Jump to content

Planning Application Now Submitted.


Steven H
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Argus

I hope the council throw it out since PropCo has been shown to be nothing more than a pile of lies.

 

You think there is any alternative?

 

I'm sure if you want to doom the club to extinction you'll find someone local to object

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think there is any alternative?

 

I'm sure if you want to doom the club to extinction you'll find someone local to object

 

That is the last thing I want. Or what any Thistle fan wants.

 

However, there must be an alternative to look at given this proposal has done little or nothing to put the club on a stronger footing. This doesn't even give us a decent income stream (another thing they promised us in all the PropCo bluff and propaganda)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Argus

That is the last thing I want. Or what any Thistle fan wants.

 

However, there must be an alternative to look at given this proposal has done little or nothing to put the club on a stronger footing. This doesn't even give us a decent income stream (another thing they promised us in all the PropCo bluff and propaganda)

 

If I understand Steven H, correctly, the time for that is long gone.

The supporters association should have been empowered to object, but apathy ruled, so ergo, the supporters will have to take what comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand Steven H, correctly, the time for that is long gone.

The supporters association should have been empowered to object, but apathy ruled, so ergo, the supporters will have to take what comes.

 

It is worth repeating that the Trust have continually expressed concerns to the club about this scheme using the expertise available to them (and, almost by definition, to the club had they elected to take advantage of the offers made to them on this score). It remains to be seen if the proposal can meet the aims that it was set out to achieve, but it is critically important that this application is passed. The detail of the proposals and the structure is far from ideal but that decision has been made. It is worth emphasising that the application is in the name of FDL which although 50% owned by the club is a seperate organisation entirely. Notwithstanding that interest, this process is effectively entirely seperate from the operation of the football club.

 

The worst outcome would be for this application to be rejected effectively blocking further progress - that would probably place the club in more jeapordy than any other scenario at this point in time. It's also worth noting that responses to the planning application consultation period must be in relation to planning requirements. That people may not like the fact that property is being built where our south terracting used to be, or that you think (insert your favourite hate figure on the Club board here) is a (insert favourite insult) will be irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan - you rightly are at pains to point out that objections can only be related to planning issues, not football issues. But you also stress the critical nature of the proposals being passed for the good of the football club whilst admitting the plans are far from ideal. I am not personally affected, but I think anyone who is should be free to express their concerns (if they have them) in the usual manner without the emotional blackmail of 'it needs to happen to save the football club' rammed down their throat. There has been enough of that type of emotional balckmail and scaremongering from the Board over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan - you rightly are at pains to point out that objections can only be related to planning issues, not football issues. But you also stress the critical nature of the proposals being passed for the good of the football club whilst admitting the plans are far from ideal. I am not personally affected, but I think anyone who is should be free to express their concerns (if they have them) in the usual manner without the emotional blackmail of 'it needs to happen to save the football club' rammed down their throat. There has been enough of that type of emotional balckmail and scaremongering from the Board over the years.

 

Didn't think I was going that, jaf, to be honest. I think at this point in time getting the application passed is the least worst option available and that was certainly what my message has intended to convey. It still leaves a whole heap of questions/issues that are significant challenges for the club that need to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan - you rightly are at pains to point out that objections can only be related to planning issues, not football issues. But you also stress the critical nature of the proposals being passed for the good of the football club whilst admitting the plans are far from ideal. I am not personally affected, but I think anyone who is should be free to express their concerns (if they have them) in the usual manner without the emotional blackmail of 'it needs to happen to save the football club' rammed down their throat. There has been enough of that type of emotional balckmail and scaremongering from the Board over the years.

 

 

 

 

I don't like the deal that was struck to sell the main stand and south end, jaffs, and I've made my views on it repeatedly clear, but I'm also a pragmatist. The reality is that the land has already been sold to a 3rd party development company. Sure the company is largely owned by Thistle directors and the Club has a significant stake in it, but the bottom line is that the football club no longer owns the land. I think it's easy to lose sight of that until we actually see physcial development on site, but that's the position we find ourselves in.

 

Having sold the land, the best outcome for the football club (which is all I care about), is for the development to make the most money possible. If the club's share of the profits is less than the cost to re-build the footballing facilities, then the club will end up owing the property company the shorfall while still owning the balance of the overdraft to the bank.

 

If the development is successful, then the club's share of the profits might exceed the cost of the facilities, and the development would then generate an additional capital receipt for the club. My feeling is that it's now in the best interests of the football club to see that happen.

 

It's my strongly held opinion that the worst of all possible worlds would be for the development proposal to fail to get planning, for the development company to sell to an unconnected 3rd party at a loss, and for the land to be developed out in a manner which (1) the football club has no control over (other than as an objector via the planning system) and (2) causes the club to receive no overage on the developer's profit.

 

No emotional blackmail, just my reasons for believing as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Argus

I don't like the deal that was struck to sell the main stand and south end, jaffs, and I've made my views on it repeatedly clear, but I'm also a pragmatist. The reality is that the land has already been sold to a 3rd party development company. Sure the company is largely owned by Thistle directors and the Club has a significant stake in it, but the bottom line is that the football club no longer owns the land. I think it's easy to lose sight of that until we actually see physcial development on site, but that's the position we find ourselves in.

 

Having sold the land, the best outcome for the football club (which is all I care about), is for the development to make the most money possible. If the club's share of the profits is less than the cost to re-build the footballing facilities, then the club will end up owing the property company the shorfall while still owning the balance of the overdraft to the bank.

 

If the development is successful, then the club's share of the profits might exceed the cost of the facilities, and the development would then generate an additional capital receipt for the club. My feeling is that it's now in the best interests of the football club to see that happen.

 

It's my strongly held opinion that the worst of all possible worlds would be for the development proposal to fail to get planning, for the development company to sell to an unconnected 3rd party at a loss, and for the land to be developed out in a manner which (1) the football club has no control over (other than as an objector via the planning system) and (2) causes the club to receive no overage on the developer's profit.

 

No emotional blackmail, just my reasons for believing as I do.

 

Interesting.

Do I take it from this you hold some sort of postion with the supporters association?

I tend to agree with you its the only game in town, but I'm interested to know what sort of consultation was carried out with the fans, before the letter supporting this development was sent to GCC? The letter infers that the supporters association 'strongly', and that is how it is worded, supports this development which is not in line with the reservations expressed by you here. It was signed by a 'Tom Hogg', maybe that is you but again I don't know what postion he holds in the supporters association as it doesn't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Do I take it from this you hold some sort of postion with the supporters association?

I tend to agree with you its the only game in town, but I'm interested to know what sort of consultation was carried out with the fans, before the letter supporting this development was sent to GCC? The letter infers that the supporters association 'strongly', and that is how it is worded, supports this development which is not in line with the reservations expressed by you here. It was signed by a 'Tom Hogg', maybe that is you but again I don't know what postion he holds in the supporters association as it doesn't say.

 

stolenscone is the Jags Trust Chair David Stewart. I've not read the letter you refer to signed off by Tom Hogg (honved on here) but know roughly what was agreed to be said in it. Our reservations, generally speaking, were and are in respect of 'the deal' which we now can't change but also particularly as to whether the then vague plans were a viable development which would benefit the club. The letter endorses the planning permission being sought as, given the structure is now much more specific and detailed, the Trust are mostly persuaded that it is better that PropCo face as few obstacles as possible towards generating income to feed back into the Club. The alternative is that the development gets rejected, raising nothing for the Club, incurring the administrative expenses of setting up PropCo in the process, and, with similar past planning attempts having also failed, running the risk of PropCo selling out to someone else just to get its money back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Do I take it from this you hold some sort of postion with the supporters association?

I tend to agree with you its the only game in town, but I'm interested to know what sort of consultation was carried out with the fans, before the letter supporting this development was sent to GCC? The letter infers that the supporters association 'strongly', and that is how it is worded, supports this development which is not in line with the reservations expressed by you here. It was signed by a 'Tom Hogg', maybe that is you but again I don't know what postion he holds in the supporters association as it doesn't say.

 

Argus - I think that it's quite consistent to say that I personally have reservations about how we got here and then go on to say that I think that the best course of action going forward is to wholly support the current development proposals. For me, it's about what is best for the football club today, not what would have been best for it yesterday. You have to do what you can at the time and then move on, or else you end up living in the past arguing with shadows while the world continues around you.

 

Tom Hogg is a board member on the Trust Board; it's no great secret that he posts on here from time to time as "honved". I am currently the Trust Chair. Tom's letter has the support of the full Trust Board.

 

On the issue of consultation, it's a two way street. We have tried to engage in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but the sad reality is that Thistle fans in general are a passive lot.

 

To give just one example: the meeting to discuss the Trust's position on the property deal was well publicised in advance, the meeting was to discuss perhaps the most important issue to face the club in my lifetime, and yet 2 people turned up who were not Trust Board members. The decision taken at that meeting has not been universally popular, but as I said before, it's a two way street, and had more passionate, atriculate people turned up, then the decision could well have turned out differently. They didn't, it didn't and so we move on.

 

Communication from the Trust to fans and members has improved over the last 12 months, and still has room for further improvement. Engagement from fans and members to the Trust Board hasn't really increased during that time, at least not so as I'd notice. It's a fundamental problem, and one which needs to be resolved if we are to make any real progress.

 

David Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the deal that was struck to sell the main stand and south end, jaffs, and I've made my views on it repeatedly clear, but I'm also a pragmatist. The reality is that the land has already been sold to a 3rd party development company. Sure the company is largely owned by Thistle directors and the Club has a significant stake in it, but the bottom line is that the football club no longer owns the land. I think it's easy to lose sight of that until we actually see physcial development on site, but that's the position we find ourselves in.

 

Having sold the land, the best outcome for the football club (which is all I care about), is for the development to make the most money possible. If the club's share of the profits is less than the cost to re-build the footballing facilities, then the club will end up owing the property company the shorfall while still owning the balance of the overdraft to the bank.

 

If the development is successful, then the club's share of the profits might exceed the cost of the facilities, and the development would then generate an additional capital receipt for the club. My feeling is that it's now in the best interests of the football club to see that happen.

 

It's my strongly held opinion that the worst of all possible worlds would be for the development proposal to fail to get planning, for the development company to sell to an unconnected 3rd party at a loss, and for the land to be developed out in a manner which (1) the football club has no control over (other than as an objector via the planning system) and (2) causes the club to receive no overage on the developer's profit.

 

No emotional blackmail, just my reasons for believing as I do.

 

I can follow everything you write David but with repsect its a totally different point from the one I was making (perhaps not eloquently enough) if you care to look back. All I was saying was that I think you cannot criticise people for voicing their concerns/opposition to a planning application as happens on a daily basis up and down the country just because we are a football club that have been run into the ground and without this development (and lets face it quite possibly even with it) will possibly go out of business.

 

Allan was at pains to make people divorce the football and Board-attitude issues from the planning process (correctly), and all I am saying is that similarly you have to expect that those affected should divorce the needs of a badly run football club from the effect on their locale in considering the planning application.

 

I am surprised that is such a controversial view for a supporters trust who put community involvement at the heart of their existence.

 

I can see what benefit this brings to the shareholders of propco, I am less sure what benefit it derives to the local community and why they should be expected to be blindly supportive of such a plan. But then, I, like you and Tom, do not live in that community, so my view is of no relevance, but I do feel people should raise objections if they have them regardless of the impact on the football club. They are going to have to live with the outcome for a very long time after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Argus

Argus - I think that it's quite consistent to say that I personally have reservations about how we got here and then go on to say that I think that the best course of action going forward is to wholly support the current development proposals. For me, it's about what is best for the football club today, not what would have been best for it yesterday. You have to do what you can at the time and then move on, or else you end up living in the past arguing with shadows while the world continues around you.

 

Tom Hogg is a board member on the Trust Board; it's no great secret that he posts on here from time to time as "honved". I am currently the Trust Chair. Tom's letter has the support of the full Trust Board.

 

On the issue of consultation, it's a two way street. We have tried to engage in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but the sad reality is that Thistle fans in general are a passive lot.

 

To give just one example: the meeting to discuss the Trust's position on the property deal was well publicised in advance, the meeting was to discuss perhaps the most important issue to face the club in my lifetime, and yet 2 people turned up who were not Trust Board members. The decision taken at that meeting has not been universally popular, but as I said before, it's a two way street, and had more passionate, atriculate people turned up, then the decision could well have turned out differently. They didn't, it didn't and so we move on.

 

Communication from the Trust to fans and members has improved over the last 12 months, and still has room for further improvement. Engagement from fans and members to the Trust Board hasn't really increased during that time, at least not so as I'd notice. It's a fundamental problem, and one which needs to be resolved if we are to make any real progress.

 

David Stewart

 

Mr Stewart,

Thank you for your reply.

 

Just to be clear I wasn't being critical, merely making some observations.

 

It's interesting that the supporters representative body chair describes Thistle supporters as passive. I would go further and suggest the majority of us (me included) are disinterested and merely want to go and watch some football.

 

Yet on here are several people who declare the lack of any action by the supporters association is a disgrace, but do not seem to want to get off their a**ses and actually do anything. They therefore get what they deserve.

 

I do think however the letter is an important one and rather strongly worded for one that wasn't specificallyconsulted about, however that's a matter for members of the association and since presumably, several of the individuals one here, who complain, are members, then its for them to follow through. (I'm not a member)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attitude that individual fans have towards the Trust is an interesting one, and it's probably a discussion for another thread, but very briefly:

 

You say that most folk just want to turn up on a Saturday and enjoy the game. I totally agree. To put that in context, I genuinely believe that dwindling attendances can, in part, be put down to the drop off in the social side of things and the general feeling of disengagement between fans and their club. When I was a lad, my dad used to take my brother and me to games; as a student in the West End, I used to pitch up with my brother and sometimes with a few non-Thistle supporting mates from class. But people grow up, kids come along, jobs take you away from Glasgow and as the years went by, I found myself going to fewer games, largely because it's just a lot less fun to go on your own.

 

Over the last few years, I've become more involved through the Trust and frankly have met a good few interesting people that I wouldn't otherwise have met. Folk that I'd be glad to have a pint with and sit and enjoy the match with. Bottom line is that I've found myself going to many more matches than previously.

 

The point that I'm trying to make is that the Trust has a role to play in putting like minded people together where they can meet up, make new friends and talk about the one thing that we've all got in common - a love of Thistle.

 

The Trust has suffered from being overly political, probably as a result of the Save the Jags campaign and share issue. There's nothing wrong with that, it's healthy, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all, and I hope that people can look beyond the political stuff and enjoy the social side as well. If that can happen in numbers, then the Trust will benefit, the Club will benefit, attendances will, I think, slowly rise and we'll all be a lot less depressed. Well, that's the idea.

 

The political stuff is important, and there should always be engagement on that side with them that wants it, but not to the exclusion of everything else.

 

If most people want to leave discussion and engagement on the political issues to a few people who are interested and are accountable at elections, then fine. If they'd prefer more direct involvement, then great. But what I'd really like to see is more people giving the social side of things a go -- people who have drifted away from going regularly to matches; people who go every week and just enjoy the chat; and people who are just starting out on their Thistle supporting journey. To that end, you can lead a horse to water etc, and the Trust can try to put on fun, well managed and inexpensive events. It's up to individuals to take the plunge, come along and see if they enjoy it.

 

As for the letter, I think that it was the right thing to do and in the best interests of the best interests of the Club. There are annual elections as well as lots of opportunities to get involved throughout the year. We won't always get the decisions right and you won't always agree, but the Trust today is nothing if not open and accountable.

 

All the best

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in black and white.

 

if this does not go through, how has partick thistle football club benfited?

 

i assume greatly?

 

half the land has been sold to a company. how much money has entered the partick thistle bank account on the back of this?

 

the main stand can still be used for all ticket (old firm cup) games, so therefore there has been no loss to the club through the sale.

 

in cash terms, now the land has been sold, and thistle have the money from propco for the sale, how will ptfc benefit further?

 

is it only as 50% share holders of propco?

 

if so, then surely ptfc has made the big buck, and any future profit will be a dribble?

 

just how can the club benefit further from this deal?

 

is it fair to say that partick thistle as a club has gained from this deal, and that there is a possibility that the thisle minded fans may loose out?

 

 

or is it the case that certain board members are not too thistle minded, have seperated assets from the club, which they now own for their own gain, should the club go bust?

 

as a joint equal share holder in ptfc, is the trust therefore a joint equal shareholder in the 50% stake ptfc has in propco. if so, what return do the trust expect on this deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus - I think that it's quite consistent to say that I personally have reservations about how we got here and then go on to say that I think that the best course of action going forward is to wholly support the current development proposals. For me, it's about what is best for the football club today, not what would have been best for it yesterday. You have to do what you can at the time and then move on, or else you end up living in the past arguing with shadows while the world continues around you.

 

Tom Hogg is a board member on the Trust Board; it's no great secret that he posts on here from time to time as "honved". I am currently the Trust Chair. Tom's letter has the support of the full Trust Board.

 

On the issue of consultation, it's a two way street. We have tried to engage in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but the sad reality is that Thistle fans in general are a passive lot.

 

To give just one example: the meeting to discuss the Trust's position on the property deal was well publicised in advance, the meeting was to discuss perhaps the most important issue to face the club in my lifetime, and yet 2 people turned up who were not Trust Board members. The decision taken at that meeting has not been universally popular, but as I said before, it's a two way street, and had more passionate, atriculate people turned up, then the decision could well have turned out differently. They didn't, it didn't and so we move on.

 

Communication from the Trust to fans and members has improved over the last 12 months, and still has room for further improvement. Engagement from fans and members to the Trust Board hasn't really increased during that time, at least not so as I'd notice. It's a fundamental problem, and one which needs to be resolved if we are to make any real progress.

 

David Stewart

 

 

...and being one of the two 'passionate, articulate' (never been described as that before) I can say I was shocked at the meeting to discover that only one other 'ordinary fan' bothered to turn up for probably the biggest decision the Trust have (and will) have to make on behalf of the fans. If YOU didn't bother to turn up to give your view then FFS stop harping on about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say I was shocked at the meeting to discover that only one other 'ordinary fan' bothered to turn up for probably the biggest decision the Trust have (and will) have to make on behalf of the fans. If YOU didn't bother to turn up to give your view then FFS stop harping on about it!

 

Amen to that. That's the problem with the internet and forums as it allows to many negative posters on who harp and whine and complain but do nothing about it in the real world. There are plenty of opportunities out there to have a say but people choose not to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and being one of the two 'passionate, articulate' (never been described as that before) I can say I was shocked at the meeting to discover that only one other 'ordinary fan' bothered to turn up for probably the biggest decision the Trust have (and will) have to make on behalf of the fans. If YOU didn't bother to turn up to give your view then FFS stop harping on about it!

 

Or alternatively - since the Trust's attitude towards... well, just about every stunt the board has pulled in the supposed name of the club's survival is to roll over and play dead - perhaps some of those who didn't turn up felt it wouldn't make a difference. If I felt the Trust could make a difference these days, I'd have retained my membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or alternatively - since the Trust's attitude towards... well, just about every stunt the board has pulled in the supposed name of the club's survival is to roll over and play dead - perhaps some of those who didn't turn up felt it wouldn't make a difference. If I felt the Trust could make a difference these days, I'd have retained my membership.

 

 

Mr Withwings -- my feeling is that had the meeting been well attended by members and non-members who put forth a strong and well argued case against supporting the proposal, then the outcome may very well have been different. But as I said before, they didn't, it wasn't, and so we either need to dwell on the past, or else try to move forward as best we can...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To give just one example: the meeting to discuss the Trust's position on the property deal was well publicised in advance, the meeting was to discuss perhaps the most important issue to face the club in my lifetime, and yet 2 people turned up who were not Trust Board members. The decision taken at that meeting has not been universally popular, but as I said before, it's a two way street, and had more passionate, atriculate people turned up, then the decision could well have turned out differently. They didn't, it didn't and so we move on.

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

 

How can you expect passionate, articulate folk to give input when they would probably know even less about the Propco shambles, than the folk in the Trust? Unless they had been reading the forum in which folk on the trust detailed the initial agreement/plan. The whole thing was a complicated mess and at times for a number of folk, including myself, reading on .net really difficult to understand, until the full details were made aware.

 

Now if say 20 fans turned up to the meeting, instead of the two that did, who weren't very articulate but very passionate supporters who have been with the club through thick and thin would their input be classed irrelevant because they can't express themselves in clear and precise manner?

At the end of the day it was a yes - we accept these proposals or a no - as the fans representatives we object to these plans decision.

If all those 20 fans said "no, we don't this to happen" would it have made any difference?

 

Maybe there was a variety of reasons why many other articulate/passionate supporters didn't attend the meeting.

Maybe some don't have access to the internet, maybe some were unable to make it, maybe some have distanced themselves away from the Club because it seems to keep going backwards, maybe they don't attend matches now due to the way the fans have been treated by the board, or maybe they just couldn't be bothered because when the plans were proposed they believed there was only going to be one outcome.

 

Members of the Trust mentioned back on .net that communication between the Board wasn't great with regards to this, before the plan was proposed and even when it was, the plans was far too vague.

To me the whole point in having something like the Trust, the fans representatives lost all purpose when the abstenation was made. You must of known that with our BOD there wasn't going to be another chance for your input, so when it counted, you made no decision. It defeats the purpose of being in an organisation if folk decide not to make their stance known to the BOD.

 

It's my opinion that even if the Trust rejected it, the plans would have still gone ahead, due to the poison in amongst the boardroom at Firhill. Maybe there wouldn't be so much disinterest in the Trust if you stood your ground and not be trated like fools by the BoD. Not giving you the sufficent details of the proposal, just sums up their attitude to the fans representatives and the supporters.

Edited by northernsoul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...