reborn saint Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 I disagree. From the tweets my impression is that there is a door waiting to be pushed. £2m is not a big ask, but a joke ask... My point is that St Mirren can be sold for less than £2 Million but Stewart Gilmour will never offer a lesser price.......ie a bid of £1.6Million can be accepted or rejected against other bids if it is presented as real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 CIC, IPS call it what you will I've no interest in buying into this scheme where the club (which had a net debt of £336,510 as of May 31) will be controlled a body itself in debt. I'm out! Many others To mate ? This shambolic Pish Bye REA, Has been shown to be a First Class Attempt by @ " Shyster " Proclaiming to Be The Saviour of SMFC ? He aint getting my Club. Without a Fight ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 hey i'm not knocking it/them. Just highlighting there will be competition if this comes to pass, not the fixed odds it was before so regarding my previous post is it not the case that those chosen as cic board members will still remain as such Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Cos it's his picture as avatar too, I imagine that also. Your Avatar is perfectlly Suited KTF - Ah wee slimmy snake in the Grass ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Which can only be a good thing, right? competition is always a good thing, keeps people on their toes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Many others To mate ? This shambolic Pish Bye REA, Has been shown to be a First Class Attempt by @ " Shyster " Proclaiming to Be The Saviour of SMFC ? He aint getting my Club. Without a Fight ? HE'S NOT TRYING TO GET THE CLUB! That and, just what would he try to do with it should he do so? Host an event or two perhaps, get a few friends in the directors box...what a bastard! No, much better we allow someone who can't afford the club or who won't give the fans any real say your club. Next time the club needs a wee bit of cash they should send you the bill, it's your club after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Many others To mate ? This shambolic Pish Bye REA, Has been shown to be a First Class Attempt by @ " Shyster " Proclaiming to Be The Saviour of SMFC ? He aint getting my Club. Without a Fight ? I have a funny feeling that due to his beliefs the last thing RA would proclaim himself to be would the the saviour of anything... have you got any direct quotes of RA claiming to be St Mirren's saviour or any evidence of him being a shyster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted November 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 so regarding my previous post is it not the case that those chosen as cic board members will still remain as such No idea on the ins and outs. Potentially yes, do people have to be named when the company is being set up? If so, I'm almost certain that if we are not happy with who they are, we can call an EGM type affair and elect them out and others in. The point being, who? Someone will have to do it for the first 6 (?) months and so better to be those who know thier arse from their elbow, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 I have a funny feeling that due to his beliefs the last thing RA would proclaim himself to be would the the saviour of anything... have you got any direct quotes of RA claiming to be St Mirren's saviour or any evidence of him being a shyster? I disagree, I actually do think that REA is our saviour - in the sense of the fans being the club. I liked his point about when clubs turn to the fans for cash. We have experienced it already....it is when the club is in the shitter. Other clubs have gone through the - ah right we're f"k'd, time to get some cash from the fans.....there are examples all over the shot and the fans get shag all in return other than the survival of their club. In this instance we have a healthy club asking the fans to take control - and let's be clear it is mot REA asking the question, it is the consortium. REA has merely been a very capable facilitator and continues to be so. We need to move on from the "is REA good or evil" debate as it is completely irrelevant. This is about whether the St Mirren community wants to take ownership of the club. There is now £1.3Million pounds in play to make it happen along with a mechanism supported by the sellers to allow us to achieve genuine community ownership of the club. Do we take responsibility for the club or do we just leave its destiny in the hands of whatever bid may or may not transpire? It is not about REA or the Kibble or the consortium or personal agendas of disgruntled supporters. This is about whether the fans want to take the opportunity to make St Mirren a community owned club. We beleive St Mirren to be a community club in our hearts.....but have we got the bawz to make St Mirren a genuine community club? If we have then let's stop fanny around and start working to make it happen. Time for us to own up to our own responsibility to the club and make this happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 m I have a funny feeling that due to his beliefs the last thing RA would proclaim himself to be would the the saviour of anything... have you got any direct quotes of RA claiming to be St Mirren's saviour or any evidence of him being a shyster? Did/Does support SMFC ? Shyster ? He is a Fcking Chancer trying to gain control lof an SPL Club ? Fcking Liar to with 400 Employees ? £ 50k, Naw mate, am now unemployed ? I To Could be@ Saviour . But oan a Giro. unlike, Tricky DICKY ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 No idea on the ins and outs. Potentially yes, do people have to be named when the company is being set up? If so, I'm almost certain that if we are not happy with who they are, we can call an EGM type affair and elect them out and others in. The point being, who? Someone will have to do it for the first 6 (?) months and so better to be those who know thier arse from their elbow, surely? indeed i'd rather like to see people with a good few years experience of running a football club being in charge of a cic (sg for example) i am aware that would be unlikely, so i am concerned that we could go down a long road of learning from mistakes and take a long time to get back up that road, unless of course we have experienced football people on board already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I disagree, I actually do think that REA is our saviour - in the sense of the fans being the club. I liked his point about when clubs turn to the fans for cash. We have experienced it already....it is when the club is in the shitter. Other clubs have gone through the - ah right we're f"k'd, time to get some cash from the fans.....there are examples all over the shot and the fans get shag all in return other than the survival of their club. In this instance we have a healthy club asking the fans to take control - and let's be clear it is mot REA asking the question, it is the consortium. REA has merely been a very capable facilitator and continues to be so. We need to move on from the "is REA good or evil" debate as it is completely irrelevant. This is about whether the St Mirren community wants to take ownership of the club. There is now £1.3Million pounds in play to make it happen along with a mechanism supported by the sellers to allow us to achieve genuine community ownership of the club. Do we take responsibility for the club or do we just leave its destiny in the hands of whatever bid may or may not transpire? It is not about REA or the Kibble or the consortium or personal agendas of disgruntled supporters. This is about whether the fans want to take the opportunity to make St Mirren a community owned club. We beleive St Mirren to be a community club in our hearts.....but have we got the bawz to make St Mirren a genuine community club? If we have then let's stop fanny around and start working to make it happen. Time for us to own up to our own responsibility to the club and make this happen. Mon Sid ? Stick way Gary Blues Bird !! Dickie is wan of these chancers - Bit like yoursell M8 ? Without You, Ktf, and the rest of the Multi Faced Keyboard Bawbags ! You would be Well and Trully FCUKED !! Mon The Real FANS !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 indeed i'd rather like to see people with a good few years experience of running a football club being in charge of a cic (sg for example) i am aware that would be unlikely, so i am concerned that we could go down a long road of learning from mistakes and take a long time to get back up that road, unless of course we have experienced football people on board already I think the problem some buds have is that those folks wouldn't be elected. They would be drafted in until elections etc could take place. We don't know who they are or what they'd do... I for one don't have that issue. I'd bet that those drafted in would be the like of SG or GLS and maybe a couple of existing CiV folks, then maybe one community member rep and one corporate. They probably all be St Mirren fans and/or existing directors. They'd only be in for an initial period of time the elections would happen. I agree with you, I think it'd be better to have those who know that they are doing in at the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Mon Sid ? Stick way Gary Blues Bird !! Dickie is wan of these chancers - Bit like yoursell M8 ? Without You, Ktf, and the rest of the Multi Faced Keyboard Bawbags ! You would be Well and Trully FCUKED !! Mon The Real FANS !! As Somner9 found out yesterday, manage users, ignore users, click, bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Mon Sid ? Stick way Gary Blues Bird !! Dickie is wan of these chancers - Bit like yoursell M8 ? Without You, Ktf, and the rest of the Multi Faced Keyboard Bawbags ! You would be Well and Trully FCUKED !! Mon The Real FANS !! It doesn't actually matter what REA is buddiecool - it isn't him that is buying the major shareholding in the club. It is the fans. And the new proposal is even better than the last one as it is a straight shoot one member one vote irrespective of how many shares you own - and the use of the word "own" is pretty important too. This is now a straight question........do you want the fans to control the club or do you want a fat cat stranger who doesn't care about St Mirren to own it through raising debt against the asset and paying the debt off using funds directly from the clubs income? Any spurious doubt has been removed. This is all about whether the supporters want to take control of the club or not. We have the funds to do it and a BoD keen to make it happen. It should be the easiest decision we ever make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 It doesn't actually matter what REA is buddiecool - it isn't him that is buying the major shareholding in the club. It is the fans. And the new proposal is even better than the last one as it is a straight shoot one member one vote irrespective of how many shares you own - and the use of the word "own" is pretty important too. This is now a straight question........do you want the fans to control the club or do you want a fat cat stranger who doesn't care about St Mirren to own it through raising debt against the asset and paying the debt off using funds directly from the clubs income? Any spurious doubt has been removed. This is all about whether the supporters want to take control of the club or not. We have the funds to do it and a BoD keen to make it happen. It should be the easiest decision we ever make. We'd be mental not to do it! Which pretty much sums up buddiecool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 It doesn't actually matter what REA is buddiecool - it isn't him that is buying the major shareholding in the club. It is the fans. And the new proposal is even better than the last one as it is a straight shoot one member one vote irrespective of how many shares you own - and the use of the word "own" is pretty important too. This is now a straight question........do you want the fans to control the club or do you want a fat cat stranger who doesn't care about St Mirren to own it through raising debt against the asset and paying the debt off using funds directly from the clubs income? Any spurious doubt has been removed. This is all about whether the supporters want to take control of the club or not. We have the funds to do it and a BoD keen to make it happen. It should be the easiest decision we ever make. £ 1.3 million of Debt SidleY ? 600 DD's - How many Now ? Chancer taking a Back seat - Will His Bum Boy's Do It For Him ? Saints in theCommunity - Yes ? Shysters - No ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 We'd be mental not to do it! Which pretty much sums up buddiecool What have I Told You " Grass " Now away and play with your manhood,And not your Keyboard ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 What have I Told You " Grass " Now away and play with your manhood,And not your Keyboard ! You'll wear out that waving smillie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) To be honest I left the meeting a bit flat. They need more members, and they want everyone to get a friend to sign up. That's fine and I could certainly get some new community members in if only there was one single benefit in place that would show them that they would get a return on their investment. As I said at the meeting when you are talking about community members that doesn't necessarily need to have a negative impact on the playing budget. I gave one small, perhaps silly, example of club kit but there's loads of ways in which an SPL club who's main business is football and who have full time employees working in their community and commercial sides could help offset some of the costs of running a grassroots football club in return for membership with no negative impact on the playing budget at all. I thought the principle of mutual benefits was in place right from the start when the church group came on board. My two friends who are St Mirren supporters have completed Direct Debit forms for 10000hours already. Anyone else I'd talk to on this would either be involved in running sports clubs, or fans of other clubs that I work with or know socially and I'm supposed to go armed with a blank direct debit form to get them to sign up so they can get a vote in the elections. Then there's the obvious dichotomy. I could increase my contribution but if I do that the additional amount that I pay in will directly benefit the selling consortium, some of whom I don't like, and others I couldn't care less about. I want to see the takeover go ahead, and I firmly believe that a Social Enterprise model is exactly the right way for all Scottish Football clubs to go but I'm going to have to have a serious think about what was said tonight. Edited December 1, 2011 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 You'll wear out that waving smillie. You'll wear out that waving smillie. When we huvin a Pipe ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 £ 1.3 million of Debt SidleY ? 600 DD's - How many Now ? Chancer taking a Back seat - Will His Bum Boy's Do It For Him ? Saints in theCommunity - Yes ? Shysters - No ? £1.3m of debt that rests with the CIC and not St Mirren FC... and if SMISA do vote to support the CIC and add their 50k to Richard's 50k then that is £1.4m raised before you add in the 10 (?) corporate members ready to pledge £10k per year which could the total up to £1.5m more or less raised before you add in community members and ordinary members pledges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 It doesn't actually matter what REA is buddiecool - it isn't him that is buying the major shareholding in the club. It is the fans. And the new proposal is even better than the last one as it is a straight shoot one member one vote irrespective of how many shares you own - and the use of the word "own" is pretty important too. This is now a straight question........do you want the fans to control the club or do you want a fat cat stranger who doesn't care about St Mirren to own it through raising debt against the asset and paying the debt off using funds directly from the clubs income? Any spurious doubt has been removed. This is all about whether the supporters want to take control of the club or not. We have the funds to do it and a BoD keen to make it happen. It should be the easiest decision we ever make. Who is Your prefered choice then ? Oh Dicko Lover ? You ? Fcking No chance - To Many Faces - To much Shite - Jist like REA ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 To be honest I left the meeting a bit flat. They need more members, and they want everyone to get a friend to sign up. That's fine and I could certainly get some new community members in if only there was one single benefit in place that would show them that they would get a return on their investment. As I said at the meeting when you are talking about community members that doesn't necessarily need to have a negative impact on the playing budget. I gave one small, perhaps silly, example of club kit but there's loads of ways in which an SPL club who's main business is football and who have full time employees working in their community and commercial sides could help offset some of the costs of running a grassroots football club in return for membership with no negative impact on the playing budget at all. I thought the principle of mutual benefits was in place right from the start when the church group came on board. My two friends who are St Mirren supporters have completed Direct Debit forms for 10000hours already. Anyone else I'd talk to on this would either be involved in running sports clubs, or fans of other clubs that I work with or know socially and I'm supposed to go armed with a blank direct debit form to get them to sign up so they can get a vote in the elections. Then there's the obvious dichotomy. I could increase my contribution but if I do that the additional amount that I pay in will directly benefit the selling consortium, some of whom I don't like, and others I couldn't care less about. I want to see the takeover go ahead, and I firmly believe that a Social Enterprise model is exactly the right way for all Scottish Football clubs to go but I'm going to have to have a serious think about what was said tonight. You have a surprisingly squeaky voice for such a fat chap Stu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecool Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 £1.3m of debt that rests with the CIC and not St Mirren FC... and if SMISA do vote to support the CIC and add their 50k to Richard's 50k then that is £1.4m raised before you add in the 10 (?) corporate members ready to pledge £10k per year which could the total up to £1.5m more or less raised before you add in community members and ordinary members pledges. Assumptions, and Pressumptions M8 ! I Deal with Fact, not Fiction ? Mon the Posee 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.