stolenscone Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Javeajag - perhaps I'm being thick. I just didn't understand the relevance of that point (which, incidentally I don't disagree with) to this discussion. I wondered if you were trying to hint at something more on topic and that your subtly was list on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Javeajag - perhaps I'm being thick. I just didn't understand the relevance of that point (which, incidentally I don't disagree with) to this discussion. I wondered if you were trying to hint at something more on topic and that your subtly was list on me. No no hint just commenting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewarty Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The Bing alone is ripe for residential development. Remember that Propco bought the property post-credit crunch. The price they paid will have reflected this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27203757 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted May 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) That was my view and hence more a donation than investment I agree, however, it is also why the current "thistle minded" propco shareholders loose a bit of my goodwill in seeing the plan as a means to a pensions retirement pot and, I suspect, have done more than simply thrown their money in the pot. Fair, but not a wholly altruistic position. However, regardless of whether we can galvanise support to a point of raising sufficient funds to tackle the Propco problem. There is evident need to redeem the semantics of the "club" part of PTFC. As a full time professional team, which I doubt is a status any Jag wants to relinquish, it might be best to have a Limited company to run that. As opposed to fans taking control of day to day opperations, perhaps it is better to solidify "fan-power" as a supportive but absolutely independent body from the business. One which can collect and utilise its thoughts and finance without duty to employees or investors seeking dividends. I site this site ( ) as a very good precursor which might lend hope to the success of such an entity . Edited May 13, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The Bing alone is ripe for residential development. Remember that Propco bought the property post-credit crunch. The price they paid will have reflected this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27203757 They paid 800k to 1m five years ago and have made no money to date no a goid deal for me I'm afraid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 That was my view and hence more a donation than investment Are you serious ? A donation is something you give away for nothing. , if it was going to be a donation to get PTFC out of a hole give them £800 grand and forget about the stadium. The Weirs donated their money to enhance youth development , there're not expecting anything in return . The propco deal is totally structured in their favour , PTFC have 20% voting rights within the deal , not going to have much influence there. This deal has become an albatross around our neck which basically allows David Beattie to do exactly as he pleases because of his conflicting interests, Cowan , Hughes should hang their heads in shame at okaying this deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Are you serious ? A donation is something you give away for nothing. , if it was going to be a donation to get PTFC out of a hole give them £800 grand and forget about the stadium. The Weirs donated their money to enhance youth development , there're not expecting anything in return . The propco deal is totally structured in their favour , PTFC have 20% voting rights within the deal , not going to have much influence there. This deal has become an albatross around our neck which basically allows David Beattie to do exactly as he pleases because of his conflicting interests, Cowan , Hughes should hang their heads in shame at okaying this deal. Well after 5 years they have their money stuck, have had no return and at the moment can't get it back ..... All I'm saying is I didn't put my money into it and I'm not crying about it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The Weirs donated their money to enhance youth development , there're not expecting anything in return . To be fair, the Weirs won over £100 million and could afford to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Well after 5 years they have their money stuck, have had no return and at the moment can't get it back ..... All I'm saying is I didn't put my money into it and I'm not crying about it ! you might be in 10 years time when our stadium is a supermarket ! , people like Beattie put their money in for the long term , they don't expect their investment to come to fruition after 1 or 2 years . What if he decides to sell his investment ?, think we're up shit creek then . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewarty Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 They paid 800k to 1m five years ago and have made no money to date no a goid deal for me I'm afraid You're refusing to see the bigger picture. It was a long-term investment made in the knowledge that property prices would inevitably rise well above post-credit crunch levels, when the value of property and land was decimated. This is now what is happening. They bought low and will sell high. It was a no-brainer. Watch how things develop over the next year or so. Development will commence to coincide with the next peak in the housing market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 To be fair, the Weirs won over £100 million and could afford to. Did they have too ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Did they have too ? Not at all, and I'm sure every Jags fan appreciates it. I'm not having a go at them, I just think it's unreasonable to expect every investor in the club to act in the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted May 14, 2014 Members Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Perhaps more realistically, rather than try and get enough cash together to buy the whole of the Propco investment back, maybe it would be better to target those who made the £10k investment, and buy the ground back gradually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan81 Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Are you serious ? A donation is something you give away for nothing. , if it was going to be a donation to get PTFC out of a hole give them £800 grand and forget about the stadium. The Weirs donated their money to enhance youth development , there're not expecting anything in return . The propco deal is totally structured in their favour , PTFC have 20% voting rights within the deal , not going to have much influence there. This deal has become an albatross around our neck which basically allows David Beattie to do exactly as he pleases because of his conflicting interests, Cowan , Hughes should hang their heads in shame at okaying this deal. You are wrong.The share structure of Firhill Developments has various classes of shares which have different voting rights.This protects the interest of Partick Thistle in continuing to use Firhill as a football stadium and prevents development which does not have the backing of the shareholders of Partick Thistle.On the question of conflicts of interest,the current Board presented a proposal in 2011 to shareholders which would change the rules over directors' conflicts of interest allowing them,and not shareholders, to decide what constituted a conflict. Along with a number of other shareholders I opposed this change and we were slaughtered for this by many who post on this forum.We voted the proposal down but the Board were so keen to effect this change that they re-presented it and threatened to resign if it was not carried - as it eventually was. Allan Cowan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearchar Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 @Allan - Do you have any suggestions how a wider control (i.e. closer to the fans) over the club's assets could be reasserted? Would obtaining shares in the club or shares in Firhill Developments be more effective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan81 Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Firhill Developments is a private limited company and shares are not available to the general public.I am not a shareholder in that company myself but my impression is that those who do hold shares would be delighted to get their money back or even part of it as there is not a short or even medium term prospect of any return on their investment.It really was a good deal for Partick Thistle which left us with the strongest balance sheet for many years. Re Partick Thistle, the only real way to exercise power is to own shares which is why we set up the Jagstrust following Save the Jags. The Jagstrust had lost its way by 2009 and that is why I supported the suggestion from other Board members that we do not invite a representative from them to sit on the Board.However this was only to be a temporary step pending further discussion and my personal view is that there ought to be a fans rep on the board . Anything else is just a talking shop and window dressing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Firhill Developments is a private limited company and shares are not available to the general public.I am not a shareholder in that company myself but my impression is that those who do hold shares would be delighted to get their money back or even part of it as there is not a short or even medium term prospect of any return on their investment.It really was a good deal for Partick Thistle which left us with the strongest balance sheet for many years. Re Partick Thistle, the only real way to exercise power is to own shares which is why we set up the Jagstrust following Save the Jags. The Jagstrust had lost its way by 2009 and that is why I supported the suggestion from other Board members that we do not invite a representative from them to sit on the Board.However this was only to be a temporary step pending further discussion and my personal view is that there ought to be a fans rep on the board . Anything else is just a talking shop and window dressing. Thanks for posting Allan. Why do you think there was a need for propco in the first place though? Why were the finances so bad that we were forced in to selling off half the stadium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 The Jagstrust had lost its way by 2009. January 2009 the 1876 Club is shut down in favour of a leap of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan81 Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 The level of bank debt was due to the SPL requirement to build the North Stand to give us 10,000 seats which at that time was needed to secure entry to the Premier League.Apart from the reduction in debt following the sale to Firhill Developments the level of Partick Thistle's debt has not changed much as an examination of the statutory accounts will show.Regular payments have been made to the Bank of Scotland over the years and these continue to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted May 14, 2014 Members Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 The North Stand that was built on ground sold by the BoD. So the cost of building the Stand shouldn't have been an issue. The Club Board handled finances very poorly at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 The level of bank debt was due to the SPL requirement to build the North Stand to give us 10,000 seats which at that time was needed to secure entry to the Premier League.Apart from the reduction in debt following the sale to Firhill Developments the level of Partick Thistle's debt has not changed much as an examination of the statutory accounts will show.Regular payments have been made to the Bank of Scotland over the years and these continue to be made. Surely the NS paid for itself? We sold off the land behind it for flats was it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Surely the NS paid for itself? We sold off the land behind it for flats was it not? AC confirmed that the wee stand saw us break even. The extension put us back in to debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted May 14, 2014 Members Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 That was a hell of an expensive extension. For a Board containing a property developer, an accountant and a lawyer it's really poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted May 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) That was a hell of an expensive extension. For a Board containing a property developer, an accountant and a lawyer it's really poor. The extension was not the only money spent to meet the inane 10,000 seat rule (which it should also be remembered was a race against time and no doubt more costly for it). A large sum was also spent on the main stand in order to get a safety certificate. Which made the following years of assertations that it was useless even harder to swallow. The 10,000 seat rule gubbed us more than the then board. I acknowledge it would have been an extraordinarily difficult and bold stance to take, but they should have said no. It was a stupid and damaging rule. Ground "improvements" aside, we were already in a manageable debt ( or "not in debt" in most director's public speak ) .... It all adds up. Especially when you survive for only 2 seasons in the top flight then suffer 2 successive relegations. E.T.A. Edited May 14, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted May 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Firhill Developments is a private limited company and shares are not available to the general public.I am not a shareholder in that company myself but my impression is that those who do hold shares would be delighted to get their money back or even part of it as there is not a short or even medium term prospect of any return on their investment.It really was a good deal for Partick Thistle which left us with the strongest balance sheet for many years. Re Partick Thistle, the only real way to exercise power is to own shares which is why we set up the Jagstrust following Save the Jags. The Jagstrust had lost its way by 2009 and that is why I supported the suggestion from other Board members that we do not invite a representative from them to sit on the Board.However this was only to be a temporary step pending further discussion and my personal view is that there ought to be a fans rep on the board . Anything else is just a talking shop and window dressing. Thanks for openly joining the dicussion Allan. Much appreciated here. Do you not think as I do, however, that the part of the trusts loss of direction was in fact an obsession with that seat on the board and the obtainment of more shares, prior to building a strong, united and large in number group of paid up members? Was it not the case at the time that the board felt that the proposed rep' would be contributing a personal view, or at best a personal view of the fans' views, and it was largely that, and a desire for commercial, hospitality or footballing business expertise on the board which led them to deny the trust their promised seat? Edited May 14, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz 1 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.