Second Tranche Investment

[dl1971]

32 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

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  

It's obvious to everyone ( bar you ) that you have been given answers. It's just that you don't like the answers as your position is don't accept the tranche 2 payment ( which may or may not happen ) due to the dilution of shares. We get your argument, so there really is nothing more to debate. What I fail to understand is what sort of funding ( outwith of Gate money, hospitality, advertising) can the club/TFJ raise that would actually get your approval? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

59 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

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.

Ive never stated that on any level - Ive referred to the Census Report where its mentioned as its a current publication - where did I state it was never mentioned at the AGM ? 

Stop making things up 

Of more importance is - if the Board Knew that it was going to be applying to sell off more Shares in the Weeks following the AGM and was applying for additional Funding 

Why did it not form part of the AGM Presentations & Budgets 

Why would a Board be looking for an additional £500K - sell of Shares to to so - but beyond a reference to it not explain the requirements at the AGM ? 

Why would you do that ? 

Its as though there were two presentations - the one for the AGM & this other one where "other" plans for the Club are agreed  - and that means £500K additional "Working Capital" and selling off more Shares 

So is this the openness we are to expect under Fan Ownership ? 

If these "Plans" are so important that they need us to sell more Shares - why were they simply not mentioned at the AGM to ALL the Shareholders rather than just the Trusts ? 

 

 

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Why did it not form part of the AGM Presentations & Budgets 

Why would a Board be looking for an additional £500K - sell of Shares to to so - but beyond a reference to it not explain the requirements at the AGM ? 

Why would you do that ? 

Its as though there were two presentations - the one for the AGM & this other one where "other" plans for the Club are agreed  - and that means £500K additional "Working Capital" and selling off more Shares 

So is this the openness we are to expect under Fan Ownership ? 

If these "Plans" are so important that they need us to sell more Shares - why were they simply not mentioned at the AGM to ALL the Shareholders rather than just the Trusts ? 

Jim, I literally posted a slide from the presentation which drew to shareholders' attention the desire to progress further investment into the football club, and the "potential uses" identified for that investment. Here it is again.

You are therefore lying when you say that it "did not form part of the presentations and budgets" and that they were "simply not mentioned at all at the AGM to ALL the Shareholders".

Indeed, I've looked again at the presentation and the final two slides showed the headline impact of £500k of extra investment on the forecast net current assets and the cash in the bank.

Once again, for emphasis:

(1) No further details on the substance of any proposal have been disclosed to TJF and the Trustees

(2) No formal proposal has been presented to TJF or the Trustees

(3) As and when that is published, the majority shareholder will scrutinise its contents and work with the Club to facilitate a comprehensive information sharing exercise with the fans, explaining the investment proposal

(4) Not one single new share will be issued unless and until the beneficiaries vote in favour

(5) There will not be a beneficiary vote until opportunities have been provided for fans to understand the terms of any deal, any trade-offs involved

(6) The Trustees will almost certainly set out an official position on any deal, having had the opportunity to consider its terms.

(7) Fans less familiar with the financial, shareholder and strategic position of the Football Club will therefore go into the process with sufficient information to make an informed decision.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

What bidding? Be specific.

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?

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

I've not fundamentally "misunderstood " anything 

The Club Board Clearly had a Plan for looking to Spend the additional £500K at the AGM as they stated they would apply for it in the weeks after the AGM 

I'm guessing TJF would have known the outlines of this Plan at that point 

We were given presentations on the Finances & Forecasts to get to breakeven & strategy to do so 

ALL of this is in the Budgets for the AGM 

IF there was additional funding required to achieve this - then its a fiducial duty to advise that to the Shareholders at the AGM 

IF there is know requirements for Major Capital Spend - eg a New Roof for The JHS then they are built into the Budget - Keeping the Stadium in a Healthy State of Repair is a requirement - yet no mention of the major spend for the Stadium that we all no will need to take place in the foreseeable future - now the Board are talking about "additional Working Capital" yet at the AGM we were told we had more than enough Cash Reserves ? 

Yet our Major Shareholder asks No Questions on this ? If the Agreement is that Questions cannot be asked at the AGM - whats the point of TJF ? 

Maybe I don't understand how "Capitalism Works " but I do know how to run a Profitable Business having done so for 27 Years      

I do understand how to run a balanced Budget & I do know how to forecast & fund large Scale Financial Commitments eg Major Stadium Repairs

What I would not do is not make allowances for them in my Budget Forecasting as they are going to happen 

What I expect TJF to do is ask pertinent Questions

But they didn't 

So enjoy the Beer & Sandwiches & the German Model  

 

 

[eljaggo]

This thread does nothing for the cause of fan ownership.

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

I've not fundamentally "misunderstood " anything 

The Club Board Clearly had a Plan for looking to Spend the additional £500K at the AGM as they stated they would apply for it in the weeks after the AGM 

I don't think that is "clear" at all. You're jumping the gun. As always. I think they had some ideas for how £500k could potentially be used if invested.

Which isn't the same thing.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

I'm guessing TJF would have known the outlines of this Plan at that point 

No outline plan has been presented to us about how any invested monies would be spent that hasn't also been presented to shareholders at the AGM.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

We were given presentations on the Finances & Forecasts to get to breakeven & strategy to do so 

ALL of this is in the Budgets for the AGM 

IF there was additional funding required to achieve this - then its a fiducial duty to advise that to the Shareholders at the AGM 

They haven't said that "there was additional funding required to achieve this". This is complete supposition on your part.

Stop making baseless assumptions and you might actually get somehwere.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

IF there is know requirements for Major Capital Spend - eg a New Roof for The JHS then they are built into the Budget - Keeping the Stadium in a Healthy State of Repair is a requirement - yet no mention of the major spend for the Stadium that we all no will need to take place in the foreseeable future - now the Board are talking about "additional Working Capital" yet at the AGM we were told we had more than enough Cash Reserves ? 

Again, you fail to understand the meaning of the word "requirement".

Yes, "keeping the stadium in a healthy state of repair" is a requirement. But not all repairs are therefore "requirements".

If you have low cash reserves, you might opt for more limited remedial options, and cover the cost of that from season-to-season, rather than commit to a large capital outlay. So you might (for the purposes of illustrative example) "patch up" a roof whenever leaks arise instead of "replace the roof" outright.

In the longer-term, "patch ups" might cost you more money overall, and require more money to be set aside in regular maintenance budgets, but it would involve less money up-front.

Let's look at my workplace. MPs won't commit to a "full decant" which involves Parliament spending significantly more money up-front and taking MPs outwith the Palace of Westminster for several years. This is actually the cheapest option, will leave the Palace in better condition in the long-run, and lead to much lower ongoing maintenance costs once the project is complete. Instead MPs prefer to spend less money per year, but to drag the project out over literally decades longer, meaning that more public money will be spent.

There is no "necessity" or "requirement" to follow a particular course of action there, but current budgeting assumptions assume no decant. If they were to find a mechanism to raise and approve the money for full decant, we could save money and have a very clearly better outcome.

Similar considerations apply to stadium maintenance at Firhill. But we would want to see a detailed analysis of what £500k of investment would actually do in terms of allowing the Club to bring forward more ambitious stadium works (or whatever else they decide they want this money to be spent on).

That is why tranche 2 cannot happen without the CTA approval process, and why TJF is happy to wait until this information is presented as part of any formal proposal.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Yet our Major Shareholder asks No Questions on this ? If the Agreement is that Questions cannot be asked at the AGM - whats the point of TJF ? 

There is nothing useful to ask questions about on this yet. The presentation set out the full extent of the Club's thinking on the matter, and we know that we're going to be given more information as and when that vague statement of intent develops into a concrete proposal.

There is no "agreement not to ask questions" you're just talking rubbish now.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

Maybe I don't understand how "Capitalism Works " but I do know how to run a Profitable Business having done so for 27 Years      

I do understand how to run a balanced Budget & I do know how to forecast & fund large Scale Financial Commitments eg Major Stadium Repairs

You're showing otherwise on this thread.

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

What I would not do is not make allowances for them in my Budget Forecasting as they are going to happen

But the budget forecasting did not assume they were going to happen! You've literally just made that up, having previously argued that it wasn't even mentioned at the AGM! Make your mind up!

Just now, Jordanhill Jag said:

What I expect TJF to do is ask pertinent Questions

And we do. Routinely. Via our Club Board rep, through the Trustees and in day-to-day correspondence with the Club.

[Jordanhill Jag]

11 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Jim, I literally posted a slide from the presentation which drew to shareholders' attention the desire to progress further investment into the football club, and the "potential uses" identified for that investment. Here it is again.

You are therefore lying when you say that it "did not form part of the presentations and budgets" and that they were "simply not mentioned at all at the AGM to ALL the Shareholders".

Indeed, I've looked again at the presentation and the final two slides showed the headline impact of £500k of extra investment on the forecast net current assets and the cash in the bank.

Once again, for emphasis:

(1) No further details on the substance of any proposal have been disclosed to TJF and the Trustees

(2) No formal proposal has been presented to TJF or the Trustees

(3) As and when that is published, the majority shareholder will scrutinise its contents and work with the Club to facilitate a comprehensive information sharing exercise with the fans, explaining the investment proposal

(4) Not one single new share will be issued unless and until the beneficiaries vote in favour

(5) There will not be a beneficiary vote until opportunities have been provided for fans to understand the terms of any deal, any trade-offs involved

(6) The Trustees will almost certainly set out an official position on any deal, having had the opportunity to consider its terms.

(7) Fans less familiar with the financial, shareholder and strategic position of the Football Club will therefore go into the process with sufficient information to make an informed decision.

The emphasise is on "formal" 

TJF obviously have been in discussions with the Board & been kept in the loop 

This is vague reference to potential uses - its not part of a Budget Presentation as any normal Business would expect - I have many faults "lying" is not one of them - I have a code - it was installed in me from an early age at the 87th Coy Glasgow Battalion of the Boys Brigade 

The Budget Presentation requires the Club to include all potential liabilities & expenditure - if that means the forecasted losses of £150K increase - so be it - the fact that there is No Allowance in the Current Budgets for Major Stadium Refurbishments - which are going to be required - begs the Question as to why not 

The fact TJF did not see fit to Question the omission of this in the Budgets at the AGM & give more accurate reflection of our Financial Position goes back to the Beer & Sandwiches Relationship that has evolved 

I would also point out ( again )  that only two people in the Room were asking Questions on the Finances - none of them from TJF 

[Woodstock Jag]

25 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The emphasise is on "formal" 

Okay, let me be even more categorical. No informal proposal has been presented to TJF or the Trustees either!

There was one meeting with Donald McClymont and other Club Board members shortly after the AGM at which aspects of the process were clarified and broad intentions as to the structure of any investment were clarified.

But as of yet there has been no discussion on the substance of how the funds would be used. We've made clear we think it shouldn't be used to fund operating losses, and that we'd want to see detailed financial forecasting and budgeting in connection with any proposal, if progressed.

That expectation has been set and we won't recommend to the fans any proposal that doesn't provide that information.

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

29 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I don't think that is "clear" at all. You're jumping the gun. As always. I think they had some ideas for how £500k could potentially be used if invested.

Which isn't the same thing.

No outline plan has been presented to us about how any invested monies would be spent that hasn't also been presented to shareholders at the AGM.

They haven't said that "there was additional funding required to achieve this". This is complete supposition on your part.

Stop making baseless assumptions and you might actually get somehwere.

Again, you fail to understand the meaning of the word "requirement".

Yes, "keeping the stadium in a healthy state of repair" is a requirement. But not all repairs are therefore "requirements".

If you have low cash reserves, you might opt for more limited remedial options, and cover the cost of that from season-to-season, rather than commit to a large capital outlay. So you might (for the purposes of illustrative example) "patch up" a roof whenever leaks arise instead of "replace the roof" outright.

In the longer-term, "patch ups" might cost you more money overall, and require more money to be set aside in regular maintenance budgets, but it would involve less money up-front.

Let's look at my workplace. MPs won't commit to a "full decant" which involves Parliament spending significantly more money up-front and taking MPs outwith the Palace of Westminster for several years. This is actually the cheapest option, will leave the Palace in better condition in the long-run, and lead to much lower ongoing maintenance costs once the project is complete. Instead MPs prefer to spend less money per year, but to drag the project out over literally decades longer, meaning that more public money will be spent.

There is no "necessity" or "requirement" to follow a particular course of action there, but current budgeting assumptions assume no decant. If they were to find a mechanism to raise and approve the money for full decant, we could save money and have a very clearly better outcome.

Similar considerations apply to stadium maintenance at Firhill. But we would want to see a detailed analysis of what £500k of investment would actually do in terms of allowing the Club to bring forward more ambitious stadium works (or whatever else they decide they want this money to be spent on).

That is why tranche 2 cannot happen without the CTA approval process, and why TJF is happy to wait until this information is presented as part of any formal proposal.

There is nothing useful to ask questions about on this yet. The presentation set out the full extent of the Club's thinking on the matter, and we know that we're going to be given more information as and when that vague statement of intent develops into a concrete proposal.

There is no "agreement not to ask questions" you're just talking rubbish now.

You're showing otherwise on this thread.

But the budget forecasting did not assume they were going to happen! You've literally just made that up, having previously argued that it wasn't even mentioned at the AGM! Make your mind up!

And we do. Routinely. Via our Club Board rep, through the Trustees and in day-to-day correspondence with the Club.

Reference my Business Acumen 

There is a vast difference between playing at Running a Business with other Peoples Money & actually Running one where a mistake can lose everything you have 

When your actually Running a Business where its your cash - you learn how to Budget & You learn how to forecast - there isnt Free Money from America to bail you out 

But thanks for your assessment of my Business Skills 

I suppose Ive just been lucky over the past 27 Years  

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Okay, let me be even more categorical. No informal proposal has been presented to TJF or the Trustees either!

There was one meeting with Donald McClymont and other Club Board members shortly after the AGM at which aspects of the process were clarified and broad intentions as to the structure of any investment were clarified.

But as of yet there has been no discussion on the substance of how the funds would be used. We've made clear we think it shouldn't be used to fund operating losses, and that we'd want to see detailed financial forecasting and budgeting in connection with any proposal, if progressed.

That expectation has been set and we won't recommend to the fans any proposal that doesn't provide that information.

 

OK - thanks for that 

And let me be blunt 

If a Single Penny is proposed for the upkeep of the Stadium ie New Roof on the JHS etc etc 

I expect TJF to remove Directors from the Board 

We all know we have major issues in the Near Future that requires significant finances regards the Stadium 

You make allowances for these in Your Budgeting Building up Reserves over a couple of Years to get to the required level for the Capital Spend 

Now I don't have the detail of the Budgets that TJF have had 

But if that wasn't done then the Budgets presented to the AGM were not factoring in our ongoing financial requirements 

If the Plan is that these are funded by Tranche 2 ( as opposed to day to day income ) 

Then that's a serious issue because if Tranche 2 is rejected than how do you fund the Repairs 

Tranche 1 was presented in a manner that TJF had no option but to agree ( personally I would have fired people-  but that's just me 🙂)

But that cannot be repeated - we cannot be in a position where there is a Gun to our Head of Funding which involves Share Sell Off 

Where is the Plan over the next Three Years to fund the Major Stadium Repairs that is required-  from our normal Business Turnover - if there isn't one - then TJF have to react to that - where is the Budget Allocation to fund this as its a Ticking Financial Bomb 

Im sure Donald McClymont is a decent man but his cash is not required at this Juncture 

 

 

 

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, eljaggo said:

This thread does nothing for the cause of fan ownership.

It's even put me off beer and sandwiches. Well, maybe not the beer. 

[watties wallies]

If this goes on much longer I am going to start the match thread for the Dumfy game 

[Dick Dastardly]

3 minutes ago, watties wallies said:

If this goes on much longer I am going to start the match thread for the Dumfy game 

Nooooo ! Things are not that bad.

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ive never stated that on any level - Ive referred to the Census Report where its mentioned as its a current publication - where did I state it was never mentioned at the AGM ? 

Stop making things up 

Of more importance is - if the Board Knew that it was going to be applying to sell off more Shares in the Weeks following the AGM and was applying for additional Funding 

Why did it not form part of the AGM Presentations & Budgets 

Why would a Board be looking for an additional £500K - sell of Shares to to so - but beyond a reference to it not explain the requirements at the AGM ? 

Why would you do that ? 

Its as though there were two presentations - the one for the AGM & this other one where "other" plans for the Club are agreed  - and that means £500K additional "Working Capital" and selling off more Shares 

So is this the openness we are to expect under Fan Ownership ? 

If these "Plans" are so important that they need us to sell more Shares - why were they simply not mentioned at the AGM to ALL the Shareholders rather than just the Trusts ? 

 

 

 

 

Behave. The 1st time you mentioned it after the AGM was when there was news article about it.  You seem to be the only one that thinks something underhand is going on. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Behave. The 1st time you mentioned it after the AGM was when there was news article about it.  You seem to be the only one that thinks something underhand is going on. 

When I mentioned it is hardly the point 

The simple fact is that if Tranche 2 is meaning that the Club is looking for funding for items that should have been included in the AGM Budgets then that's a significant issue 

Because if Tranche 2 is refused - that means that there is no allowance in the Budgets for these items 

If it turns out that items like Stadium UpKeep are part of Tranche 2 Funding-  then TJF have to decide how they act as Stadium Repairs and major Capital Spend are factored into normal Budgeting ( even if its staged over a couple of Years) 

So the only thing that Tranche 2 would be used for is for a significant investment that Guarantees a Major revenue return over circa 2-3 Years 

And for the avoidance of doubt you are looking at a Return of Capital Employed of at least 10% per Year for the £500K "investment" that means you also pay back the Capital Sum of £500K 

I wait with baited breath as to that Cunning Plan 

 

Edited February 20 by Jordanhill Jag

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

When I mentioned it is hardly the point 

The simple fact is that if Tranche 2 is looking for funding that should have been included in the AGM Budgets then thats a significant issue 

Because if Tranche 2 is refused that means that there is no allowance in the Budgets for these items 

If it turns out that items like Stadium UpKeep are part of Tranche 2 Funding then TJF have to decide how they act as Stadium Repairs and major Capital Spend are factored into normal Budgeting ( even if its staged over a couple of Years) 

So the only thing that Tranche 2 would be used for is for a significant investment that Guarantees a Major revenue return over circa 2-3 Years 

I wait with baited breath as to that Cunning Plan 

 

Sorry I am not being distracted. You started this thread, as you did the one after AGM on the premise that something was trying to get slipped past everybody. As I said Fake news.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, Lenziejag said:

Sorry I am not being distracted. You started this thread, as you did the one after AGM on the premise that something was trying to get slipped past everybody. As I said Fake news.

As has been stated the information is out there - its largely gone un-noticed that the Board want to sell off more Shares a few weeks after the AGM 

So reminding Fans of that isn't a Big Issue  

Its not "Fake News" its a statement of fact - the Board wish to sell off another chunk of Shares 

I'm Questioning the why - not the fact they want to do it  

[Norgethistle]

On 2/19/2024 at 7:42 PM, 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 

I can assure you that is most definitely not the case

[Norgethistle]

4 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

When I mentioned it is hardly the point 

The simple fact is that if Tranche 2 is meaning that the Club is looking for funding for items that should have been included in the AGM Budgets then that's a significant issue 

Because if Tranche 2 is refused - that means that there is no allowance in the Budgets for these items 

If it turns out that items like Stadium UpKeep are part of Tranche 2 Funding-  then TJF have to decide how they act as Stadium Repairs and major Capital Spend are factored into normal Budgeting ( even if its staged over a couple of Years) 

So the only thing that Tranche 2 would be used for is for a significant investment that Guarantees a Major revenue return over circa 2-3 Years 

And for the avoidance of doubt you are looking at a Return of Capital Employed of at least 10% per Year for the £500K "investment" that means you also pay back the Capital Sum of £500K 

I wait with baited breath as to that Cunning Plan 

 

As explained at the AGM, any proposed tranche 2 would be spend on potential improvements, that’s not essential and budgeted maintenance.

An ROI doesn’t mean an ROI to the investor if same deal as Tranche 1, it means club starts generating more in areas, or pays less out in others, both affecting balance sheet positively. Current deal on Tranche 1 means investor gets none of their cash back till the club has significantly more cash in the bank than it ever has had in its history, and as cash goes back to investors, shares are returned to the club.

If a proposal comes through, then Trustees would want to ensure terms are right, and it’s being put to a use that should either generate revenue or lower spend.

Several “ideas” for that potential spend were put to the shareholders on the night and WJ has also shared that slide on here.

If a proposal came through that had favorable terms and was being spent in correct way then Trustees would communicate that to beneficiaries prior to a vote, again if terms were poor and it was proposed to be squandered on a beer and sandwich marquee or having us temporarily living out with our means using this ASA supplementary budget, again Trustees would communicate this to the beneficiaries prior to a vote.

There is no secret, no hidden deals, Jim and you know enough of us on TJF board to know we would never be any boards puppet and our ultimate responsibility is to the members, they are the ones we stand next to at Firhill, before our tenures, during, and after and no way would we sacrifice that or the long term future of the club, we are fans who have been trusted with a vote for a short spell of time to represent the members and beneficiaries. That’s something I and the rest of this board don’t take lightly, and it’s not “Playing with other folks money” it’s trying to protect the club we love, the club that’s now supported by the 4th generation of my family and the same with others. It’s our history, my dads, my Granda’s and my daughter, nephews and every other Thistle fan in same position were doing this for, not for ties, comps or kudos.

[Jordanhill Jag]

11 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

As explained at the AGM, any proposed tranche 2 would be spend on potential improvements, that’s not essential and budgeted maintenance.

An ROI doesn’t mean an ROI to the investor if same deal as Tranche 1, it means club starts generating more in areas, or pays less out in others, both affecting balance sheet positively. Current deal on Tranche 1 means investor gets none of their cash back till the club has significantly more cash in the bank than it ever has had in its history, and as cash goes back to investors, shares are returned to the club.

If a proposal comes through, then Trustees would want to ensure terms are right, and it’s being put to a use that should either generate revenue or lower spend.

Several “ideas” for that potential spend were put to the shareholders on the night and WJ has also shared that slide on here.

If a proposal came through that had favorable terms and was being spent in correct way then Trustees would communicate that to beneficiaries prior to a vote, again if terms were poor and it was proposed to be squandered on a beer and sandwich marquee or having us temporarily living out with our means using this ASA supplementary budget, again Trustees would communicate this to the beneficiaries prior to a vote.

There is no secret, no hidden deals, Jim and you know enough of us on TJF board to know we would never be any boards puppet and our ultimate responsibility is to the members, they are the ones we stand next to at Firhill, before our tenures, during, and after and no way would we sacrifice that or the long term future of the club, we are fans who have been trusted with a vote for a short spell of time to represent the members and beneficiaries. That’s something I and the rest of this board don’t take lightly, and it’s not “Playing with other folks money” it’s trying to protect the club we love, the club that’s now supported by the 4th generation of my family and the same with others. It’s our history, my dads, my Granda’s and my daughter, nephews and every other Thistle fan in same position were doing this for, not for ties, comps or kudos.

TJF have complied with every single request from the Board without Question 

Tranche 2 is a done deal from TJF UNTRUE: AS PER MULTIPLE POSTS THERE IS CURRENTLY NO PROPOSAL FOR TJF TO CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO ACCEPT OR REJECT - ADMIN

There is no “ additional revenues “ that require Tranche 2 ( given your forecasted to have £350K of Tranche 1 remaining at the end of the Season ) 

So what do the Board need £850K of Working Capital to spend on increasing Revenues on ? 

If its for Stadium Related Repairs then it means they were not in the AGM Budget and thats an major issue as its a requirement -and it has to be budgeted for as a future major Capital Spend 

So if all they have is “ideas” thats playing with someone else's money and indicates there is no actual plan 

So here is the problem and why TJF will support yet another (unnecessary ) Sell off of Shares 

TJF reject the proposals its a defacto vote of No Confidence in the Boards Strategy Plans ( the Strategy Plans that for some reason were not put to the AGM) 

TJF will coat it in warm words - but as per - they will not go against the Board 

Tranche 2 is not required 

If Tranche 2 is required for Major Capital Spend not flagged up at the AGM - Directors get sacked 

Beyond that there is no “investment” thats going to get you a return that is worth selling off another chunk of the Club for - what is being suggested is that previous Boards missed a major Revenue Opportunity that the Current Board have discovered ? and £500k will get a return so lets sell off more shares 

Are you being serious ? 
 

The mere fact Tranche 2 is even being discussed is frankly ridiculous

 The ROI is what we would expect to see as a Club ( not the USA Investor) by selling off £500K of shares and “ investing them” in actions that will show a return of both the initial Capital and the % profit 

You would expect the initial Capital Sum to be repaid over three years with 10% each year 

So thats circa £200K of ADDITIONAL Revenue to the Club each year for three years - are the Board going to sign up to that - do you have guarantees ? 

Ask them if it was there own cash would they be funding it ? 
 

Tranche 2 is NOT required if all you have is vague “ ideas” its a complete nonsense

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21 by admin
FACT CHECKED

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

I can assure you that is most definitely not the case

When have you rejected a Board request - you were bullied into accepting Tranche 1 

Who did you sack for putting you in that position - No One - TJF got the flack - when you were put in a No Win Position but you just said OK 

A real major shareholder would have removed Board Members as a result but TJF did nada 

So you will Roll Over as normal and support Tranche 2 

WTF are you scared of - do you somehow think that you cant replace the Board in a heartbeat ? 

[Woodstock Jag]

44 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF have complied with every single request from the Board without Question 

Bollocks. You are not privy to almost any of the direct correspondence between the Club Board and TJF so you have absolutely no idea what has and hasn't been asked of us or whether and when we have pushed back.

44 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Tranche 2 is a done deal from TJF 

No it isn't. Stop talking bollocks. You're literally just making shit up now.

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Bollocks. You are not privy to almost any of the direct correspondence between the Club Board and TJF so you have absolutely no idea what has and hasn't been asked of us or whether and when we have pushed back.

No it isn't. Stop talking bollocks. You're literally just making shit up now.

 

Did you sack anyone after you were left with No Alternative but to agree to Tranche 1 - Nope 

Did you re- elect Board members involved in the Tranche 1 forcing your hand - Yip 

so there you are - a proper Shareholder would have sacked people - you didnt 

If you were working for a Real Company - went to the Shareholders said we are looking to sell off circa 10% of the Shares 

Shareholders say - what for ?
 

 well we have a few ideas “ but no detail

but we defo want to sell off 10% and we will sort out how we will spend the cash nearer the time

Your feet wouldn't touch the Ground as they removed you from the premises  - instant dismissal 

Thats the difference between Real Companies -and playing at Running one with other peoples money at PTFC 

We would like £500K 

What for ? 
 

Well we have a few ideas 

GTF - a few ideas - but we want £500k what planet are you living on ? 
 

Why is this even being discussed ? its a non starter and why are the Board insisting on chasing this Tranche 2 of £500k ? 
 

The fact that TJF are even talking to the Board about this is scary and well based on TJF Track Record they will Roll over 

Edited February 21 by Jordanhill Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

45 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

When have you rejected a Board request - you were bullied into accepting Tranche 1 

We refused to agree to the original investment proposal documents.

We explained this in our Investment Process document of 18th October 2023. Several substantive changes were made to the contents of the Investment Agreement and the proposed changes to the Articles of Association in direct response to TJF pushing back.

If you actually bothered to read that document you'd see the four core commitments that we secured:

• a strengthened protection of the majority shareholding compared to the original proposal
• an explicit commitment to future fan consultation (now enshrined in the CTA)
• an accelerated process to draft and implement a legally binding CTA (to give those commitments teeth, now to be signed later this week)
• stronger carve-outs than the original deal provided to allow TJF to communicate the terms of the deal to our members and the wider fanbase

That process wasn't flawless, but you are just talking rubbish about TJF's role in it and I won't just sit here and let you misrepresent what happened.

45 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

A real major shareholder would have removed Board Members as a result but TJF did nada 

We weren't, and still aren't, the majority shareholder Jim. At the time of the investment we were one of only four trustees. TJF had, indeed still has, no power unilaterally to remove anyone as a director of the Football Club.

The difference between you and us is that we are willing to work with people to improve things when the Club is mere weeks away from running out of cash.

You want to throw your toys out the pram. 

45 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So you will Roll Over as normal and support Tranche 2 

WTF are you scared of - do you somehow think that you cant replace the Board in a heartbeat ? 

We don't want to replace that Board, Jim. We want to work with them to provide a period of stability at the Football Club, and to unify the Club.

We want to build things. You want a tantrum.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We refused to agree to the original investment proposal documents.

We explained this in our Investment Process document of 18th October 2023. Several substantive changes were made to the contents of the Investment Agreement and the proposed changes to the Articles of Association in direct response to TJF pushing back.

If you actually bothered to read that document you'd see the four core commitments that we secured:

• a strengthened protection of the majority shareholding compared to the original proposal
• an explicit commitment to future fan consultation (now enshrined in the CTA)
• an accelerated process to draft and implement a legally binding CTA (to give those commitments teeth, now to be signed later this week)
• stronger carve-outs than the original deal provided to allow TJF to communicate the terms of the deal to our members and the wider fanbase

That process wasn't flawless, but you are just talking rubbish about TJF's role in it and I won't just sit here and let you misrepresent what happened.

We weren't, and still aren't, the majority shareholder Jim. At the time of the investment we were one of only four trustees. TJF had, indeed still has, no power unilaterally to remove anyone as a director of the Football Club.

The difference between you and us is that we are willing to work with people to improve things when the Club is mere weeks away from running out of cash.

You want to throw your toys out the pram. 

We don't want to replace that Board, Jim. We want to work with them to provide a period of stability at the Football Club, and to unify the Club.

We want to build things. You want a tantrum.

Did you sack anyone for forcing you down a route you didnt want to Go - Nope 

Did you re-elect Directors involved in Tranche 1 - Yes 

So there is your answer 

A proper Shareholder would have fired people - thats part of your job 

If it was a Jlo Board you would have done it in a Heartbeat