sandy Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 But it won't happen, Sandy, so not much point getting worked up. It could if enough of us wanted it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uberteeb Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 For those of us who don’t really care too much/pay too much attention to what is going on behind the scenes does someone fancy laying out (without using subtle language or references that people may not get) what are the scenarios for what is going on here and what it may or may not mean for the club. I’m assuming the ‘best case scenario’ is a guy who has done a fair bit of work to improve the matchday experience at Firhill is gone and there probably won’t be as much effort in this area from now on. How bad is the ‘worst case scenario’ and what are the possibilities inbetween? Always a little sceptical with this stuff, since I was a little nipper with a Save The Jags pin badge on my school jacket there have always been stories about us going bust doing the rounds and we’re still in existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Worst case scenario.... part time Club with a nomadic existence much like Clyde are at this precise moment in time whilst Firhill is sold to benefit individuals and not Partick Thistle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennythistle Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Worst case scenario.... part time Club with a nomadic existence much like Clyde are at this precise moment in time whilst Firhill is sold to benefit individuals and not Partick Thistle. I can only base my views on any meetings I've had with some of the current board. I genuinely don't get the impression that is on the agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I can only base my views on any meetings I've had with some of the current board. I genuinely don't get the impression that is on the agenda. The part-time bit or the nomadic bit? The latter will be the result of ongoing incompetence or deliberation by those running the club but I remain convinced that part time football (at least in part) is inevitable. I don't believe there's any way we can have a squad of full time players with the revenues that we generate or are likely to be able to generate. Our squad this season is limited, we've taken action to get the highest earner off the payroll and we pay our coaches a pittance. We've been in a declining spiral for the past few seasons when it comes to the squad. And I've yet to see anything that suggests future income is going to be able to allow that situation to be transformed. I'd rather we bit this bullet now rather than have it or something far worse forced on us by the lack of an earlier decision Edited February 1, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennythistle Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The part-time bit or the nomadic bit? The latter will be the result of ongoing incompetence or deliberation by those running the club but I rmind convinced that part time football (at least in part) is inevitable. I don't believe there's any way we can have a squad of full time players with the revenues that we generate or are likely to be able to generate. I don't see any of it being on the agenda. I guess those who go the to meet the manager night can ask. I'm sure Beattie will be there. I can't make it due to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The part-time bit or the nomadic bit? The latter will be the result of ongoing incompetence or deliberation by those running the club but I rmind convinced that part time football (at least in part) is inevitable. I don't believe there's any way we can have a squad of full time players with the revenues that we generate or are likely to be able to generate. So who the hell is advising the board to sign up players on two and a half year deals? Oh yeah, it'll be Tom Hughes, the financial wizard, based on his accurate forecasting of future income streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 So who the hell is advising the board to sign up players on two and a half year deals? Oh yeah, it'll be Tom Hughes, the financial wizard, based on his accurate forecasting of future income streams. I think I now know why the banking sector nearly collapsed..they must have had a shadowy financial advisor who drew up income projections for the sub-prime mortgage market. I did wonder where TH was around that time ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennythistle Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 So who the hell is advising the board to sign up players on two and a half year deals? Oh yeah, it'll be Tom Hughes, the financial wizard, based on his accurate forecasting of future income streams. Not having a dig Honved but were we not all delighted to see Dools, Erskine and Fox signed up. Were we not all wanting to see others join them. Did the news not meet with widespread approval on here at the time. The news of Jim's departure has brought back all the sniping and ill feeling that we had when times were really tough earlier in the season. Beattie (in my view) had been trying to bridge the gap between fans and club but and let's be honest here, not many on here wanted to buy into it. Now there has been this announcement and in 24 hrs all hell has broken loose. Has there been any official word as to what happened....not from what I can tell. Now there is talk of some sort of protest on Saturday at the St J match......Talk about losing a grip on reality !! I can't help but get the feeling some just can't wait for some reason just to sit at their laptop and let loose at all things connected with the jags. Hate to think what it's gona be like on here come Saturday night if the lads lose the cup tie. The usual, Erskine is a "pub player", Dools "not good enough for this level", Boyle just "not a footballer", McCall is a "retard" Those who do go to the forthcoming meeting, ask the questions that appear to be concerning you all. Do something proactive, then lets see where we are. Of course that doesn't mean that a lot won't believe the answers they are given. Any way, rant over, i'm awf to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Not having a dig Honved but were we not all delighted to see Dools, Erskine and Fox signed up. Were we not all wanting to see others join them. Did the news not meet with widespread approval on here at the time. Yes, it did. And I can still see these guys as forming the full time core of a mixed squad of full and part time players. In this scenario, longer term contracts of this nature would also make some sense as it will allow some stability. Let's also be honest - neither Doolan or Erskine were likely to be going anywhere else at this point in time. It's probably better for them to tie themselves into a longer term contract with us - it's almost equally the case that they're not being paid a fortune either. If they fulfil their promise then we'll probably have the opportunity of a transfer fee along the way. Fox may be different but I can't help but feel the relative delay in him signing was partially to let him check out other interest elsewhere. Not sure what kind of money he'd be on but if there wasn't much sign of interest elsewhere then he may be in the same situation as I've speculated on above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honved Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Not having a dig Honved but were we not all delighted to see Dools, Erskine and Fox signed up. Were we not all wanting to see others join them. Did the news not meet with widespread approval on here at the time. The news of Jim's departure has brought back all the sniping and ill feeling that we had when times were really tough earlier in the season. Beattie (in my view) had been trying to bridge the gap between fans and club but and let's be honest here, not many on here wanted to buy into it. Now there has been this announcement and in 24 hrs all hell has broken loose. Has there been any official word as to what happened....not from what I can tell. Now there is talk of some sort of protest on Saturday at the St J match......Talk about losing a grip on reality !! I can't help but get the feeling some just can't wait for some reason just to sit at their laptop and let loose at all things connected with the jags. Hate to think what it's gona be like on here come Saturday night if the lads lose the cup tie. The usual, Erskine is a "pub player", Dools "not good enough for this level", Boyle just "not a footballer", McCall is a "retard" Those who do go to the forthcoming meeting, ask the questions that appear to be concerning you all. Do something proactive, then lets see where we are. Of course that doesn't mean that a lot won't believe the answers they are given. Any way, rant over, i'm awf to work. Track back on the thread about the signings and you will see silence from me for two reasons. Firstly, I don't like to rain on the parade, there's enough of that at Firhill in any case. Secondly, it's obvious to me that signings like that have to be funded in some way going forward. We have a £100k deficit this year, which we have been told has been or will be plugged, but so far (and you heard this from David Beattie's mouth, just like me) there's no plan in place to secure income streams for next year. Buying more 50/50s is apparently not the answer, but there's no sign of any grand plan. Despite that, the club have signed up players long term. Questions were asked at that recent meeting and only partial answers given. Buchanan may have been shifted off the wage bill but if you do the most basic weighing up on that, his wage has gone to Fox and improved deals for the others. So the £100k deficit is still there for next year and Hughes is still advising the board despite not being a director. You have to wonder if there is anyone else capable of doing that job at least as well, if not better and if so, why are they not in there doing it. What motivated him to stick the knife in to a guy who was putting money into the club and working hard on matchdays to make the fans day out (not the directors or their buddies) as good as it could be, can only be speculated on. One thing is certain though, it sure as hell was not for the good of Partick Thistle Football Club and its supporters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Let's also be honest - neither Doolan or Erskine were likely to be going anywhere else at this point in time. It's probably better for them to tie themselves into a longer term contract with us - it's almost equally the case that they're not being paid a fortune either. If they fulfil their promise then we'll probably have the opportunity of a transfer fee along the way. 'We' being Partick Thistle, Europa or some creature of the club's wealthiest directors? I am pleased we have the boys on board for a couple of years but, as with much else these days, it would be good to know who is what to whom. There was pretty much universal praise for a director's support for a players wage a while back. What would happen if 'Sir Alex' took Mr Fox to Manchester for a seven-figure fee? Would this benefit the club to the degree we all hope it will? I am interested in the financial health of the club. I am interested in the sporting health of the club. I am concerned that the club's property asset is being sold at rock bottom prices to its directors because the same directors have led it - sometimes with the best intentions - into the mire. I am not overly bothered about who sits on the board as long as they're good for the club but I am turned off by the spectacle of club board seats becoming political footballs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluddy Hell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Tom Hughes is acting on behalf of his company, so tell me in any other business does someone giving financial advice to a board of directers HAVE to be part of the BOD? No he is an ADVISOR at the moment and has been since leaving his post. Yes he has made mistakes in the past, yes this stinks but jesus guys give the guy a break hes doing what his company pay him to do, offer financial advice, it doesn't matter how good or bad it is, its the BOD's job to decide what to do with the money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluddy Hell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Also, even though this may turn out to be highly unlikely, but with people on here saying they never met eye to eye with JA, could it not be possible that they have found someone willing to part with their money and experience but only if JA is not around due to feeling they arent able to work with them? And before anyone says he has done a good job yes, with that there is little doubt, and business people should not let personal agendas affect investing but get in the real world, it happens every day of the week in the business world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Tom Hughes is acting on behalf of his company, so tell me in any other business does someone giving financial advice to a board of directers HAVE to be part of the BOD? No he is an ADVISOR at the moment and has been since leaving his post. Yes he has made mistakes in the past, yes this stinks but jesus guys give the guy a break hes doing what his company pay him to do, offer financial advice, it doesn't matter how good or bad it is, its the BOD's job to decide what to do with the money You are correct, of course, but Gerber, Landa and Gee act as Secretary to the Club. That does not in itself involve the proferring of financial advice (expect perhaps to the extent of confirming what the Board may or may not be authorised to do). What is involved here is clearly significantly beyond any such requirements. Tom Hughes' record with the club should in any other sane environment just about exclude him as the provider of good advice. Tom Hughes' role in life may well be to ensure that Nick Clegg's name is only the second most toxic in these parts but his continuing involvement will be a severe impact on David Beattie's avowed aim to seek to bring the board and the fans togther. Dispensing with Jim (and his apparent connivance in that) has kicked out one leg from beneath him, Hughes' involvement is dealing with the other. As Pete Townshend once wrote, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Worst case scenario.... part time Club with a nomadic existence much like Clyde are at this precise moment in time whilst Firhill is sold to benefit individuals and not Partick Thistle. Not sure about the nomadic bit, young man. The shaping of business suggests a separate propco holding ownership of the entire stadium with a sitting tenant that enjoys a minority influence in that propco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Tom Hughes is acting on behalf of his company, so tell me in any other business does someone giving financial advice to a board of directers HAVE to be part of the BOD? No he is an ADVISOR at the moment and has been since leaving his post. I don't care what he is, he is still calling the shots at the Club with his and McMasters shares even though he isn't in the Boardroom anymore. He shouldn't have anything to do with the Club anymore. Yes he has made mistakes in the past, yes this stinks but jesus guys give the guy a break No. His mistakes in the past have been too severe to "give him a break". His financial management/advice whatever it is he is paid for has crippled the Club and divided the support. Maybe your happy with that. I'm not. hes doing what his company pay hes doing what his company pay him to do, offer financial advice, it doesn't matter how good or bad it is, its the BOD's job to decide what to do with the money Yes it does. PTFC have been running at a loss for a number of years, jeez they even decided not to pay the taxman, maybe that was Hughes wise plan? You only have to look at Dundee to see what happens when you don't pay the taxman. Edited February 1, 2011 by northernsoul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluddy Hell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 In any walk of life you may have shares in a company, and you may have nothing to do with the company, so you think they shouldn't hold shares? Yes they were gifted the shares after Save the Jags, you may think they should give the shares back, but no doubt there will be red tape somewhere saying it cannot be transferred to back to the company in which they are for, or to any single organisation for free. Yes he made mistakes before, yes it was his along with others who have us in this position in the first place, but now all he has is his shares and performing his job. My point about the fact we didn't have to take his advice is that Beattie et all are not silly wee boys, they all have their own companies and know how to run them so Hughes could advice all he wants, it is down to the BOD to actually act on this advice, which is what is the worst part as they clearly aren't. I was never a fan of Hughes in his time at Firhill, felt he wanted to be in control without the flak of being chairman, but the reins of the club are in Beattie now. This has been a massive over-reaction to the voting out of a directer, no matter how much he had done for us the fans, and talk of a protest at St J? Gimmie a break lads just go and enjoy the day, we may even make it to the quarters if we play well enough, if there is a need for a protest or whatever do it at Firhill, least that way we won't embarress ourselfs too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Also, even though this may turn out to be highly unlikely, but with people on here saying they never met eye to eye with JA, could it not be possible that they have found someone willing to part with their money and experience but only if JA is not around due to feeling they arent able to work with them? And before anyone says he has done a good job yes, with that there is little doubt, and business people should not let personal agendas affect investing but get in the real world, it happens every day of the week in the business world! There's certainly been no suggestion of any new investors or any new money coming in. But surely any such people would be mature enough to be able to deal with the stubborn, opinionated person that can be Jim Alexander. That's a large part of his success in his own business and I'm also sure it's a quality shared by other succesful businessmen including the likes of Beattie. It certainly won't stop them working together. However, we do know that it was Tom Hughes that was out canvassing support to get Jim off the board. Any involvement by other members of the board remain supposition for the meantime although there is more than a whiff of collusion in the air. The unanswered question is whether this would have happened without his involvement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediocre Pundit Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Maybe I'm naive, but JA was appointed to the BoD at the same time as Cowan, Hughes and Prentice stepped down - late September 2010. I would take this to imply that JA was very much part of the reshuffle that DB and BA wanted in order to change the direction of the club. Why then would they push him off, secretly, 4 months later? It doesn't make sense. I think a reason needs to be suggested for that before we start laying the blame for this at the feet of the current BoD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 No news from the Jags Trust yet, so I've e-mailed the Secretary with the following questions: Can the JT Board provide a statement on the JT website which covers the following areas: 1. What is the Jags Trust Board opinion about the change of Board Directors announced this week ? 2. What is Tom Hughes role behind the scenes at the Club ? If the Jags Trust Board are not sure, can you find out on behalf of the members. 3. From your post on the wearethistle forum, it sounds as if Tom Hughes contacted the Jags Trust Board on Friday before the AGM to advise that Jim Alexander was likley to be voted off the Board of PTFC 3 days later at the AGM. Can you outline exactly the nature of this communication with Mr Hughes ? Why was a non Board Member sharing his insight to the proxy voting patterns with the Trust before the AGM - was he seeking to influence the Trust vote at the AGM ? 4. Is the Jags Trust Board actively considering any action to safeguard the JT shareholding, the interests of the fans and the future of the Club ? I appreciate that the JTB members may be busy with plans for forthcoming social events, but these are very important developments this week and they need a focus from the Trust if we to unravel what is happening. Cheers, Sandy Jags Trust Member Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Maybe I'm naive, but JA was appointed to the BoD at the same time as Cowan, Hughes and Prentice stepped down - late September 2010. I would take this to imply that JA was very much part of the reshuffle that DB and BA wanted in order to change the direction of the club. Why then would they push him off, secretly, 4 months later? It doesn't make sense. I think a reason needs to be suggested for that before we start laying the blame for this at the feet of the current BoD. Was there not an item on the agenda to remove/reduce the restrictions on the issuing of shares? The major shareholders would have been needed to be got onside for this to go through given that the majority of shares are now outside the boardroom. Might this have been the price for that support? Nothing more than speculation, mind you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Evening Times story Some further comments from DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediocre Pundit Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Was there not an item on the agenda to remove/reduce the restrictions on the issuing of shares? The major shareholders would have been needed to be got onside for this to go through given that the majority of shares are now outside the boardroom. Might this have been the price for that support? Nothing more than speculation, mind you! Which could explain possible abstentions from the vote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Murray Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Has anybody spoken to Jim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.