Second Tranche Investment

[ChiThistle]

And here I thought Groundhog Day was 2 weeks ago….   😄

[Jordanhill Jag]

58 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

On the basis of absolutely nothing whatsoever.

If there are major stadium issues that require significant financial input -and the Board were aware of them at the AGM - why were they not stated ? Why were they missing from any presentations ? Why was the only response on Stadium Requirements to a Question from Maggie Forsyth ? if there are Stadium Requirements over a 3-5 Year Period you build them into your Budget - you don't exclude them to make your figures look better ?

if thats the case then the Budgets being presented were not a true reflection on financial performance ? 

So if thats the case then we have serious issues regards what was presented at the AGM regards budgeting 

Regards the Toilets - I stated rather than put money tarting up Hospitality -the Money should have been used refurbing the Women's Toilets - I gave a financial breakdown why this was a better investment - it wasn't additional money it was a demonstration that the Board Strategy on Revenue Growth was wrong - and for the Record Hot Water in the Toilets is a Non Starter for lots of reasons -and Im happy to provide a Technical Reason as to why via DM if it assists 

No I wont join TJF - I already have a say - Im a Shareholder - if we are going to sell off more shares then we have an EGM and involve ALL Shareholders same as we did with Propco not a cosy wee arrangement that has TJF and the Board and its myriad of TJF / Board Directors and former Directors -agreeing things in advance same as the AGM 

not one decent question from TJF Reps at the AGM not one - why would that be ? 

So there is no need for Tranche 2 - unless the Stadium requires significant upgrades not advised at the AGM -and if thats the case then its a serious issue -as the Board are supposed to give a full report on the state of the Club financial requirements 

There is No Capital Investment in the Facilities of Firhill that is going to get a decent Commercial Return - what do you think previous boards were ? idiots ?

Reality is this - your £300K short on Revenue Streams in normal Revenues - its been the same for the last few Years TJF monies are hiding the true picture and reducing it to £150K losses 

Another £500k isn't going to address that underlying shortfall - so why is TJF wasting time discussing it ? 

Or are we to be told we are lucky to have

“ The German Model” so don't question the Grown Ups ? 
 

we do not need Tranche 2 

[Jordanhill Jag]

58 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

And here I thought Groundhog Day was 2 weeks ago….   😄

Tough 

[Woodstock Jag]

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If there are major stadium issues that require significant financial input -and the Board were aware of them at the AGM - why were they not stated ? Why were they missing from any presentations ? Why was the only response on Stadium Requirements to a Question from Maggie Forsyth ? if there are Stadium Requirements over a 3-5 Year Period you build them into your Budget - you don't exclude them to make your figures look better ?

Several points here.

1. Maggie Forsyth isn't Morag McHaffie.

2. You still don't seem to grasp the difference between things which are "absolutely essential requirements" and things which are "highly desirable, but not essential". The word "requirement" implies that these things are absolutely essential. They aren't absolutely essential, because a safety certificate can be secured without them.

3. There was literally a discussion at the AGM about several of the more capital intensive maintenance or facilities activity that the Club is not currently doing.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

if thats the case then the Budgets being presented were not a true reflection on financial performance ?

No, it simply indicates that, absent capital investment, the Club does not plan to spend significant amounts of money on larger projects to improve or better maintain the stadium than they do currently.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So if thats the case then we have serious issues regards what was presented at the AGM regards budgeting

There are plenty of reasons why we'd want to scrutinise the budgeting, not least the highly ambitious commercial and and fan-based revenue growth targets. You could even make the argument that the Club should be setting aside more money for regular year-to-year stadium maintenance than it is currently. That remains to be seen.

But this is why TJF has indicated that it will robustly scrutinise the detail of the 2024-25 budget when it is presented to the trustees. A commitment secured by the CTA.

But - yet again Jim - you are allowing a credible and serious point to get lost in waffle. Your inability to distinguish between

(a) things that are necessary to get a safety certificate to allow fans to enter the ground and watch a game of football

and

(b) things which it would be good to improve to make the matchday experience better and to attract new fans, but which we don't currently have the money for

Is completely undermining your point.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Regards the Toilets - I stated rather than put money tarting up Hospitality -the Money should have been used refurbing the Women's Toilets - I gave a financial breakdown why this was a better investment - it wasn't additional money it was a demonstration that the Board Strategy on Revenue Growth was wrong - and for the Record Hot Water in the Toilets is a Non Starter for lots of reasons -and Im happy to provide a Technical Reason as to why via DM if it assists

It doesn't assist.

My point is not about whether or not the toilets should be upgraded.

My point is that you - James Alexander - were calling for the Club to spend significant sums of money in facilities improvements, which would have required significant amounts of UP-FRONT (rather than ongoing) spending, and which were not absolutely essential to securing a safety certificate.

The absence of investment, combined with the Club's (still quite) weak cash reserves, means that no sensible Club Board would - at this time - commit to any major capital projects.

Investment could - potentially - change that calculation.

Which is why instead of rejecting it out of hand we should - and I'm a broken record here - wait to see what the actual proposal is, instead of wetting our knickers over a general statement of intent from the Club Board, which cannot turn into anything concrete without fan approval.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No I wont join TJF - I already have a say - Im a Shareholder - if we are going to sell off more shares then we have an EGM and involve ALL Shareholders same as we did with Propco not a cosy wee arrangement that has TJF and the Board and its myriad of TJF / Board Directors and former Directors -agreeing things in advance same as the AGM 

As far as I can see, there has never been an EGM held for the purposes of allotting new shares in the Football Club in the ordinary course of business. The decisions to allow, for example, David Beattie to subscribe for shares in 2007 and Colin and Christine Weir and the PTFC Trust in 2015, were done by resolution of the company and simply announced on the Club website, with relevant filings done by the Club Board and with the support of a sufficient proportion of the shareholders.

The Articles of Association of the company do not require an EGM to approve investment. It requires only the approval of shareholders representing the requisite amount of the voting share capital in the company.

Indeed, for a period the rules were even more relaxed. Following the Weir deal in 2015, the package included a resolution of the company to allow further allotment of shares by decision of the Club Board, bypassing the requirement for shareholder approval completely. This resolution (thankfully) lapsed a few years later.

This isn't a "cosy wee arrangement" it's how the vast majority of companies work.

And, to labour the point, under the Club-Trust Agreement it will be illegal for the Trustees to consent to any investment without a beneficiary vote in favour of it.

So it is the will of the shareholders that this should be the mechanism by which decisions about future investment are taken. If you don't want that to be the case, exercise what influence you have on the majority shareholder.

The only influence we are interested in is that of our beneficiaries. So become one if you aren't already. Or carp from the sidelines. Your choice.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

not one decent question from TJF Reps at the AGM not one - why would that be ? 

Your analysis is positively gyroscopic you u-turn so often Jim. In the hours following the AGM you literally told a mutual acquaintance of ours that I had asked a good question at the AGM about the financial forecasts.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So there is no need for Tranche 2 - unless the Stadium requires significant upgrades not advised at the AGM -and if thats the case then its a serious issue -as the Board are supposed to give a full report on the state of the Club financial requirements 

Once again, and with feeling.

There are lots of things that are not "requirements" that the Club would like to do. Some of those involve spending money.

If you don't have any spare capital, you don't budget for things that are "non-essential" even if they are "highly desirable".

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There is No Capital Investment in the Facilities of Firhill that is going to get a decent Commercial Return - what do you think previous boards were ? idiots ?

I'm reserving judgment on this.

Until we've seen what their proposals are.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Reality is this - your £300K short on Revenue Streams in normal Revenues - its been the same for the last few Years TJF monies are hiding the true picture and reducing it to £150K losses 

Not correct.

(1) TJF's contributions are normal revenues. You just don't like the fact that they are willing donations. The Club had failed to mobilise this source of income at all prior to this season.

(2) If we assume that the projections for the rest of this season are correct, and then we strip out TJF contributions, the Club is still closer to break-even in 2023-24 than it was in 2022-23 (even after including the Rangers cup income).

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Another £500k isn't going to address that underlying shortfall - so why is TJF wasting time discussing it ? 

We aren't. There has been no proposal presented. We will only spend time discussing it if and when a proposal is put.

You are the one wasting everyone's time by jumping the gun, raising it here when there's nothing to talk about!

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Or are we to be told we are lucky to have

“ The German Model” so don't question the Grown Ups ? 

You're entirely within your rights to question whatever you want Jim.

But it would be a lot more sensible if you questioned the content of an actual proposal rather than a vague statement of intent made at the Club's Annual General Meeting, about something that was prominently advertised and spoken about a full four months before that.

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

we do not need Tranche 2 

Then make sure you're a beneficiary and vote against it!

Edited February 19 by Woodstock Jag

[Tom Hosie]

Could we have that second £500k tranche for PTWFC please? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Several points here.

1. Maggie Forsyth isn't Morag McHaffie.

2. You still don't seem to grasp the difference between things which are "absolutely essential requirements" and things which are "highly desirable, but not essential". The word "requirement" implies that these things are absolutely essential. They aren't absolutely essential, because a safety certificate can be secured without them.

3. There was literally a discussion at the AGM about several of the more capital intensive maintenance or facilities activity that the Club is not currently doing.

No, it simply indicates that, absent capital investment, the Club does not plan to spend significant amounts of money on larger projects to improve or better maintain the stadium than they do currently.

There are plenty of reasons why we'd want to scrutinise the budgeting, not least the highly ambitious commercial and and fan-based revenue growth targets. You could even make the argument that the Club should be setting aside more money for regular year-to-year stadium maintenance than it is currently. That remains to be seen.

But this is why TJF has indicated that it will robustly scrutinise the detail of the 2024-25 budget when it is presented to the trustees. A commitment secured by the CTA.

But - yet again Jim - you are allowing a credible and serious point to get lost in waffle. Your inability to distinguish between

(a) things that are necessary to get a safety certificate to allow fans to enter the ground and watch a game of football

and

(b) things which it would be good to improve to make the matchday experience better and to attract new fans, but which we don't currently have the money for

Is completely undermining your point.

It doesn't assist.

My point is not about whether or not the toilets should be upgraded.

My point is that you - James Alexander - were calling for the Club to spend significant sums of money in facilities improvements, which would have required significant amounts of UP-FRONT (rather than ongoing) spending, and which were not absolutely essential to securing a safety certificate.

The absence of investment, combined with the Club's (still quite) weak cash reserves, means that no sensible Club Board would - at this time - commit to any major capital projects.

Investment could - potentially - change that calculation.

Which is why instead of rejecting it out of hand we should - and I'm a broken record here - wait to see what the actual proposal is, instead of wetting our knickers over a general statement of intent from the Club Board, which cannot turn into anything concrete without fan approval.

As far as I can see, there has never been an EGM held for the purposes of allotting new shares in the Football Club in the ordinary course of business. The decisions to allow, for example, David Beattie to subscribe for shares in 2007 and Colin and Christine Weir and the PTFC Trust in 2015, were done by resolution of the company and simply announced on the Club website, with relevant filings done by the Club Board and with the support of a sufficient proportion of the shareholders.

The Articles of Association of the company do not require an EGM to approve investment. It requires only the approval of shareholders representing the requisite amount of the voting share capital in the company.

Indeed, for a period the rules were even more relaxed. Following the Weir deal in 2015, the package included a resolution of the company to allow further allotment of shares by decision of the Club Board, bypassing the requirement for shareholder approval completely. This resolution (thankfully) lapsed a few years later.

This isn't a "cosy wee arrangement" it's how the vast majority of companies work.

And, to labour the point, under the Club-Trust Agreement it will be illegal for the Trustees to consent to any investment without a beneficiary vote in favour of it.

So it is the will of the shareholders that this should be the mechanism by which decisions about future investment are taken. If you don't want that to be the case, exercise what influence you have on the majority shareholder.

The only influence we are interested in is that of our beneficiaries. So become one if you aren't already. Or carp from the sidelines. Your choice.

Your analysis is positively gyroscopic you u-turn so often Jim. In the hours following the AGM you literally told a mutual acquaintance of ours that I had asked a good question at the AGM about the financial forecasts.

Once again, and with feeling.

There are lots of things that are not "requirements" that the Club would like to do. Some of those involve spending money.

If you don't have any spare capital, you don't budget for things that are "non-essential" even if they are "highly desirable".

I'm reserving judgment on this.

Until we've seen what their proposals are.

Not correct.

(1) TJF's contributions are normal revenues. You just don't like the fact that they are willing donations. The Club had failed to mobilise this source of income at all prior to this season.

(2) If we assume that the projections for the rest of this season are correct, and then we strip out TJF contributions, the Club is still closer to break-even in 2023-24 than it was in 2022-23 (even after including the Rangers cup income).

We aren't. There has been no proposal presented. We will only spend time discussing it if and when a proposal is put.

You are the one wasting everyone's time by jumping the gun, raising it here when there's nothing to talk about!

You're entirely within your rights to question whatever you want Jim.

But it would be a lot more sensible if you questioned the content of an actual proposal rather than a vague statement of intent made at the Club's Annual General Meeting, about something that was prominently advertised and spoken about a full four months before that.

Then make sure you're a beneficiary and vote against it!

There are two reasons you would spend Money on your Stadium 

1. As part of ongoing maintenance to ensure the Buildings are Fit for Purpose - your being misleading by simply focussing on the Safety Certificate - the Board Budget for ongoing maintenance of the Stadium across the whole spectrum  - its as simple as that - the costs of ongoing maintenance form part of the Budgets - some of that maintenance will be large Capital Spend - you therefore allocate part of your Budget each Year - Roll it over until you have the Capital to Fund it - if that's nit being done and the Board are not Budgeting for ongoing maintenance then the Budgets are not a true reflection on our financial position  

2, That you would spend money on facilities that are going to get a substantial increase on Revenues - given we don't max out any of our existing facilities then there is no logic in increasing them 

Wither I'm Jumping the Gun or not remains to be seen - there is a clear statement that the Board intend to apply for Tranche 2 Investment in Q1 of 2024 at the AGM  - which means that at the AGM the reasons for the Tranche 2 Investment were known - but they were not advised at the AGM -something TJF don't seem to have an issue with - the AGM is where questions are asked in a Public Forum and Directors have to answer - not a prearranged meeting where things are agreed between "those in the know" in advance 

Its not a case of "Jumping the Gun" Im asking if there is going to be an Application to sell of more Shares - this Application was known at the AGM -I'm also assuming the reasons for the requirement for Tranche 2 were known in outline by TJF at this point 

But it was kicked down the Road and discussions take place direct with the Trusts rather than the AGM - not with any other Shareholders - why would that be ? 

Why would they not want direct questions at the AGM ? 

So we are clear TJF represent circa 50% of the Fanbase 

They are not the only Shareholder - the Board are answerable to ALL Shareholders - not just those they know will do there bidding 

The Whole point of Fan Ownership is that there is more open discussions - we are in a position where discussions happen in advance and the Board speak to the Trusts and get agreement 

Why should we have an EGM - because unlike the Weir input in 2015 where we were Privately Owned - we are owned by a Myriad of the Trust & Individual Shareholders - the requirement on Tranche 2 was known at the AGM - but the reasons were not revealed - so if we are diluting Shareholdings - let the Board answer Questions in Public - rather than the "Beer & Sandwiches " arrangement with the Trust that we seem to have 

 And I stated TJF Reps - who attended the AGM - I clearly stated in previous discussions you raised a very pertinent Question which was read out - however its difficult for follow up questions if a Question is simply read out - there were no Questions from TJF Reps who attended in person 

This is about how the Board & TJF Operate - as a Major Shareholder your supposed to hold Boards to account - ask Questions - demand changes 

I'm going to end with this - Tranche 1 Investment as stated by TJF was presented as a fait accompli - TJF had very little option but to agree as there were deadlines - from this we then had "The German Model" of 51% introduced 

If TJF & other Trusts were a real majority Shareholder and acted as such - you would have removed Board Members for putting you in that position 

But you didn't 

So No matter what the Board propose - TJF will back them 

So Jumping the Gun or Not - the Anti Tranche 2 debate has started - and unlike Tranche 1 - TJF have plenty of Notice 

Tell the Board you want an EGM instead of "Beer & Sandwiches " 😀 

 

 

 

 

[Fawlty Towers]

17 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If there are major stadium issues that require significant financial input -and the Board were aware of them at the AGM - why were they not stated ? Why were they missing from any presentations ? Why was the only response on Stadium Requirements to a Question from Maggie Forsyth ? if there are Stadium Requirements over a 3-5 Year Period you build them into your Budget - you don't exclude them to make your figures look better ?

if thats the case then the Budgets being presented were not a true reflection on financial performance ? 

So if thats the case then we have serious issues regards what was presented at the AGM regards budgeting 

Regards the Toilets - I stated rather than put money tarting up Hospitality -the Money should have been used refurbing the Women's Toilets - I gave a financial breakdown why this was a better investment - it wasn't additional money it was a demonstration that the Board Strategy on Revenue Growth was wrong - and for the Record Hot Water in the Toilets is a Non Starter for lots of reasons -and Im happy to provide a Technical Reason as to why via DM if it assists 

No I wont join TJF - I already have a say - Im a Shareholder - if we are going to sell off more shares then we have an EGM and involve ALL Shareholders same as we did with Propco not a cosy wee arrangement that has TJF and the Board and its myriad of TJF / Board Directors and former Directors -agreeing things in advance same as the AGM 

not one decent question from TJF Reps at the AGM not one - why would that be ? 

So there is no need for Tranche 2 - unless the Stadium requires significant upgrades not advised at the AGM -and if thats the case then its a serious issue -as the Board are supposed to give a full report on the state of the Club financial requirements 

There is No Capital Investment in the Facilities of Firhill that is going to get a decent Commercial Return - what do you think previous boards were ? idiots ?

Reality is this - your £300K short on Revenue Streams in normal Revenues - its been the same for the last few Years TJF monies are hiding the true picture and reducing it to £150K losses 

Another £500k isn't going to address that underlying shortfall - so why is TJF wasting time discussing it ? 

Or are we to be told we are lucky to have

“ The German Model” so don't question the Grown Ups ? 
 

we do not need Tranche 2 

Better cancel your Direct Debit then.

Today I joined The Jags Foundation  - whilst I have been Lukewarm to the idea of " Fan Ownership" as a Model -  recent events & the publishing of the Accounts have convinced me  ( along with the Quality of those on TJF Board ) that we can make a go of it as a Fan Run Club 

I would encourage others to Nail there ( Red Yellow & Black) Colours to the Mast and join The Jags Foundation 

Jim Alexander ( aka Jordanhill Jag ) 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Jordanhill Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

13 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Better cancel your Direct Debit then.

Today I joined The Jags Foundation  - whilst I have been Lukewarm to the idea of " Fan Ownership" as a Model -  recent events & the publishing of the Accounts have convinced me  ( along with the Quality of those on TJF Board ) that we can make a go of it as a Fan Run Club 

I would encourage others to Nail there ( Red Yellow & Black) Colours to the Mast and join The Jags Foundation 

Jim Alexander ( aka Jordanhill Jag ) 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Jordanhill Jag

I cancelled it some time ago as I was unhappy that TJF had simply become an extension of the Board and did there bidding no matter what 

[Fawlty Towers]

6 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I cancelled it some time ago as I was unhappy that TJF had simply become an extension of the Board and did there bidding no matter what 

Fair play then. My question would be how do you expect to get change at Partick Thistle then as the holder of a tiny percentage of shares if not within the group that holds the majority of shares?

[ChiThistle]

Would love to see these lengthy posts turn into a podcast debate with a moderator.  I think trying to analyze everything all at once is really hard in a static forum.

[Lenziejag]

5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I cancelled it some time ago as I was unhappy that TJF had simply become an extension of the Board and did there bidding no matter what 

This appears to me to be fake news. You just shout and don’t listen. The topic in this thread you shouted about the day after the AGM. But here you are trying to say that it is a new thing trying to get slipped past everybody. It’s like something right out the Trump playbook.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

If this was a US comedy drama tv show we have real "will they or won't they" dynamic in the mix here.

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

This appears to me to be fake news. You just shout and don’t listen. The topic in this thread you shouted about the day after the AGM. But here you are trying to say that it is a new thing trying to get slipped past everybody. It’s like something right out the Trump playbook.

Really ? 

Tell - whats fake about it ? 
 

The board presented the finances and forecasts - they are supposed to be an accurate reflection of our Finances - within those Forecasts a major issue is Stadium Maintenance and there are requirements to maintain the Stadium - Safety Certificate is a Separate Issue - the Board have reports on the Stadium Requirements - they make allowances in the Budget  

As we currently don't maximise all our Hospitality and Function Areas then there is no reason to expand them 

But here is the thing - the Board Clearly know why they want the £500K - its not Cashflow or for the Squad - its not staff as that was covered in the Budgets at the AGM 

So the serious question is thus 

If the Board were aware of funding requirements - why were they not shown in the Budgets at the AGM ? 
 

If the Board were aware that they would be applying for an additional £500K at the AGM - why were the reasons for the Funding not stated at the AGM 

if TJF were aware of the reasons for Tranche 2 at the AGM - why did they not insist it was raised to be discussed in an open forum ? 
 

Or was the plan kick it down the Road and discuss direct with TJF and there will be no one to ask awkward questions of the Board in person 

There is no requirement for Tranche 2 - if its Stadium Issues and they were not factored into the Budget at the AGM then thats a problem 

 

 

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Fair play then. My question would be how do you expect to get change at Partick Thistle then as the holder of a tiny percentage of shares if not within the group that holds the majority of shares?

You mean like the TJF Reps who turned up at the AGM and did not ask a single question ? ( that excludes WJ who asked a decent question remotely ) 

No thanks Martin - Im a shareholder - I will ask my own questions rather than the current “Beer and Sandwiches” cosy relationship between TJF and the Board 
 

[Lenziejag]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Really ? 

Tell - whats fake about it ? 
 

The board presented the finances and forecasts - they are supposed to be an accurate reflection of our Finances - within those Forecasts a major issue is Stadium Maintenance and there are requirements to maintain the Stadium - Safety Certificate is a Separate Issue - the Board have reports on the Stadium Requirements - they make allowances in the Budget  

As we currently don't maximise all our Hospitality and Function Areas then there is no reason to expand them 

But here is the thing - the Board Clearly know why they want the £500K - its not Cashflow or for the Squad - its not staff as that was covered in the Budgets at the AGM 

So the serious question is thus 

If the Board were aware of funding requirements - why were they not shown in the Budgets at the AGM ? 
 

If the Board were aware that they would be applying for an additional £500K at the AGM - why were the reasons for the Funding not stated at the AGM 

if TJF were aware of the reasons for Tranche 2 at the AGM - why did they not insist it was raised to be discussed in an open forum ? 
 

Or was the plan kick it down the Road and discuss direct with TJF and there will be no one to ask awkward questions of the Board in person 

There is no requirement for Tranche 2 - if its Stadium Issues and they were not factored into the Budget at the AGM then thats a problem 

 

 

 

 

I explained in my post what is fake about it.

[Lenziejag]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You mean like the TJF Reps who turned up at the AGM and did not ask a single question ? ( that excludes WJ who asked a decent question remotely ) 

No thanks Martin - Im a shareholder - I will ask my own questions rather than the current “Beer and Sandwiches” cosy relationship between TJF and the Board 
 

Not a single question asked by a TJF rep except the question asked by one ? It doesn’t matter whether they were in the room or not. More fake news.

[Woodstock Jag]

The great irony of course is that if the Trust and TJF had asked more than the three questions asked by me, Morag McHaffie and Neil Drain (questions chosen based on beneficiary feedback), it would have significantly eaten into time available to other shareholders to ask questions.

So I think what James Alexander is really saying is that my colleagues should have each turned up with 20 questions and asked every single one of them, trying the patience of everyone in the room and online, even if it would have effectively denied him personally the opportunity to ask questions, and in the full knowledge that many of the more technical points could be scrutinised by our new Club Board rep at his first and subsequent Club Board meetings, and then fed back to our members through our member comms as desired/appropriate.

It’s not “beer and sandwiches” to have a functioning working relationship with the Club Board, and to have open lines of communication with them.

The essence of the epithet “beer and sandwiches” was that there was somehow a stitch-up between those involved to deny (as was then) the normal Union members a proper say over their pay and conditions.

The reality here is that there will be an open fan consultation process and a beneficiary vote if and when an investment proposal is presented to the Trustees.

Literally the opposite situation.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The great irony of course is that if the Trust and TJF had asked more than the three questions asked by me, Morag McHaffie and Neil Drain (questions chosen based on beneficiary feedback), it would have significantly eaten into time available to other shareholders to ask questions.

So I think what James Alexander is really saying is that my colleagues should have each turned up with 20 questions and asked every single one of them, trying the patience of everyone in the room and online, even if it would have effectively denied him personally the opportunity to ask questions, and in the full knowledge that many of the more technical points could be scrutinised by our new Club Board rep at his first and subsequent Club Board meetings, and then fed back to our members through our member comms as desired/appropriate.

It’s not “beer and sandwiches” to have a functioning working relationship with the Club Board, and to have open lines of communication with them.

The essence of the epithet “beer and sandwiches” was that there was somehow a stitch-up between those involved to deny (as was then) the normal Union members a proper say over their pay and conditions.

The reality here is that there will be an open fan consultation process and a beneficiary vote if and when an investment proposal is presented to the Trustees.

Literally the opposite situation.

I would expect that the Majority Shareholder ( as in any Company ) asks searching & detailed Questions of the Finances & Strategy of the Club ( as TJF did in abundance the year before ) the presentations were by any stretch of the imagination light on detail - of how the books are going to be balanced- yet beyond your own question - asked remotely ( which doesn't allow for a follow up question on the response ) zero questions from TJF on the Finances or Strategy for getting to breakeven by there Reps in the Room  - if it had been a JLo Board in place - putting forward a similar presentation-  TJF would have been all over it 

Here is the Core of the problem - the USA Money removes the requirement to run the Club as a normal Business-  looking to balance budgets 

TJF & Trusts are happy to trundle along with the Cosy Beer & Sandwich arrangement - getting there people on the Board - then " re-elected in there own right " in the longer term - whatever that may mean - and we have what the Irish call " Money from America " ie Free Money ( but its not actually free ) 

So the nett result is thus 

There is a statement that the Board will look for "Tranche 2 Investment" lets call it what it is - selling off more shares  ( its not Free Money ) 

Now they clearly knew at the AGM that they intended to put this forwards & the reasons for it 

I'm assuming the Trusts were made aware of this  ( happy to be corrected if my interpretation ref JTF advanced knowledge is wrong ) 

But here is the thing - why would a Board & by extension the Major Shareholder- know about selling off more Shares & it not being part of the AGM Presentations - why was it kicked down the Road- and Questions could not be asked direct to the Board unless its via the Trust Reps ? 

If as has been implied- there are major funding requirements for Stadium Repairs - that's a MASSIVE issue - that means Major Stadium Repairs were not factored into the Budget Presentations at the AGM - in fact - beyond ongoing minor repairs in response to a Trust Question ( by Morag 🙂) Stadium Repairs were not mentioned by the Board ( which I find bizarre as everyone knows its a Major Issue )    - which begs questions on the Budgets ?

What exactly was included in them that you then need another £500K a few weeks later ? ( and why were TJF not asking these questions at the AGM - unless of course they already knew the answers ? ) 

There are No - I repeat No requirements to extend any parts of the Stadium to get additional Revenues as we don't maximise what we already have 

But TJF are clearly happy to do the Boards Bidding - no matter what   

So the question is are the Trusts the Voice of the Fans to the Board - or the Boards PR Machine ? 

Why I'm I not a member of TJF - I don't like cosy  "Beer & Sandwiches" arrangements   

 

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

I explained in my post what is fake about it.

No you didn't 

Why don't you explain why a requirement for £500K of Funding & selling off a Chunk of Shares was not put forward at the AGM as it was clearly know at that juncture ?  

[Dick Dastardly]

What exactly is the point of this thread ? JJ asks the same questions, gets the same answers, asks the same questions, gets the same answers ...... 

It is going nowhere and I have given up the will to live trying to follow. 

[scotty]

12 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You mean like the TJF Reps who turned up at the AGM and did not ask a single question ? ( that excludes WJ who asked a decent question remotely ) 

No thanks Martin - Im a shareholder - I will ask my own questions rather than the current “Beer and Sandwiches” cosy relationship between TJF and the Board 
 

So why didn't you?

6 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No you didn't 

Why don't you explain why a requirement for £500K of Funding & selling off a Chunk of Shares was not put forward at the AGM as it was clearly know at that juncture ?  

How many times does WJ need to answer this before you are going to accept the answer?

[Jordanhill Jag]

57 minutes ago, scotty said:

So why didn't you?

How many times does WJ need to answer this before you are going to accept the answer?

I asked lots of Questions on the Finances & Budgeting - maybe ask TJF why there Reps in the Room didn't ask any Financial Questions as the Majority Shareholder ? ( unlike the previous AGM under Jlo ) 

WJ has not actually answered the Question as to why there was a Major Funding Proposal known at the AGM - which involved selling off another large Chunk of Shares - but this major Funding Requirement was not discussed ( or Voted on ) at the AGM - despite the details being clearly known

Preferring to kick it down by a few weeks so the Board don't get direct Questions on the Share Sell Off by ALL Shareholder - does that not strike you as odd from a Fan Owned Club ?  Is this the openness we are to expect ? 

I will repeat - if the additional funding is for an aspect that the Club were aware of & did not factor it into the Budget Presentation & Forecasts at the AGM - that's a problem 

Whilst TJF will "consult there members" the legal Forum for discussions on Finances for the Club is the AGM - the Board have to advise on ALL Aspects of Finances & take account of ALL Funding & Spend requirements in there Budget Forecasts - we are entitled to a true reflection of Club Financial Position at the AGM - TJF Members are only circa 50% of our support - are the rest of us not worthy of consideration by the Board 

I hope there serving a Decent Beer & Jaconelli's Sandwiches at there Meetings 😉

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by Jordanhill Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

What exactly is the point of this thread ? JJ asks the same questions, gets the same answers, asks the same questions, gets the same answers ...... 

It is going nowhere and I have given up the will to live trying to follow. 

Its for others to decide on the Thread Merits 

For the Record - I have not received answers to the core Question - lots of Spin but no actual answers  

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I would expect that the Majority Shareholder ( as in any Company ) asks searching & detailed Questions of the Finances & Strategy of the Club ( as TJF did in abundance the year before ) the presentations were by any stretch of the imagination light on detail - of how the books are going to be balanced- yet beyond your own question - asked remotely ( which doesn't allow for a follow up question on the response ) zero questions from TJF on the Finances or Strategy for getting to breakeven by there Reps in the Room  - if it had been a JLo Board in place - putting forward a similar presentation-  TJF would have been all over it 

The situation is completely different from last year because the legally binding Club-Trust Agreement (which will imminently be signed and come formally into force) gives the majority shareholder a specific route to information about the 2024-25 budget, and the power to veto it if we are not satisfied with its contents and supporting explanatory materials.

The presence of a TJF club board representative also enables the elected TJF board's views on the budgeting principles to be fed into the thinking of the Club Board's budget process pre-emptively and at source, rather than after the fact, as an AGM can only ever do.

Last year TJF had no formal relationship with any shareholder (and indeed had to rely on proxies just to be allowed in the room). The PTFC Trust had no formal arrangements in place for pre-emptive financial scrutiny. And it had no Club Board representation at all.

Expecting the same sort of dynamics in the current environment is fundamentally belligerent and a little bit weird on your part.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Here is the Core of the problem - the USA Money removes the requirement to run the Club as a normal Business-  looking to balance budgets 

No it doesn't. It's a bailout that ensures the Club will be able to meet payroll without any difficulties this season, unlike last season.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF & Trusts are happy to trundle along with the Cosy Beer & Sandwich arrangement - getting there people on the Board - then " re-elected in there own right " in the longer term - whatever that may mean - and we have what the Irish call " Money from America " ie Free Money ( but its not actually free )

Say what you mean Jim. Don't hide behind this euphemism.

You don't like the fact that Richard Beastall is on the Club Board.

Just say that.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So the nett result is thus 

There is a statement that the Board will look for "Tranche 2 Investment" lets call it what it is - selling off more shares  ( its not Free Money ) 

Now they clearly knew at the AGM that they intended to put this forwards & the reasons for it 

I'm assuming the Trusts were made aware of this  ( happy to be corrected if my interpretation ref JTF advanced knowledge is wrong ) 

You've fundamentally misunderstood this.

The option for a second tranche of investment was contained in the original investment agreement.

It was prominently drawn attention to in the Club's original investment announcement in October. It was prominently drawn attention to in TJF's commentary on the investment process in October. There was actually a time limit on the further subscription of shares in that agreement, which has since lapsed, so any proposal for further investment, even if to be done on similar terms, will technically need to be done "afresh" anyway.

Both the investors and the Club Board want to explore further investment in the near-term because they want the Club to have more working capital. They think this will enable them to do things they can't do at the moment.

They are emphatically not saying that this money is essential or a requirement.

I have to say I'm a little bit confused here. You're criticising "beer and sandwiches" and things supposedly being carved up by the Club Board and the majority shareholder. But you're then also complaining when the Club announces its intentions about things to the full shareholder group.

Which is it to be, Jim?

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But here is the thing - why would a Board & by extension the Major Shareholder- know about selling off more Shares & it not being part of the AGM Presentations - why was it kicked down the Road- and Questions could not be asked direct to the Board unless its via the Trust Reps ? 

They weren't announcing anything new. They were reminding people of what was said at the outset in October that a second tranche was envisaged as an option, and that they wanted to progress it.

The reason no decision was taken at the AGM is because there is no decision yet to be taken.

There is no formal proposal for decision by the majority shareholder. There is no detailed financial information about how the investment monies might be used.

Unless and until that happens, there is nothing for the shareholders to consider at all. We have nothing more than a general statement of intent.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If as has been implied- there are major funding requirements for Stadium Repairs - that's a MASSIVE issue - that means Major Stadium Repairs were not factored into the Budget Presentations at the AGM - in fact - beyond ongoing minor repairs in response to a Trust Question ( by Morag 🙂) Stadium Repairs were not mentioned by the Board ( which I find bizarre as everyone knows its a Major Issue )    - which begs questions on the Budgets ?

Again with the word "requirements".

No one is saying that they are "requirements". They are saying that they are desirable improvements for which there is currently insufficient working capital.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

What exactly was included in them that you then need another £500K a few weeks later ? ( and why were TJF not asking these questions at the AGM - unless of course they already knew the answers ? ) 

Jim, we have made clear to Donald McClymont and the Club Board that, if they want to progress with any further investment proposal, they will have to provide a detailed impact assessment demonstrating the intended use of the funds and what impact they think it will have on existing financial forecasts.

We said this in our AGM review:

This reflects the representations we have made at Club Board level (via Stuart Callison) and in direct face-to-face meetings with Donald McClymont and other Club Board members.

That no formal proposal has been presented to the Trustees is, to us, indicative that these proposals are not yet fully formed and have not yet been subject to a fuller financial analysis by the Club Board. Accordingly there is nothing for us to scrutinise and nothing for us to decide.

If and when that changes we will let all the beneficiaries know, publicly.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

There are No - I repeat No requirements to extend any parts of the Stadium to get additional Revenues as we don't maximise what we already have 

Again, you are conflating essential requirements with highly desirable activities.

I'm honestly starting to think that you don't understand how capitalism works if you won't distinguish between day-to-day recurring expenditure and capital intensive one-off projects.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But TJF are clearly happy to do the Boards Bidding - no matter what

What bidding? Be specific.

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So the question is are the Trusts the Voice of the Fans to the Board - or the Boards PR Machine ? 

The former. And, you aside, I don't see a sea of fans clamouring for the removal of the Trustees or individual members of the TJF Board. Do you?

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why I'm I not a member of TJF - I don't like cosy  "Beer & Sandwiches" arrangements   

No, you'd rather carp from the sidelines instead of work with people like adults.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No you didn't 

Why don't you explain why a requirement for £500K of Funding & selling off a Chunk of Shares was not put forward at the AGM as it was clearly know at that juncture ?  

What’s fake is that you are trying to say the 2nd tranche wasn’t mentioned at the AGM and again in this thread is slipped in the Census report.