Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[Lenziejag]

11 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

That assumes you have a way of financing the debt - without Tranche 2 - we don't - plus if we need a Tranche 3 ( which we will very soon ) 

where is the Money going to come from 

this has zero to do with % ownership - this is who is willing to underwrite our losses long term 

Usually it’s the owners that finance the club and as Thistle are now a fan owned club that comes down to the fans doesn’t it ?
As far as % ownership, I was just responding to a question.

[javeajag]

32 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Usually it’s the owners that finance the club and as Thistle are now a fan owned club that comes down to the fans doesn’t it ?
As far as % ownership, I was just responding to a question.

And that shouldn’t be too complicated …..the owners tell the board that if income is projected to £100 then expenditure should be £95.

for a very small business we sure make it complicated.

 

[Woodstock Jag]

The whole point of the reporting mechanism is that the Club Board has to justify and explain, in writing, the deterioration and bring forward measures to fix it.

If their explanation or proposals are inadequate the Trustees have the powers to remove and appoint directors, just as they always have done.

The financial governance piece is there to ensure those powers are used only as a last resort. Which is, I think, a better approach than being trigger happy and disincentivising anyone from being willing to serve as a Club Board member under a given set of owners.

[javeajag]

15 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The whole point of the reporting mechanism is that the Club Board has to justify and explain, in writing, the deterioration and bring forward measures to fix it.

If their explanation or proposals are inadequate the Trustees have the powers to remove and appoint directors, just as they always have done.

The financial governance piece is there to ensure those powers are used only as a last resort. Which is, I think, a better approach than being trigger happy and disincentivising anyone from being willing to serve as a Club Board member under a given set of owners.

It is quite normal indeed essential for a board to have parameters and targets particularly when they are not the owners of the business.

Better not to overspend than having to deal with it afterwards as we are now seeing.

it’s neither disincentivising or being trigger happy…..it’s simply saying we want the club run without incurring any debt. Simple.

[Jordanhill Jag]

13 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The whole point of the reporting mechanism is that the Club Board has to justify and explain, in writing, the deterioration and bring forward measures to fix it.

If their explanation or proposals are inadequate the Trustees have the powers to remove and appoint directors, just as they always have done.

The financial governance piece is there to ensure those powers are used only as a last resort. Which is, I think, a better approach than being trigger happy and disincentivising anyone from being willing to serve as a Club Board member under a given set of owners.

Complete nonsense - if the Board are managing  the Club in a fashion that means we are Running up large debts and reducing the Cash Reserves below minimum requirements in any normal Company you replace the Board - just as the previous Board was replaced

“ trigger happy” what you mean is you don't want to change the current cosy set up between TJF and the Board 

Just in case you didn't notice - our current position is that by the end of the Season we will struggle to pay our debts 

The £280K Cash Reserves from Tranche 1 has pretty much gone and we are Running at a £260K loss 

There is NO PLAN in place to run the Club at a Breakeven 

Tranche 2 is a bail for a failing organisation - nothing more - nothing less 

Stop this rubbish about “ disincentivise “ we could replace the current board in a heartbeat - but TJF are worried they wont get to call the shots 

Our current financial state is 100% on TJF they backed the Board and will back Tranche 2 and continuation of the Status Quo 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Usually it’s the owners that finance the club and as Thistle are now a fan owned club that comes down to the fans doesn’t it ?
As far as % ownership, I was just responding to a question.

The Owners are not there to Finance large Debts - the Board are responsible for Running the Club in a manner that doesn't threaten its existence ie Large Debts - No Cash Reserves 

If they do - then they should be removed by the owners - in our case TJF 

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just read the TJF statement on Tranche 2 - it was always getting signed off by TJF - the only issue was how to try and spin at as a positive - its not - its getting cash to cover losses and the fact we spent all the Cash Reserves from Tranche 1 

TJF are happy to support it as it gives them more Power of the Running of the Club - they get to decide on detailed finances 

They are Running the Club ( and hiding behind the Board when it fails) 

Not one Question put forward by TJF on how the Club which loses circa £300k a Year turns this round to a breakeven position 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

The Owners are not there to Finance large Debts - the Board are responsible for Running the Club in a manner that doesn't threaten its existence ie Large Debts - No Cash Reserves 

If they do - then they should be removed by the owners - in our case TJF 

In football clubs they do.

[Jordanhill Jag]

20 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

In football clubs they do.

Really ? 
 

Or how about you get a Board that can run the Club within Budget ? 
 

Our Finances are shocking - if this had been a Jlo Board then there would be War & Peace from TJF Condemning it and protests on the Canal Bank 

as I said in my original posts - large debts and no cash reserves are ok as long as the “ right people” are in Control 

What your suggesting is that we are to be in a loop of continuing debt funded by Fans ? With No Plan to stop the Cycle ? 

 

[Jaggernaut]

4 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Really ? 
 

Or how about you get a Board that can run the Club within Budget ? 
 

Our Finances are shocking - if this had been a Jlo Board then there would be War & Peace from TJF Condemning it and protests on the Canal Bank 

as I said in my original posts - large debts and no cash reserves are ok as long as the “ right people” are in Control 

What your suggesting is that we are to be in a loop of continuing debt funded by Fans ? With No Plan to stop the Cycle ? 

 

Please, For God's sake, stop teasing everybody and just give us your magic solution! I don't mean just a call for dismissing people and having elections (or appointments, made by whom?), or vague attacks on the "right people." Just tell us who in your mind are the "truly right people," and more importantly, what will they do? By that I don't mean give us vague statements about not running at a loss, or about putting a winning team on the park. Tell us what you want, precisely (or even who you want, if that's what's behind your constant whining). Because without the specifics, you come across as nothing but a blowhard who either just craves attention, or as somebody with a serious grudge not only against the club and the people who are trying to keep it running for now and in the longer term. And why you have that grudge is anybody's guess.

Some people have mentioned blocking your posts (some might even have already done it). Is that just water off a duck's back for you? Would you be happy to be posting to nobody or to just a couple of people? My advice: cut the incessant, repetitive criticisms and tell us precisely what is the best way forward, according to you. Name names! Who do you want out, and who do you want to run PTFC, and what do you precisely want them to do that will ensure a healthy, viable and successful future for the club?

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, javeajag said:

It is quite normal indeed essential for a board to have parameters and targets particularly when they are not the owners of the business.

Better not to overspend than having to deal with it afterwards as we are now seeing.

it’s neither disincentivising or being trigger happy…..it’s simply saying we want the club run without incurring any debt. Simple.

And to be clear the Trustees do set the parameters within which the Club Board is then expected to operate. If they don’t operate within those parameters we can then take action as appropriate.

That’s why the CTA provides for budget approval on an annual basis, it’s why it also includes a power of veto over non-footballing contracts over a certain amount not already covered by a budget.

It’s also why we’ve asked for those reporting requirements and targets to be strengthened, with regard to cash and current assets.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Jaggernaut said:

Please, For God's sake, stop teasing everybody and just give us your magic solution! I don't mean just a call for dismissing people and having elections (or appointments, made by whom?), or vague attacks on the "right people." Just tell us who in your mind are the "truly right people," and more importantly, what will they do? By that I don't mean give us vague statements about not running at a loss, or about putting a winning team on the park. Tell us what you want, precisely (or even who you want, if that's what's behind your constant whining). Because without the specifics, you come across as nothing but a blowhard who either just craves attention, or as somebody with a serious grudge not only against the club and the people who are trying to keep it running for now and in the longer term. And why you have that grudge is anybody's guess.

Some people have mentioned blocking your posts (some might even have already done it). Is that just water off a duck's back for you? Would you be happy to be posting to nobody or to just a couple of people? My advice: cut the incessant, repetitive criticisms and tell us precisely what is the best way forward, according to you. Name names! Who do you want out, and who do you want to run PTFC, and what do you precisely want them to do that will ensure a healthy, viable and successful future for the club?

What are you going on about "Magic Solution " 

You have two options - run at large Losses - Run Up Debts - deplete your cash Reserves - Go Bust ( which without Tranche 2 is pretty much what we are doing ) 

Or you trade within your means and have an infrastructure that reflects your income 

If that means we are playing further down the Leagues then that's the size of Club that we are and we have to accept that - However - I do not believe that this is the case - I believe we are not managing our resources effectively 

I'm not interested in your "advice" and I do not care about being "blocked" - I have challenged the Finances for circa 12 Months as I did not believe them - The Club are clearly stating that without Tranche 2 we will struggle to pay our Debts and we may require Loans ( if we cant get Loans we go under ) I'm not sure which part of that your not getting 

We actually have no idea of the scale of the problem or how we are Running up such large debts ( despite increased income ) as what we get are selective figures from the Board - which is similar to TJF when they were asking for due diligence    

  As for "Who I want " TJF decide who and how - not me - they are answerable to there Members - if they decide our Strategy is to run up unassailable debts Year on Year - risk going bust - take it up with them not me 

I've already stated on numerous occasions that Directors should resign - to put us in a Position that we cant pay our debts is a resignation matter - just as previous Boards have resigned in circumstances - I'm not in the loop is to who is calling the shots on Finances at the Club - its up to TJF to decide that

As for replacements - if TJF don't know Thistle Fans with the required Business Experience who would  step up to the Board - then that's an issue - there are plenty 

As for Grudges - I have repeatedly called out TJF for there double standards on how the acted under the Jlo Board and how they act towards the current Board in almost identical circumstances - the Hypocrisy is breathtaking 

Perhaps you should reserve your obvious anger ( and Frustration ) for those putting the Clubs Finances in Jeopardy-  rather than your personal insults ( and lets face it attempts at bullying ) against myself - or are you one of those that doesn't want Questions of the Board or the "blessed TJF " who can do no wrong 

Whilst I may bore you or annoy you - I have been saying the same thing repeatedly - to be told by TJF Board  Members on the Forum - that "I don't understand Business" - well here is one thing I do understand about business - you keep spending Money you don't have - you wont be in Business very long 

You don't like my Posts - Don't Read them - No one is forcing You            

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

And to be clear the Trustees do set the parameters within which the Club Board is then expected to operate. If they don’t operate within those parameters we can then take action as appropriate.

That’s why the CTA provides for budget approval on an annual basis, it’s why it also includes a power of veto over non-footballing contracts over a certain amount not already covered by a budget.

It’s also why we’ve asked for those reporting requirements and targets to be strengthened, with regard to cash and current assets.

I take it those "parameters " don't include not having  enough Cash to pay your debts at the end of the Season as per the current position stated by the Board - without Tranche 2 ? 

So if that's not a Red Line - exactly when do you "take action as appropriate"  ? 

Edited November 12 by Jordanhill Jag

[erty13]

If the fans dilute their shares below 50%, Jackie Low could have the casting vote.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I take it those "parameters " don't include not having  enough Cash to pay your debts at the end of the Season as per the current position stated by the Board - without Tranche 2 ? 

So if that's not a Red Line - exactly when do you "take action as appropriate"  ? 

You clearly haven’t read our position statement. The new financial stewardship provisions explicitly require a minimum cash in bank level and current ratio to be maintained at all times.

Both at levels that mean having enough in cash and other current assets to meet current liabilities with resource to spare.

So actually, our red line post investment is more stringent than what you’ve called for!

Edited November 12 by Woodstock Jag

[javeajag]

3 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

Please, For God's sake, stop teasing everybody and just give us your magic solution! I don't mean just a call for dismissing people and having elections (or appointments, made by whom?), or vague attacks on the "right people." Just tell us who in your mind are the "truly right people," and more importantly, what will they do? By that I don't mean give us vague statements about not running at a loss, or about putting a winning team on the park. Tell us what you want, precisely (or even who you want, if that's what's behind your constant whining). Because without the specifics, you come across as nothing but a blowhard who either just craves attention, or as somebody with a serious grudge not only against the club and the people who are trying to keep it running for now and in the longer term. And why you have that grudge is anybody's guess.

Some people have mentioned blocking your posts (some might even have already done it). Is that just water off a duck's back for you? Would you be happy to be posting to nobody or to just a couple of people? My advice: cut the incessant, repetitive criticisms and tell us precisely what is the best way forward, according to you. Name names! Who do you want out, and who do you want to run PTFC, and what do you precisely want them to do that will ensure a healthy, viable and successful future for the club?

To be honest the question is why do our Boards not live within their means , run up losses and then expect someone to bail them out.

[javeajag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

And to be clear the Trustees do set the parameters within which the Club Board is then expected to operate. If they don’t operate within those parameters we can then take action as appropriate.

That’s why the CTA provides for budget approval on an annual basis, it’s why it also includes a power of veto over non-footballing contracts over a certain amount not already covered by a budget.

It’s also why we’ve asked for those reporting requirements and targets to be strengthened, with regard to cash and current assets.

So the Trustees have agreed that the Biard can operate at a loss ?

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

So the Trustees have agreed that the Biard can operate at a loss ?

The Trustees signed-off on the 2024-25 budget, which projected a £280k loss.

We have made clear that this year was exceptional and that we expect subsequent budgets to be prepared for future seasons on the basis of aiming to break-even over each three-year cycle.

So with regard to this season specifically, "yes". With regards to future seasons "no".

[Jordanhill Jag]

15 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You clearly haven’t read our position statement. The new financial stewardship provisions explicitly require a minimum cash in bank level and current ratio to be maintained at all times.

Both at levels that mean having enough in cash and other current assets to meet current liabilities with resource to spare.

So actually, our red line post investment is more stringent than what you’ve called for!

The Club have stated that without Tranche 2 - we cannot afford to pay our Debts 

And TJF are OK with this - on what Planet is that acceptable ? 

In any Business the Shareholders remove you - Tranche 2 is irrelevant   

So there are obviously No Red Lines for TJF ( putting them in place AFTER we have put our Finances in Jeopardy isn't OK )  

The fact that TJF actually have to introduce a Clause that stipulates minimal Cash Reserves is a defacto Vote of No Confidence in the Board  - how is that even remotely acceptable - if it was a Jlo Board you would be calling for them to Step Down    

And its not acceptable that People should in essence have the Option of either accepting Tranche 2 - or put the Clubs existence under threat - how is that a reasonable proposition ?

There are No Plans from the Board to reduce the Trading at a massive loss - none whatsover - so the only answer is change Board Members - Change Tact - or Tranche 2 simply disappers 

Show me how we stop this Cycle ? 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

8 minutes ago, javeajag said:

So the Trustees have agreed that the Biard can operate at a loss ?

Yes - TJF Stated that they signed off this Years Budget with a £280K loss  ( and with £75K of available Cash Reserves ) 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, erty13 said:

If the fans dilute their shares below 50%, Jackie Low could have the casting vote.

Actually the interesting thing is that its stated by the Board  if you have Shares to the Value of £350K your entitled to a place on the Board - she owns 10% of the Shares ( not sure of the Value ) 

Now the Board could have refused the Share Transfer from 3BC to Jlo  ( its in our M&A to do this ) but our Current Chairman deemed it OK to allow the Transfer 

[Albert's Ghost]

5 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Show me how we stop this Cycle ? 

 

I see no cycle.

[Jordanhill Jag]

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Trustees signed-off on the 2024-25 budget, which projected a £280k loss.

We have made clear that this year was exceptional and that we expect subsequent budgets to be prepared for future seasons on the basis of aiming to break-even over each three-year cycle.

So with regard to this season specifically, "yes". With regards to future seasons "no".

And Yet the Board have not on any level shown how they will attain Break Even existing in the Championship - Nada - but TJF still back them ?  

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just now, Albert's Ghost said:

I see no cycle.

Running Up Debts - not having the Cash to pay them ?  

[javeajag]

16 minutes ago, Albert's Ghost said:

I see no cycle.

We have lost money every year for five years at least …..if it’s not a cycle it’s a habit