Jags vs Wasps

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, scotty said:

This thread has turned into the Jags' equivelant of switching on to watch Sportscene and finding the Harris/Trump debate.

😄 You just about made me me choke on my morning cup of bleach!

[Very Bitter Jag]

Everyday's a school day. I always thought the current ratio was to do with fruit scones! 

[Cork Jag]

I’ve not been able to read through all of the long posts on the thread but to me I am pinning the solution on one thing, Terry Ablade. Get him started. 

[Lenziejag]

I see the next round is scheduled for the weekend of 12/13th Oct. As Falkirk are also out we should try to move our game from 29th Oct.

[Third Lanark]

1 hour ago, Cork Jag said:

I’ve not been able to read through all of the long posts on the thread but to me I am pinning the solution on one thing, Terry Ablade. Get him started. 

I really don’t understand why he wasn’t started against Alloa, I know he had only featured in 2 games before that but he looked a real threat in them and the more game time the more he gets used to Scottish football and his teammates.  Was disappointed that he wasn’t started

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I see the next round is scheduled for the weekend of 12/13th Oct. As Falkirk are also out we should try to move our game from 29th Oct.

Falkirk have a midweek game on the 8th. So it may not be so good for them but it would be a good switch.

[Jaggernaut]

3 hours ago, Cork Jag said:

I’ve not been able to read through all of the long posts on the thread but to me I am pinning the solution on one thing, Terry Ablade. Get him started. 

His lack of starts is because a starting place would probably have to be at the expense of the (deservedly legendary) BBG. I fully agree that we should get to see what he can do from the start. But I also feel for Diack. who has already shown (before Ablade) that he can score when he starts, but now looks like he's third choice (the "incomer effect"). I wouldn't be surprised if he starts to pay more attention to young Jags who moved on and done rather well for themselves elsewhere (e.g, Hendry, Lindsay, Nisbett. and-- at a lower level--  Little, McIver). Is bench-sitting every week hoping maybe to get 10 minutes (usually when the game is a;ready lost) a real motivator?

[Duke Gekantawa]

1 hour ago, Jaggernaut said:

His lack of starts is because a starting place would probably have to be at the expense of the (deservedly legendary) BBG. I fully agree that we should get to see what he can do from the start. But I also feel for Diack. who has already shown (before Ablade) that he can score when he starts, but now looks like he's third choice (the "incomer effect"). I wouldn't be surprised if he starts to pay more attention to young Jags who moved on and done rather well for themselves elsewhere (e.g, Hendry, Lindsay, Nisbett. and-- at a lower level--  Little, McIver). Is bench-sitting every week hoping maybe to get 10 minutes (usually when the game is a;ready lost) a real motivator?

I don’t see the relevance of Hendry or Lindsay to your point- both were sold for profit when first choice. Nisbett was given chances and admits himself he was lazy when with us. 

[Cork Jag]

3 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

His lack of starts is because a starting place would probably have to be at the expense of the (deservedly legendary) BBG. I fully agree that we should get to see what he can do from the start. But I also feel for Diack. who has already shown (before Ablade) that he can score when he starts, but now looks like he's third choice

Cards on table living over here the only game Ive seen this season was Falkirk. Not a good game to judge Diack who was isolated but his touch was poor. That said I thought Nisbett was same and lacking skill so what do I know.

However, Ablade looked the business. Direct and threatening and put the ball in the net. Guess my gripe goes back to playing one way with one centre forward. Surely worth trying even benching Fitzpatrick whose not fit enough for the first half and playing 4-4-2 then changing it. If a player is dangerous find a way to start him. 

Football should be a simple game with the best players on the pitch. Between Steve Clarke and Doolan I’m a bit scunnered (and Im not even a regular paying punter right now)

Should add hope Doolan proves me wrong and turns it around, Clarke I’m done with

Edited September 11 by Cork Jag

[Jag]

Well, it's been a while since I've been on here but I see nothing much has changed!

A ten page thread after Alloa match. Must be some interesting opinions!!

I'll keep away from the other stuff but regarding match on Saturday, the start to the season, and 2024 in general - it's been nowhere near good enough with the squad of players we have available.

I actually feel recruitment has been quite good. Starting with the two January signings, McBeth and O'Reilly, then players like McKay and Ashcroft who have performed well at this level, as well as Chalmers and Crawford - who excelled at their clubs in this division last season. Added to that, the goalkeeper looks better than anything we've had in recent years.

My problems are, firstly, the manager is incapable of getting the team to play the way we need to.  It's borderline negative football, pedestrian pace, predictable and downright boring to watch. How can the club attract more fans if it's so poor? Secondly, Dools doesn't have the balls to drop a very out of form Brian Graham or the lazy, unfit, overweight, Fitzpatrick. The two of them know every week that they are starting, and it's infuriating to watch. Saturday was a perfect opportunity to try something different but yet again the same players turned in less that average performances. They're not the only ones of course but the ones that remain in starting line up every week.

I love Dools and I hope he turns it round, but I simply can't see it. If things don't pick up soon, the only reason I would want him to stay is to avoid the appointment of Brian Graham as manager. That is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Jaggernaut]

6 hours ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

I don’t see the relevance of Hendry or Lindsay to your point- both were sold for profit when first choice. Nisbett was given chances and admits himself he was lazy when with us. 

You're right.

Dowds might have been another (better) example.

[Duke Gekantawa]

5 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

You're right.

Dowds might have been another (better) example.

To be honest, I don’t think so either. He had plenty of opportunity and largely failed to impress. In any case the main player ahead of him (Graham) was already hear when he signed, so this wasn’t an example of the incomer effect. 

You had actually already provided the best example in McIver, who was overlooked in favour of that Rangers diddy.

[Lenziejag]

15 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Falkirk have a midweek game on the 8th. So it may not be so good for them but it would be a good switch.

Ah well, another opportunity to bring in a bit of extra cash gone.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

5 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Ah well, another opportunity to bring in a bit of extra cash gone.

au contraire 🙂

[Aliballibee]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:01 AM, Jordanhill Jag said:

 

“the draft accounts for the last financial year show that the club only has £75,000 more assets than liabilities on its balance sheet“

"That statement already implies a current ratio greater than 1 at FYE 2023-24"

In 23/24 we entered with £280K of Cash Reserves - £157K went on funding losses - £75K left in Reserves ( No idea where the other £50K went)  

In 24/25 we are entering with forecast losses of £280K Cash Reserves - but we only have £75K of Reserves to fund them - and as you state from the Club Financial Statement 

"it creates a risk that the club could run out of cash reserves before the end of the season. The reality is that this would probably not happen," 

OK so we are now in Agreement - there is a risk we will run out of Cash this Season - now ignore Tranche 2 - there is a Risk we we run out of cash - as for "it will probably not happen" with all due respect this was from a Board who forecasted Breakeven this Season and we are now looking at a £280K loss - even you admitted there forecasting was Pie in the Sky 

From a TJF perspective - its not Good Enough - you cannot continue with a Board that clearly cannot get the Finances under Control - despite substantial donations in various shapes from TJF & Donald McClymont - its not a sustainable Business Model in any shape or form   

Now the current implied Threat from the Board is that if we don't accept Tranche 2 - we could run out of Cash - and that the only cuts that can be made are from the Football Side ( obviously playing on Ordinary Fans fears on the Clubs Future & threating whats we will look like as a Club on the Park)   

That's not acceptable language to use - the responsibility for our Financial Position lies with the Board ( and by extension TJF for keeping them in there positions ) - the whole Statement is pitched as though the losses & our drop in Cash Reserves have zero to do with the Board & a Big Boy did it and Ran Away 

The Philosophy is that if we keep throwing additional Non Football Overhead at the lack of Revenue it will eventually turn around - No it wont - PTFC have a finite potential Revenue - you simply operate within it " speculate to accumulate " is always something people do when the Money is not theirs

We are now in Agreement ( at last 🙂)  without Tranche 2 - there is a Risk of the Credit Ratio going below 1 for Season 24/25 ( and given the losses & cash reserves its a High one ) - that as TJF put it "that threatens the continuing existence of the Football Club"   - the Board are playing this Risk down by it - "probably wont happen"   - but given themselves a Get out of Jail Card by saying that without Tranche 2 - "there is a Risk " - thereby passing on responsibility away from them onto the Fans 

Now there are decisions to be taken by TJF 

1. Do they have faith that the Board can run the Club in a way that we wont go bust without Tranche 2 

2.We have had more Revenue in the Championship ( without being promoted ) than at any time in our History - but we are now admitting our future is at risk if we don't agree to sell off another chunk of the Club - are TJF Supporting this Strategy & -  if not what are they going to do about it - in any similar scenarios in the past Directors Stepped Down ( for some Reason our Board don't think that they have anything to do with our current position ) therefore its on TJF to decide if they want to continue

3. Realistically we are unlikely to get promoted so Revenues wont change -Therefore the  Current Strategy & Financial Controls are likely to mean a Tranche 3 - whats the Plan if its not available ?    

Could you get a New Board with the required Skills - Yes - there are numerous people connected with the Club you could approach 

The Responsibility is not with the Board - they have shown that they cant balance the Books ( we cant blame Jlo anymore ) 

The Responsibility is with TJF and if they are going to continue with the run up debt - sell more shares Cycle - they are the Major Shareholder - they have the Power to change direction - there is a lot spoken about Fan Ownership - but in reality it gets down to one thing - as a the Major Shareholder it gives the Power to change direction 

 

 

      

 

.

Simple question JJ - what do you ACTUALLY want out of these diatribes? All members of the Board to go en-masse? What would that actually achieve, both practically, for the football team and the running of the club.

You clearly have an agenda here, please start your own thread with these details and see how many people actually engage; I fear you might find that thread a lonely place. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Aliballibee said:

Simple question JJ - what do you ACTUALLY want out of these diatribes? All members of the Board to go en-masse? What would that actually achieve, both practically, for the football team and the running of the club.

You clearly have an agenda here, please start your own thread with these details and see how many people actually engage; I fear you might find that thread a lonely place. 

Ok what "I want" is irrelevant - for the avoidance of doubt TJF & other Trustee call the shots 

What the "Diatribe has established - which neither TJF or the Club Board are disputing-  is that there is the distinct possibility we run out of cash this season - now TJF have confirmed that the Club Board Original Budgets & Forecasts for Season 24/25  were shall we say "Over Ambitious" - to the extent that they were out by a Factor of £280K ( breakeven to a £280K forecast loss ) 

The Board made the Following Statement regards running out of cash 

"The reality is that this would probably not happen, but it can’t be ruled out"

Now given that they were out in there forecasts losses by £280K - that's not a reassurance that carries any weight 

The Current level of Cash Reserves ( £75K ) its agreed that the key liquidity Ratio is likely to fall Below 1.0 this Season  - a level that can put the Club in Jeopardy 

Now if you can for a moment stop ( like others ) personalising this - or making accusations of an "Agenda" - what I've just stated puts the Club at Danger of going under - nor is anyone ( Board nor TJF )  disputing this potential scenario 

My Argument is that we change People & Change Direction to stop it happening - as the Current Strategy & Board are not sustainable - the Club & the Football Team need financial Stability - which we are currently not getting 

The Current Boards Argument is that we sell off 10% of Club Assets to stop the  potential scenario of going bust from happening ( with no actual Guarantee we wont be in a similar position in 12 Months time) nor any acknowledgement - that they created the problem by over spending  

The decision is therefore with TJF - not me 

As for what I post etc - its none of your concern - you don't need to read it - as long as its within the rules of the Forum & its relevant to PTFC - and in my opinion our future existence as a Club- is highly relevant 

[Aliballibee]

47 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

As for what I post etc - its none of your concern - you don't need to read it - as long as its within the rules of the Forum & its relevant to PTFC - and in my opinion our future existence as a Club- is highly relevant 

I agree - you can post whatever you like BUT if you post the same message on multiple threads, multiple times, I'll soon have no threads to read that you haven't polluted. 

I see you chose not to respond to the "start a new thread" point - telling in itself. 

[Dick Dastardly]

48 minutes ago, Aliballibee said:

I agree - you can post whatever you like BUT if you post the same message on multiple threads, multiple times, I'll soon have no threads to read that you haven't polluted. 

I see you chose not to respond to the "start a new thread" point - telling in itself. 

Don’t put him off. It is the best cure I know for insomnia.

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, Aliballibee said:

I agree - you can post whatever you like BUT if you post the same message on multiple threads, multiple times, I'll soon have no threads to read that you haven't polluted. 

I see you chose not to respond to the "start a new thread" point - telling in itself. 

What are you talking about ? 
 

you made a post - asking me “ what I wanted” and that I “had an agenda” - I responded 

so stop complaining about me responding   
 

and the Club potentially going bust -is sorta a big deal ? 

 

Edited September 12 by Jordanhill Jag

[fenski]

On formations. Doolan played for Thistle during one of our most successful periods, where I remember we played the same formation consistently throughout - 4231. I remember Archibald talking about all teams at the club through the academy all playing the same formation, so players developed a sub-conscious understanding of their role, where other players would be on pitch, etc.

I remember Doolan saying similar early on, when we appeared to be playing alot better, cutting teams up regularly. Maybe he is loathe to change, conscious that systems of play would have to be retrained etc. I remember players saying that the game plan was alot clearer under Doolan than it was under McCall.

Maybe that's what we're seeing here. A big investment in a particular style of play, which management are loathe to throw away. Maybe they believe that's the way to get the most out of the level of playing talent we have. Maybe we are not set up to  play heads up football?

Of course, it all makes sense when you're playing well, and easy to question when you're not...

 

[Jag]

25 minutes ago, fenski said:

On formations. Doolan played for Thistle during one of our most successful periods, where I remember we played the same formation consistently throughout - 4231. I remember Archibald talking about all teams at the club through the academy all playing the same formation, so players developed a sub-conscious understanding of their role, where other players would be on pitch, etc.

I remember Doolan saying similar early on, when we appeared to be playing alot better, cutting teams up regularly. Maybe he is loathe to change, conscious that systems of play would have to be retrained etc. I remember players saying that the game plan was alot clearer under Doolan than it was under McCall.

Maybe that's what we're seeing here. A big investment in a particular style of play, which management are loathe to throw away. Maybe they believe that's the way to get the most out of the level of playing talent we have. Maybe we are not set up to  play heads up football?

Of course, it all makes sense when you're playing well, and easy to question when you're not...

 

Formations don't really matter if a team simply does't move the ball quickly enough.

I'm OK with the formation and we've had plenty of joy with it over the last decade or so.

The problems for me are not moving the ball quickly enough, not playing higher up the park and continuing to play players when they are not performing well. 

We also look less fit than most teams we play.

[laukat]

27 minutes ago, fenski said:

On formations. Doolan played for Thistle during one of our most successful periods, where I remember we played the same formation consistently throughout - 4231. I remember Archibald talking about all teams at the club through the academy all playing the same formation, so players developed a sub-conscious understanding of their role, where other players would be on pitch, etc.

I remember Doolan saying similar early on, when we appeared to be playing alot better, cutting teams up regularly. Maybe he is loathe to change, conscious that systems of play would have to be retrained etc. I remember players saying that the game plan was alot clearer under Doolan than it was under McCall.

Maybe that's what we're seeing here. A big investment in a particular style of play, which management are loathe to throw away. Maybe they believe that's the way to get the most out of the level of playing talent we have. Maybe we are not set up to  play heads up football?

Of course, it all makes sense when you're playing well, and easy to question when you're not...

 

I think you identify a key issue and one that eventually did for Archibald. By insisting in the same formation being played to ensure common understanding we end up limiting organic development, the ability to respond a situation and tactical awareness. Effectively we become predictable and stale. 

When I was a kid the standard formations were 4-4-2 or at a push 4-3-3. In my mind other formations were developed and showed value mainly because the traditional ones had become stale.  

I do however get the principle of having teams play the same way so we have ready made replacements. Perhaps though rather than insisting on playing 1 formation the club should be insisting that all teams bar the first team play more than 1 formation throughout the season. First team manager should always have the skill to vary formation to get a result

[lady-isobel-barnett]

45 minutes ago, Jag said:

Formations don't really matter if a team simply does't move the ball quickly enough.

I'm OK with the formation and we've had plenty of joy with it over the last decade or so.

The problems for me are not moving the ball quickly enough, not playing higher up the park and continuing to play players when they are not performing well. 

We also look less fit than most teams we play.

Completely agree. The three highlighted faults are to a degree interrelated. Moving the ball slowly out of defence curtails our time spent in the opposition half. Not being able to have sustained periods of possession upfield means we do more running without the ball, in turn tiring us more than the opposition.

Also, and again probably not unrelated, we tend to lose our way when we go a goal ahead. Often it's only gradual but as often as not we end up defending too deep. Said before if we don't have effective ball winners in midfield we've got to compensate thru greater possession higher up the park.

[thornwoodjag]

On 9/11/2024 at 9:39 PM, Jag said:

lazy, unfit, overweight, Fitzpatrick.

Dropped