extent of the Club’s financial difficulties became apparent) and July 2023 (when it became a trustee).

[stolenscone]

To be fair, I don't think that many (any?) would argue that we shouldn't running a balanced budget. 

I guess the difference of opinion is what should (or indeed could) the new board have done in the immediate aftermath of the old board, who mismanaged the budget, leaving en masses.

Personally, I would prefer to park this discussion until we have the information to assess whether or not the new board is able to run a balanced budget. It seems to me that they were parachuted into a crisis not of their own making.  Steps were taken to stabilise the immediate problem, and they should be judged on their performance after that point.

Who knows - Jim may be proven to be correct.  At this moment in time though, I don't see how anyone can know, unless they are privy to knowledge that isn't in the public domain. 

[ChiThistle]

In the spirit of the kinds of things Jim is bringing up, I admit I greatly fear upcoming capital expenditures like, having to fix the Weir Stand roof or replacing floodlights or something.

If and when that happens, I don’t see how we can afford it without handouts.  I figure to pay for that out of trading surplus, we’d have to have existed in the premiership for a few seasons using a team of extremely young players.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Not vague generalities. Specifics, Jim. What would you have cut and how much would it have saved? Pounds and pence please.

The value of money has depreciated by about 50% since before we were promoted to the Premiership.

You are drastically overstating the potential for cuts, even if it were to be done in close-season with relatively less pre-committed expenditure.

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with you on this Jim. If anything, the Directors of the Football Club have, in the last 18-24 months or so, been tasked with too much of the day-to-day running of the Football Club.

Specifics please Jim. What would you cut and how much would it save? Pounds and pence. Show your working.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should have shut the Alan Rough Lounge, broken sponsorship contracts for pre-paid hospitality, laid off the matchday hospitality team and probably still not saved very much money. Jim's grand plan!

TJF isn't a shareholder. It's one of four trustees of the majority shareholder.

We're not a shareholder, proper or otherwise!

Not mid-season and at two-months' notice, no.

Im not going to name who I would have made redundant -thats just nonsense and you know it - your argument is nothing could have been done ?
 

Whilst only one example - I said the Sports Scientist was not critical to the Club and any competent Manager could identify others - your going bust - you cut the cash burn - what bit of that is difficult ? 

I also said you do a cost benefit analysis of all aspects - if they are not making money or marginal amounts - you cut them 

Redundancies would be minimal Govt requirements - most people have not been there over a lengthy period so it is a marginal cost  

your argument is we are going bust - but there is nothing we can do about it and lets hope someone loans us some money 

between Jan & April that was the strategy and your defending it ? 

i will repeat - if it was your Business and you could lose your House if you go under are you saying you could not find savings 

also ref Hospitality Staff - if you cancelled you refund the money - I didn't say that was a saving I said you review all aspects of the Club 

ref TJF they were involved in trying to bring in Investors to suggest they had no influence over finances is stretching it plus they had a Nominated Director on the Board 

And the value of Money has not “ depreciated  by 50% “ complete nonsense

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, stolenscone said:

Wouldn't redundancy payments have had to have been made in order to sack non playing staff in January, and wouldn't those payments have outweighed any cash savings in the very short term?

I have no special insight into the cash position in January, but if it was as bad as is being made out, I suspect that adding an immediate redundancy liability would have tipped it over the edge into insolvency. 

I don't offer a view on whether the non playing staff budget is sensible or bloated. I'm only saying that savings from cutting the non playing staff budget wouldn't be felt until the next financial year - by which time it's presumably too late?

We managed to keep the overhead afloat with the Rangers Money - part of that could have been used for Redundancies - we got the Creevy Money circa March April - without it we couldnt pay the wages 

very few staff were there long term - couple of weeks wages would be the Redundancy Package 

[Jordanhill Jag]

5 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

In the spirit of the kinds of things Jim is bringing up, I admit I greatly fear upcoming capital expenditures like, having to fix the Weir Stand roof or replacing floodlights or something.

If and when that happens, I don’t see how we can afford it without handouts.  I figure to pay for that out of trading surplus, we’d have to have existed in the premiership for a few seasons using a team of extremely young players.

See this argument that the USA money is there to prop up “ Reserves” well you just identified where they will be spent  

[Woodstock Jag]

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Im not going to name who I would have made redundant -thats just nonsense and you know it - your argument is nothing could have been done ?

Except it isn't nonsense, Jim. The point is that the steps you propose would have failed to save anything like the money required to secure a break-even budget, and would, as stolenscone has pointed out, have in some cases actually increased the cash-burn in redundancy payments.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Whilst only one example - I said the Sports Scientist was not critical to the Club and any competent Manager could identify others - your going bust - you cut the cash burn - what bit of that is difficult ?

The fact that employees have employment contracts and that redundancy costs money.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Redundancies would be minimal Govt requirements - most people have not been there over a lengthy period so it is a marginal cost  

Wrong, because statutory redundancy isn't the only thing to which people are legally entitled. Employment contracts are usually more generous than the statutory minimum.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

your argument is we are going bust - but there is nothing we can do about it and lets hope someone loans us some money 

No, my argument is that we were running out of cash and that making a handful of people redundant wasn't going to make any fundamental change to that picture. That it was highly unlikely to save the hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been required (without the Rangers money) to remain solvent.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

between Jan & April that was the strategy and your defending it ? 

No it wasn't. Between January and April the strategy was to buy the Club breathing space to restructure the business by first getting a substantial injection of new capital.

Hence TJF tried to pull together a consortium.

Only when that failed did certain individuals step-in with soft-loans to alleviate the immediate cash problem.

And having alleviated the immediate cash problem, the Club Board then proactively sought a more permanent solution in the form of new investment into the Club. Which is what was delivered in October.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

i will repeat - if it was your Business and you could lose your House if you go under are you saying you could not find savings 

Two points here:

(a) you have absolutely no idea whether savings were identified or implemented

(b) you have absolutely no idea of the quantum that such savings could plausibly have delivered, or how quickly they would have been realised for the purposes of cashflow

It is completely normal, when a business has a cashflow problem and/or needs fundamentally restructured, that it will seek either or both (a) new equity investment or (b) credit.

This can and often does come alongside savings.

But there is no point in completely gutting the underlying business if it won't save enough cash to keep it going, and if it jeopardises longer-term revenue streams. That just kicks the can down the road every bit as much, if not more, than short-term loans or lump sump investments.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

also ref Hospitality Staff - if you cancelled you refund the money - I didn't say that was a saving I said you review all aspects of the Club 

And when you've reviewed all aspects of the Club and it's clear that there aren't quick savings that can generate hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra cash inside two months? Then what do you do?

Remember the cash pinchpoint, pre-Rangers, was February payroll.

Even if redundancy saves you money in March, April, May and June that's utterly useless in January and February. And you'd have had the Club laying off staff, at additional cost, during that period?

Absolutely wild, Jim.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

ref TJF they were involved in trying to bring in Investors to suggest they had no influence over finances is stretching it plus they had a Nominated Director on the Board 

The investment process was an entirely external exercise, Jim, as you well know. The Club were not involved in those discussions; they were merely kept updated as to the broad outline of thinking from those that were involved in the discussions. There was an information sharing exercise done under NDAs, alluded to previously by the two TJF Board members who were given an insight into the Club's finances.

The key point is that none of the people in that room had any say at all over spending decisions at the Club, whatsoever, during the period in question.

TJF did not have a "nominated director" at the time. There was, and indeed still is, no entitlement in law or practice for TJF to "have a director" on the Club Board. We put forward the name of a person to the PTFC Trustees (when asked to do so) to help them to assemble an interim board. It was entirely open to them to decide not to proceed with that appointment and/or to remove the director in question at any time, without any duty to consult with TJF or to seek its agreement.

That director was, and still is, wholly independent of TJF's Board. We have no power to demand any information from that director. We cannot remove them. We cannot replace them with someone else. They are there in their own right.

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And the value of Money has not “ depreciated  by 50% “ complete nonsense

Apologies, I expressed that poorly. It's about 1/3 expressed in those terms. I meant that £1 from the early 2010s bought you the same value of goods as £1.50 or thereabouts buys you now. This is according to the Bank of England's own CPI index.

So when you say:

"Ive stated that the previous Non Playing overhead in past years in the Championship - was circa 50% of what it was in Jan 23"

Most of this is actually down to inflation. It is not realistic, once redundancy payments, cost of internal re-organisation and inflation is taken into account, then to pretend that we can somehow slash the non-playing overheads in half in the space of six weeks.

All of this assumes you even have the figures for what the non-playing overhead is in January 2023.

Which you don't. Because you're not party to an NDA with the Club which would lead to you being told what that figure was. And because the 2022-23 Accounts have not been published, meaning you cannot yet infer it from other financial information!

You are wildly speculating from a position of very limited knowledge of the Club's recent finances, based on (one can only assume) financial information you were privy to between 2010 and 2011 when you were a director of the Football Club, in a very different financial environment.