Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[Jordanhill Jag]

14 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Spending less time looking at numbers - where your analysis is dodgy at best - and devoting time to achieving basic standards of English language construction might be a more constructive use of your time JJ..................

You mean my dodgy analysis that we will struggle to pay off our debts at the end of the Season ? 

[Woodstock Jag]

We can deploy the 1000 new fans identified on the Alexander Abacus to do all the back-office jobs at Firhill.

[Tom Hosie]

Just on the subject of crowds, while gates aren't as bigger than they were 10+ years ago as some would suggest, they are disproportionately high for a club currently sitting 5th in the Championship. 

Anecdotally the age demographic appears to be younger than 12/13 season. Certainly the atmosphere is as good as I can recall in my time watching Thistle, including that brilliant season. 

Again I have no evidence to support this and am happy to be corrected otherwise, but I suspect we are seeing, at least in part, the rewards of the Kids Go Free initiative that was always going to be a slow burner. 

There was no short to medium term cash benefit to implementing the scheme. Quite the reverse. It would have cost the club gate income. 

It highlights that there is value in not just looking at the current pounds, shillings and pence figures but taking a longer term view on things. 

Just a few random thoughts on our crowd figures. No intent to derail the thread from it's inevitable Shitstorm Station destination. 

Edited November 13 by Tom Hosie

[Jordanhill Jag]

28 minutes ago, Tom Hosie said:

Just on the subject of crowds, while gates aren't as bigger than they were 10+ years ago as some would suggest, they are disproportionately high for a club currently sitting 5th in the Championship. 

Anecdotally the age demographic appears to be younger than 12/13 season. Certainly the atmosphere is as good as I can recall in my time watching Thistle, including that brilliant season. 

Again I have no evidence to support this and am happy to be corrected otherwise, but I suspect we are seeing, at least in part, the rewards of the Kids Go Free initiative that was always going to be a slow burner. 

There was no short to medium term cash benefit to implementing the scheme. Quite the reverse. It would have cost the club gate income. 

It highlights that there is value in not just looking at the current pounds, shillings and pence figures but taking a longer term view on things. 

Just a few random thoughts on our crowd figures. No intent to derail the thread from it's inevitable Shitstorm Station destination. 

All that is 100% correct and true 

but for Kids go Free there was no on cost - even the Promotion and Marketing was at zero cost to the Club 

You cannot spend money you don't have - the current philosophy is that you can -and someone will bail you out 

Tranche 2 was multiples of smallish donations / my guess is that Donald did a good sales job getting these guys to commit 

What it does show however - is that a Tranche 3 is unlikely 

We are betting the Farm on better Commercial Deals -which flies in the face of the Current Economic Reality of Scotland 

Companies are struggling - an example - there is No Capital Spend allowed in NHS Scotland until the end of 2026 - that means by the time Projects hit site - it will be 2028 before Companies see any income from NHS Scotland - thats Billions of spend taken out of economic circulation - Councils - Universities etc all similar stories 

yet our cunning plan to get us out of the debt cycle is “ someone reckoned” we would get far better Commercial Deals going forwards

based on no more than that - the Clubs future based on someone saying we could get better deals - so keep spending money we dont have 

 

Edited November 13 by Jordanhill Jag

[Lenziejag]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

All that is 100% correct and true 

but for Kids go Free there was no on cost - even the Promotion and Marketing was at zero cost to the Club 

You cannot spend money you don't have - the current philosophy is that you can -and someone will bail you out 

Tranche 2 was multiples of smallish donations / my guess is that Donald did a good sales job getting these guys to commit 

What it does show however - is that a Tranche 3 is unlikely 

We are betting the Farm on better Commercial Deals -which flies in the face of the Current Economic Reality of Scotland 

Companies are struggling - an example - there is No Capital Spend allowed in NHS Scotland until the end of 2026 - that means by the time Projects hit site - it will be 2028 before Companies see any income from NHS Scotland - thats Billions of spend taken out of economic circulation - Councils - Universities etc all similar stories 

yet our cunning plan to get us out of the debt cycle is “ someone reckoned” we would get far better Commercial Deals going forwards

based on no more than that - the Clubs future based on someone saying we could get better deals - so keep spending money we dont have 

 

Tranche 3 wasn’t part of the original plan, but why having a bunch of rich smaller donors does that make you think a 3rd tranche is more unlikely ?

[Jag]

9 hours ago, Tom Hosie said:

Just on the subject of crowds, while gates aren't as bigger than they were 10+ years ago as some would suggest, they are disproportionately high for a club currently sitting 5th in the Championship. 

Anecdotally the age demographic appears to be younger than 12/13 season. Certainly the atmosphere is as good as I can recall in my time watching Thistle, including that brilliant season. 

Again I have no evidence to support this and am happy to be corrected otherwise, but I suspect we are seeing, at least in part, the rewards of the Kids Go Free initiative that was always going to be a slow burner. 

There was no short to medium term cash benefit to implementing the scheme. Quite the reverse. It would have cost the club gate income. 

It highlights that there is value in not just looking at the current pounds, shillings and pence figures but taking a longer term view on things. 

Just a few random thoughts on our crowd figures. No intent to derail the thread from it's inevitable Shitstorm Station destination. 

Some attendances in 2012-13 compared to this season:

Sat 11th August 2012 - Falkirk (H): 3,487  Sat 12th October 2024 - Falkirk (H): 4762

Sat 1st September 2012 - Hamilton (H): 2603  Sat 16th November 2024 - Hamilton (H): ??

Sat 20th October 2012 - Airdrie (H): 2545  Sat 19th October 2024 - Airdrie (H): 3609

Sat 15th December 2012 -  Raith Rovers (H): 2221 Sat 9th November 2024 - Raith Rovers (H): 4348

 

The Falkirk game this season also coincided with Scotland playing, which usually takes a few hundred off the gate. Plus, the 2012 game was in August, when attendances are generally better. I'm also pretty sure we'll get at least 3600 v Hamilton at Firhill on Saturday, to compare against 2012's 2603.

So, looking at these figures, the gates are definitely bigger - and they can't all be kids. If looking at average attendance in 2012-13 overall, the crowds towards the end of the season, e.g. Morton game in April, would obviously increase this. However, looking at the first part of the season, attendances are up significantly.

[Jordanhill Jag]

37 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Tranche 3 wasn’t part of the original plan, but why having a bunch of rich smaller donors does that make you think a 3rd tranche is more unlikely ?

Because they don't have any connection to PTFC - they are doing it as a favour to Donald - the sums clearly point out that its a gift -due to there  personal relationship 

Donald will reduce his £100K if he can get someone to split it with - so realistically the USA funding is maxxed out 

we got lucky with Donald - he appeared out of the blue - we wont get lucky again - after the Alastair Creevy fiasco - anyone with cash connected to Thistle wont touch us with a barge pole 

So we are betting the Club on “ someone saying we can get better Commercial deals” thats the Cunning Plan ( despite the fact most Companies are cutting back on non essential overhead in Scotland )

Frankly it is scary the complete disconnect from Financial Reality from our Board and TJF - they are all living in s wee PTFC bubble  

[partickthedog]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

So we are betting the Club on “ someone saying we can get better Commercial deals” thats the Cunning Plan ( despite the fact most Companies are cutting back on non essential overhead in Scotland )

Frankly it is scary the complete disconnect from Financial Reality from our Board and TJF - they are all living in s wee PTFC bubble  

Where does this quote "someone saying we can get better Commercial deals" come from? Are you quoting someone else or yourself? 

I am asking you just this one question, so no need to rehearse any other matters.

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, partickthedog said:

Where does this quote "someone saying we can get better Commercial deals" come from? Are you quoting someone else or yourself? 

I am asking you just this one question, so no need to rehearse any other matters.

It was a throw away statement at the AGM - very generic - nothing to support it 

Now its taken on the Mantra that these

“ New Commercial deals” are going to be so great there going to wipe out a £250k average overspend 

thats it - thats the cunning plan 

[Jordanhill Jag]

13 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We can deploy the 1000 new fans identified on the Alexander Abacus to do all the back-office jobs at Firhill.

See this is what you do well and Im sure it works in politics - pick up on a comment and attempt to use it to make out that everything else stated is untrue 

as I stated the numbers on my Financial Forecasts came from the Club 

i have queried the numbers for circa 12 Months as they did not stack up 

this has been confirmed as we quite literally will struggle to pay our debts end of the Season 

regards Crowd Numbers - Season so far compared to the comparable period when we were promoted would indicate we are up roughly 1000 game on game 

So its a reasonable estimate 

perhaps if TJF spent as much time questioning the Financial Strategy of the Board as they do trying to find ways to deflect from reasonable questions on the Finances - we might not be in this mess 

TJF are 100% responsible for this - they have backed the Board to the hilt - any Financial issues are on TJF - they could have made changes - but the status quo suited them 

[Lenziejag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Because they don't have any connection to PTFC - they are doing it as a favour to Donald - the sums clearly point out that its a gift -due to there  personal relationship 

Donald will reduce his £100K if he can get someone to split it with - so realistically the USA funding is maxxed out 

we got lucky with Donald - he appeared out of the blue - we wont get lucky again - after the Alastair Creevy fiasco - anyone with cash connected to Thistle wont touch us with a barge pole 

So we are betting the Club on “ someone saying we can get better Commercial deals” thats the Cunning Plan ( despite the fact most Companies are cutting back on non essential overhead in Scotland )

Frankly it is scary the complete disconnect from Financial Reality from our Board and TJF - they are all living in s wee PTFC bubble  

The thing is, you have no idea about the thinking of Donald McClymont and his pals. They have a connection now. Two of them have already donated a second time. You mentioned previously it was a bad idea splitting with Alastair Creevy because he had pals with cash - well so does Donald McClymont and they have coughed up. You are creating a scenario to suit your argument.

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

The thing is, you have no idea about the thinking of Donald McClymont and his pals. They have a connection now. Two of them have already donated a second time. You mentioned previously it was a bad idea splitting with Alastair Creevy because he had pals with cash - well so does Donald McClymont and they have coughed up. You are creating a scenario to suit your argument.

So would you build their possible investments into our financial plans going forward?

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

The thing is, you have no idea about the thinking of Donald McClymont and his pals. They have a connection now. Two of them have already donated a second time. You mentioned previously it was a bad idea splitting with Alastair Creevy because he had pals with cash - well so does Donald McClymont and they have coughed up. You are creating a scenario to suit your argument.

And your betting the Farm on the basis that a couple of Tech Investors in Silicon Valley -who had never heard of Partick Thistle “ might” stump up some more cash in the Future after Tranche 2 is spent 

as a Plan B you could always take what remaining cash we have -and put it on Paddys Boy at 5:1 in the 3:30 at Newmarket just in case the US Investors don't come through with the Tranche 3 cash 

What Tranche 2 showed was that Donald Mclymont was spreading & reducing his exposure ( I have no issue with that )

however  its a very very high risk strategy to assume there will be more cash from the USA in the future 

 

[sandy]

I dont want to get involved in the intricate details of this debate.

The ba is burst as far as funding goes for Scottish Football. Thistle are not immune to this. But it saddens me that after the support from Colin Weir that we find ourselves in a potentially unsustainable situation. 

[Hopeless Unbeliever]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

And your betting the Farm on the basis that a couple of Tech Investors in Silicon Valley -who had never heard of Partick Thistle “ might” stump up some more cash in the Future after Tranche 2 is spent 

This is but one small example of where your abrasive nature on here really makes it hard for people to engage with the substance of your argument. LJ is just pointing out that it's not an unrealistic possibility that investors who have invested in the past *may* invest again in the future. It doesn't mean he's saying he thinks it's a fantastic idea and we should just carry on indefinitely. 

You have the substance of some reasonable points but at this moment you have made 69 of the 213 posts in this thread. This is an important issue for the club and this thread is completely exhausting to read. Simply saying "if you don't like it don't read it" is not good enough here. Your style is actively disengaging people from the argument. If you really, genuinely believe in your argument as much as you seem to on here I would politely suggest you make your point in as detailed and substantive a manner as possible and then leave it for people to digest. As a fanbase we have to collaborate and seek consensus, this is not an owner managed business run on one individual's say so (or even a few individuals as in the past). 

Again I think you have the substance of some good points, but you're losing goodwill with every post. 

[javeajag]

The bottom line so to speak is that for about the last 5 years we have been spending more than we have brought in in revenue. That cannot continue. We were all vocal in criticising Jlow for doing this and to be honest a fan owned club should know better.

we only have scope in reducing the fan share to its limit of 51% by getting about another £1-1.5m in selling shares in the club. We are planning to go through the McClymont £1m in about 2 years. That cannot continue either.

im not against tranche 2 but I am concerned that we seem to think we can overspend and somehow someone or something will turn up to bail us out. That is a dangerous and reckless approach.

i struggle to understand why the club board cannot just be instructed by the owners of the club to live within our means and that they cannot spend more than the revenue they bring in. That also has the advantage of focusing attention of growing the revenue line.

maybe I’m missing something.

 

[ChiThistle]

2 hours ago, sandy said:

I dont want to get involved in the intricate details of this debate.

The ba is burst as far as funding goes for Scottish Football. Thistle are not immune to this. But it saddens me that after the support from Colin Weir that we find ourselves in a potentially unsustainable situation. 

It was always going to require Thistle to find a way to be self-sustaining and find a way to live within its means while not sacrificing a lofty vision to return to the Premiership and beyond.

The SPFL works against clubs like us in that regard, and it’s no easy feat to achieve both ends.

Now, fate sometimes likes to kick me in the nuts as evidenced by the fact I’ll be in town for the meeting but can’t attend due to a wedding…..but the way I see it we need to point-blank ask all involved:

- Whether the board thinks we can sustain ourselves AND achieve promotion

- Specifics on avoiding the need for a tranche 3

- Specifics on how we become self-sustaining.  I’d note JJ focuses a lot on “all they have is vague commercial revenue increases”, but I saw outreach plans to increase the fan base which made sense to me

- What the secondary investors are getting out of this.  Maybe it’s potential business deals, relationships, and contacts.  Those have value.

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Hopeless Unbeliever said:

This is but one small example of where your abrasive nature on here really makes it hard for people to engage with the substance of your argument. LJ is just pointing out that it's not an unrealistic possibility that investors who have invested in the past *may* invest again in the future. It doesn't mean he's saying he thinks it's a fantastic idea and we should just carry on indefinitely. 

You have the substance of some reasonable points but at this moment you have made 69 of the 213 posts in this thread. This is an important issue for the club and this thread is completely exhausting to read. Simply saying "if you don't like it don't read it" is not good enough here. Your style is actively disengaging people from the argument. If you really, genuinely believe in your argument as much as you seem to on here I would politely suggest you make your point in as detailed and substantive a manner as possible and then leave it for people to digest. As a fanbase we have to collaborate and seek consensus, this is not an owner managed business run on one individual's say so (or even a few individuals as in the past). 

Again I think you have the substance of some good points, but you're losing goodwill with every post. 

Thanks for the lecture

as for “ abrasive” Ive been called all sorts including being called a liar for trying argue against our financial insanity - don't remember anyone saying anything to posters about being abrasive ? 

So I will stick to my guns

-we are burning through cash that we cannot fund 

-we cannot afford to pay our debtors 

-there is No Plan to reverse this trend 

-TJF have allowed and are continuing to allow this to happen 

 

 

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

13 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

It was always going to require Thistle to find a way to be self-sustaining and find a way to live within its means while not sacrificing a lofty vision to return to the Premiership and beyond.

The SPFL works against clubs like us in that regard, and it’s no easy feat to achieve both ends.

Now, fate sometimes likes to kick me in the nuts as evidenced by the fact I’ll be in town for the meeting but can’t attend due to a wedding…..but the way I see it we need to point-blank ask all involved:

- Whether the board thinks we can sustain ourselves AND achieve promotion

- Specifics on avoiding the need for a tranche 3

- Specifics on how we become self-sustaining.  I’d note JJ focuses a lot on “all they have is vague commercial revenue increases”, but I saw outreach plans to increase the fan base which made sense to me

- What the secondary investors are getting out of this.  Maybe it’s potential business deals, relationships, and contacts.  Those have value.

The outreach groups are simply to give the impression of doing something - they are simply “ consultation “ to kick the problem down the track 

There is no plan to get us out of the debt cycle 

[elevenone]

3 hours ago, sandy said:

I dont want to get involved in the intricate details of this debate.

The ba is burst as far as funding goes for Scottish Football. Thistle are not immune to this. But it saddens me that after the support from Colin Weir that we find ourselves in a potentially unsustainable situation. 

agree Sandy.

maybe lightning will strike twice as 127m draw tmrw and if I win there will never be a bulb out in the floodlights ever again.

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

The bottom line so to speak is that for about the last 5 years we have been spending more than we have brought in in revenue. That cannot continue. We were all vocal in criticising Jlow for doing this and to be honest a fan owned club should know better.

There are, I think, two important differences.

Firstly, the scale. But for a Rangers cup game, the "old board" had run a budget that would have seen Thistle lose more than £600k in a season. They also knew that the Academy was running a £200k loss and had subsidised the Club by almost £100k in that season.

By comparison, the last full financial year saw the Club deliver what is expected to be only a circa £170k loss. Those are two completely different situations. I readily grant you that the larger loss this year isn't an ideal situation (though it should still be better than 2022-23, without an Old Firm cup game). But as we've alluded to elsewhere, this is partly because the Club is making more conservative assumptions about football revenue and because its more optimistic (unrealistic) fan revenue growth projections were held to account, at source, in close to real time.

Secondly, there's the transparency element. The "old board" pretended that the Club was being run sustainably when it wasn't. It used the Directors' Statement in the 2021-22 accounts to accuse people on the outside expressing concerns about the finances of making it all up (it turned out they were understating the scale of the problem!). They only ever disclosed detailed financial information with the AGM pack, well after the end of the financial year. They denied due diligence to the prospective fan-ownership vehicles to understand the finances in anything approaching "real-time".

Under the current board, things aren't all rosy, by any stretch of the imagination. Much more needs to be done to get closer to break-even and (with or without tranche 2) a Championship budget in 2025-26 will likely be much less competitive than you've seen in the last 3 or so seasons. But you are receiving financial disclosure updates, both over the summer well ahead of the AGM and in quite a bit of detail in public Q&A meetings. The Trustees are getting management accounts on a monthly basis, and are able to test and question performance in something closer to real-time. And you've got a Club Board that's being quite open with the fans that the finances aren't strong and need to be improved.

Both financially and culturally, this is night and day. One group buried their heads in the sand, concealed and didn't just spend beyond our means but ran the Club into the ground. Another group is accepting the situation is challenging, seeking out ways to improve the situation, and trying, imperfectly, to make that reality better understood. The two situations aren't the same, for all the challenges the present faces us.

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

we only have scope in reducing the fan share to its limit of 51% by getting about another £1-1.5m in selling shares in the club. We are planning to go through the McClymont £1m in about 2 years. That cannot continue either.

That's not true. If the Club starts operating at break-even from 2025-26 onwards, then even allowing for the stadium repairs, about a third of the £1 million would still be in the bank as working capital.

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

im not against tranche 2 but I am concerned that we seem to think we can overspend and somehow someone or something will turn up to bail us out. That is a dangerous and reckless approach.

That's definitely not the perspective. There is no tranche 3. A decision was taken to push the boat out on the playing budget for this season specifically because it was seen as a better chance than most to get out of the Championship. The clear expectation and directive from 2025-26 onwards is that budgets have to break-even across a 3-year cycle based on credible and properly evidenced revenue forecast assumptions.

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

i struggle to understand why the club board cannot just be instructed by the owners of the club to live within our means and that they cannot spend more than the revenue they bring in. That also has the advantage of focusing attention of growing the revenue line.

The Club Board is being instructed to keep £300k of cash in the bank at all times, and to maintain a current ratio above 1.2 at all times.

In practice, given the expected post-tranche-2 cash levels and current assets/liabilities, this means that they will not be allowed to set loss-making budgets.

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

maybe I’m missing something.

A football club's costs are generally far better known and predictable than its revenue. Especially in the Scottish Championship where a higher proportion (than in most other leagues above and below and beyond Scotland) of income is determined directly by footballing revenues (gate and prize money).

So if you take the most conservative assumptions on footballing outcomes, that leaves you less flexibility to:

(a) invest in the first team and secure better footballing outcomes

(b) invest in off-field revenue generating activities, which require effective, experienced, professional people and their time to be done well

Is it possible to break even consistently in the Scottish Championship if a football club is run well, without extraordinary sources of footballing or other revenues? Absolutely.

But it's not something that happens overnight from a starting point of grotesque financial mismanagement. It's not, generally, something that happens when you have modest cash reserves. And it's not something that the vast majority of Scottish Championship Clubs have been able to do, including Thistle, on a sustainable multi-season basis pretty much my entire lifetime.

And the quickest, and most transformative route to sustainability, as we, St Mirren and others have seen in the last decade and a half, is promotion to the Premiership.

The pursuit of that carries risks, and when it doesn't work (and there isn't a plan to underwrite the cost) it can be bad news for a football club. But some element of risk is unavoidable if the ambitions are a Club that wants to be consistently in the top half of this division or in the Premiership, rather than fighting Championship relegation battles and facing the spectre of part-time football if things go really badly.

[javeajag]

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

expected to be only a circa £170k loss.

Well I guess if you say it quickly enough it’s still a £170k + loss…..if we didn’t have tranche 1 and 2 how was that getting covered ?!

 

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Much more needs to be done to get closer to break-even

No we need to get TO break even that’s what a sustainable business is, and we need to get there asap

 

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If the Club starts operating at break-even from 2025-26 onwards,

If is a small word that often does a lot of heavy lifting …..it’s not if it’s when because if it isn’t the £300k working capital will be gone in a season if this season is anything to go by 

 

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

this means that they will not be allowed to set loss-making budgets.

Good…..and we need to be hard nosed in keeping to this 

 

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

A football club's costs are generally far better known and predictable than its revenue

That’s true of so many businesses nit just football  which is why you never believe management fairy tale stories of magical of revenue growth  and also why you need to be hard nosed on costs. It’s neither complicated or unusual.

 

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

But some element of risk is unavoidable if the ambitions are a Club that wants to be consistently in the top half of this division or in the Premiership,

And there  is the rub……how much risk - in financial terms  - is that ? Who pays for it when it doesn’t work ( as most spend to get promotion schemes don’t ) ? Can we take a risk premium of x that gives us a significant advantage over other teams to get promoted, highly unlikely. 

Scottish football is littered with clubs who spent money they didn’t have to achieve promotion they didn’t achieve.

Edited November 14 by javeajag

[Woodstock Jag]

14 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Well I guess if you say it quickly enough it’s still a £170k + loss…..if we didn’t have tranche 1 and 2 how was that getting covered ?!

If we didn't have tranche 1 it wasn't getting covered. Even though it represented a like-for-like improvement of £500kpa.

If we didn't have tranche 1 we were already screwed because the Club was in a position of more than £250k of net liabilities without a credit facility. The Club would have probably have run out of money in November 2023.

14 minutes ago, javeajag said:

No we need to get TO break even that’s what a sustainable business is, and we need to get there asap

Agreed, with one clear qualifier. What matters is not that the books balance every single season, making zero allowances for fluctuations in revenues and extraordinary items of expenditure. What matters is that the books balance sustainably over multiple seasons.

I would rather that the Club took slightly longer to return to break-even if the extra spending protects the core footballing and commercial performance of the business, and therefore lays the foundations for being in a better position to operate sustainably in future seasons.

14 minutes ago, javeajag said:

If is a small word that often does a lot of heavy lifting …..it’s not if it’s when because if it isn’t the £300k working capital will be gone in a season if this season is anything to go by 

Absolutely. Which is why the Trustees have made clear to the Club Board that we expect break-even to be the basis for future budgets and why the Club Board has publicly committed to to breaking-even over a three-year cycle.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There are, I think, two important differences.

Firstly, the scale. But for a Rangers cup game, the "old board" had run a budget that would have seen Thistle lose more than £600k in a season. They also knew that the Academy was running a £200k loss and had subsidised the Club by almost £100k in that season.

By comparison, the last full financial year saw the Club deliver what is expected to be only a circa £170k loss. Those are two completely different situations. I readily grant you that the larger loss this year isn't an ideal situation (though it should still be better than 2022-23, without an Old Firm cup game). But as we've alluded to elsewhere, this is partly because the Club is making more conservative assumptions about football revenue and because its more optimistic (unrealistic) fan revenue growth projections were held to account, at source, in close to real time.

Secondly, there's the transparency element. The "old board" pretended that the Club was being run sustainably when it wasn't. It used the Directors' Statement in the 2021-22 accounts to accuse people on the outside expressing concerns about the finances of making it all up (it turned out they were understating the scale of the problem!). They only ever disclosed detailed financial information with the AGM pack, well after the end of the financial year. They denied due diligence to the prospective fan-ownership vehicles to understand the finances in anything approaching "real-time".

Under the current board, things aren't all rosy, by any stretch of the imagination. Much more needs to be done to get closer to break-even and (with or without tranche 2) a Championship budget in 2025-26 will likely be much less competitive than you've seen in the last 3 or so seasons. But you are receiving financial disclosure updates, both over the summer well ahead of the AGM and in quite a bit of detail in public Q&A meetings. The Trustees are getting management accounts on a monthly basis, and are able to test and question performance in something closer to real-time. And you've got a Club Board that's being quite open with the fans that the finances aren't strong and need to be improved.

Both financially and culturally, this is night and day. One group buried their heads in the sand, concealed and didn't just spend beyond our means but ran the Club into the ground. Another group is accepting the situation is challenging, seeking out ways to improve the situation, and trying, imperfectly, to make that reality better understood. The two situations aren't the same, for all the challenges the present faces us.

That's not true. If the Club starts operating at break-even from 2025-26 onwards, then even allowing for the stadium repairs, about a third of the £1 million would still be in the bank as working capital.

That's definitely not the perspective. There is no tranche 3. A decision was taken to push the boat out on the playing budget for this season specifically because it was seen as a better chance than most to get out of the Championship. The clear expectation and directive from 2025-26 onwards is that budgets have to break-even across a 3-year cycle based on credible and properly evidenced revenue forecast assumptions.

The Club Board is being instructed to keep £300k of cash in the bank at all times, and to maintain a current ratio above 1.2 at all times.

In practice, given the expected post-tranche-2 cash levels and current assets/liabilities, this means that they will not be allowed to set loss-making budgets.

A football club's costs are generally far better known and predictable than its revenue. Especially in the Scottish Championship where a higher proportion (than in most other leagues above and below and beyond Scotland) of income is determined directly by footballing revenues (gate and prize money).

So if you take the most conservative assumptions on footballing outcomes, that leaves you less flexibility to:

(a) invest in the first team and secure better footballing outcomes

(b) invest in off-field revenue generating activities, which require effective, experienced, professional people and their time to be done well

Is it possible to break even consistently in the Scottish Championship if a football club is run well, without extraordinary sources of footballing or other revenues? Absolutely.

But it's not something that happens overnight from a starting point of grotesque financial mismanagement. It's not, generally, something that happens when you have modest cash reserves. And it's not something that the vast majority of Scottish Championship Clubs have been able to do, including Thistle, on a sustainable multi-season basis pretty much my entire lifetime.

And the quickest, and most transformative route to sustainability, as we, St Mirren and others have seen in the last decade and a half, is promotion to the Premiership.

The pursuit of that carries risks, and when it doesn't work (and there isn't a plan to underwrite the cost) it can be bad news for a football club. But some element of risk is unavoidable if the ambitions are a Club that wants to be consistently in the top half of this division or in the Premiership, rather than fighting Championship relegation battles and facing the spectre of part-time football if things go really badly.

Ok - we are making £170K loss 

but we also burnt through all our cash reserves ( £280k) 

so over expenditure was the cash Reserves + the losses £170k + £280k 

+ Tranche 1 wiped out the residual debt from the Jlo Board - so please stop going on about the previous Board - thd Current Board or variations of it - have been in place for nearly 2 Years - start taking responsibility for the decisions 

last Season we had No debts- and £280K in Reserves - where has it gone ? 
 

The board also forecast we would be breakeven this Season - we actually will run out of cash if we don't get Tranche 2 

how can you forecast breakeven to we will run out of cash and not be replaced ? And thats based in finishing 4th - we finish 5th add another £100K to the shortfall 

as for the minimum cash reserves the worst case scenario for the Board is that they have to write to TJF - thats it - thats all that happens - TJF will mump & moan - the Red Lines will be crossed - if they cross the cash reserves line -it should be automatic removal - how many chances are they to get ? You would be screaming for the Jlo Board to step down - how come this one gets a free pass fromTJF ? Now its no longer breakeven - its extended to breakeven in a three year cycle - its just more waffle to preserve the cosy Board/ TJF status quo 

there is no plan on any level to break the overspending cycle - none whatsover 

As for the “ invest in off field activities” honest that is just complete waffle / no idea who is selling you this but since your buying it - I have some magic beans to sell TJF 

to balance the books we need an additional £250k  Revenue / that equates to circa £300k plus of increased Commercial Sales -as you have associated overhead to deduct before you show the revenue 

So we are betting the Club future on someone saying we can increase Commercial Sales by £300K ? Based on what exactly ? 

In essence its get the PR Spin out there - block off any questions - get Tranche 2 - carry on as before - hope we get more money from the USA - thats the Plan 
 

Edited November 14 by Jordanhill Jag

[Lenziejag]

9 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - we are making £170K loss 

but we also burnt through all our cash reserves ( £280k) 

so over expenditure was the cash Reserves + the losses £170k + £280k 

+ Tranche 1 wiped out the residual debt from the Jlo Board - so please stop going on about the previous Board - thd Current Board or variations of it - have been in place for nearly 2 Years - start taking responsibility for the decisions 

last Season we had No debts- and £280K in Reserves - where has it gone ? 

 

At the end of 22/23 season we had £630K in the bank. We were due to receive nearly £150K from people that owed us money and we owed just over £1M to other people. In simple terms that’s where the money’s gone.