Response to the shareholders meeting

The Jags Trust Board has now had the opportunity to review the information gained at the recent shareholders meeting in relation to the partial sale of the stadium. The club board also made available a board document on the day of the meeting which set out some of the key elements of the proposal.


In simple terms the partial sale of the stadium is being driven by demands made on the club to reduce the level of debt and this will be achieved, but the club will not become debt free following this transaction.


We have some reservations about the detail of the deal but the ethos adopted by both the club and the property company is that Thistle minded investors and advisors are involved and that any perceived risks in making this move are reduced as a result.


It is our view that the deal is “soft” on both sides with the club getting some relatively quick investment and with the investors getting a reasonable and relatively swift return in today’s property market against their risk in putting up investment cash.


The Trust property team are of the view that the club would have been better to sell the entire stadium on a more comprehensive and “harder” deal, but the club advised the meeting that no suitable investors could be found although the extent of the efforts to find investors was not fully explored at the meeting. With the help of others, the Trust may have been able to offer some alternative and constructive views on these matters but without the necessary details of the precise nature of the development proposals we are not in a position to offer an alternative at this late stage.


We understand that the deal will go ahead relatively soon and we hope that the faith that the club has in this move will be rewarded by its success. Our Trust property team will offer its services to the club board should they wish to have their own group of Thistle minded advisors who would work alongside the property company and its team, ensuring that the football club interests are fully represented during the process.

Update From Shareholders Meeting..

This report will attempt to share as much of the information that was shared during this meeting, but it does not reflect any specific views of the Trust Board. This issue is a critical one for the future of Partick Thistle, and the information received and, it has to be acknowledged, the areas where there are questions unable to be answered or still to be raised make this a complex issue where some thought and analysis needs to be applied before confirming our views. The Trust Board will be addressing this in the coming days and will share our views with you once reasoned conclusions have been reached.

Although all of the club directors were present with the exception of Billy Allan, the top table was populated solely by Allan Cowan (who chaired the meeting) along with Tom Hughes and David Beattie. David did acknowledge early on in the meeting that as one of the main investors in PropCo that his main role in the meeting was to speak on that behalf.

Tom started the meeting by giving an overview of the club’s financial history from the Save The Jags campaign to the present day. During that period, we have never been debt-free.

The previous attempts at resolving the debt issue were also covered, including the most recent proposals with Keyhaven which would have resulted in the club occupying a stadium on the other side of the canal. Ultimately, this failed owing to the bank’s unwillingness to accept the final personal guarantees that were required to secure the finance. This happened immediately before the credit crunch hit, and it was supposed that this proposal was an early casualty.

The proposal currently being considered is an attempt to use the value inherent in the ground to get rid of the debt which was stated as being in the region of £1.8M - £1.9.

The ground has recently been valued at £3.6M and the original intention was to seek to raise up to £2M. This does not look likely to be successful.

On that basis, the scenario would be to sell the Main Stand and South end for £1.8 to PropCo with the club retaining 50% ownership.

David Beattie also confirmed that the club was in talks with Glasgow City Council and British Waterways about the overall development of the canal and its surroundings. He stressed that these talks were speculative at the moment, and entirely separate from the current issue.

At this point, questions were taken from the floor, and the following attempts to cover the major points raised;-

• The point was raised about “selling the family jewels” and, in particular, the varied history of clubs who have to continue operating in a situation where they have no tangible assets. In this scenario, where is the security in the long term?
  
  It was pointed out that the bank is effectively in charge of what we are able to do or not do because of the conditions aligned with our debt. If PTFC are unable to service the debt to the satisfaction of the bank, then they would be able to call in the debt at any point. In the current climate, that is not a comfortable place to be.
  
  The full deal would have allowed us to clear the debt and free the club from these strictures. The current proposal will reduce but not remove this – however, it will still be subject to approval from the bank and they will ultimately be the ones to determine how the money raised in this way would be utilised.
  
  It was noted that the football club would still retain ownership of the Jackie Husband Stand, the North Stand and the playing surface. In that sense, the football club would retain the fundamentals to allow them to continue to operate.
  
  The discussion expanded to cover some of the practical aspect of the timing in the property development. As the Main Stand would require to be demolished to meet the objectives of PropCo, then this would mean that facilities at the South End would require to be built as a prerequisite for this to happen. It was also confirm that the facilities that would be built would also take into account the requirements of the Glasgow Warriors, ie 22 places instead of 17.
  
  It was confirmed that at this stage there are no detailed costings on this first stage of development, but that discussions had taken place with the Head Of Planning at Glasgow City Council and with the Deputy Lord Provost. However, it was hoped that this would be in place within 2 years
  
  
• The impact of the proposed deal on the level of debt and also on our trading position was raised.
  
  It was confirmed that this deal would make £900,000 available to the football club which would be intended to reduce our debt with the bank (although, as noted earlier, still subject to their approval).
  
  It would assist the trading position by £60K-£70K per annum. (If the full deal had gone through, this would have been improved by c£200K per annum given that there would be no residual debt-servicing or capital repayments.)
  
  It was acknowledged that this would, in itself, not allow the club to operate at a break-even level.
  
  It was asked if the £900K being sought was in place, and David Beattie confirmed that this was the case. The four investors are David Beattie, Billy Allan, Alan Lobban and Gavin Stewart.
  
  
• Questions were asked about the 5% per annum priority return being granted to the investors. This would be paid only once development occurred and would be a first charge of any profits. In other words, this would be paid to the investors before any excess proceeds were shared amongst the shareholders (from which the football club would receive 50% of this net amount)
  
  
• Information was sought on whether there were professional advisors involved in this project and, if so, who they were. It was confirmed that there were and the names of the firms were shared – this covered architects, lawyers, accountants, and chartered surveyors. It was stated that all of these people are working on a pro-bono basis until the development deal is put in place, and all are Thistle supporters.
  
  
• Given that there will be directors with a shared interest in both the football club and PropCo, the matter of how conflicts of interest would be dealt with was discussed. Out of this discussion, it was confirmed that the PropCo board would have five members – the Club would have one place with the other major investors occupying the other four. The net result of this is that although the football club would have 50% of the equity, they would have 20% of the voting rights.
  
  In this situation, the security of the club is reliant on the fact that all the investors are “Thistle-minded” as otherwise there seems little to stop a change in the situation in all or any of the other four voters having the potential to put the club in potential jeopardy. The question was asked in converse that if these investors are so Thistle-minded, why should they object to improved protection for the future of the football club?
  
  At this point, Gavin Stewart who is one of the major investors in PropCo added some comments. He did suggest that this was not the best investment he’d ever make and was, in his view, already weighted in favour of the club. He was firmly of the view that this was a deal that would lower the club’s profile with the bank and would offer it a chance for a future that might not otherwise be present. He was also of the view that the voting structure as outlined was entirely appropriate for what was being established.
  
  It was asked if the club had considered making the deal a harder one with appropriate protection for the football club but allowing the net to be spread wider in the investment community. The club’s view was that such investors are not out there at the moment.
  
  Of the responses received from the advert in the FT, only one group was really interested in pursuing something but the board felt that this was inconsistent with their aims as it was solely driven by property development.
  
  
• David was asked for an assurance that any development work would be professionally project managed with the Project Manager owing a duty of care to both Partick Thistle FC Limited and Propco. He gave this assurance, and noted that this would be a prerequisite given the potential involvement with Glasgow City Council on the wider planning brief.
  
  
• It was noted that the JagsTrust had sought a private meeting on this matter following the Annual General Meeting and several times since then. David Beattie said that it would not have been appropriate to have a meeting as for much of this time, there was nothing firm to discuss. However, provided that there were clear objectives and outcomes to arise from such a meeting he would now be glad to do so.
  
  
• It was also noted that should there be additional investment received that that the percentages owed by all parties would be diluted. In other words, if we received more than £1.8M the additional monies would mean that the club’s shareholding would reduce below 50% dependant on the amount and the club would receive 50% of the investment capital injected.
  
  
• It was also confirmed that income from the Glasgow Warriors would remain with the football club
  
  
• The available time for consideration of other alternatives was requested from the board – any such alternative plans would need to be within the next two weeks.

Shareholders' Meeting Pt 2.............

Despite various requests, the Trust Board has not been able to secure a face to face meeting with the Club Board in advance of the shareholder meeting.

As members will have seen from the Club's letter to shareholders published on the Club website, two options are being pursued: to sell the whole ground to a property company in which the Club will retain a 50% stake; and to sell the main stand and former south terracing to a property company in which the Club will retain a 50% stake. However the Club decides to proceed, there are a number of key areas which the Trust would like to see the Club explain in greater detail:

1. Best Value for Money: It is clear to all that we are sitting at or near the very bottom of the property market. Against this backdrop, what options, other than the sale of all or part of its property assets, have been explored to enable the Club to trade on a break even basis, and to ensure that the Club secures the very best value for money from its property assets?
   
   
2. Effect of Sale on the Club's Ability to Break Even: What is the minimum level of debt reduction which requires to be achieved in order to justify the property deal proceeding? What is the current shortfall between income and expenditure, and to what extent is that shortfall met by the reduction of Bank of Scotland debt achieved throught this proposal?
   
   
3. Lease Protections: What protections will be built into the deal to ensure that the protection offered by the long lease back of the whole ground (under option 1) or the main stand and former south terracing (under option 2) will remain in place regardless of the Club's financial status?
   
   
4. Conflicts of Interest: How will potential conflicts of interest will be addressed in the event, as seems likely, that the Club directors will also be property company directors / investors?

The Trust Board will be attending Wednesday's shareholder meeting on behalf of its members, and will attempt to clarify these and other points of detail with the Club. The Trust Board will report fully on the outcome of the shareholder meeting as soon as possible thereafter.

Shareholders Meeting....

As things stand, the JagsTrust has not received a positive response to our request for a meeting prior to the Shareholders' Meeting this coming Wednesday.

The Trust Board will be meeting on Tuesday evening at the offices of Semple Fraser in Glasgow to discuss our approach to Wednesday's meeting.

If other members of the Trust would like to attend, please let Allan Heron know in advance and you will be supplied with the relevant details. Please be aware that our ability to support additional numbers is limited so requests will be dealt with on a first-come, first served basis.

Rooted In The Community.....

Re-establishing Partick Thistle as a valued and integral part of the community is one of the prime aims of the JagsTrust. Our elected member of the Club Board, Kieron Dempsey, has led the way on many initiatives as the club’s Community Director. We hope to provide you with further details over the coming weeks and months, but Kieron reports below on his excellent efforts to date:-

Our community programme has almost run full circle with the anniversary of the Trust’s first event A League for All coming in June. The programme has been running for about 18 months and as a joint initiative with the club for six months beginning November last year.This programme is designed to benefit the community and to create closer links between the Jags Trust and Partick Thistle Football Club with regard to Community Development projects and issues.

Partnerships

We are pushing ahead on a number of areas of our engagement programme and initiatives. Currently, we are in partnership or in the process of making partnerships with a number of groups including: Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH), Glasgow Old People’s Welfare Association (GOPWA), C.O.P.E. (Caring Over People’s Emotions), GYP (Govanhill Youth Project), WestGAP (West Glasgow Against Poverty), Street League, Show Racism the Red Card, Scottish Refugee Council, Glasgow City Education, Glasgow City Asylum Support Group and two Glasgow colleges of education. These will soon be joined by North Glasgow Mental Health and hopefully Glasgow University. In tandem with these we are now working with Glasgow Rugby on some joint initiatives.

Groups/Initiatives

We have been working with a number of groups including: the elderly, youths, school children, ethnic minorities including Roma and Asian kids and adults; NEETs (not in employment, education or in training); socially excluded groups including the homeless, disabled, people with mental health issues and, soon, those with addiction problems.

Initiatives include: ASSIST Training, Anti bullying, Learning Centre (North and South), Literacy and Numeracy, Healthy Heart, Health and Well being, food and hygiene, A League for All, Roma centred integration football team, and, possibly, a female football team.

Politically

We have had a presentation at the Scottish Parliament, had ourselves mentioned in the Commonwealth Legacy Debate, mentioned again by both the chairman and CEO of SAMH in their speeches launching their new national initiative to combat mental health issues in the 3 in 4 Project (which is an initiative based on preventive care). Finally, a visit from the Sports Minister took place at Firhill on 2nd June.

Another New Face......

We are pleased to announce that Martin Towers has joined the Trust Board with immediate effect. Biographical details for Martin are shown below, along with the details for Carol Briggs

Carol Briggs

Carol currently works in a medium secure unit supporting people with mental health issues. She has experience in fundraising on a number of levels, and has successfully set up a club in North Lanarkshire for children identified by 3 local head teachers for having bullying tendencies. Two other groups who have benefited from her fundraising experience are ptfc.net fc (now JagsTrust AFC) and theharrywraggs.com.

Carol was introduced to Thistle by my father in the late 70s. She is known to posters on the forum as Ptfccaz.

Martin Towers

Martin is 32 years old and lives in Cumbernauld. He started supporting Thistle at Secondary School after moving to Summerston. He studied maths at Stratclyde University followed by a couple of years working as a supply teacher before joining Inland Revenue (now HMRC) nearly 8 years ago.

Driving the Centenary Fund forward so it meets then exceeds its target income is the area he would like to be involved in but for the short term is happy to be involved in anything that will result in the membership seeing the Trust functioning effectively.

Further Information on Stadium Company Proposal...

The Trust Board has now received confirmation that income from all stadium activities generated after the sale and leaseback of the stadium to the property company will accrue for the benefit of the football club (i.e. the tenant under the lease).

Whilst this is welcome, we do consider that a meeting to address all of the remaining issues would be the most productive way forward, and the Trust Board will continue to press the Club Board to agree to such a meeting.

Further updates will be posted as and when information becomes available.

Update on Stadium Company Proposal

A copy of this statement in PDF format is available to download here

Introduction


Since the beginning of April, The Jags Trust has been working with a number of professional advisors (acting in their private capacity) who are also supporters of Partick Thistle to try to determine the strategy of the Football Club board in relation to the proposed split of the existing stadium assets from the football business as outlined at the Football Club AGM. These same advisors have been making their own enquiries to the Football Club board and to date only limited information has been forthcoming. The assessment made by the Trust and its advisors in this note can only ever be as good as the information provided. As more information becomes available, the Trust may require to alter its position from the one outlined below.

Given the passage of time and the ongoing uncertainty, the Trust needs to make its position clear and explain matters, to the best of its ability, to its members. The following note has been put together using information freely offered by the club board, available at the club AGM or within the public domain. Where full information has not been made available and assumptions have been made, these are clearly identified.



Background

• Partick Thistle Football Club Limited (the “Football Club”) owes a significant debt, believed to be in the region of £1.6M, to Halifax Bank of Scotland (the “Bank”).
  


• This money is secured against Firhill Stadium in the same way that a loan for a residential purchase is secured against the house that is being bought. In the event that the Football Club defaults on its loan repayments, or breaches other terms of its loan agreement with the Bank, then the Bank is entitled to recall the loan.
  


• If the Football Club is then unable to immediately repay the loan in full, the Bank would be entitled to “call up” the security, ultimately resulting in the repossession and sale of the stadium in much the same way that houses are repossessed.

Until recently, the value of Firhill has significantly outweighed the amount of debt that has been secured against it – i.e. if the Football Club were ever to default on the loan, the Bank remained confident that the money received from any repossession and sale of Firhill would be more than enough to re-pay the loan in full. (It is important to understand that the “value” of Firhill that the Bank is interested in, is the value of the land for development, most likely residential development.)

However, over the last 18 months, several things have happened which are likely to have changed the position with the Bank:

1. Property prices, and in particular the price of residential development land, have plummeted. It is possible that the land is worth less than half of the value it could have achieved if it had been sold in the summer of 2007.
   
   As a result of this, the amount of the Football Club’s debt is now much nearer to the development value of Firhill, meaning that the Bank may not be comfortable that it could easily repossess Firhill and recover its loan should the Football Club default on its repayments.
   
   Added to this, purchasers of residential development land are currently few and far between, meaning that even if the Bank repossessed, it could be difficult for it to find a suitable buyer.
   


2. The crisis within the financial sector has, amongst other things, forced all banks to carry out a review of their balance sheets, looking at which borrowers present a serious risk of defaulting on their loan repayments and, where appropriate, forcing them to take appropriate action to reduce their exposure to the risk of “bad debt”.
   


3. The recession in the wider economy will almost certainly have a detrimental impact on the Football Club’s income over the next few years.

We know from previously published annual accounts that the Football Club has already been operating at a loss for a number of years. With a possible reduction in income as a result of the recession, and in the absence of the Bank being willing to continue to support a loss making business, the Football Club may find it difficult to sustain full time football.

Add falling property prices into the mix, and it is easy to understand why the Football Club Directors believe that significant action as outlined at the Football Club’s 2009 AGM, is required to pre-empt any possible withdrawal of support by the Bank.

The Proposal

Against this backdrop, the Football Club announced plans in March 2009 to raise money through the sale of Firhill Stadium to a separate company (the “Property Company”) which would enable the Football Club to repay its debts in full to the Bank, but at the expense of selling its primary asset, namely the stadium. The Football Club announced that investors in the Property Company would be “Thistle Minded People” and that the Football Club would retain a “major interest” in the Property Company.

Immediately following the sale, the Property Company would lease Firhill back to the Football Club. Details of the terms of this lease were not released by the Football Club in March, however, the following details have since been disclosed by the Directors of the Football Club in response to questions raised by individual fans and the Jags Trust:

• The duration of the lease will be in the region of 100 years;
  
  
• A nominal annual rent (e.g. £1) will be charged by the Property Company to the Football Club under the lease;
  


• The Football Club will retain responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the stadium.
  


• The Football Club would retain a 50% interest in the Property Company. In effect, a 50% stake in the land would be sold in order to clear the debt.

The Benefits

• The sale of Firhill to the Property Company would remove the cost of servicing the debt (reported in the press to be around £175,000 per annum) from the Football Club’s balance sheet, giving it a better chance to break even without the Bank debt dragging it down.
  


• Repayment of the debt would take the Bank out of the picture and enable the Football Club to proceed safe in the knowledge that the Bank could not repossess Firhill. (Note that even if the Property Company “mortgaged” Firhill to a bank at a later date, the bank would be obliged to sell Firhill with the lease still in place should a repossession take place, so while the landlord might change, the Football Club should be unaffected.)
  


• The grant of a 100 year lease at an annual rent of £1 gives the Football Club some security to enable it to plan for the future.

The Drawbacks

• Following the sale of Firhill, the Football Club would not be able to approach a bank for any form of secured lending since it would no longer have any tangible assets to offer the bank in security. The market for unsecured lending is expensive and limited, so in effect, the Football Club would require to operate within its means going forward.
  
  For the year ending 2007, the Football Club posted losses of £269,000 (which included Bank interest costs of £100,000). In 2008, the Football Club posted losses of £512,000 (which included Bank interest costs of £83,000). Supporters will recall that the “option” granted to PTF Developments straddled these two financial years, so while the figures are skewed somewhat, any impact of that option should even itself out over the two year period.
  
  If we assume that the larger figure of £175,000 for loan repayments is correct, once this sum is deducted from the Football Club’s overheads, it appears that the Football Club is still unable to reach the break even point. In a very short space of time, without the option of further bank borrowing (this option will be lost if there is no land asset to “underpin” its business model), the Football Club will run out of money unless it is able to substantially reduce costs or increase income to enable it to break even.
  
  We are not aware of the Football Club having made any public statement as to how they intend to achieve a break even trading point.
  


• Switching from outright ownership of Firhill to being the tenant under a lease (even a long lease) presents its own problems. Insolvency of a tenant will typically result in the landlord being able to terminate the lease.
  
  In practical terms, this means that if the Football Club were ever put in administration then the Property Company would be entitled to terminate its lease, even if the Football Club successfully came out of administration (for example as Motherwell did a number of years ago). The Football Club have not confirmed in public whether protections will be put in place to prevent this from happening.
  


• It is not clear how the structure of the deal would impact on the Football Club’s ability to generate revenue from the stadium. For example, would income from catering and shop concessions, the ground share deal with Glasgow Warriors, corporate hospitality, trackside advertising, international matches, boxing matches, concerts and function hire be for the benefit of the Football Club or the Property Company?

Differing Interests of Property Company and Football Club

Since a commercial rent is not to be charged to the Football Club under the lease, future development of Firhill appears to be the primary means for Property Company investors to make money from their investment.

There is a clear conflict between the interests of a Property Company investor (to maximise his profits by developing the whole of Firhill as soon as the property market recovers) and the interests of the Football Club (to remain playing at Firhill rent free indefinitely).

To date, no information has been provided by the Football Club as to how this conflict is to be resolved. The Trust will continue to press for an answer to this point and will update its members as soon as the Football Club has responded.

In addition, there remains the potential for conflicts of interest to arise if both companies are managed by common directors;

• For example, say the stadium is sold and a 100 year lease is put in place at an annual rent of £1. Five years later, the property market recovers and the Property Company investors wish to sell Firhill for development and claim their profit.
  
  They cannot do so without removing the lease, so the common directors of the landlord and tenant companies agree to vary the duration of the lease from 100 to 6 years. The Directors of the Football Club have given no information as to how such a situation might be avoided / prevented.

Gaps in Information

Since the Property Company investors can only realise value from their investment by removing or substantially varying the long lease to the Football Club, it is essential that we understand how that will be achieved, and importantly, what will happen to the Football Club when the Property Company takes back possession of the stadium in order to effect redevelopment.

If the intention is for the Property Company investors to secure their profit from developing around the edges of the stadium (for example, by developing the former South terracing), then it is not clear why the whole stadium would require to be sold to and leased back from the Property Company, although it should be noted that partial development around the fringes of the stadium gives rise to its own set of difficulties.

We have no information on the protections that will be put in place to ensure that tenant insolvency does not terminate the lease and to ensure that the commercial terms of the lease are not varied to dilute the protection offered to the Football Club.

At present, no information has been provided to confirm who will receive the benefit of income from the Glasgow Warriors’ deal and other income generated from the stadium. It is important to understand up front what income will be stripped out of the Football Club’s balance sheet so that this can be assessed against the cost savings resulting from the removal (or reduction) of the Bank debt. As explained above, it is essential for the survival of the Football Club that it is able to trade at break even point following the sale of Firhill. Again, detailed proposals from the Football Club as to how this can be achieved have not been provided as yet.

The Football Club have not given any public indication how potential conflicts of interest between the Football Club and the Property Company might be resolved.

Going Forward

In the current economic climate, the Jags Trust and all fans of the club are united with the Football Club’s Directors in their desire to secure the long term future of Partick Thistle Football Club. However, in the absence of detailed information on the proposal to sell Firhill Stadium to a Property Company comprised of “Thistle Minded Investors”, outlined in Allan Cowan’s letter to shareholders on 18 March 2009, the Trust cannot in all conscience throw its support behind the proposal as it stands at present.

The Trust Board believes that appropriate safeguards could be built into the proposal which would ring fence the future of the Partick Thistle Football Club, and the Trust Board is committed to working with the Football Club to ensure that such safeguards are put in place.
If the Trust Board is able to satisfy itself, having taken appropriate expert advice, that such safeguards exist, then the Trust Board will endeavour to explain these safeguards to its membership. Once the safeguards are in place, the Trust Board is willing to back the Directors of the Football Club by recommending in principle that its membership supports the proposal, assuming the proposal goes ahead.

In the interests of constructive oversight on behalf of its members, the Trust Board has invited the Football Club Directors to a meeting at which the current details of the Football’s Club’s proposal can be laid out and openly discussed. The Football Club Directors have indicated that they are unable or unwilling to meet the Trust Board on this basis, but have agreed to hold an open meeting with all shareholders of the Football Club to provide an update on the property proposals. We understand that this meeting is intended to take place on 24 June 2009, but we await final verification of this date from the Football Club.

The Trust Board welcomes such an open meeting, but does not believe that it provides the most suitable forum for detailed discussion and examination of the property proposal, nor will it provide any forum for non-shareholder supporters (who have a major stake in the future of the Football Club and its stadium) to express their views. The Trust Board will therefore continue to press the Football Club Directors to meet with them in advance of the open meeting so that the detail of the proposal can be properly examined and reported on to its members – as a significant minority shareholder in the Football Club, and as the principal representative body of the supporters, the Trust Board believes that the Trust is entitled to the courtesy of such a meeting with the Football Club Directors.

New Faces for the Trust Board....

The Trust Board are pleased to announce the appointment of four new faces -- Carol Briggs, Martin Dempsey, Tom Hogg, and David Stewart will join the Board with immediate effect. Brief biographical details for Martin, Tom and David are shown below - similar information for Carol will follow shortly.

Tom, Martin and David will continue to assist in forming the Trust's response to the proposed sale and leaseback of Firhill Stadium to a property company of "Thistle Minded Investors", as announced by the Club at its 2009 AGM.

The next Trust Board meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday 8th June. The Trust expects to issue, via its website, a formal update to its members on the proposed stadium sale in the early part of next week.


Biographical Details

Martin Dempsey is managing director of a family-owned property development company based is Glasgow. Responsible for project managing the planning process for the company's development sites, Martin has extensive experience in dealing with local authorities on both the technical and political requirements of development and has worked in successful partnership with some of Scotland's largest housebuilders. Martin was a convert to the Jags in his mid-teens and is known to the denizens of the jagsforum.net as "Lobster Noise".

Tom Hogg is a Director of a commercial property consultancy and has lived and worked in Edinburgh for more than 20 years after being born and brought up in Broomhill. He has been a Thistle fan since the age of nine but his first memorable match was in the 1972 UEFA cup against Honved, the name by which he is known on jagsforum.net.

David Stewart is a commercial property lawyer at a large commercial practice with offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh. David is based in Edinburgh and has worked for top tier Scottish law firms for the last 9 years. Prior to that, he spent several years in Washington DC working for an industry led think tank pushing for regulatory reform in the banking sector. David is a lifelong supporter of Partick Thistle, having been introduced to the club at an early age by his father and grandfather. David will continue to post on jagsforum.net under the name "stolenscone".