Gruffalo

The money will come with strict guidelines and conditions. These organisations make you tick every box in an attempt to prevent the very nonsense that the mail is publishing. Worthy causes are very subjective when it comes to funding. These organisations endeavour to ensure that no one is lining their pockets with the proceeds. If the funding comes off and/or is in place then this gives immense credibility to the proposals.

I am surprised it has taken the Daily Rags so long to pick up on this story. However without being shot down in flames by the wait and see brigade. The mail has touched on the very point and potential obstacle that concerns me about the funding aspect. The CIC (from my very limited knowledge) looks like a great idea and the potential benefits to the Town and the Community could be huge. However I cant get my head around that almost £1.5m of funding which is supposedly to come from Government Quango type organisations being paid direct as a payoff to some shareholders who stand to make a profit (depends on what you classify as a profit) from it. I know that this type of money is VERY difficult to come by I am aware of the forms, the business plans the presentations that have to be made to convince these organisations that you are better placed to receive that funding than anyone else. But the words payoff and profit would ring alarm bells. The funders would have to ask the question is the brand St Mirren worth £1.5m as a platform to use for a community type organisation. The proof will be the uptake on the fan/community/commercial initiative. Cant help thinking that with our official attendance being recorded as low every week that it will be looked at an initiative that may not be perceived as being worth it. (ie a potential catchment of 100k attendance of 4k, the flipside is that there is a potential audience to work on it) I mean £1.5m would provide another community organisation a new building and a management structure to develop their own community initiative. I suspect that the funding may well be in place on the proviso that they meet a specific community involvement of 300/24/12. The 300 at £10/head may struggle with fans that will say I am not paying for SGs payoff after all what has he ever done for the club. (Paraphrasing not my words nor my own opinion) All of the above is purely my thoughts I will no doubt find out more information as it is released.

Reg Brearly did not take over the club, who knows what would have happened if he had. Also the Brearly issue resulted in a release of a share issue. Basically the Brearly thing is a red herring to the debate. The whole shareholding issue appears to have escaped you. People who contributed to single shares purchased them for the love of their club and to buy a part of the club. (A bit like being in the CiC which will have a running in the club). However guys like Gordon Scott made substantial share purchases and probably did so to allow them to be able to make a difference to the club. In boardroom discussions/votes that purchase would have allowed him to find allies who shared his opinion and form a team to make a majority vote. (it now makes sense why GS is allegedly so annoyed by being left out of the 52%) You make reference to the word profit. Please clarify what your would define as a profit in this instance. Is it selling for more than you purchased or selling for more than you purchased index linked. If its the former then the sellers in this instance are making a profit. If its the later then probably not.

Why not announce that the attendance is XXXX however the official attendance is YYYY. Also why does a free ticket not count as a bum on seat.

So if the CiC which is not the club makes a profit it puts that profit back in to the Club. How does that work. Is that in the form of a donation or a purchase of further shares. If the CiC pump money into the club does the other 48% shareholders have to match that contribution like a reverse dividend. The consortium deliberately teamed up to sell their shares off as the majority shareholding. Why did they not include others and rap it all up to 100% when it became a CiC, thus allowing existing shareholders to transfer their shares to the CiC. The 48% shares are worthless, simply because no one is going to buy them. I cannot imagine someone coming along and buying Gordon Scotts shares just so they can watch the club being run by a CiC, afterall no matter who you teamed up with you would always be overruled by the CiC. Football shares are not like shares in Blue chip companies unless you are the likes of Man U Liverpool etc.

The reason it gets me is that it just assists others in debates that we are a diddy club with a diddy support. By not accurately reporting the attendance figures (I am not suggesting the club are deliberating practising this) insults the fans who have made the effort to attend. There was a recent game (not the Aberdeen game, maybe the hibs game) where they filled their allocation and when you did the sums it looked like they would have had just as many fans as us.

The club will be run by the 48% shareholders and the 52% CiC The CiC will be run by the supporters and local businesses. The club will only be a 52% run CiC. Basically is you are one of the 48% shareholders then your shares are worthless. After all who is going to buy shares in a club that you will never be able to have an overall majority. It appears that the 52% shareholders are taking a combination of charity, supporters and local businesses money in order to get their pay off. Your confused, my head hurts every time I have to try and explain to someone what our club are doing. I now just give them the truth, I don’t know.

Here lies the problem. The club and community spirit in the last year has been significantly eroded, please note that the new board members have been in office during this period. There appears to be a real apathy with the residents of the Town and the fans towards the Club. (to be fair it has been going on for years since the move) My view is that ALL at the club have got so wrapped up in the CiC being the saviour of the club that they have forgot about the club. There was more of a community spirit at the old ground than there is now. Its not all todo with the product on the pitch. Its the whole thing, the Aberdeen ticket price issue, the wrong attendance figures getting announced every week (that really pisses me off) the poor pre match and half time experience and the provans issue to name but a few. The ideas that are being put forward to encourage the community and the fans SHOULD have been implemented by the club many years ago without the need for a CiC. That if the club was beig run properly as a business I attend the games and contribute financially to the club as a customer in the various methods. But I will not be paying money to be an elitist member of the club and allow cliques of people to be on the board. Its got the potential of being run like a bowling club. Also £10/month from circa 300 fans would only generate £36,000. That is not going to set the heather on fire with any business plan. Sorry to be so negative but in the absence of any info from the club or the CiC then we are just speculating.

The Dragons Den is portrayed as them taking “ a punt”. What you don’t see is how many of those punts actually take place after the show. There is no way that those Dragons will take a risk. They are nothing more than “business angels” a kind of Business Loanshark.The Dragons Den people are on it for one reason and one reason only and that’s to raise their public profile. Would we have heard of any of them if it were not for the Dragons Den.

It’s a form of elitism and propaganda. Are you not in the know !!! (for the record I know nothing!) Keep it under the radar and it will save your face if it goes pete tong is the order of the day also the “in the know” can defend your corner and you can deny it all, if required. Go public with it and you are open to criticism and ridicule and if it goes pete tong then you have damaged your reputation. Going by the example of our support I know what I would do. The fall down of this CiC model is that you need businesses and fans to buy in to it and continually support it. Now based on Aberdeen having almost more fans than us at the last game and us struggling to get local businesses to take hospitality then I do not see a great business model for the CiC.

The biggest fear to everyone is “change”. I am passive on the change at the moment but excited by the potential. I can see change already without it being shouted from the rooftops. The community involvement has kicked off with initiatives such as “st sids fat club” The merchandising, the stop to the “mates rates” on corporate and taking on board what the fans want. Debate and questions are healthy. If Mr Atkinson does read this forum then he may well appreciate the debate and this may well assist on how the idea is presented when it does happen. I don’t recall questions about the integrity of the incumbent Directors. All that was raised were questions about how all this works and what is in it for them. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Also I don’t have a problem if there is something in it for them, if they bring a benefit to a business then they should be rewarded. Our board of directors are one of the few boards that don’t take a salary, that in its self show their commitment to the club. My only criticism of the club in the past I have relate to their lack of community involvement and their inability to sell the club both on a match day level and everyday level. I have spoken to organisations who have been approached by the new community involvement and I am excited by their new found enthusiasm. My thoughts We need to get the players more involved in the community (schools, hospitals, clubs prematch etc etc), we should NEVER let anyone into the ground for free, by all means incentives a visit but never for free. We need to work on match day experience. Ie Get them in, make them pay, get them to want to come back and pay

This thread has been the best thread for along time and has not been dragged down by the usual culprits. The debate has been excellent, but still there are posters running others down for there opinions, questions and knowledge (or lack of). Yet they preach their own knowledge as if it was fact. However in their threads they use words like 'assumed' 'think' 'AFAIAA' etc to run other posters down. We are all fans debating what is going on. There is nothing wrong with that. The reality is that NONE of really know or underestand what is happening........for fact. But then you touched on a subject. As fans are we entilied to have a say on how our club is run. (in my own opinion the only people that have the say on the running of a business are the ones who put their money on the line, so no fans don't have a say) However we are entitled to have an opinion and question other fans about the club. I don't feel the need or desipre to speak to SG or Mr Atkinson about the running of the club, because at the end of the day it is not my business. Afterall I am a customer of the business. Nor do I feel the need to be in the know. All I want is for my Club to be there today and tomorrow. As a fan my comfort is that at the time of Rogue Reg, SG had the balls to not be swayed by the majority and took a stance against him. That stance came with a great risk both on a personal and professional level. (I know that SG was advised of potential repercussions for what he did). Therefore I have a complete trust in SG and a trust that he will not do something that would jeopardise the club. But hey ho I am only a fan...............I assume

Your right as a fan to question these posts. As a fan you and myself have a vested concern on the running of our club (we may not have a right to influence or question, but we have a right to have a concern). We are being told by others that we are wrong to ask questions about the future and that its all in black in white in previous posts. Well as a fan I take all that is posted on these forums as a pinch of salt until it printed on the Official Webpage under news. I have read the many webpages on CiC the SiF, the SiS etc etc. These bring more questions than answers. The SiF has £30m to give out by March 2011 to date they have given out £25m The give loans from £100k - £1m. I have looked at the list of names who have received money. I don't see many CiC type organisations. Asking questions is healthy. Afterall I remember when the majority of fans thought Reg Brealey was the saviour of our club. How wrong were we.

Great post Iain. From my limited knowledge of the deal it looks far to simple and risk free. In my own limited experience in business "risk free" does not exist. To get told that Clyde and Stenhousmuir are CiC clubs does not inspire me with confidence. Time will tell I presume

The whole thing just does not stack up for me. It all appears too good to be true. In a nice fluffy world the concept is perfect. However we are in the middle of the worst global financial situation since the 1930’s where both hard cash and time are major commodities. Yet it is being promoted as the saviour of our club. (Why have other larger clubs not tried it). In my experience there is no such thing as a “soft loan”. All loans or grants come with conditions whether it is in security or performance related conditions. The “soft loans” probably come with c covenants that can be called in if and when they are breached. (so what are the risks and who carries that risk. There is no such thing as FREE money, if there was we would all be rich) I kind of get the CiC thing and tapping into community loans and grants etc. However the fatal flaw is that 48% of the club will still be owned by Private investors who stand to make a profit should the initiative become a success. Surely this will prejudice the opportunity of getting these “soft loans” over other organisations that are wholly community initiatives. What happens if the CiC get a loan/grant over another more deserving organisation. The press will have a field day. The involvement of the Maxi guys is very commendable particularly when neither of them, from what I have heard, are “locals” or St Mirren fans. However the question that keeps going around my head what is in it for them, what is their angle. Are they charging a management fee, promoting associated businesses, looking for a knighthood its got to be something, so what is it. The proposed changes that have been muted over the period such as bars, CiC memberships, the Soft Loan administration and the merchandising changes will all require investment in order to see a return. Who is paying for this and how is the profit split from each initiative, is it the club. If it is the club who pays if it’s a disaster, if it’s a success do the remaining 48% of shareholders get a dividend. At the moment there are a lot more questions than answers.

Gus was sacked ..........fact The board asked him to say he walked........fact Why do you always bring our x manager in to the discussions are you infatuated with him .........ya weirdo

Gus would never want the Scotland job......................would he

The lease will not have any qualifications about planning or conditions from the Council. However it would have conditions that St Mirren can withdraw from the lease should the Council invoke any changes to the lease that would make the facility unworkable for them. It really goes back to the original posters comments. If you do not want footballs in your garden, don't buy a house next to a park. What would these residents say if they discovered that the council were proposing to sell the land to Ciba UK. They would be up in arms with loss of amenity space. Poor peoples employment on their door step, we want balls in our gardens not blue pigeons, we want bright lights not fog horns at shift times.

It would appear that the issues relate to the conditions of the detailed planning permission The officers detailed report is hereMy linkhere There may be a few minor issues with regards to the operation of the facilities. It would appear that all of the points raised were covered in the original planning application. I wonder how many of these complaints are from people who have carried out works to their own house without planning permission or a building warrant. Pop around to the Councillors houses and if you spot a bit of decking get straight on the blower to the Planning Dept, Building control and PDX and report them. If they want rules then they should follow them.

I fixed it for you

Maybe the real reason for not signing was that Harte wasnae in it. I'll get my coat

Well Said that man, sorry lady When it was announced, he wasn't as good as Eddie Malone Now its dead its the clubs fault. Where did Sky get the story.............his agent Why did the club go public when they don't normally .............his agent Why has he pulled out ......................his agent Why will he sign for someone else, probably today ...............his agent

Dead ball specialist in his day But he is still not an Eddie Malone

I am looking for help from the techies here When I connect to my wireless laptop to my wanadoo livebox it keeps loosing the signal then reconnecting. The problem does not occur with the table top machine that is also wireless Can an expert help