Jags vs Wasps

[dl1971]

4 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

He seems to forget that the midfielders have created hee-haw since the start of the match, preferring their wee triangular and sideways passing  routines that take us not even an inch more towards being likely to get a shot at goal.

"A bit like Scotland....." for most of my adult life I've been making comparisons between supporting Scotland and Thistle, and unfortunately there are too many uncanny resemblances for comfort.

I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but when Scotland were playing Italy to qualify for the 1966 WC Finals, my father allowed me to stay at home to watch the game live on cooncil tv (I'm quite sure it was in Italy). 3-0 to the Italians. Of course the next day I had to produce a note to the teacher to explain my absence. My father wrote it, and the teacher read it out to the class: "Dear Miss Milroy, Please excuse James' absence from school yesterday, but he woke up yesterday morning feeling quite unwell. And as the match wore on this afternoon, this became progressively worse." Yours sincerely, Wm Anderson.

I have no recollection of what happened next, but If I'd got belted, I'd surely remember. (Miss Milroy always shortened the length of her tawse when I got the belt, to reduce the pain, God bless her!)

Jags and Scotland: It's usually a heartache. (... following the Partick....)

Get a lot of this. But do you know what I think what seperates us is.....the vast majority of thistle fans and Scotland fans don't have a sense of entitlement that we win every game, every championship, every league. But....we expect passion, giving our best and most importantly, don't follow the herd. It's a curse, but ultimately a human good news story. Onwards.

[1876]

It's quite obvious everyone knows how to play against our system  4 5 1. It really is time to change  to 442 or 433 or 343.   Let's attack teams and put them in the back foot  

[javeajag]

44 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

We are forecasting a £280K loss for Season 24/25 

That was before the arse fell out of our Season - so very possibly higher losses  than that 

If we take Tranche 2 - it brings Cash Reserves ( at best ) to £240K - 

So we run out of money by the end of the Season by the Boards best case forecasts - maybe sooner if things don't improve on the Park 

So we need a Tranche 3 - and are betting the Family Silver on getting it ( or we are Donald Ducked ) 

But don't worry - the Board have a cunning Plan - we are now going to employ a New Head of Media & Communications ( as advertised today ) - maybe its so we don't miss out advising Forecasted Losses in Future Financial Statements 

I do sometimes wonder what is the Colour of the Sky in PTFC Board / Trust World 

Everything's Fine - Nothing to see here - stop asking Questions - they are boring 😉 

 

 

If think if we don’t run out of money by the end of the season or sooner you should volunteer to turn over your record and give the rest of us a break.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

@Jordanhill Jag I do like someone who challenges the status quo just to shake it up but your comms need to improve.

Don't spam different threads

Don't use bold

Keep the info simple

Take a breath and pause before replying

I do like and appreciate your input but I think your message is lost. It's lost on me and I do think we should run break even and have as minimum staff as possible

[Tom Hosie]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

 

Everything's Fine - Nothing to see here - stop asking Questions - they are boring 😉 

 

 

Just for the benefit of clarity as you have a habit of running with something nobody actually said. 

Questions aren't boring. 

You consequently posting the same stuff over and over again is boring. And tiresome. And repetitive. 

But questions aren't. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

56 minutes ago, Tom Hosie said:

Just for the benefit of clarity as you have a habit of running with something nobody actually said. 

Questions aren't boring. 

You consequently posting the same stuff over and over again is boring. And tiresome. And repetitive. 

But questions aren't. 

Ok - thanks very much for the advice 

but lets just see how my boring predictions pan out 

You see TJF and those in the loop would prefer not to be asked questions -and we all just join TJF and leave it to them to cut cosy deals with the Board 

What my “ boring tiresome repetitive” posts have shown is that both the Board and TJF for some strange reason decided to omit our £280K loss in a Key Financial Statement 

no one can answer why ? 

 

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

@Jordanhill Jag I do like someone who challenges the status quo just to shake it up but your comms need to improve.

Don't spam different threads

Don't use bold

Keep the info simple

Take a breath and pause before replying

I do like and appreciate your input but I think your message is lost. It's lost on me and I do think we should run break even and have as minimum staff as possible

Ok - nice and simple - Why did the Board omit the £280k forecast from there Financial Statement - Why did TJF go along with it ( they already knew about the loss) 

 

 

[BowenBoys]

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - nice and simple - Why did the Board omit the £280k forecast from there Financial Statement - Why did TJF go along with it ( they already knew about the loss) 

 

 

You've repeated this at least a dozen times, across multiple threads, and twice in the last four minutes. I imagine most people have see it now. Please stop.

[Lenziejag]

11 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - nice and simple - Why did the Board omit the £280k forecast from there Financial Statement - Why did TJF go along with it ( they already knew about the loss) 

 

 

Have you asked them ?

[Dick Dastardly]

14 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - nice and simple - Why did the Board omit the £280k forecast from there Financial Statement - Why did TJF go along with it ( they already knew about the loss) 

 

 

Bloody hell ! How did I miss this news ?

[Jordanhill Jag]

7 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Have you asked them ?

There is No Need to - I already Knew the answer 😉 I was giving TJF the opportunity to respond 

So its very simple - if both the  Forecast Losses & the Cash Reserves in either a set of Accounts - or a  Financial Statement  are stated - the Current Ratio can be worked out - now this is a very important measurement of the Financial Health of the Club - so much so that TJF went to great lengths after last Years AGM - pointing out the associated risks if its going the wrong way  ( as per the attached statement ) - Now for some strange reason the Forecast losses were omitted from the Club Financial Statement ? 

The "Current Ratio" -  in effect measures your ability to Finance your Short Terms Debts ( ie under 12 Months ) against your Cash Reserves during the same period ie are you going to run out of Cash in the next 12 Months 

Now I will quote directly from TJF Statement 

" If the current ratio falls below 1.0 ,that implies that the Company lacks the Liquid assets to meet short term liabilities"   

"The 2022-23 Accounts indicate a Current Ratio of 0.76 ,This Threatened the continued existence of the Football Club"  

So in simple terms - when you Current Ratio starts falling below 1.0 - your in Trouble - that's the assessment of TJF - not myself   

The Current Ratio as per the Data recently issued by the Board is Forecasted losses - £280K - Cash Reserves - £75K 

That = a Current Ratio of 0.26  

Now if 0.76 - " Threatens the existence of the Football Club" - dropping that by 2/3rds is well - a problem and by TJF own measurements- rather a large one 

Now obviously ( and as pushed by the Board in there statement ) 

    "By accepting the second tranche of investment we can reduce our cashflow risks" 

However - the Justification for Tranche 1 was that a) it was dropped on TJF with next to No Notice & b)  

"were rebuilding the margin of Safety"( as stated by TJF )  ie the Current Ratio of 0.76 was one that the Club could not live with 

So within 8 Months of the AGM - the "Margin of Safety" is no longer there - and considerably worse than the  AGM - TJF Signed off and agreed a 24/25 Budget that meant we operated on a Current Ratio of 0.26 and that Tranche 2  was not a "done deal" & that we could continue without the additional Tranche 2 - £500K - using only the current £75K Cash Reserves to the end of the Season 

Now if 0.78 Ratio "Threatens the existence of the Club"  - 0.26 means we have to change direction & change Board Members - its not an option 

TJF are the major Shareholder - they can continue backing the Board - we can get drip fed the Finance info they want to share - the Board can write War & Peace Finance Statements - as though the current Financial Position was detached from them- and a "Big Boy Did it & Ran away" 

But the Direction of Travel is that we are heading for a Crash   - and simply repeating the same process each Year with the same people -  wont stop it 

There will of Course be the "Look there's a Squirrel " deflection 

Attack Me personally ( like I care ) 

Appoint yet another New Director or even a Chairman 

Start Talking about "replacing the Manager"  if we get beat by Ayr 

But at some point there will be a Financial Reckoning & TJF will be solely responsible for not taking the required steps to prevent it - they can make any change they wish along with the other Trustee ( who lets face it - wont go against them ) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10 by Jordanhill Jag

[Tom Hosie]

[Woodstock Jag]

18 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - nice and simple - Why did the Board omit the £280k forecast from there Financial Statement - Why did TJF go along with it ( they already knew about the loss)

Ask the Club Board. It was their disclosure statement.

The decision to disclose the budgeted loss figure was a matter for the Club Board, not TJF. The budget is prepared by the Club Board, using commercially sensitive information, and that information is only shared with the trustees for the purposes of the CTA’s scrutiny and approval process.

For the trustees to disclose sensitive financial information about the football club, like specific financial figures that aren’t already in the public domain, without the Club Board’s consent, would be a clear breach of confidence. So obviously we’re not going to do that.

The Club Board decided to disclose the £280k figure, with our encouragement, at the Q&A. However it is worth noting that their disclosure exercise was principally backward-looking: it was about what had happened in 2023-24, rather than what was forecast to happen in 2024-25.

[Jordanhill Jag]

12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Ask the Club Board. It was their disclosure statement.

The decision to disclose the budgeted loss figure was a matter for the Club Board, not TJF. The budget is prepared by the Club Board, using commercially sensitive information, and that information is only shared with the trustees for the purposes of the CTA’s scrutiny and approval process.

For the trustees to disclose sensitive financial information about the football club, like specific financial figures that aren’t already in the public domain, without the Club Board’s consent, would be a clear breach of confidence. So obviously we’re not going to do that.

The Club Board decided to disclose the £280k figure, with our encouragement, at the Q&A. However it is worth noting that their disclosure exercise was principally backward-looking: it was about what had happened in 2023-24, rather than what was forecast to happen in 2024-25.

Comments are noted - and by and large accepted - however why would the Board disclose the Cash reserves - then happen to omit the Forecasted losses ? Why would TJF Rep Board Rep - not step in and point out a key part of the Financial Picture was missing - makes no real sense 

Which as described - that Key information when factored in - gives a completely different slant to our Finances compared to the Club Board Statement - as the Current Ratio has fallen  from 0.76 - which TJF described as "threatened the existence of the Club" to 0.26 - No idea what a Ratio that low means ?  

Now there are Two Scenarios - either the real position of the Clubs finances have not been realised - which is a problem in itself - or the plan was betting Tranche 2 gets through & hope No one Notices how serious things are-  and the cash doesn't run out before Tranche 2  

Now I'm hoping that TJF are in the first Camp - but the actual position in blunt terms has now been pointed out - using TJF & Club statements-  by extension- we cannot continue as we are & tough decisions will have to be made by TJF immediately   

If its the Second Camp - I will be personally disappointed in some people - its not what the Fans bought into - either with a Fan Elected / Nominated Board - Nor a Fan Owned Club & we are no better off than we were under a Jlo Board    

 

[javeajag]

Now playing Questions by The Moody Blues

[Woodstock Jag]

I would simply observe here that Jim has misunderstood what a current ratio is. It is not arrived at by dividing the annual operating losses by the cash reserves.

It is arrived at by dividing the total current assets by the total current liabilities.

So neither of the figures Jim has quoted (£280k or £75k) are used in the calculation. His number of 0.26 is junk in terms of both its numerator and its denominator.

[Dick Dastardly]

5 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Bloody hell ! How did I miss this news ?

I knew it … tomorrows chip Paper

Edited September 10 by Dick Dastardly

[elevenone]

I’ve forgotten the score now on this thread.  Did we beat Alloa?

[laukat]

13 minutes ago, elevenone said:

I’ve forgotten the score now on this thread.  Did we beat Alloa?

I'm only dipping in and out this thread but I think we initially thought we lost but it turn out we may have been dividing goals scored by goals conceded and forget to carry the two.

Not sure who we have in the next round

[ChiThistle]

This morning, my toast had a currant ratio of 1.0.  It was delicious.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I would simply observe here that Jim has misunderstood what a current ratio is. It is not arrived at by dividing the annual operating losses by the cash reserves.

It is arrived at by dividing the total current assets by the total current liabilities.

So neither of the figures Jim has quoted (£280k or £75k) are used in the calculation. His number of 0.26 is junk in terms of both its numerator and its denominator.

"The current ratio is a liquidity ratio that measures a company’s ability to pay short-term obligations or those due within one year"

Lets see how we get to the end of Season 24/25 with £75K of Cash reserves 

£75K of Reserves vs a forecasted £280K loss 

And if the Board & TJF are so confident on there numbers - lets see there Current Ratio Calc ? They already have the draft accounts ? Why didnt they want to publish the £280K forecast losses ?    

Keep backing the Board 🙂 

And maybe aske them - where did the £200K of Cash Reserves that they burnt through in less than a Year Go ?  

 

Edited September 10 by Jordanhill Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And if the Board & TJF are so confident on there numbers - lets see there Current Ratio Calc ? They already have the draft accounts ? Why didnt they want to publish the £280K forecast losses ?

I am confident that your number is wrong because you’ve used two completely different numbers from those that are used in the calculation of a current ratio.

You chose as your numerator a projected operating loss figure.

The numerator is in fact the aggregate of different current assets, including but not limited to cash.

You chose as your denominator a figure which you keep referring to as “cash”. This is weird because cash is an asset, not a liability. It would have nothing to do with a denominator. It’s part of the numerator.

But even then, the Club statement actually says:

“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.

Because if the current assets are larger than than current liabilities, a bigger number divided by a smaller number always gives you a number bigger than 1.

I will not be providing you with information contained in confidential management accounts. As a shareholder you will be provided with the Club’s Annual Accounts ahead of its next AGM. You will be able to deduce the current ratio from that information, assuming you look at the right numbers. Or you are free to ask the Club to provide that information.

Now you absolutely are correct if your point is that a six-figure loss-making budget would push the current ratio below 1 in season 2024-25, absent a further cash injection. The Club explicitly acknowledged this in their statement:

“Should you, the fans, alongside our shareholders, determine when the time comes that it is no longer appropriate to progress with the second tranche of investment then 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, but it can’t be ruled out in the event of unexpected adverse conditions (e.g. stadium damage or exceptionally poor on-field results and consequential reduction in prize money).

Without the second tranche of investment, we would make it through to the summer. But then we would have to seriously consider how the club proceeds.”

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And maybe aske them - where did the £200K of Cash Reserves that they burnt through in less than a Year Go ?  

Asked and answered. The aggregate of legacy liabilities (from 2022-23) and well publicised six figure loss (for 2023-24) explain why there isn’t much left of the tranche 1 investment.

[scotty]

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

[partickthedog]

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am confident that your number is wrong because you’ve used two completely different numbers from those that are used in the calculation of a current ratio.

You chose as your numerator a projected operating loss figure.

The numerator is in fact the aggregate of different current assets, including but not limited to cash.

You chose as your denominator a figure which you keep referring to as “cash”. This is weird because cash is an asset, not a liability. It would have nothing to do with a denominator. It’s part of the numerator.

But even then, the Club statement actually says:

“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.

Because if the current assets are larger than than current liabilities, a bigger number divided by a smaller number always gives you a number bigger than 1.

I will not be providing you with information contained in confidential management accounts. As a shareholder you will be provided with the Club’s Annual Accounts ahead of its next AGM. You will be able to deduce the current ratio from that information, assuming you look at the right numbers. Or you are free to ask the Club to provide that information.

Now you absolutely are correct if your point is that a six-figure loss-making budget would push the current ratio below 1 in season 2024-25, absent a further cash injection. The Club explicitly acknowledged this in their statement:

“Should you, the fans, alongside our shareholders, determine when the time comes that it is no longer appropriate to progress with the second tranche of investment then 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, but it can’t be ruled out in the event of unexpected adverse conditions (e.g. stadium damage or exceptionally poor on-field results and consequential reduction in prize money).

Without the second tranche of investment, we would make it through to the summer. But then we would have to seriously consider how the club proceeds.”

Asked and answered. The aggregate of legacy liabilities (from 2022-23) and well publicised six figure loss (for 2023-24) explain why there isn’t much left of the tranche 1 investment.

Thanks WJ. As somebody who began school prior to decimalisation, could you express the current ratio as a vulgar fraction?

PS Maybe you think that there has been enough vulgar fractiousness on this thread already.

Edited September 11 by partickthedog
PS

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am confident that your number is wrong because you’ve used two completely different numbers from those that are used in the calculation of a current ratio.

You chose as your numerator a projected operating loss figure.

The numerator is in fact the aggregate of different current assets, including but not limited to cash.

You chose as your denominator a figure which you keep referring to as “cash”. This is weird because cash is an asset, not a liability. It would have nothing to do with a denominator. It’s part of the numerator.

But even then, the Club statement actually says:

“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.

Because if the current assets are larger than than current liabilities, a bigger number divided by a smaller number always gives you a number bigger than 1.

I will not be providing you with information contained in confidential management accounts. As a shareholder you will be provided with the Club’s Annual Accounts ahead of its next AGM. You will be able to deduce the current ratio from that information, assuming you look at the right numbers. Or you are free to ask the Club to provide that information.

Now you absolutely are correct if your point is that a six-figure loss-making budget would push the current ratio below 1 in season 2024-25, absent a further cash injection. The Club explicitly acknowledged this in their statement:

“Should you, the fans, alongside our shareholders, determine when the time comes that it is no longer appropriate to progress with the second tranche of investment then 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, but it can’t be ruled out in the event of unexpected adverse conditions (e.g. stadium damage or exceptionally poor on-field results and consequential reduction in prize money).

Without the second tranche of investment, we would make it through to the summer. But then we would have to seriously consider how the club proceeds.”

Asked and answered. The aggregate of legacy liabilities (from 2022-23) and well publicised six figure loss (for 2023-24) explain why there isn’t much left of the tranche 1 investment.

 

“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 

 

 

      

 

.