The Original 59er

I saw Tommy playing a number of times and my recollections were of a small tricky inside forward who had a great knack of dribbling past players with ease and scoring goals. I also seem to remember him breaking his leg following a tackle by Davie Holt of Hearts at Love Street. That was probably around 1961 or 62 before he left us for Norwich City. Always had a quiff in his hair, well plastered with Brylcreem. Brilliant player, the likes of which we don't see today as the ball dribbling skills like that were probably learned on the waste grounds or the street where you lived. He was worth a Scottish cap, but there were other good inside forwards at that time from both Celtic and Rangers, so hard to get past them in the pecking order. Great memories. Here's a link to a great year and how much influence Tommy had on the team in these days: http://www.stmirren.info/id307.html

Slash, you have some randomly nefarious thoughts that wander through your head!

Careful................. an awful lot of positivity and good wishes flying about in this post (Drew excepted)! Normal readers won't be able to understand it as it doesn't include vitriol and knicker wetting. Merry Christmas to all, Drew included.

A good start would be to get the psychologist in and establish why we are so crap at home?

fantastic.......................... Any positive result over the govan mob is always welcome................ and they keep thinking they are the bees knees, so it's all the sweeter!

No matter how much the dear Lord thinks that we are hamstrung by the 52%, the reality is that there isn't anyone out there who wants to take St Mirren over, pay the 52% a bit of money for their shares and then go into debt to 'invest' in a suburban, peripheral football club that has an average gate of around 4,000 people, many of whom are die hards and a few are moaning gits. We are stuck with what we have got and I keep coming back to the premise that they should withdraw the shares from the market, stabilise the club from within and with a little luck have a little success, which then may engender some misguided sole to part with some hard earned (or immoral) earnings and take a wee gamble.

The post was fine until you got to this line............................. Tell me would you go into debt personally on the back of your hobby or a business that isn't your main source of income and one that you have little chance of ensuring that it will be a success?

Alex Rae should retire now................... how many Saint's managers have had a 100% record?

Who is Beelzebub?.......... and will he let him go?

Sorry the Board are caught in a landslide with no escape from reality

"Hello Mr Rae, please take a seat. Ok you may have heard various items in the news, the gutter press and some dubious fans website, ignore all that garbage, we know you haven't been interviewed, so let's chat about why you want to become Saint's next Manager. You know it's a tough ride, that is obvious the way we have treated the fans, ooops sorry the players, over the last few appointments, so what makes you the stand out candidate?" "Well Mr Gilmour, you're right, you've made an utter balls up of at least the last three if not more appointments, but you haven't had one of them who will kick the players' back sides, have them running up and down the Braes on a Sunday and tell them where the net is at their home ground.............. so if you want these three things, I'm your man." "great the job's your............................... ahem, how many £'s a week do you want for these three elements and can we break it down to 10% for the kicking lessons, 10% for each Sunday sweat shop and 80% for finding the fu**ing net each week"? "Aye nae bother" "Good settled, the job's your for the foreseeable future, thank you Mr Rae for coming in, see you on Monday"!

I've always struggled a little with your rhyming couplet approach!

If I was to say that our Chairman was seen in the company of a certain ex-Ranger' centre forward yesterday, does that throw his hat into the ring!????????????? I quite like the hourly suggestion, we could get a fair few laughs out of that approach.

Yes, ultimately the Board are the issue. However it is an eternal circle................... no-one want to buy their shares so we are stuck with what we have and they won't gamble or invest with a hope of getting a higher return. I've said it before and will repeat it, either take the shares off the market and commit to a stable period of commitment and show leadership from the top, or sell up and accept the loss, but commit to a decision. Almost all organisations that have weak leadership eventually stumble and fall.

Even better idea, given your enthusiasm why don't you get some sympathetic company interested who would provide a suitable enclosure for the disabled with the proviso they are allowed to advertise the fact both in the stadium and also in the programme.

Remember the Peter Kane model! I think they were rugby type boots with ankle support / cladding with leather studs that had the 4 small metal nails through them. I'll bet they thought twice about sliding into a tackle when they wore these lethal combinations! The papers had an article in them the other day, not one footie boot (that no doubt every kid wants for Christmas) was priced under £120...........................

Either you have inside knowledge that the loans have been paid back, or you are surmising that position. The posted Accounts say otherwise. "the loans were to cover cash flow issues" Suggests that your statement that the Club "does break even", doesn't exactly hold water, if it does break even, then why the need for a loan, and then roll it over into the next year? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the BoD's are trying to live within their income constraints. The main point is that it is very marginal and as others have suggested, the income is dropping due to the performances on the park. What's more, it doesn't make that strong an argument for an easy sale because who would want it?

It is quite clear the club aren't breaking even, and it is only a cup run or some league success that will bring income into the club which will then allow the club to pay back the loans. I'll bet that there is no bank facility to obtain a loan of any substantial amount, or certainly not one that will allow the Club to become indebted to the Bank to such a degree that will bring back the bad old days. So where does that leave the BoD's? Basically to meet the cost of the current running costs of the club, including salaries, VAT, the training and stadium costs etc they have to provide a loan out of their own pockets, because (and here's the rub) they have no asset as they did when we played at Love Street to put up as surety for any loan provided by the Bank. Historically we sold players to pay off debts, then we sold the land (luckily) to Tesco, but now the only asset is in theory the playing staff )- but you could argue at present they are more of a liability than an asset!). You can't treat the stadium as an asset as outside of Saints playing there, what else could it have a value for? So we have the consequences of a Board who want out, have loans granted to the Club and can't demonstrate that the club is truly viable. Reluctantly I'm coming more and more round to Shull's argument that football in Scotland is shot and basically we should go part time!

Seriously it says loads about the US democratic process.......................... how could this guy be even considered a potential candidate, never mind the front runner of the Republican movement?

There is a difference between the value of the shares and the loans made to the company. Yes loans as such affect the value of the company, but on the basis you have lent to the company the first tranche of money you take out will be the return of the loan. So no matter how you look at it, the Directors will attempt to extract their loans before any tax implications kick in on their share value. To say they have paid over the odds for the club is an interesting thought process. They oversaw the Tesco deal which I admit was lucky, but it saved the club and gave us new facilities. That goodwill is now drying up (or has already dried up!). But the value they have in their shares is worth what someone will pay for them. All I'm saying in my post is that they will take the loans out first and if there is any value or cost implications in buying their shares then that will add to the £245k.

If I put a loan into a company, I would like to think at some point the company is sufficiently liquid that I can then have the loan returned. So if the loan is £245k then the Directors who have loaned that cash will be entitled to extract that when appropriate. The fan's Council would have to come up with a minimum of re-paying the loan, never mind the value of the shares. The only route for that may well be the Bank, which means a running cost and probably guarantees for the Bank loan. That's the reality of the Fan ownership. It will come down to hard cash and someone footing the bill and the responsibilities!

There are many examples of Boards changing the manager and the team getting a string of results following that appointment (e.g. Liverpool at present). We have almost singularly failed to benefit from that feel good sensation! I wonder if it's anything to do with the quality of the appointments, the players on the park, an inbuilt inability to win at home, or lack of motivation from the top.............................

Dear Lord, if you put money into any business by way of loans you are entitled to take them back out, if the company is solvent and capable of paying the money. I think in practice achieving that at Saints is a gamble, so their only hope is to find a buyer for their shares. Do you expect them to put money into St Mirren FC Ltd and then instantly write it off?

0Follow this topic We Need Gus MacphersonStarted by shull, Nov 29 2015 11:14 In response to your plea.......................... sorry he had his chance and when you can't change your tactics when the opposition is down to 9 players and you have 11 on the field and you continue to be defensive, negative and predictable, your tea is oot! (As you can see it still smarts 5 years later!)

What these accounts tell us is that running St Mirren on a pretty tight budget is difficult and very unlikely to generate much of a profit unless the team has some real success on the field in some shape or form. With Saints, this is a transient position at best. As said by a few before, the fans buy out option is highly unlikely, as funds needed when difficult decisions need to be taken both on and off the field, may necessitate for a call for finances and unless the fans Council have a sinking fund established and can agree to release it, then where does the cash come from? The Company has to be run on a continually solvent basis for a Council system to work. As much as I'd like to see the club in theoretical public / fans ownership without any one person having a controlling interest, I believe that when it comes to the hard decisions, the conglomerate of fans would not be able to make them. The present BoD's are fans, they appear at present to be inserting Director's loans into the company which they will be entitled to take out if the company has the money to pay them (at a point when someone comes along and puts money on the table, or the club is profitable through trading). What I don't get is that many think that someone coming in is going to invest money in the club and bring in new players and that they will 'invest' money and that they will do this willingly !!!!!!!!??????? Wake up and smell the coffee, no-one will put money into St Mirren unless they see a way of getting the money back out or get an annual return out of the profits of the company. To achieve that they may have to gamble significant amounts on new players (+ maybe Manager) then hope / dream / pray that the money spent will succeed on the park. It's a big gamble and as Shull has argued for a long time the players are overpaid so if you bring in new (arguably better) players, in theory the wage bill will rise further. In times gone by we traded players to make the books balance. These days are gone and we now depend on home grown talent coming through the U20's set up, holding onto them long enough to see the potential grow and hopefully someone paying us a figure which represents a return for the investment spent on that player that came through the ranks. We are stuck with the present Board, which doesn't please me, but unless a fan wins the Euro lottery and can afford to play Football Chairman with say £10m as a pastime, we are stuck with what we have got and any fan's dreams of a Council run club is highly unlikely. Sorry to be so negative, but I don't live on