Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[Dick Dastardly]

1 hour ago, Tom Hosie said:

No. 

The whole 'give a monkey an infinite amount of time and a keyboard and they will type the complete works of Shakespeare' theory has actually be debunked. 

The thinking goes that for a monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare he, or she, would require a time period longer than the lifetime of the universe to do so. Therefore there is only a finite time for our chimp pal to complete his, or her, task. 

Personally I suspect the only reason why our simian friend would undertake such a task would be to avoid reading this thread which will almost certainly have the same post being made time and time again right up to end of the lifetime of the universe.  

If this post lasts up to the end of the universe then either the end of the universe is sooner than we think, or the club finances are in better shape than some think.

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

In 22/23 we made over £300K loss in the wake of years of JLow and we needed a ton of money to get us back on an even keel. 

-  we got £500K in Tranche 1 - this wiped out the debts of the Jlo Board & gave us £280K of Cash Reserves - so we got a "Ton of Money"  - the Board Blew the Cash Reserves   

23/24 losses are due to be about half 22/23 losses

- according to the Board Statement in the Summer we received circa £120K of income from TJF & other Sources - therefore the £300K was halved to £150K - the vast majority in reduction of losses was from donations from TJF etc - nothing to do with the Board  

24/25 was budgeted to be a bigger loss to try to get promotion, but the player budget was supplemented.

- According to the Board statement the losses were due to a New Ticketing System and increased budget to the Woman's Team - in any Financial Statement there has been No Mention of the losses being due to the fact that we were chasing Promotion 

Attendances have increased by over 1/3 in 2 seasons

Yet our forecast loss for this Season is roughly the same as Season 22/23 - where has the Money from TJF & increased Crowds Gone ? 

25/26 budget will be back to close to breakeven

We were told that about Season 24/25 - instead we are forecasting a £280K Loss -unless drastic changes are made in the Boardroom & to our expenditure -we will continue to run at major losses 

Without the 2nd Tranche cash will be tight. 

"Without this investment, the club will find itself with negative working capital and low cash balances.

Negative working capital is a situation whereby, if the club collected all monies owed to it and added this to the funds in the bank account, there would not be enough money to repay all of our creditors what they are owed." - from the Club Statement on Tranche 2 - in short if you cant pay your Creditors you will go bust   

With it we will have a decent safety net of cash and won’t be in this position again.

The only way that we will not be in this position again is to change most of the Board & and start trading within our means - the Board do not have a Plan on how to stop the continual losses  

I don’t know why you keep saying without Tranche 2. We aren’t going to do that. There is no down side.

[Jordanhill Jag]

31 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I don’t know why you keep saying without Tranche 2. We aren’t going to do that. There is no down side.

The downside is that we are selling off chunks of the Club to Fund Trading losses because our Board are incapable of balancing our budgets - whatismore there is no plan to stem the losses 

without Tranche 2 we cant pay our Creditors - thats unacceptable 

[Jaggernaut]

Tranchegate appears to have taken over from actual football on this forum of late.

I don't often post on this thread, partly because I abhor, for personal reasons, the word "tranche." (Too much like "tronche." Look it up if you don't already know it, francophiles!)

May I humbly propose an alternative: "slice" or "chunk," or even "wad"?

E.g., "I'd invest in Thistle." "Oh, I wad too."

[Woodstock Jag]

Fascinating how Jim is just casually ignoring, when comparing the 2022-23 financial outcomes with the 2023-24 financial outcomes, the fact that the former saw £280k of unbudgeted revenue from an Old Firm tie and the latter didn’t.

So, on a like-for-like basis, the effect on the structural deficit was to reduce it by roughly three quarters.

TJF’s money explains a significant part of that reduction, but less than half of it. Not the whole kit and caboodle.

Edited November 26 by Woodstock Jag

[The Legend Blows]

If you're reading page 17 of this first,  don't bother with the previous 16. Same old rehashed tripe from other threads.

No new info, just the same folks going back and forward ranting and raving about something that we cannot control.

Not a Foundation member and no longer a season ticket holder so not sure I should be allowed to post on this forum.

 

Edited November 26 by The Legend Blows

[partickthedog]

48 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

Tranchegate appears to have taken over from actual football on this forum of late.

I don't often post on this thread, partly because I abhor, for personal reasons, the word "tranche." (Too much like "tronche." Look it up if you don't already know it, francophiles!)

May I humbly propose an alternative: "slice" or "chunk," or even "wad"?

E.g., "I'd invest in Thistle." "Oh, I wad too."

Tronchetto looks tastier and more seasonal

https://www.italymagazine.com/recipe/tronchetto-di-natale

I'd take a tranche of that.

[Dick Dastardly]

After reading the film titles, I wonder if we need to update our song book 

We tranche when we want ....

We've got more tranche than you ....

Two tranche at Firhill. There's only 2 tranche at Firhill .....

Tranche in the morning ......

 

 

Note. I do draw a line at Tranchy from Tranchyhill

Edited November 26 by Dick Dastardly

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The downside is that we are selling off chunks of the Club to Fund Trading losses because our Board are incapable of balancing our budgets - whatismore there is no plan to stem the losses 

without Tranche 2 we cant pay our Creditors - thats unacceptable 

That’s not what you have said. You said the 1st chunk was to pay off debts wracked up by JLow.  The 2nd chunk is going to leave us with a decent cash reserve. We aren’t selling off the club. How many times!

[sandy]

Ma heid’s buzzled

[Jordanhill Jag]

26 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

That’s not what you have said. You said the 1st chunk was to pay off debts wracked up by JLow.  The 2nd chunk is going to leave us with a decent cash reserve. We aren’t selling off the club. How many times!

The first Tranche paid off ALL the debts ie we were debt free - so any debt legacy from JLo Board no longer existed 

we also had £280K cash reserves 

The ONLY reason that we now need Tranche 2 is because the Board supported by TJF -SPENT the £280K cash reserves 

So we ALREADY had decent cash reserves - the Board spent them ( on what is unclear ) whatismore there is no plan to stop the cycle 

and again - Shares = a claim to Assetts including physical Assetts - roughly in proportion to the % ownership 

as we are selling Cat A shares they get first claim on any Assetts ( so the buyers clearly recognise that they are a priority) 

So we ARE selling off chunks of the Club 

of course when we are dealing with a Board who omit key info from Fans Statements - they are hardly going to admit the reality 

You cannot sell the same assetts twice 

[javeajag]

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

The 22/23 loss was mainly due to JLow. 23/24, which admittedly hasn’t been issued yet, but has been trailed as being about 1/2 the prior year. So, there is evidence that the club can make progress to break even. 24/25 was a deliberate choice to go for (automatic) promotion. 

JLow’s loss was unexpected. This board planned the loss.

A loss is a loss is a loss….

we are planning on running the club at a loss …. Crazy 

[Albert's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You cannot sell the same assetts twice 

never mind once.

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Fascinating how Jim is just casually ignoring, when comparing the 2022-23 financial outcomes with the 2023-24 financial outcomes, the fact that the former saw £280k of unbudgeted revenue from an Old Firm tie and the latter didn’t.

So, on a like-for-like basis, the effect on the structural deficit was to reduce it by roughly three quarters.

TJF’s money explains a significant part of that reduction, but less than half of it. Not the whole kit and caboodle.

and Fascinating how you just casually ignoring that in Season 23 /24 we were debt Free with £280K Cash Reserves - now we are going to struggle to pay our Creditors at the end of the Season 

We got lucky with the Rangers Game - we also got lucky with a US Investor who appeared out of the Blue   

The Board had nothing to do with reducing the Structural Debt by three quarters = that was luck of the Rangers Game & TJF 

They have however wiped out the £280K Cash Reserves - despite being debt free 

[The Legend Blows]

Any property experts on here?

What kind of cash would a site like Firhill rake in for development?

Once we're all out of Tranches, the money dries up and we go bust, surely the land will be worth a tidy sum?

[dl1971]

3 minutes ago, The Legend Blows said:

Any property experts on here?

What kind of cash would a site like Firhill rake in for development?

Once we're all out of Tranches, the money dries up and we go bust, surely the land will be worth a tidy sum?

It's very simple. Once we run out of tranches or indeed trenches, we release the break even strategy. Sorted. This is a bit like those people who believe the world is ending on a certain time and date....and then they wake up and it hasn't happened. I guess they feel kinda silly at that point....or they say no, It was a typo it's next year ad infinitum. 

[elevenone]

4 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

It's very simple. Once we run out of tranches or indeed trenches, we release the break even strategy. Sorted. This is a bit like those people who believe the world is ending on a certain time and date....and then they wake up and it hasn't happened. I guess they feel kinda silly at that point....or they say no, It was a typo it's next year ad infinitum. 

I still have cupboards full of tinned spaghetti hoops from Y2K fear.  Am happy to sell chunks of em off to release much needed storage space.

[Lenziejag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

and Fascinating how you just casually ignoring that in Season 23 /24 we were debt Free with £280K Cash Reserves - now we are going to struggle to pay our Creditors at the end of the Season 

We got lucky with the Rangers Game - we also got lucky with a US Investor who appeared out of the Blue   

The Board had nothing to do with reducing the Structural Debt by three quarters = that was luck of the Rangers Game & TJF 

They have however wiped out the £280K Cash Reserves - despite being debt free 

This £280K cash reserves. Is that from a club statement ? 
Did we get lucky with Colin Weir ? 
The US investor is Scottish and a Thistle supporter. The only difference between him and you is in the scale of his investment and where he lives.

[Jordanhill Jag]

45 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

This £280K cash reserves. Is that from a club statement ? 
Did we get lucky with Colin Weir ? 
The US investor is Scottish and a Thistle supporter. The only difference between him and you is in the scale of his investment and where he lives.

Yes 

Yes - to an extent - difference being that at the time the Club was in the Premier & trading profitably without any input from Colin Weir - also the Club approached Colin Weir 

The point ref the USA Investor was that he approached us - the Board did not know he existed - therefore it was no different ref the previous Board getting the Rangers Draw regards  - it was luck not planning 

 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Yes - to an extent - difference being that at the time the Club was in the Premier & trading profitably without any input from Colin Weir - also the Club approached Colin Weir 

In the interests of accuracy...

In season 2014-15 Partick Thistle Football Club Limited lost £292k.

Colin Weir's near 7-figure injection of capital into the Football Club, which enabled it to become debt-free, materialised in December 2015. So the most recent set of accounts to be put to shareholders, shortly before that investment happened, was a bigger loss than the one forecast for this season.

It is absolutely correct to say that the Club subsequently would turn a profit in seasons 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

But this was achieved in part through spending more money on wages and delivering returns on player trading.

[javeajag]

40 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It is absolutely correct to say that the Club subsequently would turn a profit in seasons 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

And losses since .

[Woodstock Jag]

8 minutes ago, javeajag said:

And losses since .

I was confining my remarks to the period in which the Club was playing in the Premiership, since JJ also did so.

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

In the interests of accuracy...

In season 2014-15 Partick Thistle Football Club Limited lost £292k.

Colin Weir's near 7-figure injection of capital into the Football Club, which enabled it to become debt-free, materialised in December 2015. So the most recent set of accounts to be put to shareholders, shortly before that investment happened, was a bigger loss than the one forecast for this season.

It is absolutely correct to say that the Club subsequently would turn a profit in seasons 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

But this was achieved in part through spending more money on wages and delivering returns on player trading.

Ok - stand corrected - the previous two years to that- one of which was in the Championship we made a profit 

Im not convinced ref your statement on Players being the reason we made a profit- in essence what happened in the Year we made a loss -the income forecasts were out -and we spent in line with projected income - we also employed a lot more non football staff than previous Seasons- as there was a decision to stop using Volunteers in defacto staff roles - so our Non Football overhead went up 

Directors put in cash to make up the shortfall - before Colin Weirs money appeared 

After that budgets were a lot more focussed and controlled 

You cannot “ spend” your way out of Financial Trouble - this is in effect doubling down -hoping the odds will come up in your favour at some point -and you get promoted 

Obey the First Rule of Holes 

You have to change people - change direction - there is no Plan to stop the losses 

 

 

 

[watties wallies]

It goes on JJ it goes on     

 i'll get my chariot  

[Woodstock Jag]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - stand corrected - the previous two years to that- one of which was in the Championship we made a profit

That depends on what you count as making a profit. Once debt interest was taken into account the season 2013-14, the first back in the Premiership, saw a (very) small loss posted.

A neat illustration of how using an overdraft facility or other bank lending makes it harder to break even. And why therefore a share issue is probably a better way of dealing with cashflow challenges in the longer run.

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Im not convinced ref your statement on Players being the reason we made a profit- in essence what happened in the Year we made a loss -the income forecasts were out -and we spent in line with projected income

But again, this neatly explains why it’s not easy to break even as a football club. Mistakes in income forecasts are principally down to things that aren’t entirely in your control, and there is very substantial variation based on very minor differences in footballing performance (especially).

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

- we also employed a lot more non football staff than previous Seasons- as there was a decision to stop using Volunteers in defacto staff roles - so our Non Football overhead went up 

And yet despite wages going up drastically in seasons 2015-16 and 2016-17 compared with 2014-15, a profit was made in those two subsequent years.

Which neatly illustrates that the correlation between wage spend and profitability hasn’t been very strong. And that it’s far from clear that big cuts would realise reduced losses on the scale you think they would. Indeed the reverse may well be true.