Player fund

[Jordanhill Jag]

27 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok - so I left PTFC in 2016 and had a fair idea on Club Finances up to that date - inflation hasn't been 30% since then 

the Non playing overhead is significantly higher than it was previously - therefore it can be cut - its as straightforwards as that - if your going under - you run on a Skelton Staff -and do the minimal you have to in order to survive 

you cannot control income and you cant forecast “ investments” -you can control outgoings so you start with that 

there was enough people being approached by the Club as “ investors” and financial information being bandied about to have a decent idea of the Finances start of 2023 - it wasn't a well kept Secret 

i actually do have a decent idea of the quantum of Savings that could have been made -and its circa £100K that includes minimal redundancy payments 

we had to go to Alastair Creevy in Late March to pay the wages when the Rangers Money Ran out - without him we were going bust - we had from Jan to March to make savings - we chose not to ( despite various people with previous experience in running the Club -advising where to make them - and offering assistance - for the Record I wasn't one of those people ) the £100K could have been the difference between staying in Business or not -if Alastair Creevy hadn't stepped in 

who said the Business was being gutted ? it is a correction to an overhead that had grown under previous boards - you assume we required that level of overhead - based on what ? 

No TJF are not a Shareholder - if the Nominee Director has no link to TJF - who does she represent ? TJF were up to date on the Finances 
 

So how do I know there are savings in overhead - simple - any experienced manager can look at a Business and see where the overhead can be cut in proportion to the Turnover - its as simple as that - also when you run a Business with your Money ( and not someone elses ) you learn how to minimise costs - thats what you do its not complicated 

PTFC are in the Scale of an Owner Managed business - so its not complicated 

 

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - so I left PTFC in 2016 and had a fair idea on Club Finances up to that date - inflation hasn't been 30% since then 

We were in the Premier League in 2016! I was talking about when we were last in the Championship. When you were a Club Director. Between 2010 and 2011!

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

the Non playing overhead is significantly higher than it was previously - therefore it can be cut - its as straightforwards as that - if your going under - you run on a Skelton Staff -and do the minimal you have to in order to survive 

No it isn't "as straightforward as that".

Cutting these kind of overheads isn't something you can just do overnight. It is something that requires transition to avoid compromising core functions of the business.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

you cannot control income and you cant forecast “ investments” -you can control outgoings so you start with that 

By this logic, the Football Club should have sacked the entire playing staff and accepted automatic relegation, because at least then the business would have broken even.

Investment is clearly a desirable part of the mix when addressing a cashflow crisis. This happens all the time with businesses that are capable of being restructured towards sustainability, but where that requires long-term changes rather than rash, short term fire sales.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

there was enough people being approached by the Club as “ investors” and financial information being bandied about to have a decent idea of the Finances start of 2023 - it wasn't a well kept Secret

tl;dr "Yes, Jim is wildly speculating"

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

i actually do have a decent idea of the quantum of Savings that could have been made -and its circa £100K that includes minimal redundancy payments 

You don't know that the redundancy payments would have been minimal. This is rampant speculation.

Saving £100k wouldn't have been even remotely close to meeting what was necessary to deliver February payroll.

So it would have been utterly pointless to do that. Glad we agree.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

we had to go to Alastair Creevy in Late March to pay the wages when the Rangers Money Ran out - without him we were going bust - we had from Jan to March to make savings - we chose not to ( despite various people with previous experience in running the Club -advising where to make them - and offering assistance - for the Record I wasn't one of those people ) the £100K could have been the difference between staying in Business or not -if Alastair Creevy hadn't stepped in

£100k wouldn't have been enough had we not drawn Rangers in the Cup.

A Football Club cannot make drastic changes to its spending commitments mid-way through a season, unsettling its staff, forcing it to withdraw basic amenities and creating rampant uncertainty for partner organisations.

Anyone that tells you it can or should do this should not be taken seriously.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

who said the Business was being gutted ? it is a correction to an overhead that had grown under previous boards - you assume we required that level of overhead - based on what ?

Pounds and pence Jim. Quantify it. Name the things that would be cut. The things that money would not have been spent on in January, February and March 2023 that were in fact spent. Show me numbers, Mrs Landingham.

You are speculating.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

No TJF are not a Shareholder - if the Nominee Director has no link to TJF - who does she represent ? TJF were up to date on the Finances 

The Directors of the Football Club do not "represent" anyone except the majority shareholder that sought their appointment.

It is not correct to state that "TJF were up to date on the finances". Two TJF directors signed NDAs in order to have detailed financial information shared with them, to facilitate the development of an investment proposal.

Even if TJF were kept fully appraised of the details of the finances, it would have had absolutely zero ability to affect spending decisions made by the Football Club. At this point in time it was not a trustee, so could not even vote on decisions of the majority shareholder.

TJF, between January and July of 2023, had no more influence over Club spending decisions than anyone else who entered into an NDA with a view to investing in the Club. In other words, it had no influence whatsoever.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

So how do I know there are savings in overhead - simple - any experienced manager can look at a Business and see where the overhead can be cut in proportion to the Turnover - its as simple as that - also when you run a Business with your Money ( and not someone elses ) you learn how to minimise costs - thats what you do its not complicated 

This is bluster and nonsense Jim.

Show me numbers, Mrs Landingham. Costed itemised savings. Pounds and pence.

Show me how it would have increased cashflow by the end of February such that the Club could have paid its bills without soft-loans from directors. Show your working.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

PTFC are in the Scale of an Owner Managed business - so its not complicated 

Always be deeply suspicious of anyone who insists, with incomplete information, that something isn't complicated.

[Rid Skwerr]

Woodstock Jag - you have the patience of a saint....... 😉

[Jordanhill Jag]

33 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We were in the Premier League in 2016! I was talking about when we were last in the Championship. When you were a Club Director. Between 2010 and 2011!

No it isn't "as straightforward as that".

Cutting these kind of overheads isn't something you can just do overnight. It is something that requires transition to avoid compromising core functions of the business.

By this logic, the Football Club should have sacked the entire playing staff and accepted automatic relegation, because at least then the business would have broken even.

Investment is clearly a desirable part of the mix when addressing a cashflow crisis. This happens all the time with businesses that are capable of being restructured towards sustainability, but where that requires long-term changes rather than rash, short term fire sales.

tl;dr "Yes, Jim is wildly speculating"

You don't know that the redundancy payments would have been minimal. This is rampant speculation.

Saving £100k wouldn't have been even remotely close to meeting what was necessary to deliver February payroll.

So it would have been utterly pointless to do that. Glad we agree.

£100k wouldn't have been enough had we not drawn Rangers in the Cup.

A Football Club cannot make drastic changes to its spending commitments mid-way through a season, unsettling its staff, forcing it to withdraw basic amenities and creating rampant uncertainty for partner organisations.

Anyone that tells you it can or should do this should not be taken seriously.

Pounds and pence Jim. Quantify it. Name the things that would be cut. The things that money would not have been spent on in January, February and March 2023 that were in fact spent. Show me numbers, Mrs Landingham.

You are speculating.

The Directors of the Football Club do not "represent" anyone except the majority shareholder that sought their appointment.

It is not correct to state that "TJF were up to date on the finances". Two TJF directors signed NDAs in order to have detailed financial information shared with them, to facilitate the development of an investment proposal.

Even if TJF were kept fully appraised of the details of the finances, it would have had absolutely zero ability to affect spending decisions made by the Football Club. At this point in time it was not a trustee, so could not even vote on decisions of the majority shareholder.

TJF, between January and July of 2023, had no more influence over Club spending decisions than anyone else who entered into an NDA with a view to investing in the Club. In other words, it had no influence whatsoever.

This is bluster and nonsense Jim.

Show me numbers, Mrs Landingham. Costed itemised savings. Pounds and pence.

Show me how it would have increased cashflow by the end of February such that the Club could have paid its bills without soft-loans from directors. Show your working.

Always be deeply suspicious of anyone who insists, with incomplete information, that something isn't complicated.

So unless I actually state who I would have made redundant -my argument  is not valid -is that what is being stated ? 

your argument is that every single member of staff - every penny we spent was critical to the Running of the Football Club ? And nothing could have been done ? 
you accuse me of speculating - I have a fair idea of the number of bodies it takes to run the Club & the cost  -albeit on a Skelton Staff - but enough to comply with the basic requirements - so No its not “ speculating” its applying experience both in assisting to run the Club factoring in current wages - and Decades of Experience in Running a Profitable Business - the mechanics on how you go about it dont change -from one business to another 

the financing from the end of February was mainly from Rangers - late April May June was Directors Soft Loans - £100K Saving would have made a dent in the Soft Loans and if the loans hadnt been available you have reduced the shortfall which gives you a fighting chance 

the rampant uncertainty was going bust - thats a bit bigger than upsetting staff or partners - but you continually ignore that salient fact 

my arse it took transition blah blah blah - the vast majority of the Turnover is in Football Costs - that is looked after by the Team Management Coaches etc 

the remainder is Stadium - Accounts and putting a Game on every two weeks 

the majority of staff on Matchday are brought in for the Match 

everything else is optional - so you decide what you need to put a game on every two weeks 

its as simple as that - its not complicated anyone who says it is has no idea what there doing  

Your correct the Directors represent the Shareholders and the Shareholders are supposed to hold the Directors to Account ? 

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

So unless I actually state who I would have made redundant -my argument  is not valid -is that what is being stated ? 
 

I am asking you to quantify, with sufficient specificity, what you would have cut, to achieve the necessary levels of savings.

Since you are unable or unwilling to do that, we can draw the adverse inference that your claim it would be “straightforward” to make those savings is wrong.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

your argument is that every single member of staff - every penny we spent was critical to the Running of the Football Club ? And nothing could have been done ? 

No that’s not my argument.

My argument is that the sums of money that would have been saved by making even savage cuts to the non-footballing operations of the football club, between January and March 2023, wouldn’t have been even remotely close to enough to stave off a cashflow crisis.

Therefore there was no compelling business case to slash and burn at that immediate point in time, while more sustainable and deliverable proposals were being developed and considered, such as fresh capital investment.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

you accuse me of speculating - I have a fair idea of the number of bodies it takes to run the Club & the cost  -albeit on a Skelton Staff - but enough to comply with the basic requirements - so No its not “ speculating” its applying experience both in assisting to run the Club factoring in current wages - and Decades of Experience in Running a Profitable Business - the mechanics on how you go about it dont change -from one business to another 

Football Clubs are not normal businesses. They are affected by structural issues that are unique to the environment in which they operate. To list several relevant examples:

(a) income from ticket revenue is extremely lumpy (mainly acquired in the summer), contributing to a cash nadir mid-season

(b) income from TV, prize and sponsorship revenue also mostly accrues at the beginning or end of a season, also contributing to a mid-season cash nadir

(c) many of the services rendered by the Football Club are done throughout the season, but to customers who have paid at the start of the season (therefore in-year cash savings are impacted)

(d) health and safety compliance costs like stewarding and policing are a significant, non-discretionary, element, without which the Club cannot make its main product open to the public

(e) the transfer window restrictions severely restrict the flexibility to make changes to the lion’s share of the budget allocation to wages

There are others, but this explains why a Club Board, freshly appointed in December 2022, might have limited room for manoeuvre to completely restructure the off-field operations before the end of February 2023.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

the financing from the end of February was mainly from Rangers - late April May June was Directors Soft Loans - £100K Saving would have made a dent in the Soft Loans and if the loans hadnt been available you have reduced the shortfall which gives you a fighting chance

If we hadn’t drawn Rangers, £100k would not have been enough to meet payroll in February. And the soft loans would not have been enough to see the Club through to the end of the season.

Earlier in this thread, you were saying that the existence of the soft loans was a “handout” and evidence of incompetence of the December-March board. Now you’re saying it would have been totally fine for them to rely on soft loans if only they’d sacked some people.

Which is it?

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

the rampant uncertainty was going bust - thats a bit bigger than upsetting staff or partners - but you continually ignore that salient fact 

No I don’t. I simply recognise that sacking some staff wouldn’t have made anything like the quantum of difference necessary to address the cashflow issue, and may indeed have made it worse!

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

my arse it took transition blah blah blah - the vast majority of the Turnover is in Football Costs - that is looked after by the Team Management Coaches etc 

So you agree there is very limited room to re-structure off-field operations mid-season as a way to address an acute and massive cashflow crisis at two months’ notice? Glad we agree.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

the remainder is Stadium - Accounts and putting a Game on every two weeks 

The infrastructure needed to do this is the vast majority of Thistle’s non-footballing expenditure!

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

the majority of staff on Matchday are brought in for the Match 

But still a non trivial proportion of the non-footballing staffing costs of the company! 

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

everything else is optional - so you decide what you need to put a game on every two weeks 

A functioning football club. With staff.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

its as simple as that - its not complicated anyone who says it is has no idea what there doing 

Okay Jim, off you go and set up a Football Club without any staff and show us all how it’s done!

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Your correct the Directors represent the Shareholders and the Shareholders are supposed to hold the Directors to Account ? 

And TJF weren’t a shareholder during that period! QED! We agree! And we all shout “hurrah”!

[Woodstock Jag]

I must say Jim, I do find it very funny that you were very critical of the football club on discretionary cost grounds when your mate Colly was relieved of his duties (even though his notice didn’t have to paid all in one go).

Yet you’re now also telling us that they were incompetent because they didn’t incur massive redundancy costs dismissing any employee who wasn’t directly involved in “putting a game on every fortnight”.

[Fawlty Towers]

9 hours ago, scotty said:

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?

I think Jim has a bias against bowling clubs because of their "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, Rid Skwerr said:

Woodstock Jag - you have the patience of a saint....... 😉

St Jude?

[Albert's Ghost]

12 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

St Jude?

Well I doubt it's St Thomas.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I must say Jim, I do find it very funny that you were very critical of the football club on discretionary cost grounds when your mate Colly was relieved of his duties (even though his notice didn’t have to paid all in one go).

Yet you’re now also telling us that they were incompetent because they didn’t incur massive redundancy costs dismissing any employee who wasn’t directly involved in “putting a game on every fortnight”.

For the Record - my gripe has always been on how he was treated on the day he was sacked  - Football Managers get sacked - thats Football 

for the Board to ask him to make a rousing speech to Fans in Hospitality Pre match ( whilst Directors stood and watched ) knowning he was being sacked - why would the Board do that ? 

Then to make a point of rushing back from there comfy seats in the Directors Box at Ibrox -just to sack him that Night screams being vindictive 

making cuts because your going bust is unfortunate economics - its not personal 

How Ian McCall was treated ( not the decision to sack him ) asks serious questions of those involved 

our reputation in Football took a serious knock on how the Board acted that day I can assure you  

 

[Tom Hosie]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

 

 

Show me numbers, Mrs Landingham.

I have nothing to add to the debate other than to salute the references to the final episode of season two of the greatest TV series ever. 

[jagfox]

It would seem there are cost cuttings/ efficiency savings going on. Was somebody in hospitality not offered a new lesser package and decided to leave, quite recently? 

[exiledjag]

Returning to the player fund.

Does anyone know how much has actually been raised for the January transfer window.

Also how can fans keep up to date with this - the accruing number and value of donations. For example, are there progress reports anywhere.

Apologies if this information is available on the club website but I don't see/can't find any such info.

 

[Third Lanark]

43 minutes ago, exiledjag said:

Returning to the player fund.

Does anyone know how much has actually been raised for the January transfer window.

Also how can fans keep up to date with this - the accruing number and value of donations. For example, are there progress reports anywhere.

Apologies if this information is available on the club website but I don't see/can't find any such info.

 

Is there not a danger if they post that information then it could alert other clubs or in particular agents of football clubs to what’s going on.  Eg agent of player x demands the player gets more money for signing for Thistle because he knows fans have raised £50,000 etc

This is just playing devils advocate but I can see why they might not wish to reveal exactly how much they have raised.  Or maybe they will announce how much was raised at the end of January when the window closes even?

[Jaggernaut]

2 hours ago, Third Lanark said:

Is there not a danger if they post that information then it could alert other clubs or in particular agents of football clubs to what’s going on.  Eg agent of player x demands the player gets more money for signing for Thistle because he knows fans have raised £50,000 etc

This is just playing devils advocate but I can see why they might not wish to reveal exactly how much they have raised.  Or maybe they will announce how much was raised at the end of January when the window closes even?

That looks like a sensible "Devil's advocate" question to me. It raises the question about whether fans' forums need to (or should) be informed of all the details that are going on at the club.

And then, could misinformation be deliberately released.?......   And then could counter-misinformation be put out by rivals..... etc. etc. ?

Ma heid's buzzled!

[ChiThistle]

27 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

That looks like a sensible "Devil's advocate" question to me. It raises the question about whether fans' forums need to (or should) be informed of all the details that are going on at the club.

And then, could misinformation be deliberately released.?......   And then could counter-misinformation be put out by rivals..... etc. etc. ?

Ma heid's buzzled!

My guess is the closest we’ll come to seeing those figures is in the “other operating income” line of the income statement.  And even then it probably will be lumped in with other income so we won’t know the exact amount.

I kind of doubt players would be demanding more money due to the results.  A player who signed a contract should have accepted no less than market value (or a combination of market value and personal value, which is what I suspect Lawless might have done - agreeing to less money because he loves being here).

[Third Lanark]

Of course if we sign player z in January- it could be stated that the player fund paid or contributed to this without of course needing to state the sums involved 

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, Third Lanark said:

Of course if we sign player z in January- it could be stated that the player fund paid or contributed to this without of course needing to state the sums involved 

Not sure I like the idea of signing "player z". Would that not mean we've missed out on twenty five others?

[Fawlty Towers]

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