Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[javeajag]

Just now, Albert's Ghost said:

Go to bed.

As I said some words, no content 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Albert's Ghost said:

We don't "go bust".  No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

From the Club Statement 

“ without tranche 2 we will have negative working capital”

” there would not be enough money to pay our creditors what they are owed”

Its in the Clubs own words

- if you cant pay your Creditors - you go bust - theres not another scenario 

So is the Clubs own statement “ serious enough” for you ? 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, ChiThistle said:

I would say most businesses need to increase revenue to survive.

 Not if they control there overhead they dont ? 

[Albert's Ghost]

6 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

From the Club Statement 

“ without tranche 2 we will have negative working capital”

” there would not be enough money to pay our creditors what they are owed”

Its in the Clubs own words

- if you cant pay your Creditors - you go bust - theres not another scenario 

So is the Clubs own statement “ serious enough” for you ? 

Where did the club use the words "go bust"?

This JJ whack-a-mole is really tiring/tiresome.

[javeajag]

18 minutes ago, Albert's Ghost said:

Where did the club use the words "go bust"?

This JJ whack-a-mole is really tiring/tiresome.

Jesus mate any  Business that can’t pay its debts - that’s creditors - well guess what happens  , they go bust…..so without tranche 2 we would go bust. Got it ? 

[Lenziejag]

10 hours ago, javeajag said:

Quite the admission.

I am not sure what you mean.

[Lenziejag]

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So - the Board set a Budget that was a massive loss - based on the assumption that Tranche 2 would get voted through 

And if it didnt we go bust 

and TJF agreed to this 

FFS this is incredible 

and a core part of the major losses were increased funding to the Woman's team and part funding of the academy ( as stated by the Board ) 

Thats simply insanity 

how are these people still on the Board 

and we are being told by Mr

“ Chartered Accountant”

that he looked at the budgets line by line and could not identify one cut - unbelievable simply unbelievable   

 

You are deaf.If the Thistle support don’t vote for tranche 2, which is free money, we deserve to go bust.

[javeajag]

37 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

You are deaf.If the Thistle support don’t vote for tranche 2, which is free money, we deserve to go bust.

Tranche 2 does not address the underlying financial problems of the club it’s a short term term sticking plaster that’s needed because without it we won’t be able to pay our debts in a few months.

And there is no such thing as free money , tranche 2 is buying shares and influence.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

You are deaf.If the Thistle support don’t vote for tranche 2, which is free money, we deserve to go bust.

I think this overstates it.

I personally voted for Tranche 2.

But I completely respect the view of those who don't. And the onus is on the Club Board to make either outcome work.

Tranche 2 does involve trade-offs for fan-ownership. Less severe ones than some other alternatives, but still trade-offs.

It isn't, in itself, a sustainability plan (though delivering one would be much harder with £500k less in the bank).

What it would provide is the necessary breathing space to implement a sustainability plan while keeping at least a moderately competitive football team on the park.

Others can legitimately disagree with this approach, but I think the onus is then on them to explain how they would deal with the cash crunch point that is a little over 3 months away, and to own the implications of their approach in terms of its impact on (a) on-field performance and (b) the underlying business.

[javeajag]

8 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I think this overstates it.

I personally voted for Tranche 2.

But I completely respect the view of those who don't. And the onus is on the Club Board to make either outcome work.

Tranche 2 does involve trade-offs for fan-ownership. Less severe ones than some other alternatives, but still trade-offs.

It isn't, in itself, a sustainability plan (though delivering one would be much harder with £500k less in the bank).

What it would provide is the necessary breathing space to implement a sustainability plan while keeping at least a moderately competitive football team on the park.

Others can legitimately disagree with this approach, but I think the onus is then on them to explain how they would deal with the cash crunch point that is a little over 3 months away, and to own the implications of their approach in terms of its impact on (a) on-field performance and (b) the underlying business.

I agree with this and voted for tranche 2 as I always said we should.

In fact I’m not aware of anyone who has said they will vote against and that includes JJ !

without tranche 2 we face a financial crunch but what does that tell you about those running the club that even with donations of £225k a year they would still lose £280k this year and need an additional £500k to stop our creditors being paid in a few months ? That’s not sustainable!

if the sustainable financial plan is to be base on increased  revenue and donations , as stated , then frankly we should either plan for tranche 3 now or re think the form of fan ownership we have because that is no plan at all.

it seems to me that what is being said is that in the championship there is an amount of spend necessary to fight for promotion that is above the clubs natural revenue level that can be supported through fan ownership. If that’s the case we need to do some serious thinking.

[Lenziejag]

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

Tranche 2 does not address the underlying financial problems of the club it’s a short term term sticking plaster that’s needed because without it we won’t be able to pay our debts in a few months.

And there is no such thing as free money , tranche 2 is buying shares and influence.

The vast majority of beneficiaries paid nothing in the transfer of ownership, so had no shares or influence previously. Donald McClymont is a Thistle supporter. I really don’t understand why anyone is so opposed to him investing.

[javeajag]

9 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

The vast majority of beneficiaries paid nothing in the transfer of ownership, so had no shares or influence previously. Donald McClymont is a Thistle supporter. I really don’t understand why anyone is so opposed to him investing.

Who is opposed to him investing ? If he didn’t we would go bust that’s how bad things are. But for investing he has 10% of the shares of the club and a seat on the Board….its not free.

and I’m not sure your characterisation of your beneficiaries wouldn’t warrant some editing.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

I agree with this and voted for tranche 2 as I always said we should.

In fact I’m not aware of anyone who has said they will vote against and that includes JJ !

without tranche 2 we face a financial crunch but what does that tell you about those running the club that even with donations of £225k a year they would still lose £280k this year and need an additional £500k to stop our creditors being paid in a few months ? That’s not sustainable!

if the sustainable financial plan is to be base on increased  revenue and donations , as stated , then frankly we should either plan for tranche 3 now or re think the form of fan ownership we have because that is no plan at all.

it seems to me that what is being said is that in the championship there is an amount of spend necessary to fight for promotion that is above the clubs natural revenue level that can be supported through fan ownership. If that’s the case we need to do some serious thinking.

I am baffled by the premise that the only way to balance the books is to cut costs and that increasing revenue or donations isn’t a valid option. Every organisation I worked for budgeted to increase revenue every year and was measured against that. I think the video said that the commercial revenue target for this year had already been achieved ?, with 6 months still to go. It was also mentioned that gate revenue was also likely to be up by about £100K, I think, if attendances stay at the current levels.

[Lenziejag]

15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Who is opposed to him investing ? If he didn’t we would go bust that’s how bad things are. But for investing he has 10% of the shares of the club and a seat on the Board….its not free.

and I’m not sure your characterisation of your beneficiaries wouldn’t warrant some editing.

I don’t understand your last sentence. Colin Weir paid for the transfer of shares. You should go and have a read at some of JJ’s comments regarding his investment.

[Jordanhill Jag]

5 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I am baffled by the premise that the only way to balance the books is to cut costs and that increasing revenue or donations isn’t a valid option. Every organisation I worked for budgeted to increase revenue every year and was measured against that. I think the video said that the commercial revenue target for this year had already been achieved ?, with 6 months still to go. It was also mentioned that gate revenue was also likely to be up by about £100K, I think, if attendances stay at the current levels.

Two very simple reasons 

A large chunk of our losses are as advised by the Board “ donations” to external organisations linked to PTFC - they are not part of the Core Business and can be cut without impacting on the Team Performance - therefore any business makes the obvious choice 

It was stated that the Board believe that there is additional revenues of £250- £500k available in better negotiated contracts - this is in essence someones opinion - not based on anything more than that ( and in reality pie in the sky )

Crowds are maxxed out for a Club that is trundling along in the Championship 

So growth is unlikely - cuts on non core parts of the business is straightforward with minimal impact on the revenue generation part ie the First Team that plays on a Saturday 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

39 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

The vast majority of beneficiaries paid nothing in the transfer of ownership, so had no shares or influence previously. Donald McClymont is a Thistle supporter. I really don’t understand why anyone is so opposed to him investing.

No one is opposed to him investing but running up debts selling off parts of the Club is not sustainable 

He is paying off trading debts the nett benefit long term is zero 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

It is simply false to state that "a large chunk of our losses are advised by the Board "donations" to external organisations linked to PTFC".

Totally false.

[Jaggernaut]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

No one is opposed to him investing but running up debts selling off parts of the Club is not sustainable 

He is paying off trading debts the nett benefit long term is zero 

 

So what do you want?

I don't mean just the usual generalities.

I mean who do you want to be in charge? And state explicitly what you demand that they do? And how do you want them to do it?

C'mon, who do you want to run PTFC, and exactly how do you want the club to be run? No vague cutting costs here or there, what do you want? No "business plan"... What is your business plan? Who would you like to run PTFC?

Spell it out! Who, when, and how? With figures. What is your master plan?

Put up, or please, STFU!

Edited December 6, 2024 by Jaggernaut

[javeajag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

I am baffled by the premise that the only way to balance the books is to cut costs and that increasing revenue or donations isn’t a valid option. Every organisation I worked for budgeted to increase revenue every year and was measured against that. I think the video said that the commercial revenue target for this year had already been achieved ?, with 6 months still to go. It was also mentioned that gate revenue was also likely to be up by about £100K, I think, if attendances stay at the current levels.

Of course we should be raising revenue, increasing the fan base and commercial income. Donations however should be a bonus not a key operating income stream.

and as everyone in business knows costs are certain , revenue uncertain and we are currently spending more than we are bringing in which cannot continue.

[Norgethistle]

My takeaway was the preference is to increase revenue to bridge the gap (Sponsorships, hospitality, more bums on seats, utilizing Firhill more and even revue of admission pricing was all being worked), but ultimately if that didn’t work then cuts would come.
 

Whilst TJF’s contribution is a donation, it’s budgeted for as we committed to a set amount per calendar month, which thanks to the membership we are fulfilling. 
 

[Woodstock Jag]

I would love us to get to a position where TJF's pledge is an unbudgeted bonus for the Club.

Realistically, I think that is some way off, unless we start getting into a position of strong player trading.

[javeajag]

14 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

My takeaway was the preference is to increase revenue to bridge the gap (Sponsorships, hospitality, more bums on seats, utilizing Firhill more and even revue of admission pricing was all being worked), but ultimately if that didn’t work then cuts would come.
 

Whilst TJF’s contribution is a donation, it’s budgeted for as we committed to a set amount per calendar month, which thanks to the membership we are fulfilling. 
 

Of course we would all love revenue to solve the problem and every sales manager has said the same thing since 1928 but we all know that’s wishful thinking and won’t happen.

having an accountant on the board who can’t find any costs to save should be concerning because the axe will be coming.

[javeajag]

16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I would love us to get to a position where TJF's pledge is an unbudgeted bonus for the Club.

Realistically, I think that is some way off, unless we start getting into a position of strong player trading.

You mean the sustainable financial model of course….

 

[ChiThistle]

The funny thing here is…..I think everyone has a valid point.

You cant keep selling off shares or assets to keep things funded.  That’s not a plan.  But anything you cut could be twice as costly/difficult to get back.

That said, we 100% need a “doomsday scenario” plan that lists what cuts or changes we would make, in priority order, in an emergency.  And it would have to look at everything - women’s team, academy, hospitality, Jagzone - all of it except the men’s team.

[javeajag]

4 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

The funny thing here is…..I think everyone has a valid point.

You cant keep selling off shares or assets to keep things funded.  That’s not a plan.  But anything you cut could be twice as costly/difficult to get back.

That said, we 100% need a “doomsday scenario” plan that lists what cuts or changes we would make, in priority order, in an emergency.  And it would have to look at everything - women’s team, academy, hospitality, Jagzone - all of it except the men’s team.

Steady that’s a sensible suggestion !