Second Tranche Investment

[Jordanhill Jag]

After reading the TJF Survey with interest - one line Jumped out - that the Club Board wished to proceed with the Second Tranche Investment of £500K - which obviously would dilute the Fan Shareholding further 

For Clarity - the AGM gave a glowing report on how the Board had the Finances under Control - how they will increase revenues via increased Hospitality & Sponsor deals to get to a Breakeven 

a Forecast lost of £150K is predicated - however we still have £350K of the Tranche 1 Investment to cover these losses 

There was nothing raised regards major issues ref the Stadium - and the Priority for improvements was the Hospitality Areas 

So the Questions are  -

Why would we need another £500K in Q1 ?

Why would the Board even indicate this as a possibility ?  

Why are TJF not asking serious Questions that this is even a consideration given the Statements on our finances etc at the AGM ?   

Its always good to add scale to any performance as an organisation 

Greenock Morton FC are Fan Owned - Stadium similar age to Firhill  - Ave Home Gate  1500 Less than Thistle 

If Results had been a bit different Yesterday - We don't get a late equaliser - Morton Get a late Winner - they would be breathing down our neck in the League 

Morton didn't get £500K from a US Investor to prop them up this Season 

So How are Morton doing it- and why would PTFC even be considering another £500K and selling off more shares 

& Why are TJF not asking these Questions of the Current Board and acting like a Major Shareholder ?  

TJF should not be waiting on the Board to approach them ref Tranch 2 Investment - they should tell the Board - don't bother even thinking about it  

 

 

 

 

[Lenziejag]

If I remember correctly, it was mentioned around the AGM and I think TJF’s response at that time was that they would like to see the proposal before deciding whether to support it or not.

[Jordanhill Jag]

40 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

If I remember correctly, it was mentioned around the AGM and I think TJF’s response at that time was that they would like to see the proposal before deciding whether to support it or not.

Why would the Club require another £500K and sell off more Shares given the statements made at the AGM regards Finances ? 

There was no immediate requirement regards Stadium Repairs so why would we need another £500K ?  

 

[Woodstock Jag]

The possibility of a second tranche of investment has been prominently advertised:

(a) at the point the original investment was completed on 5th October 2023

(b) at the Club’s AGM on 11th January 2024, which Jim attended (here is the slide from the presentation pack, which Richard Beastall specifically spoke to on potential uses for tranche 2) - the forecasts presented to shareholders also indicated that the cashflow of the business would remain positive even without the investment.

 

(c) in the Club’s post AGM update of 16th January 2024

(d) in TJF’s AGM summary report, published on 22 January 2024.

 

So I hope anyone given the impression that this potential investment was somehow subtly released to fans at the back of the Census report is quickly disabused of that notion.

Having attended a meeting of the Trustees on Monday 12th February I can confirm that no second tranche proposal has yet been presented to the Trustees.

As and when a proposal is presented, we will consider it on its merits, ask more detailed questions and for further information (including financial), and then come to a view. That view will be set out in public for all PTFC Trust beneficiaries to consider, and no investment will go ahead without a prior vote to approve it from the 2400 plus beneficiaries of the PTFC Trust.

We will not be taking lessons in diplomacy from those who would have us pre-empt this process. The ultimate decision is not one for us to make: we are simply a set of custodians representing the interests of the fans who will themselves decide if any further investment is desirable, and if so on what terms.

[Woodstock Jag]

17 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why would the Club require another £500K and sell off more Shares given the statements made at the AGM regards Finances ? 

There was no immediate requirement regards Stadium Repairs so why would we need another £500K ?  

The Club does not “require” another £500k.

[Jordanhill Jag]

21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Club does not “require” another £500k.

OK - So why is it stated that the Club will likely approach TJF to Sign off a second Tranche of Shares being sold for £500K in Q1 of this Year 

There is no immediate requirements regards the Stadium 

We have any losses covered with Tranche 1 

Why would you need Tranche 2 ? 

And as I have pointed out - Morton with significantly lower income Streams seem to be doing OK 

I can see No circumstances where there would remotely be a requirement for selling off more Shares ? 

So why is it stated that there is likely to be an approach to do so in Q1 ?

As for the notion that somehow we require more resources to get more Revenue - that's simply nonsensical ( Plus we have a remaining £350K of the Original Investment ) 

TJF as part the majority Shareholding Group should be asking Questions why its even being mentioned as it makes no sense on any level 

 

 

  

[Woodstock Jag]

Jim asks about “how Morton are doing it”.

The short answer is that they sustained six-figure losses last season and the year before that. Just like Thistle did. The exact quantum for 2022-23 will be revealed soon (their accounts are due shortly) but this is how the Greenock Telegraph reported it in September:

Morton also had a lucrative cup tie against Celtic at Celtic Park last season, so it looks like their “budgeted” performance may well have been similar to our own.

Morton, of course, relied on a two million pound write-off from the departing Rae family in 2021 to make their fan ownership implementation able to happen.

As to whether Morton required a bailout on cashflow: they may well have done. That said, they drew Rangers at Ibrox in the League Cup this year, which I’m sure will have helped.

Their cashflow position wasn’t in great nick (and quite similar to ours) at the end of the 2021-22 season:

(Morton 2021-22)

(Thistle 2021-22)

Morton is also differently structured than Thistle (for example Cappielow is owned by a separate company), and run a smaller first team squad than we do. If I had to guess (it’s not readily apparent as their accounts are less detailed) I’d say they’re probably a lower turnover company with lower fixed off-field costs than Thistle, Cappielow being a dump.

So if Jim’s point is that Morton are probably doing slightly better in footballing terms than their finances would suggest they should, and that Dougie Imrie had a jammy cup draw record, then yeah, no arguments here.

[Jordanhill Jag]

33 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The possibility of a second tranche of investment has been prominently advertised:

(a) at the point the original investment was completed on 5th October 2023

(b) at the Club’s AGM on 11th January 2024, which Jim attended (here is the slide from the presentation pack, which Richard Beastall specifically spoke to on potential uses for tranche 2) - the forecasts presented to shareholders also indicated that the cashflow of the business would remain positive even without the investment.

 

(c) in the Club’s post AGM update of 16th January 2024

(d) in TJF’s AGM summary report, published on 22 January 2024.

 

So I hope anyone given the impression that this potential investment was somehow subtly released to fans at the back of the Census report is quickly disabused of that notion.

Having attended a meeting of the Trustees on Monday 12th February I can confirm that no second tranche proposal has yet been presented to the Trustees.

As and when a proposal is presented, we will consider it on its merits, ask more detailed questions and for further information (including financial), and then come to a view. That view will be set out in public for all PTFC Trust beneficiaries to consider, and no investment will go ahead without a prior vote to approve it from the 2400 plus beneficiaries of the PTFC Trust.

We will not be taking lessons in diplomacy from those who would have us pre-empt this process. The ultimate decision is not one for us to make: we are simply a set of custodians representing the interests of the fans who will themselves decide if any further investment is desirable, and if so on what terms.

And your point is ? 

Are you now saying no one ( including Shareholders ) should ask Questions - only TJF in there Wisdom will decide ? 

Also that the application for Second Tranche Funding is a forgone conclusion 

Tell me what would merit "strategic use" of £500K - its not Stadium Related as there were No Issues at the AGM 

The Club forecast a Breakeven on Current Budgets by next Season ? 

What would be this all important " Strategic Use" be ? 

As for "pre-empt this process" its very easy look at your Survey - Fan Ownership is a major Priority - unless we are going bust - DONT SELL OFF MORE SHARES 

Whole thing is frankly a Joke  

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Jim asks about “how Morton are doing it”.

The short answer is that they sustained six-figure losses last season and the year before that. Just like Thistle did. The exact quantum for 2022-23 will be revealed soon (their accounts are due shortly) but this is how the Greenock Telegraph reported it in September:

Morton also had a lucrative cup tie against Celtic at Celtic Park last season, so it looks like their “budgeted” performance may well have been similar to our own.

Morton, of course, relied on a two million pound write-off from the departing Rae family in 2021 to make their fan ownership implementation able to happen.

As to whether Morton required a bailout on cashflow: they may well have done. That said, they drew Rangers at Ibrox in the League Cup this year, which I’m sure will have helped.

Their cashflow position wasn’t in great nick (and quite similar to ours) at the end of the 2021-22 season:

(Morton 2021-22)

(Thistle 2021-22)

Morton is also differently structured than Thistle (for example Cappielow is owned by a separate company), and run a smaller first team squad than we do. If I had to guess (it’s not readily apparent as their accounts are less detailed) I’d say they’re probably a lower turnover company with lower fixed off-field costs than Thistle, Cappielow being a dump.

So if Jim’s point is that Morton are probably doing slightly better in footballing terms than their finances would suggest they should, and that Dougie Imrie had a jammy cup draw record, then yeah, no arguments here.

And there funding a Youth Set Up ( which will be circa £150K ) 

And they didn't get £500K from America 

The purpose of the exercise is not to go bust & perform on the Park - Morton seem to be doing that without external Funding 

[Woodstock Jag]

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

OK - So why is it stated that the Club will likely approach TJF to Sign off a second Tranche of Shares being sold for £500K in Q1 of this Year 

It isn’t.

It’s stated that the Club Board wants to progress further investment.

If this comes to anything then the PTFC Trust will be approached with the details of the proposal, of which TJF is one trustee.

And no investment deal will be allowed to progress (per the terms of the Club-Trust Agreement) without the approval of the beneficiaries in a fan vote.

If you want to know why the Club Board is keen to progress this in Q1, ask them directly. Speaking as one of TJF’s representatives at Trustee meetings, I see absolutely no hurry for any further investment, and given the influence TJF Board members will have in communicating what they think of any proposals with the wider fan base, I am unconcerned.

If it’s a bad deal we’ll say so and the fans can make up their own mind.

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There is no immediate requirements regards the Stadium

So what? Are you suggesting that the Club should decline all investment proposals, regardless of how favourable or unfavourable, until Glasgow City Council revokes a safety certificate? This is really weird Jim.

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We have any losses covered with Tranche 1 

Tranche 1 was a bailout to deal with the immediate cashflow problems. It wasn’t a catch-all solution to all the Club’s longer-term sustainability needs. No one ever said it was.

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why would you need Tranche 2 ? 

We don’t.

But the Club Board wants it, to enable it to do things it can’t currently do, because we don’t have large capital reserves.

Whether those things warrant investment and if so on what terms remains to be seen. That’s a completely hypothetical question until the Trustees are presented with something.

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And as I have pointed out - Morton with significantly lower income Streams seem to be doing OK 

They’ve been losing large six figure sums in consecutive seasons and they’ve had two large Old Firm away day cup ties, run a smaller squad than we do.

I think you’re making the argument here that we should rig the balls in the domestic cup draws in future and appoint Dougie Imrie as our manager?

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I can see No circumstances where there would remotely be a requirement for selling off more Shares ?

Okay, then make sure you’re a beneficiary of the PTFC Trust and vote no on any proposal that’s presented to you.

As a representative of one of the Trustees, I will not be prejudging a proposal that hasn’t even been put to us.

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So why is it stated that there is likely to be an approach to do so in Q1 ?

Jim if I offered you £500k now, £500k in June, or £500k in 2047, which would you pick?

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As for the notion that somehow we require more resources to get more Revenue - that's simply nonsensical ( Plus we have a remaining £350K of the Original Investment ) 

It’s not nonsensical. There are some types of revenue growth that require any business to invest up-front capital in facilities improvements, or to hire more effective staff (for example) to deliver better commercial returns.

You yourself, on this very forum, were calling for the Club to spend (what would be) tens of thousands of pounds improving the toilets, on the grounds that it would attract more fans to the ground in the longer term and that this would increase income and make the Club more sustainable.

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF as part the majority Shareholding Group should be asking Questions why its even being mentioned as it makes no sense on any level   

As we explained in our post-AGM update we met with Donald McClymont (and other Club Board members) and asked them several questions about the investment process and what lay behind the desire to progress the investment this season.

That is an ongoing discussion, but one about which there is nothing new of substance to say unless and until the Trustees are presented with a formal proposal document. Which hasn’t happened.

[Fawlty Towers]

Now that Gladiators is back on our screens I think I can see an opportunity to raise some serious money for the club.

£5 per person to watch Jim and Graeme go at with pugil sticks (I know who I am rooting for).

Contenders Ready!

[Woodstock Jag]

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And your point is ? 

That you’ve jumped the gun. Again.

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Are you now saying no one ( including Shareholders ) should ask Questions - only TJF in there Wisdom will decide ? 

No. Simply that we won’t be rejecting a proposal that doesn’t yet exist when we haven’t even seen it!

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Also that the application for Second Tranche Funding is a forgone conclusion 

It isn’t. Any second tranche is subject to a beneficiary vote. So unless you think the Club Board exhibits mind control over more than half of the beneficiaries, nothing is a “foregone conclusion”.

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Tell me what would merit "strategic use" of £500K - its not Stadium Related as there were No Issues at the AGM 

That’s not for me to say. That’s for the Club Board and any investors to present a costed financial proposal on.

But again, I find it baffling that you’re saying there were “no stadium issues” at the AGM. This is nonsense. Morag McHaffie, on behalf of the Jags Trust (one of the trustees) asked about stadium maintenance and Chris Ross gave a detailed answer about the approach to stadium maintenance and resourcing.

The Club acknowledged that there are lots of issues with the stadium, and that some of its existing budget is being used to remedy things like seat replacement, blown windows in the Colin Weir, and to do some roof repairs to the Jackie Husband Stand. Some of it had also been used to upgrade catering facilities in the Aitken Suite and the hospitality lounges, which are now in drastically better condition than they were 12 months ago.

What they also said was that existing resources were prioritised towards ensuring the safety certificate would be renewed every year. They readily acknowledged that Firhill is a stadium with a long list of maintenance and aged facilities issues. There are plenty of things to do with stadium maintenance and facilities that we could do if we had £500k extra in the bank that we can’t do now.

The question is whether those things are sufficiently high priority and value for money. We await the Club’s and investors’ detailed proposals on this before coming to a view. Which is the correct approach. Not dismissing things out of hand based on incomplete information.

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Club forecast a Breakeven on Current Budgets by next Season ?

Yes, that’s what Richard Beastall’s forecasts said.

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

What would be this all important " Strategic Use" be ? 

That’s for the Club to set out and argue for. Not me. It’s not my proposal.

16 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As for "pre-empt this process" its very easy look at your Survey - Fan Ownership is a major Priority - unless we are going bust - DONT SELL OFF MORE SHARES 

Whole thing is frankly a Joke  

A decisive majority of TJF members said it was important or very important that Thistle remains majority fan owned. That much is true.

That is precisely why we insisted on a properly embedded legal guarantee of majority fan ownership as a condition of tranche 1.

That is why we insisted on a beneficiary vote to be a precondition of any future investment that would alter the share capital of the club.

Our survey highlighted a lot of different things about TJF members’ priorities. For example, financial sustainability was considered as important by more members than majority fan ownership.

As a proportion of overall open text responses, far more fans raised issues to do with stadium maintenance and facilities than they did about corporate governance or shareholdings.

A lot of the things we can do to improve the fan and matchday experience won’t cost much money: they’re simply about better understanding and engaging with fans.

But some things will cost money, and that money will often have to come up front, rather than be spread over multiple seasons (unless the Club wants to take out debt, which it appears very reluctant to do, understandably).

So there is a trade off there. Are the fans content to make trade offs for those bigger ticket initiatives, or not?

That’s not for me to say. That’s for them to say. If and when they are asked. Which they have to be!

[Woodstock Jag]

16 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Now that Gladiators is back on our screens I think I can see an opportunity to raise some serious money for the club.

£5 per person to watch Jim and Graeme go at with pugil sticks (I know who I am rooting for).

Contenders Ready!

I’m game if Jim is.

[jagfox]

Morton have received sizeable sponsorship/ funding from Dalrada Technologies, who's CEO is a Morton fan. This includes shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

25 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That you’ve jumped the gun. Again.

No. Simply that we won’t be rejecting a proposal that doesn’t yet exist when we haven’t even seen it!

It isn’t. Any second tranche is subject to a beneficiary vote. So unless you think the Club Board exhibits mind control over more than half of the beneficiaries, nothing is a “foregone conclusion”.

That’s not for me to say. That’s for the Club Board and any investors to present a costed financial proposal on.

But again, I find it baffling that you’re saying there were “no stadium issues” at the AGM. This is nonsense. Morag McHaffie, on behalf of the Jags Trust (one of the trustees) asked about stadium maintenance and Chris Ross gave a detailed answer about the approach to stadium maintenance and resourcing.

The Club acknowledged that there are lots of issues with the stadium, and that some of its existing budget is being used to remedy things like seat replacement, blown windows in the Colin Weir, and to do some roof repairs to the Jackie Husband Stand. Some of it had also been used to upgrade catering facilities in the Aitken Suite and the hospitality lounges, which are now in drastically better condition than they were 12 months ago.

What they also said was that existing resources were prioritised towards ensuring the safety certificate would be renewed every year. They readily acknowledged that Firhill is a stadium with a long list of maintenance and aged facilities issues. There are plenty of things to do with stadium maintenance and facilities that we could do if we had £500k extra in the bank that we can’t do now.

The question is whether those things are sufficiently high priority and value for money. We await the Club’s and investors’ detailed proposals on this before coming to a view. Which is the correct approach. Not dismissing things out of hand based on incomplete information.

Yes, that’s what Richard Beastall’s forecasts said.

That’s for the Club to set out and argue for. Not me. It’s not my proposal.

A decisive majority of TJF members said it was important or very important that Thistle remains majority fan owned. That much is true.

That is precisely why we insisted on a properly embedded legal guarantee of majority fan ownership as a condition of tranche 1.

That is why we insisted on a beneficiary vote to be a precondition of any future investment that would alter the share capital of the club.

Our survey highlighted a lot of different things about TJF members’ priorities. For example, financial sustainability was considered as important by more members than majority fan ownership.

As a proportion of overall open text responses, far more fans raised issues to do with stadium maintenance and facilities than they did about corporate governance or shareholdings.

A lot of the things we can do to improve the fan and matchday experience won’t cost much money: they’re simply about better understanding and engaging with fans.

But some things will cost money, and that money will often have to come up front, rather than be spread over multiple seasons (unless the Club wants to take out debt, which it appears very reluctant to do, understandably).

So there is a trade off there. Are the fans content to make trade offs for those bigger ticket initiatives, or not?

That’s not for me to say. That’s for them to say. If and when they are asked. Which they have to be!

OK - so we will start with the "Stadium Issues" Yes Morag raised them - we were then given a list which was in essence normal FM tasks - there was nothing flagged up of Major Significance - and the Board will have numerous Reports on the Stadium Condition - these will would have been factored into this Years £150K Loss & next Years Forecasted Breakeven Budgets 

If Stadium Repairs are not factored in - and require significant additional cash ( above the £350K that will remain from Tranche 1 ) and they were not flagged up at the AGM then that's a serious issue  ( and lets not forget they were only mention because a Trust Rep Raised them ) 

Ref the comment on Glasgow City Council Planning Permission - there are No Plans for the Bing worth noting - as stated at the AGM - again if there was and we were not told at the AGM - that's an issue   

You see here is the thing 

the AGM is where the Board Report to the Shareholders - they cannot hold things back - yet there stating they are likely to ask for Tranche 2 within Weeks of the AGM    

So if there is this "significant investment" proposal - logic would suggest it was  known at the AGM - as the Tranche 2 Requirement was stated at the AGM 

And I'm Guessing that they have flagged it up to there Major Shareholder ( albeit without detail) at an early stage as any Board would do   

Its not Commercial Growth - as you would need a massive increase in Commercial revenues to get a return on £500K - also the Board detailed its Commercial Revenue Plans at the AGM-  and they were part of this Years & next Seasons Breakeven Budget Forecasts - so costs have been factored in    

So this is why the "Tranche 2" is not making sense - the Board Clearly stated there Budgets and those included Stadium - Revenue Growth via Commercial  & Hospitality - Stadium Repairs & a forecast loss of £150K & Break Even next Season 

BUT -they are looking for another £500K a few weeks later 

None of that stacks up 

If there is a proposal that requires significant funding outwith the Budgets - then a) its either raised at the AGM or b) its put through at an EGM ( same as Propco was ) whilst the various Trusts have a Majority Shareholding - they are not the only Shareholders and Shareholders are entitled to ask Questions in person  

If its discovered that this "investment" has been known at the time of the AGM and wasn't mentioned - that's an issue - and there will need to be a very good reason for it not being reported to ALL the Shareholders at the time rather than just those that are "in the loop" 

The Line between TJF & the Board is becoming rather blurred in my opinion 

[Jordanhill Jag]

53 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I’m game if Jim is.

Contenders Ready!

The Man who said that was John Anderson - he was first home Scot to gain the prestigious Full FA Coaching Certificate

He was also a famous Athletics coach and had an Olympian at every Olympics from 1964 to 2000 he also coached five world record holders 

 started life at Maryhill Harriers - Yet he is remembered for "Contenders Ready" on a TV Show  🙈

At an early age in North Glasgow I became an expert in Self Defence - ie I learnt to Run Very Very Fast 🤣

However Pugil Sticks in the Bar Garden at the back of Munns has a certain Appeal to it 😎😂

[javeajag]

7 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

OK - so we will start with the "Stadium Issues" Yes Morag raised them - we were then given a list which was in essence normal FM tasks - there was nothing flagged up of Major Significance - and the Board will have numerous Reports on the Stadium Condition - these will would have been factored into this Years £150K Loss & next Years Forecasted Breakeven Budgets 

If Stadium Repairs are not factored in - and require significant additional cash ( above the £350K that will remain from Tranche 1 ) and they were not flagged up at the AGM then that's a serious issue  ( and lets not forget they were only mention because a Trust Rep Raised them ) 

Ref the comment on Glasgow City Council Planning Permission - there are No Plans for the Bing worth noting - as stated at the AGM - again if there was and we were not told at the AGM - that's an issue   

You see here is the thing 

the AGM is where the Board Report to the Shareholders - they cannot hold things back - yet there stating they are likely to ask for Tranche 2 within Weeks of the AGM    

So if there is this "significant investment" proposal - logic would suggest it was  known at the AGM - as the Tranche 2 Requirement was stated at the AGM 

And I'm Guessing that they have flagged it up to there Major Shareholder ( albeit without detail) at an early stage as any Board would do   

Its not Commercial Growth - as you would need a massive increase in Commercial revenues to get a return on £500K - also the Board detailed its Commercial Revenue Plans at the AGM-  and they were part of this Years & next Seasons Breakeven Budget Forecasts - so costs have been factored in    

So this is why the "Tranche 2" is not making sense - the Board Clearly stated there Budgets and those included Stadium - Revenue Growth via Commercial  & Hospitality - Stadium Repairs & a forecast loss of £150K & Break Even next Season 

BUT -they are looking for another £500K a few weeks later 

None of that stacks up 

If there is a proposal that requires significant funding outwith the Budgets - then a) its either raised at the AGM or b) its put through at an EGM ( same as Propco was ) whilst the various Trusts have a Majority Shareholding - they are not the only Shareholders and Shareholders are entitled to ask Questions in person  

If its discovered that this "investment" has been known at the time of the AGM and wasn't mentioned - that's an issue - and there will need to be a very good reason for it not being reported to ALL the Shareholders at the time rather than just those that are "in the loop" 

The Line between TJF & the Board is becoming rather blurred in my opinion 

So if I go to the club and offer them £500k either or both parties should refuse it unless there is a specific detailed proposal that states what the money is to be used for ? Seems nuts 

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, javeajag said:

So if I go to the club and offer them £500k either or both parties should refuse it unless there is a specific detailed proposal that states what the money is to be used for ? Seems nuts 

that £500K will mean we sell of more Shares - so Yes there would need to be a very very good reason for selling off more shares  

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

that £500K will mean we sell of more Shares - so Yes there would need to be a very very good reason for selling off more shares  

The fan owned share holding cannot go below 51% so what’s the issue exactly 

personally I would take the £500k and raise the additional funds necessary to turn the bing into a safe standing area 

[Jordanhill Jag]

58 minutes ago, javeajag said:

The fan owned share holding cannot go below 51% so what’s the issue exactly 

personally I would take the £500k and raise the additional funds necessary to turn the bing into a safe standing area 

We cant fill the stands we have - why would we put money into a Safe Standing Area ?  

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Contenders Ready!

The Man who said that was John Anderson - he was first home Scot to gain the prestigious Full FA Coaching Certificate

He was also a famous Athletics coach and had an Olympian at every Olympics from 1964 to 2000 he also coached five world record holders 

 started life at Maryhill Harriers - Yet he is remembered for "Contenders Ready" on a TV Show  🙈

At an early age in North Glasgow I became an expert in Self Defence - ie I learnt to Run Very Very Fast 🤣

However Pugil Sticks in the Bar Garden at the back of Munns has a certain Appeal to it 😎😂

I have a Scottish Schools U15 Rugby Cup runners-up medal and a low centre of gravity. I anticipate only one outcome.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

that £500K will mean we sell of more Shares - so Yes there would need to be a very very good reason for selling off more shares  

Sounds like we should give the Club Board and investors the opportunity to set out those reasons before any decision is taken then?

Rather than dismiss the whole thing out of hand before there's even a concrete proposal to consider.

No?

[Auld Jag]

I am not sure many if any Scottish championship clubs could afford to refuse £500,000 and then a further £500,000 investment 6 months later. I do realise this means the fan ownership % being reduced.

If we are an ambitious club and looking to get back in the premiership i don't think Morton are the template for that, they haven't played in the top flight for nearly 40 years.

[javeajag]

42 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We cant fill the stands we have - why would we put money into a Safe Standing Area ?  

Because 3 sided grounds are shit 

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

OK - so we will start with the "Stadium Issues" Yes Morag raised them - we were then given a list which was in essence normal FM tasks - there was nothing flagged up of Major Significance - and the Board will have numerous Reports on the Stadium Condition - these will would have been factored into this Years £150K Loss & next Years Forecasted Breakeven Budgets 

If Stadium Repairs are not factored in - and require significant additional cash ( above the £350K that will remain from Tranche 1 ) and they were not flagged up at the AGM then that's a serious issue  ( and lets not forget they were only mention because a Trust Rep Raised them )

This is, again, an oversimplification. Whilst the budget includes contingency for stadium maintenance, it won't include every hypothetical major bit of stadium maintenance the Club might conceivably want to do in (say) a 3-5 year timeframe. There are several known aspects of stadium upkeep that have not been progressed in recent seasons because of a lack of cash reserves to invest in doing them up. But because they don't pose a short-term risk to the safety certificate, they haven't been prioritised. This was explained by Chris Ross at the AGM.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ref the comment on Glasgow City Council Planning Permission - there are No Plans for the Bing worth noting - as stated at the AGM - again if there was and we were not told at the AGM - that's an issue

I wasn't talking about planning permission. I was talking about the safety certificate!

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You see here is the thing 

the AGM is where the Board Report to the Shareholders - they cannot hold things back - yet there stating they are likely to ask for Tranche 2 within Weeks of the AGM

Jim the Club Board literally showed you a slide in their AGM presentation setting out that they wanted to progress with the second tranche, how much it would be for, when they wanted to close that deal and (in extremely high level terms) what they thought the money might be able to be used for.

They're not "holding things back" on the investment. It has been well trailed both at the point of the original investment and subsequently.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So if there is this "significant investment" proposal - logic would suggest it was  known at the AGM - as the Tranche 2 Requirement was stated at the AGM 

It was known at the AGM. They told you about it!

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And I'm Guessing that they have flagged it up to there Major Shareholder ( albeit without detail) at an early stage as any Board would do

The possibility of a second tranche was explicitly contemplated in the original investment agreement and was prominently advertised as a possibility, to fans, back in October.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Its not Commercial Growth - as you would need a massive increase in Commercial revenues to get a return on £500K - also the Board detailed its Commercial Revenue Plans at the AGM-  and they were part of this Years & next Seasons Breakeven Budget Forecasts - so costs have been factored in

Okay fine, vote against the investment if you aren't happy with the numbers they present the fans as part of the consultation process.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So this is why the "Tranche 2" is not making sense - the Board Clearly stated there Budgets and those included Stadium - Revenue Growth via Commercial  & Hospitality - Stadium Repairs & a forecast loss of £150K & Break Even next Season

Jim you're being deliberately obtuse here.

It is trivially true to say that the forecasts presented at the AGM included anticipated expenditure on stadium maintenance and growth of commercial and hospitality revenues. Those assumptions exist with or without further investment.

But there are some things the Club can't do without an injection of capital. Those might not be bare minimum business critical things but they will plausibly still be desirable things to be able to do.

Some of those things will involve more comprehensive work on the stadium and its facilities which simply would not be done under the current budget because they are too capital intensive and not essential to renewing the safety certificate.

To go back to the toilets example, previous Club Boards have ruled out the installation of hot water in the concourse toilets on grounds of cost. On this forum, you literally said the Club should be investing in upgrading those facilities, with a view to growing the fanbase. But if we drop tens of thousands of pounds on new toilets that won't lead to 400 new fans overnight. It won't pay for itself in the short-term.

So under the current budgetary pressures, those things simply don't happen.

A major capital investment could make initiatives like that viable. We'd need to see the numbers.

Which has been the TJF position from the outset.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

BUT -they are looking for another £500K a few weeks later 

No. They told you at the AGM they were looking to progress the £500k.

I'm beginning to think you weren't paying attention!

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

None of that stacks up 

If there is a proposal that requires significant funding outwith the Budgets - then a) its either raised at the AGM or b) its put through at an EGM ( same as Propco was ) whilst the various Trusts have a Majority Shareholding - they are not the only Shareholders and Shareholders are entitled to ask Questions in person

It was raised at the AGM!

All beneficiaries will have the opportunity to ask questions about the proposal, and to vote for or against approving it, before a single new share is issued.

If you want to have a say on this, join TJF, join The Jags Trust, buy a Season Ticket or become a 71 Club member.

This isn't hard. Thousands of your fellow fans have already done so.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If its discovered that this "investment" has been known at the time of the AGM and wasn't mentioned - that's an issue - and there will need to be a very good reason for it not being reported to ALL the Shareholders at the time rather than just those that are "in the loop" 

Jim, the second tranche was mentioned IN THE CLUB'S PRESS RELEASE in October.

It was also mentioned in the TJF reaction piece in October, and was the subject of detailed commentary from TJF later that month.

The second tranche was mentioned AT THE CLUB AGM with a literal slide in the presentation pack on the Club Board's intentions (see earlier in this thread).

The second tranche was mentioned in the Club's post-AGM report to fans.

The second tranche was mentioned in TJF's post-AGM report.

You would literally have to have been living under a rock not to have noticed it was a potential option being explored.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Line between TJF & the Board is becoming rather blurred in my opinion 

On the basis of absolutely nothing whatsoever.