Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[Jordanhill Jag]

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Sorry this is not correct. TJF and others involved in discussions were clear, from about January 2023 when Sandy and Andrew signed NDAs (since formally released from) that it had to be closer to £1 million.

Indeed, when Sandy and Andrew were (on TJF’s behalf) trying to pull together a group of Thistle-minded people willing to bail out the club (between January and May 2023), the desired quantum was in excess of £1 million (to enable the Academy also to be saved from closure). When that failed, Alistair Creevy (and other directors at the time) stepped in with soft loans, but only to deal with the immediate cashflow issue not the long-term problem. The view, even after the Rangers cup game, was that it had to be a minimum £800k and that even that would be difficult to cushion things enough as efforts were made to close the annual deficit.

Immediately following the completion of tranche 1, TJF said that it would only clear legacy liabilities and avoid cashflow problems in season 2023-24 itself. We also said that significant further investment was needed to strengthen cash reserves and ensure facilities were suitably maintained. Those statements are a matter of public record.

What I will accept is that the Club Board did appear (in its AGM presentation) to downplay the urgency of a second tranche, while also saying they wanted to get it done quickly.

That was, in my view, an error on their part driven by overly optimistic revenue growth assumptions. They wanted to try to get to break-even faster, to reassure people that the worst was past us, and in the course of that were too optimistic about how they would get there. They were told that their revenue goal wasn’t achievable and to recalibrate their expectations. And they then did so in the budgeting process. That’s how this is supposed to work.

Losing more money and for longer in the recovery was what we (TJF) had anticipated was more realistic.

And it’s reflected in the fact that

(a) tranche 2 was supposed to happen in November 2023

(b) TJF described it as a prudent bit of forward planning that tranche 2 was expressly contemplated at the outset of the investment in October 2023

(c) the Club Board stated publicly at the AGM it wanted to progress tranche 2 in “Q1” of 2024 (ie last season, not this season)

It is entirely reasonable to ask the Club Board to do more to show how, exactly, they plan to close their deficit in future seasons. Your next opportunity to do this is at the Q&A a little over a week from now. If you’re not satisfied with the answers, there are avenues through which you can, as both a shareholder and a beneficiary, seek changes.

As Trustees, we will expect the Club Board to prepare the 2025-26 budget on the basis of credible assumptions and in light of the wider context (new cash and assets rules, the commitment to break even over a 3-year cycle, the need to be more pessimistic on certain revenues).

I’m sure you’ll appreciate, it’s not for the Trustees to make the final judgment calls about what information is and isn’t too commercially sensitive to make public in this regard (though we’ll always push for more transparency where it’s possible). So I’d urge you to put it directly to the Club Board next Friday.

But if we are talking about where revenue can be increased or costs cut, this is about relationships with named known Club sponsors and commercial partners (current and future). This is about specific people’s jobs in what is a relatively small business.

You’re not likely to get a running commentary about itemised changes to the existing budget at any football club in the country: fan owned or not. No one can reasonably demand that except with confidentiality undertakings then applying to them.

But neither the Club Board NOR TJF made any attempt whatsoever to reduce Running Costs on any level instead they continued with a Cash Burn that we could not afford ( meaning we will struggle to pay debtors without Tranche 2 )  

Instead of Tranche 2 shoring up our Finances - a large chunk of it is replacing Trading Losses of the Board & TJF making 

as for "transparency" the forecast losses for this Season were deliberately omitted from the Summer Financial Statement - there was no reason on any level why they should not be included ( it was not Commercially nor Employee Sensitive)  - it was a key part of the Financial Picture - without which the Report made very different reading

TJF & its Director on the Board could have insisted the Forecast Losses were included - they Chose Not To 

If the Board refused TJF Director could have resigned - TJF could have removed Directors 

So please save us TJF will encourage  "transparency" rubbish 

 

Edited November 21 by Jordanhill Jag

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

Are you trying to tell me what I understood was needed or what you want me to think about the value of the investment. Go to the meeting and ask your questions about how the money was spent. How is it relevant when I became aware that a loss had been budgeted ? I have said it is a risk. But it is one that is being mitigated. How are you not see that ?

 

Because as the loss was identified in May - there was adequate time to take steps to reduce it over the next 12 Months ( that's what Managers do ?) 

Instead it was just simply accepted as a Fait Accompli 

[Norgethistle]

12 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

But neither the Club Board NOR TJF made any attempt whatsoever to reduce Running Costs on any level instead the continued with the Cash Burn we could not afford 

Instead of Tranche 2 shoring up our Finances - a large chunk of it is replacing Trading Losses of the Board & TJF making 

as for "transparency" the forecast losses for this Season were deliberately omitted from the Summer Financial Statement - there was no reason on any level why they should not be included ( it was not Commercially nor Employee Sensitive)  - it was a key part of the Financial Picture - without which the Report made very different reading

TJF & its Director on the Board could have insisted the Forecast Losses were included - they Chose Not To 

If the Board refused TJF Director could have resigned - TJF could have removed Directors 

So please save us TJF will encourage  "transparency" rubbish 

 

Jim, TJF are not a “tick in the box” organization as you state.

If we were we would not have not only challenged the budget but get them to revise it. Also we wouldn’t have insisted on the controls on spend of tranche 2 that we got put in place. Those were both done.

As for cutting the spend, I’d rather focus on deficit as that can be cut by growing revenue or cutting spend or a mix of both.

Our deficit was £600k if we hadn’t played Rangers and would have struggled to make payroll before season ended.

Our budgeted deficit is £280 not playing Rangers and on a league prize money of 4th. 

That’s halved the deficit.

If we improve on league position or get lucky with a televised sell out game at Ibrox that deficit budgeted for narrows. Though we should not budget for a higher position than is a real goal or hope for a lucky cup draw, ever.

Do I think we should be narrowing it further? Definitely, but where that comes in short term without harming the playing side so much it affects gate revenue, hospitality and prize money is tricky.

Do I want to see a better plan from club on how they get us to balance or profit in next year or so? Definitely and I’ll be asking that at the meeting.

We are moving in the correct direction and tranche 2 allows us some wiggle room to do it without making savage short term cuts that could push the club back years.

I get it you want club board members to resign, is this the whole board or just a few? Does it include the director who between him and his contacts have ponied up a million quid?

I get it you also now want TJF directors to resign, if TJF’s membership feels that way I’d have no issue with that, if I thought TJF’s collective decision was harming the club or the organization I’d be doing that in a heartbeat, currently though I don’t believe the vast majority of our membership feels that way, nor does my moral compass say we at TJF are taking the wrong decision for a long game, I’d rather look longer term and try and build something than knee jerk reactions and fire directors each time something isn’t quite right.

And on that I’m back of this thread, pop past next Friday and say hello if you’re there would be great to say hello again.

[dl1971]

So about tranche 3.....seriously, how many ways are there of saying exactly the same thing over n over again. I suspect this methodology may have been used in quantanimo Bay. Imagine hearing those words over n over again. I'd confess. My heart goes out to the TJF reps trying to respond in a reasoned and articulate way. Who on earth would sign up for that gig....

[Jordanhill Jag]

45 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Jim, TJF are not a “tick in the box” organization as you state.

If we were we would not have not only challenged the budget but get them to revise it. Also we wouldn’t have insisted on the controls on spend of tranche 2 that we got put in place. Those were both done.

As for cutting the spend, I’d rather focus on deficit as that can be cut by growing revenue or cutting spend or a mix of both.

Our deficit was £600k if we hadn’t played Rangers and would have struggled to make payroll before season ended.

Our budgeted deficit is £280 not playing Rangers and on a league prize money of 4th. 

That’s halved the deficit.

If we improve on league position or get lucky with a televised sell out game at Ibrox that deficit budgeted for narrows. Though we should not budget for a higher position than is a real goal or hope for a lucky cup draw, ever.

Do I think we should be narrowing it further? Definitely, but where that comes in short term without harming the playing side so much it affects gate revenue, hospitality and prize money is tricky.

Do I want to see a better plan from club on how they get us to balance or profit in next year or so? Definitely and I’ll be asking that at the meeting.

We are moving in the correct direction and tranche 2 allows us some wiggle room to do it without making savage short term cuts that could push the club back years.

I get it you want club board members to resign, is this the whole board or just a few? Does it include the director who between him and his contacts have ponied up a million quid?

I get it you also now want TJF directors to resign, if TJF’s membership feels that way I’d have no issue with that, if I thought TJF’s collective decision was harming the club or the organization I’d be doing that in a heartbeat, currently though I don’t believe the vast majority of our membership feels that way, nor does my moral compass say we at TJF are taking the wrong decision for a long game, I’d rather look longer term and try and build something than knee jerk reactions and fire directors each time something isn’t quite right.

And on that I’m back of this thread, pop past next Friday and say hello if you’re there would be great to say hello again.

If we have a Board who do not have the required Skills to run the Club without racking up massive losses then we change them to one that can 

TJF are a Tick Box Organisation because rather than instruct the Board to come up with a Plan to reduce the Forecast Losses of £280K - they simply signed it off - thereby leaving us in the position that we will struggle to pay our debtors by the End of The Season without Tranche 2 

As for Moral Compasses - The Board deliberately missed out declaring the Forecast loss in a 2000 Word Financial Statement in the Summer - thereby Skewing the perception of the Clubs Financial Performance  - both the TJF Board & the TJF Club Board Rep allowed this to happen - in simple terms - that's not OK - People have to step down - its not acceptable - its trying to Spin information in a fashion to suit a narrative - if the Jlo Board had done similar TJF would be up in arms - but the Board get a Free Pass - how can we trust one single word going forwards if this is how they communicate with Fans ? 

How do you know making cuts - would "push the Club Back Years " ? 

Based on what assumption ? 

Are you suggesting that everything that's being done simply has to stay - even if it means we are Bleeding Cash - Tranche 2 Simply Kicks the Can down the Road - its not addressing the fact we spend more than we earn. 

Who is selling you this Myth that we are going to get better Commercial Deals and Grow Revenue to the extent that we will negate the losses ? Because if that's your Plan - I have some Magic Beans to sell TJF  

I earn a living in Scottish Construction - have done for 40 Years - the Budget pressures across EVERY Sector are the worst since the early 80s - Companies are under severe pressure - there NOT going to give you more Money on Commercial Deals 

Your Going to have to cut your Cloth to suit your income - keep the Player Budget as High as you can - focus on putting on Games at Firhill in a Safe Environment - after that any other spend is prioritised 

  Recruit a Board with ACTUAL hands on experience running a Business - the Board & TJF are in essence populated by pretty much the same people ( hence why your failing ) 

You cannot run a Business Wracking up massive losses and offset them by selling off assets - you will go bust 

Change Direction - Change your Board to reflect a realistic strategy 

 

   

[Norgethistle]

So Jim who on the board do you want removed?
The 3 fan reps who 2 were voted on by beneficiaries and 1 by TJF members?
Or one or more of the other 3?
 

What ones don’t have actual hands on experience of running a business?

Donald?

Richard?

Elliot?

[Hopeless Unbeliever]

I can't believe I keep reading this thread. Here's hoping the open meeting is far more productive. 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

So Jim who on the board do you want removed?
The 3 fan reps who 2 were voted on by beneficiaries and 1 by TJF members?
Or one or more of the other 3?
 

What ones don’t have actual hands on experience of running a business?

Donald?

Richard?

Elliot?

I would not change Elliot nor Donald 

I would drop TJF Rep -as we now have Two Directly Elected  Reps - there is no requirement for TJF to have there “ own “ Rep - we don't need three Fan Reps 

We need to freshen up the Board and bring in people who were not part of any of the legacy of 3BC - TJF etc etc 

We need to reboot - get costs and overhead under control 

Focus is on the Player Budget - then ensuring we put Games on at Firhill 

Then the Stadium Repairs 

After that - spending is prioritised around the core business requirements -and what we can afford -and in the most cost efficient vehicle to deliver the task 

I would also appoint a couple of Non Execs - TJF are currently acting as Non Execs - thats not the role of a Fan Organisation 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21 by Jordanhill Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I would also appoint a couple of Non Execs - TJF are currently acting as Non Execs - thats not the role of a Fan Organisation 

No we aren’t!

[Jordanhill Jag]

10 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No we aren’t!

TJF have in input to all Key Appointment's of Club Staff

TJF decide who stays on the Board - who is sacked from the Board - who is allowed to join the Board ( outwith the two directly elected Trust Reps)

TJF sign off the Budgets

TJF get Monthly Management Accounts

TJF decide on the level of Cash Reserves ( despite signing off a budget this Year that wiped them out)

TJF agree what will get passed at the AGM prior to the AGM - making the AGM nothing more than Window dressing as the decisions have already been agreed

TJF get “ there own” Director on the Board despite having two actual elected Fan Reps on the Board

So your correct TJF are way more than Non Execs - TJF are the Club

However in the real World you would have a couple of experienced Non Execs ensuring that the decisions by the Board follow Business Norms

The current set up is failing and continues to fail - we need to change direction - change people - start running like a proper business with balanced budgets

or we will go bust  

Only at Partick Thistle would someone arguing to balanced budgets - not spend money you don't have - put in an experienced business board - have proper non execs - stop selling off Assets be attacked by Directors of the Fan Organisation and people closely linked to the Club ( most of whom argued for the same things -prior to getting power ) 

It really is Alice through the Looking Glass stuff 

Edited November 22 by Jordanhill Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF have in input to all Key Appointment's of Club Staff

No we don't.

An HR specialist, who happens to be on our board, was invited onto the interview panel for a couple of key hires.

We don't decide who gets hired. That's left to the Club Board

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF decide who stays on the Board - who is sacked from the Board - who is allowed to join the Board ( outwith the two directly elected Trust Reps)

That's not the role of a "non-executive director" Jim. That's the function of a majority shareholder.

And TJF isn't the majority shareholder. The PTFC Trust is.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF sign off the Budgets

Wrong. The PTFC Trust has a veto over the setting of the annual budget, pursuant to a legal agreement between the majority shareholder and the Club Board.

This is not a "non-executive director" relationship.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF get Monthly Management Accounts

Pursuant to the above, the PTFC Trust gets monthly management accounts. Again, this is the relationship of a majority shareholder in relation to the board of directors.

This is normal at fan-owned football clubs. Routine.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF decide on the level of Cash Reserves ( despite signing off a budget this Year that wiped them out)

You can't have this both ways, Jim. On the one hand, you don't think enough is being done to set clear financial objectives for the Club Board.

Then, when the Trust actually does set objectives as a condition of recommending approval of the Tranche 2 investment, you complain that they're advocating things that make it more difficult in future for the Club Board to erode the cash reserves!

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF agree what will get passed at the AGM prior to the AGM - making the AGM nothing more than Window dressing as the decisions have already been agreed

Again, wrong. The Club-Trust Agreement dictates how the PTFC Trust casts its vote at an AGM or EGM on certain issues, and the Trustees decide for themselves how to vote on other matters.

How other shareholders choose to vote is a matter for them.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

TJF get “ there own” Director on the Board despite having two actual elected Fan Reps on the Board

An arrangement that was put in place before the appropriate arrangements were in place to hold Fan Rep elections, and which recognises that TJF represents a group of people providing almost £200k of financial support to the Football Club, Academy and Women's Team on an annualised basis.

Entirely legitimate to say that TJF's position on the board is no longer warranted. It was, after all, an interim arrangement. If that's your argument, make it and explain why. You'll probably find some sympathy for it within TJF's membership.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So your correct TJF are way more than Non Execs - TJF are the Club

👻

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

However in the real World you would have a couple of experienced Non Execs ensuring that the decisions by the Board follow Business Norms

I agree that the Club Board should be looking to strengthen, particularly given Elaine Hamilton stepped down earlier in the year.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The current set up is failing and continues to fail - we need to change direction - change people - start running like a proper business with balanced budgets

No one disagrees with this. What there is disagreement over is the "how" on change of direction.

18 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Only at Partick Thistle would someone arguing to balanced budgets - not spend money you don't have - put in an experienced business board - have proper non execs - stop selling off Assets be attacked by Directors of the Fan Organisation and people closely linked to the Club ( most of whom argued for the same things -prior to getting power )

No one is arguing that those aren't desirable outcomes. The disagreement is over how you do it, on what timescales it's credible to do it, and what changes need to be made to achieve it.

Simply declaring "put in an experienced business board" and "have proper non execs" doesn't magic-up a new leadership structure. It doesn't suddenly will those things into existence. This isn't Cinderella.

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No one is arguing that those aren't desirable outcomes. The disagreement is over how you do it, on what timescales it's credible to do it, and what changes need to be made to achieve it.

Simply declaring "put in an experienced business board" and "have proper non execs" doesn't magic-up a new leadership structure. It doesn't suddenly will those things into existence. This isn't Cinderella.

They are not desirable but essential outcomes.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No we don't.

An HR specialist, who happens to be on our board, was invited onto the interview panel for a couple of key hires.

We don't decide who gets hired. That's left to the Club Board

That's not the role of a "non-executive director" Jim. That's the function of a majority shareholder.

And TJF isn't the majority shareholder. The PTFC Trust is.

Wrong. The PTFC Trust has a veto over the setting of the annual budget, pursuant to a legal agreement between the majority shareholder and the Club Board.

This is not a "non-executive director" relationship.

Pursuant to the above, the PTFC Trust gets monthly management accounts. Again, this is the relationship of a majority shareholder in relation to the board of directors.

This is normal at fan-owned football clubs. Routine.

You can't have this both ways, Jim. On the one hand, you don't think enough is being done to set clear financial objectives for the Club Board.

Then, when the Trust actually does set objectives as a condition of recommending approval of the Tranche 2 investment, you complain that they're advocating things that make it more difficult in future for the Club Board to erode the cash reserves!

Again, wrong. The Club-Trust Agreement dictates how the PTFC Trust casts its vote at an AGM or EGM on certain issues, and the Trustees decide for themselves how to vote on other matters.

How other shareholders choose to vote is a matter for them.

An arrangement that was put in place before the appropriate arrangements were in place to hold Fan Rep elections, and which recognises that TJF represents a group of people providing almost £200k of financial support to the Football Club, Academy and Women's Team on an annualised basis.

Entirely legitimate to say that TJF's position on the board is no longer warranted. It was, after all, an interim arrangement. If that's your argument, make it and explain why. You'll probably find some sympathy for it within TJF's membership.

👻

I agree that the Club Board should be looking to strengthen, particularly given Elaine Hamilton stepped down earlier in the year.

No one disagrees with this. What there is disagreement over is the "how" on change of direction.

No one is arguing that those aren't desirable outcomes. The disagreement is over how you do it, on what timescales it's credible to do it, and what changes need to be made to achieve it.

Simply declaring "put in an experienced business board" and "have proper non execs" doesn't magic-up a new leadership structure. It doesn't suddenly will those things into existence. This isn't Cinderella.

In my reply to Norge Thistle I stated the changes I would make 

However having experienced Non Execs is a start 

A Key difference being that if a £280K Budget loss was proposed ( which was going to wipe out the Cash Reserves ) - a decent Non Exec would be telling the Board to start reducing our spend immediately - rather than burning off the Cash Reserves 

A Competent Non Exec would not let misleading Financial Statements with Key Data on Forecast losses be put out  

TJF took No action 

Clear Financial objectives are not being established by TJF- otherwise these things would not have happened ? 

The current mantra is "nothing can be done" to reduce costs - we are going to "get better deals" which will balance the Budget 

Whoever is pitching this to you - then remove them 

PTFC have always and will always have limited income - even more limited in the Championship 

Our Potential for Growth in Revenue is always going to be limited 

Fan Revenue is to a large extent connected to on the Park Performance ( its actually healthier than its been in decades ) 

Commercial Growth - limited - unless you have someone with High Level Business Contacts in Glasgow its not going to vary much - factoring in Strong Economic Head Winds on Scottish Business over the next few Years  - we are not going to "Trade" our way out of losses 

So your left with overhead 

You cant Cheapen the Product ie the Player Budget 

We have a Fixed Overhead on Stadium Costs ( + Capital Spend over the next few Years ) 

After that its Running Costs & any other spend 

In an income of roughly £2MN we are looking to cut non Squad running costs by circa 10% to break even 

As long as we keep the Product Quality ( ie the Squad ) - put Games on at Firhill - do the Stadium Repairs 

Get better business people with connections 

That's 100% feasible  

Not over "3 Years " that's feasible now   

 

 

 

 

[javeajag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

An HR specialist, who happens to be on our board, was invited onto the interview panel for a couple of key hires.

We don't decide who gets hired. That's left to the Club Board

I wouldn’t have done that.

[wes]

On 11/20/2024 at 2:24 PM, Woodstock Jag said:

No we aren't. £500k of new value is being put into PTFC, in return for shares, thereby diluting the proportion of control of existing shareholders.

If a company is worth £100, and I own 72 of its 100 shares, my shareholding is worth £72.

If someone puts £20 of new money into the company, and gets 20 shares in return, the company is now worth £120. It is worth £20 more than it was before.

If I hold 72 of the 120 shares, my shareholding is still worth £72.

I have not "sold" any assets, whether my own or the company's.

The value of my assets has not gone down.

What has gone down is my percentage shareholding, and therefore my legal control and influence over the company, from 72% to 60%.

No it wouldn't. You're talking nonsense.

Again, total failure to understand the difference between a shareholding and a real right in property.

No shares are being "sold" here. You sell shares when someone who already has shares gives them to another person in exchange for money. That's what "selling" is.

Subscribing for shares is not the same as selling. It is the issuing of new shares

While I appreciate that selling existing shares and issuing new shares are different, I also appreciate the impact both have on an existing shareholder.

In the scenario of a company worth £100 and PTFC Trust/TJF (I have lost track of who's who) own 72 shares.

On Monday the company is worth £100 and our fan shareholding is worth £72.

On Tuesday the company issue 20 new shares. We now have 72 from 120 shares. The company is worth the same as it was the day before - £100. There is no change to the underlying value of the company. So our shares are now worth £60. That is pretty normal in a new share issue.

So as a shareholder, my interest is in the value of my asset - the shares. In a share issue it has reduced in value from £72 to £60. It has the same impact on value to me as selling shares, although I do appreciate that if I sold shares I would pocket some cash to spend in Munns and Jaconellis.

So whether shares are sold or new shares are issued, the effect on our fan asset is similar, it has reduced in value.

I find many of the discussions on this thread of a similar nature, many things are being said by different folks, that although they describe them differently, some go for the direct approach, some go for the political speak approach. But we are all after the same thing.

There is clearly a need for short term cash injection, while that is disappointing, we are where we are. There is also clearly a need to assess the current board appointments. Both are achievable. 

You all have fair points, work together and recognise the merits in what each if you is saying. We are much stronger and come to better decisions when we respect each other and use our diverse opinions for the good. 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, wes said:

While I appreciate that selling existing shares and issuing new shares are different, I also appreciate the impact both have on an existing shareholder.

They have a different impact from one another because they’re doing different things.

One sees money go to the shareholder selling the shares, and no change in the assets of the company.

The other sees money go into the company, increasing its assets.

2 hours ago, wes said:

In the scenario of a company worth £100 and PTFC Trust/TJF (I have lost track of who's who) own 72 shares.

On Monday the company is worth £100 and our fan shareholding is worth £72.

On Tuesday the company issue 20 new shares. We now have 72 from 120 shares. The company is worth the same as it was the day before - £100. There is no change to the underlying value of the company. So our shares are now worth £60. That is pretty normal in a new share issue.

There is a change to the underlying value of the company. It has £20 of new cash reserves. The assets of the company are now £120.

The shares aren’t being issued for free!

Before the shares are issued, the company is worth £100. After the shares are issued it's worth £120.

Before the shares are issued, the shareholder with 72 shares has 72% of £100. After the shares are issued the shareholder has 60% of £120.

72% of £100 and 60% of £120 are both £72.

2 hours ago, wes said:

So as a shareholder, my interest is in the value of my asset - the shares. In a share issue it has reduced in value from £72 to £60. It has the same impact on value to me as selling shares, although I do appreciate that if I sold shares I would pocket some cash to spend in Munns and Jaconellis.

No, your shareholding is still worth £72.

2 hours ago, wes said:

So whether shares are sold or new shares are issued, the effect on our fan asset is similar, it has reduced in value.

No, it remains the same.

 

Edited November 22 by Woodstock Jag

[Garscube Road End 2]

An interesting debate about the clubs finances.

Obvious that the present board are financially illiterate.

Jordanhill Jag's ego is utterly humongous.

TJF as useful as a chocolate fire guard.

And the club in a mess.

Historically, the club has been a financial mess for years.

From Save the Jags, through to being bankrolled by Colin Weir and the shameful naming of a stand( although a wreck) after him ahead of actual club legends.

Then the utter folly and incompetence of J Low and her gang, to the present mess.

What a club! A joke.

 

 

 

[elevenone]

new football manager 25 delayed until March 2025

https://www.footballmanager.com/news/football-manager-25-delayed-until-march-2025

Heard a rumour its the tranches with Thistle that the programmers are having difficulty writing into the code so hopefully this thread helps 😜

[Lenziejag]

18 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

 

In an income of roughly £2MN we are looking to cut non Squad running costs by circa 10% to break even 

As long as we keep the Product Quality ( ie the Squad ) - put Games on at Firhill - do the Stadium Repairs 

Get better business people with connections 

That's 100% feasible  

Not over "3 Years " that's feasible now   

 

 

 

 

This is typical of the type of thing you do. In 22/23 our admin expenses were £3.1M. Of that, £2M was wages and salaries. In a previous post WJ said they playing staff part was £1.7M(seems high). That leaves £1.4M of non squad costs. So, already to get from £280K loss to breakeven it is a 20% cut not 10%. That’s not taking account of stuff(like energy, insurances) that can’t be cut because they are tied in to contracts or might in-fact be going up. 
It is still feasible to breakeven now - but only by cutting the playing budget.

[Woodstock Jag]

54 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

In a previous post WJ said they playing staff part was £1.7M(seems high).

I don’t recall saying this?

I said that the Trustees approved an overall budget that forecast the playing budget being broadly the same as last season, and that it was subsequently topped up by £300k of players fund donations from DMcC and the other benefactor.

Edit to add: it might be useful to refer to this slide from the Club’s last AGM pack (ie January 2024) but take a heavy pinch of salt because future numbers were forecasts (so finals will differ for 2023-24). Forecasts will also differ from what was actually proposed in the 2024-25 budget and in turn from what may be subsequently forecast now. But it does at least give you an impression of where things were in 2022-23 and 2023-24:

Total “football costs” were just over £1.8 million in a season that included the original management team going on gardening leave in the final quarter. And were projected to be a bit lower than that in season 2023-24, Doolan’s first full season in charge.

The £1.8 million figure is all footballing costs though. Only about £1.5 million of it was going on player and coaching employment costs.

So £1.7 million for football wages would be a figure that only makes sense if someone is talking about a season where players’ fund supplements were substantial.

Edited November 23 by Woodstock Jag

[Fawlty Towers]

I see Aberdeen made a loss in their most recent accounts but the thing that stuck out for me was this part:

“A key criteria of a well-run, financially sustainable club is the wages to turnover ratio, and, during this period, we are sitting at a very healthy 54%.

Do we know from the accounts due to be presented at the upcoming AGM what our ratio was and for this season what it is?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce9g5edrl50o

Edited November 23 by Fawlty Towers

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I see Aberdeen made a loss in their most recent accounts but the thing that stuck out for me was this part:

“A key criteria of a well-run, financially sustainable club is the wages to turnover ratio, and, during this period, we are sitting at a very healthy 54%.

Do we know from the accounts due to be presented at the upcoming AGM what our ratio was and for this season what it is?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce9g5edrl50o

That figure is very impressive. I remember reading around 20 year ago that one club (probably Dunfermline or Dundee) had a ratio over 150% with a few well over 100%. Think I also mind 70% being the sort of target full time Scottish clubs should aim for. I wonder tho' if 54% is a true representation. By that I mean do signing on fees and other one off payments such as relocation and temp housing/hotel allowances come under that umbrella? 

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I see Aberdeen made a loss in their most recent accounts but the thing that stuck out for me was this part:

“A key criteria of a well-run, financially sustainable club is the wages to turnover ratio, and, during this period, we are sitting at a very healthy 54%.

Do we know from the accounts due to be presented at the upcoming AGM what our ratio was and for this season what it is?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce9g5edrl50o

The context here is it was 76% the previous year and 74% the year before that (for Aberdeen). They’ve cut this percentage figure by significantly increasing their turnover (a combination of Europa League football and commercials making the lion’s share of the difference).

IIRC Thistle’s wage/turnover figure for season 2022-23, based on the accounts circulated to shareholders in December 2023 was 72%.

Edited November 23 by Woodstock Jag

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I don’t recall saying this?

I said that the Trustees approved an overall budget that forecast the playing budget being broadly the same as last season, and that it was subsequently topped up by £300k of players fund donations from DMcC and the other benefactor.

Edit to add: it might be useful to refer to this slide from the Club’s last AGM pack (ie January 2024) but take a heavy pinch of salt because future numbers were forecasts (so finals will differ for 2023-24). Forecasts will also differ from what was actually proposed in the 2024-25 budget and in turn from what may be subsequently forecast now. But it does at least give you an impression of where things were in 2022-23 and 2023-24:

Total “football costs” were just over £1.8 million in a season that included the original management team going on gardening leave in the final quarter. And were projected to be a bit lower than that in season 2023-24, Doolan’s first full season in charge.

The £1.8 million figure is all footballing costs though. Only about £1.5 million of it was going on player and coaching employment costs.

So £1.7 million for football wages would be a figure that only makes sense if someone is talking about a season where players’ fund supplements were substantial.

Ok. Fair enough. Apologies for misquoting. I guess the other footballing costs are bonuses ? 
I don’t think the charts change my point much. To get to break even it’s a 20% cut of non player costs.

[Lenziejag]

54 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The context here is it was 76% the previous year and 74% the year before that (for Aberdeen). They’ve cut this percentage figure by significantly increasing their turnover (a combination of Europa League football and commercials making the lion’s share of the difference).

IIRC Thistle’s wage/turnover figure for season 2022-23, based on the accounts circulated to shareholders in December 2023 was 72%.

That’s what the published accounts were saying  - £2M wages compared to a turnover of £2.8M