garzo

If this is for me, what do you need to know? I've been open with my views, read back.

Minutes and actions should be made available, that's only right and proper. Unless there are confidential or sensitive issues - these should be set aside.

I know nothing... hahahahahahaha I am Garzo, clearly stated... hahahahahahaha

Is that what I'm doing? hahahahahahahaha :-) Just stating my views, making observations and trying to be constructive? Do you have connections to both?

Yes, I have a connection to both. Why do you ask?

You say condescending; I say polite and respectful. Up to you. Good luck with this. So what next?

You've taken me by surprise there with those answers. And of course it is your right to hold your view whether in the first part it can be shown to be factually correct or reasonable is another matter. The second part is also your right to hold that opinion and view. Fully respect that. I'm not sure what you are looking for now or trying to achieve. Politely and with the greatest of respect... ...I can only conclude you are not willing or able to follow reasoned discussion, explanations and agreements as a way forward. You may have an ulterior motive and agenda to pursue, I don't know. I do hope you find resolution to this for your own peace of mind. I am settled and satisfied that the committee have acted in good faith, within their remit and as the constitution allows. Also noting their willingness to learn from mistakes, be clearer and more transparent with the membership.

Answer my questions please.

I'm on my own with this for now, please answer my previous post.

I though we were close to an agreement & solution & you're still going on about this. Lets call this out now. Has the committee acted within their rights and appropriately under the terms of the constitution to conclude a satisfactory deal (This includes a legally binding shareholder agreement between major shareholders.) to buy an increased shareholding in St Mirren FC & option to buy out the majority shareholder in due course? Subject to clarification - referring to my previous posts for information & details - are you happy that the committee act under delegated authority on the members behalf? yes/ no please.

No

It's always been there. Maybe not widely known though. Its also a sensible approach to have this type of agreement between major shareholders & active partners in the business.

It's not really a loan in traditional terms. It's a shareholder agreement to place £50k aside for use by the club should it be required in times of cash flow difficulties or emergencies. This will be paid back when cash flow returns to normal. For example a trading gap loan in lieu of league payments. This is an ongoing requirement hence the need for premium membership monies.

I'm pretty sure this has been taken on board. I think we're close to a resolution?

If a statement was released like this would it allay any of your concerns & put your mind at rest that your committee is acting in good faith: "As negotiations progressed it emerged that an up front deposit payment was required to the outgoing consortium. It was originally intended & is in fact a legally binding requirement to keep a sum of money aside in case of emergencies as a shareholder loan to the club. All premium membership subscriptions were originally intended for this purpose. To conclude the deal the deposit was paid using premium membership funds. This would be replaced when bank levels of subscriptions allowed. The deposit paid is an initial part of staged payments to be made to the outgoing consortium. " This is my understanding of what has happened. Im happy with it. We're moving in the right direction.

Is that happening?

What did you expect your subscription would be used for?

I left early so cant 100% comment on the meeting. Think I've posted my take it though and am confident my note here (if accepted as a way forward) is a good summary of how things were when I left. I've yet to see a response - is this a fair summary and way to proceed? 1. if 50k shareholder agreement is in place and legally binding - is the issue that the membership are reminded and made fully aware of this? 2. any future proposed financial transaction over a certain value should be put to members in a vote? 3. clarification on delegated authority and what would constitute emergency actions, taken in trust by the committee? It's a little disappointing the guys in the committee are not being shown due recognition and respect for what they've managed to do and continue to do. They should be given some room to make mistakes, learn and grow into the role - they are all good people and should be approached in a respectful manner. Everything else is just opinion on presentation style, content and meeting management.

Here's what I'm aware of & my understanding Delegated authority for shareholders agreement agreed at a members meeting before deal to purchase negotiated. Premium member subscription specifically made note of "top up" fund. Constitution allows committee to act in interests and behalf of members using powers noted under clauses that say as much. There are some confidential items that should remain in confidence. It was noted & agreed at AGM to clarify as noted in my post above. I trust everything has been done with due process & in our interests.

Heres the context... I posted this just a few posts back. I'd say if this is what may be considered a reasonable way forward then Yes - everything is in order! a few points then: 1. if 50k shareholder agreement is in place and legally binding - is the issue that the membership are reminded and made fully aware of this? 2. any future proposed financial transaction over a certain value should be put to members in a vote? 3. clarification on delegated authority and what would constitute emergency actions, taken in trust by the committee?

I'd say everything is order then, just a bit more clarity, communication and consultation, Happy days :-)

a few points then: 1. if 50k shareholder agreement is in place and legally binding - is the issue that the membership are reminded and made fully aware of this? 2. any future proposed financial transaction over a certain value should be put to members in a vote? 3. clarification on delegated authority and what would constitute emergency actions, taken in trust by the committee?

It was asked for, maybe not by you but it was asked for (chair from memory) - and there were no hands raised. As I replied before - this was included as part of the deal to purchase. I knew about it as did others as did most of the room yesterday. We can ask SMiSA to make this clear and move forward in support of the aims and objectives to move St Mirren into fan ownership. Answered that, its by agreement.

You are completely missing the important point that yes, I would imagine that most members if given the option would vote to approve the £15k USH loan, and the £50k revolving credit facility. The problem is the committee knowingly breaching the constitution and governing legislation by refusing to properly inform and consult with the members in advance of a decision. Not as far as I can see - perhaps, as was agreed yesterday - this could be made a bit clearer and is an area to improve. what happens if the club cant pay these loans back? We have been told for years the club needs additional funding each season to get by, so its highly possible they could default, and given there is no security over these loans that would mean the memberships money, which was ringfenced to buy and only to buy the majority shareholding in the club being lost. Your digging deeper here than my knowledge or interest at this stage cares to pursue. I'll only add 2 things - if the club are unable to pay the loan back then we would be in real trouble and without knowing the detail i'd expect a long standing loan of significant value to be offset against shares or purchase price if it is still outstanding at end of term. I'm not privy to the detail on this though. Gordon has smisa in his pocket and sees our funds as a source of finance he can tap into whenever he chooses, the committee give him everything he wants including buying new Hof boards instead of refurbing the existing ones because Gordon wants new ones. Put to a vote and accepted - whether you or me like the outcome the majority prevail - is this not what you are asking for anyway? and just to correct you it was me who asked for the show of hands and less than half present indicated they knew during buy the buds that the committee intended to loan the club another £50k. I didn't count but looked fairly clean cut to me - large show of hands indicating they were aware and none were not aware.

there is an agreement in place as part of the offer to buy out the former shareholders that SMiSA would set aside £50k in case of emergencies/ cashflow difficulties. This is not anticipated although is there if required. I think this is acceptable and as its legally binding the only issue as far as I can see is one of people being aware of it. It will not be taken to a vote.