ScottyDFA Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Call me a cynic... I clearly disguised the (mild) sarcasm/cynicism in my post very well. Seriously, though, I would hope the fact that the "thistle-minded" thing was laid on with a trowel at the time would mean that resistance to a buy-back would be publicly embarrassing for those concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearchar Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 A few years ago, I believe "cash for influence" was the direction that a number of members wished the Jags Trust to take rather than the "cash for nothing" situation preferred by the BoD. To the former end, the 1876 Fund was set up by the JT. It built up quite nicely, though on a modest scale until it was subsumed into the Centenary Fund as a result of a voting "coup" within the Trust orchestrated by Club Board members and some allies within the JT. Part of that arrangement was that the Trust was to be allocated extra shares. That has never happened and says a lot about the trustworthiness of those involved on the Club side. In parallel, the Trust has been completely sidelined in terms of influence. It is sadly shunned by the Club and also by many fans. I imagine membership is on a one-way track downwards as a result. Whatever ones views of the Trust, that situation is not serving the fans well and is possibly what the BoD had hoped for in the first place..... Possibly? No doubt about it. The board's aim was to achieve a complete absence of any focus among fans to protest or even negotiate, and the board has achieved that. However, there is also a price to pay, which is the distrust of the board (and, by extension, PropCo) among the fans and the probability of frustration boiling over in, for example, a season ticket boycott and reduced income for the Centenary Fund when fans feel they're not being listened to or their requirements (such as prizes being handed over timeously) are ignored. TAG is/was a (feeble) attempt to provide an emasculated alternative to the Trust, while the Trust is being denied both the shareholdings and the representation that the board agreed to. The board, probably correctly, does not expect the Trust to start proceedings to win these back. The board can see that their divide and rule tactics have been especially effective - even to the extent that some fans have volunteered their semi-professional services to the board free, to widespread acclaim from the fans that have been shafted. By and large, Adam Smith's comments apply to the board members: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 @ Yoda I don't think it is unimaginable that a mass fan collective driven propco buy-out is possible. However the scale of the challenge may be bigger and murkier than I currently perceive it. Originally, led to understand PTFC "owned" 50% of Firhill developments and investor's staked £1m approx for the other 50% anticipating a 5% return. We didn't sell half but effectively 1 quarter. But I doubt the truth in that and contractual realities. Regardless, we gotta start getting more value from the club. I still say gate prices are too high! i don't doubt the potential obstacles and murkiness that may ensue, but i do believe it is not impossible, if certain parties play fair. stolenscone (an old expert on this subject) has raised a number of good points and ways of how propco issue could be addressed, yes it all hinges on whether the propco-opers are willing to even entertain discussions to invstigate the possibility, and then the practicalities and reality of chance of a deal being successfully agreed, but if they are so thistle minded ..... 875 fans paying in £20 per month (£4.62 per week) over 5 years would raise £1,050,000 (the £1M Propco investment plus their handy 5% guaranteed return - which I'd hope they'd waive). Doesn't seem impossible to me. 1750 paying tenner a month? Are we too small for that? But we can find 2500 people or enough to raise £600k pa. It's getting the ball rolling in a sustainable manner. these three examples show what could potentially be raised per annum. there could even be the option for people to pay in more per month, or top-up one off amounts to increase their contribution should anyone wish to do so, and help reach the target sooner? With the amount of withheld season ticket money fans will be saving over the North Stand issue, the Buy Back The Main Stand And City End Fund could get off to a flyer... and if the board do not do a complete u-turn on the north stand, there is a very good start and worthwhile diversion of our st funds. Seriously, though, I would hope the fact that the "thistle-minded" thing was laid on with a trowel at the time would mean that resistance to a buy-back would be publicly embarrassing for those concerned. ^^this. with bells on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I remember when Propco was launched anyone Could have invested in it ..., I had a look and eh it was a shit investment as has been proved....so Let's get real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jags365 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I remember when Propco was launched anyone Could have invested in it ..., I had a look and eh it was a shit investment as has been proved....so Let's get real Anyone with at least £10k. That was the minimum investment required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Javeajag - let's be clear: nobody is proposing this as an investment. If the longstop expires and the deal does not proceed to completion, then people get their money back. If the propco share of the land is successfully purchased, then there is no "development", so there is no investment. This would simply be a mechanism for supporters to unpick a problematic legacy issue and secure an important asset for the long term benefit of the club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) @ javeajag The first I heard about Prop.co. it was a done deal. I'm sure it was, and therfore still is, open to anyone, but as an apparently "a shit investment", it does somewhat qualify the much used pacifying statement that only a "Thistle minded" person would take it up. Why did you think it was a "shit investment"? I think what is being developed in discussion here, is amassing sufficient funds to appropriate a perpetual (return of) ownership, rather than seeking a potential financial return on a downpayment. Yes, absolutely, let's get real. Edited May 13, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Javeajag - let's be clear: nobody is proposing this as an investment. If the longstop expires and the deal does not proceed to completion, then people get their money back. If the propco share of the land is successfully purchased, then there is no "development", so there is no investment. This would simply be a mechanism for supporters to unpick a problematic legacy issue and secure an important asset for the long term benefit of the club. ... or we buy that 100x100 foot "keep the north stand red and yellow flag" i was talking about earlier.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 If we had one of these saving up for a part of propco, I doubt we'd get 100 members nevermind 1000s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 If we had one of these saving up for a part of propco, I doubt we'd get 100 members nevermind 1000s. some people paid good money to have their name transfer printed onto a brick in the JHS.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 @ javeajag The first I heard about Prop.co. it was a done deal. I'm sure it was, and therfore still is, open to anyone, but as an apparently "a shit investment", it does somewhat qualify the much used pacifying statement that only a "Thistle minded" person would take it up. Why did you think it was a "shit investment"? I think what is being developed in discussion here, is amassing sufficient funds to appropriate a perpetual (return of) ownership, rather than seeking a potential return on a downpayment. Yes, absolutely, let's get real. As I recall it was made open to people to invest and it probably was £10k min as was mentioned ....I certainly got the documentation on it.....it may have been EIS qualifying which gave you some tax relief and therefore a possible return but I can't remember Bottom line putting the money elsewhere would have given you a better return and how do you get out of it / get your money back ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted May 13, 2014 Members Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Bottom line putting the money elsewhere would have given you a better return and how do you get out of it / get your money back ? This is the reason why it's always been said that those investing were 'Thistle minded' in my opinion. Chances are they'll never get their money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 This is the reason why it's always been said that those investing were 'Thistle minded' in my opinion. Chances are they'll never get their money back. That was my view and hence more a donation than investment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Javeajag - I'm not sure that I understand the point that you are trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Javeajag - I'm not sure that I understand the point that you are trying to make. Simply that if you wanted to make money there were lots better alternatives than that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Simply that if you wanted to make money there were lots better alternatives than that And would this apply to major lead investors (such as those on the board), or only smaller investors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 And would this apply to major lead investors (such as those on the board), or only smaller investors? Everyone.....when was it 5/6 years ago ? and let's say you put in £200k what's it worth now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewarty Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Everyone.....when was it 5/6 years ago ? and let's say you put in £200k what's it worth now? Considerably more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Everyone.....when was it 5/6 years ago ? and let's say you put in £200k what's it worth now? So you are suggesting (just so I get it right) that the board members involved may not be part of an evil conspiracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Considerably more. Really? How ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Considerably more. Maybe with gnomes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 So you are suggesting (just so I get it right) that the board members involved may not be part of an evil conspiracy? Not really just it was a crap way to make money ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewarty Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Really? How ? Because property prices have risen since 2009... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Fair enough. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Because property prices have risen since 2009... That's is debatable for commercial property in mary hill and at the moment there is no actual scheme to realise any return so your cash is stuck getting no return 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.