Jump to content

Maboza

Saints
  • Posts

    542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Maboza

  1. He plays a key role in our team and is someone with absolute determination to be a winner when he goes on the park.

    I remember Templeton playing for Hearts and getting the ball right on the touchline at halfway line of the west bank and before the ball had even got to him you could see that Goodwin was going to be the winner there. He slid in hard and screaming like a madman as wiped the ball out of the park and Templeton had sh*t it and felt the challenge as Goodie got up laughing and giving him a wee pat on the back. Brilliant.

  2. Well done to young Dilo but I don't get the flack that Cornell gets at all.

    He has looked pretty decent in the SPFL. He is still young and is playing behind a ghost of a defence at the minute.

    Cornell looks fairly decent and not bad shot stopper but I think it looks as if the communication between him and the defence isn't good enough and leads to a few hairy moments. At times he's also not commanding enough. Example last week where John Sutton scores from a cross that is 6 yards out. Step off your line and get a fist to that cross!

  3. Hopefully it's that big blazer and slacks wearing American guy who used to come to all the games, home and away, sometimes in the company of quite a few other Americans.

    That guy always looked like he'd just stepped out of an Ivy League campus library, and oozed class.

    I never did get to the bottom of how the hell he ended up following Saints, but hopefully he's now at the helm of a global empire and is looking for a hobby.

    I remember exactly which guys you're talking about! haha.

    Spotted them a good few times and seem to remember them going tonto at opposition fans (possibly at Ibrox) whilst wearing said matching slacks/chinos and jumpers draped over there shoulders and tied in a knot.

  4. I am really not sure how to read this statement... are we "10,000" hours trying to reduce the price because the SPL revenue cannot be gaurenteed at current levels due to the possibility that Rangers wont be playing in the SPL next season.

    The footballing income dosnt have an impact on our loan repayments ect so i dont understand why this should have an effect on our bid. Unless we are trying to lower the price based on this argument.

    The NewCo debate in the FAQ for 10,000 stated that the club board would disclose the facts to the membership, at the moment i say noto newco but tell me the facts so i can make an informed decision.

    As mentioned on another thread. 10000 hours isn't setup to put money into the football club in the short term. So if we're no longer in a position to be able to run as a break-even business - they can't bail us out.

  5. Is it not as simple as the potential for reduced Sky TV revenue meaning that it will be more difficult for St.Mirren FC to continue to be run as a break-even business (without at least some internal investment even short-term for us to adjust financially) - the CiC isn't setup to put money into the football club until years of debts are paid off so this presents the CiC with a problem.

  6. Surely if you were either of the other 2 parties, looking to buy the 52% share, you would be getting a little pissed off that 1 bid was getting priority over yours?

    As well as extensions to find the cash and to formally bid.

    Especially if you have the money sitting in the bank, right now?

    Unless there are no other bids. Spin to frighten fans toward 10000hours bid.

    The current board are wanting their big pay day! 10000hours was always the vehicle for them getting that payday as no-one wanted to pay £2m for a football club. It dropped to £1.5m and now 10000hours has come short on that despite the unprecedented fan support that has come in this last week.

    Now the chips are down and the selling consortium can see the pound signs disappearing we will see if they are true to their words that they are interested in the best future for the club in which case they'd cut their losses.

  7. I'd think we'd be after Harkins if he was out of contract but I think he's got a year left with Dundee.

    Speculation was that he's on £1800 a week at Dundee and they're just getting him off the wage bill so there wouldn't be a transfer fee and it was pretty certain he was going to Killie.

  8. Sorry if this has been covered and I've missed it, but if someone could help me clarify this?

    In one statement we have...

    ....and a bit later we have

    Which is it? I assume priority will be given to servicing the debt and any extra be transferred to the football side? Doesn't this mean that the scenario of increasing the player budget by 20% pretty unlikely? Or ... am I getting mixed up and it's only by increasing things directly linked to the footballing side that we can increase the player budget (strips, club shop etc,) and extra revenue from 'community facilities' will repay the debt?

    Yeah that bit confused me too.

  9. Once it has repaid that money the CIC will STILL be generating revenue, presumably a lot of which is not there today.

    More revenue = potentially bigger playing budget ?

    Agreed. I'd expect that'd be the long-term goal and a good position to be in.

    I'm assuming that once the loan(s) paid off in full then the money will start to filter into the football side of things,but Maboza is correct in that a lot of these things are stuff that the commercial department should already have been doing to maximise income - I attended a funeral do at St Johnstone's ground a few years back and had a chance to look round and see some of the things they had in place and they more or less have the stadium in use 5 days a week.

    I wonder why we're not maximising this just now. It was certainly supposed to be the benefit of the new stadium. I can only assume that we either don't have the capable staff or ambition at the moment to drive that part of the business. Either that or there's simply not a market for the use of the stadium - which would be more of a concern.

    This, for me is the only stumbling block - there needs to be absolute assurance that if the CiC fails and cannot repay its debts - the club is not impacted in any way.

    That is something we do need to understand and if that scenario occurs, does the CIC nominated person(s) who control the club simply remain in control of the club? ....but no longer with any duty of care to the CIC (which has folded?)

    I've signed up to see what else is to be said.

    Way too many questions just now so will need to wait for the opportunity to get answers.

  10. I've read and read and read.... looking for answers and still not quite getting this.

    Individuals contributions = 300 x £120 pa = £36,000 pa

    Corporate contributions = 12 (?) x £10,000 pa = £120,000 pa

    Total = £156,000 pa going into the CIC right?

    So that's money going into the CIC, not the club - the CIC which has no other major contributions from the people leading it. This money is funding the purchase of the club and nothing else? So the CIC has a huge shortfall to the tune of £1,844,000 which has to be made up of either grants or loans (debt for the CIC (but the asset being the stadium is protected)). At the numbers stated above it'd take over 13 years to re-pay that money through the contributions into the CIC.

    What exactly are the Corporate contributors getting for the £10k?

    If the Corporate contributors are receiving the access to the facilities of the club (i.e. function suite, meals, etc.) in exchange for that fee then that is SMFC facilities (which are chargeable) being used with the proceeds going back to the CIC (to pay for their purchase of the club). No benefit to the club? We're losing out on potential revenue surely?

    Or does the £10k get a discount for the use of such facilities? (In which case there's still a cut going to the CIC?)

    If the £10k provides nothing other than a named associaton with the CIC then I'd be surprised if that value of association with that brand could be valued at £10k.

    I have a concern that all of the perceived benefits and increased revenues from marketing the club in this way will have no real positive financial impact for St.Mirren FC who I expect will be run in the exact same way as we are just now. All these things that are being talked about are things that the club should be doing already - but doing them now under this proposed plan will surely only be paying off the CIC rather than the club maximising there revenue potential?

  11. Van Zanten can play CB, RB, RM, & CM so he would be a solid and reliable utility player for in very small squad

    Roos is going to Motherwell

    I wouldn't disagree with that if we are unable to get anything better. Similar to the Alan Reid situation - certainly no world beater but could cover a number of positions and would certainly have been better than Mo Camara.

    If signing Vanzy again avoided another bad desperate signing like that then fair enough. Don't think he'd command too much money either given how his last couple of years have went.

  12. Jack Ross was excellent yesterday, and is a very good right back for St Mirren, but he does make mistakes, and despite a fine performance yesterday he almost lost the ball in the second half just ouside our box when his mind seemed elsewhere, a mistake that any other team would have punished.

    Having said that both him and Murray were immense down the right hand side yesterday, you wouldn,t have thought it was the same two players who played on the right against Dunfermline earlier on in the season.

    Every player makes mistakes.

    Jack Ross nearly losing the ball once yesterday barely merits mention. He immediately turned round to Cuthbert asking where the shout was.

    Great return to action from him and he's been great in his 1st season for Saints.

    I thought your original post was actually a wind-up.

×
×
  • Create New...