steve_the_saint

Are the individual memberships limited to one per person? If a sugardaddy wished to have a bit of power at the club then he could technically spend £40,000 to have over 300 votes in the CIC.

As hard as it is to believe, I am not somner9! I totally agree that the membership will only grow and any fears of it not making enough to run are pretty much redundant. However, I think it's important to see both sides of the coin.....what exactly is the worst case scenario? It'll help shut a lot of these scaremongers.

As an extension to these questions.... What is the worst case scenario if, in a few years time, the membership drops below what can be used to sustain the running of the cic? If any additional funding is required to subsidise the running of the cic, firstly COULD, and secondly WOULD this come from the clubs finances? We've been told that any profit made by the cic could be put towards the playing budget, however, could the transfer of finances work the other way around; ie, if we made money by selling a player, could and would the cic take a cut? ...if this was to happen, could and would the cic give a return to its membership, ie, are the corporate and community members viewing this as a financial investment?

Well I will be a member and I would use my vote to help ensure the club won't help out the cic if need be - and I probably won't be the only one. Our specific cic might have a moral code drawn up at its inception to ensure that things like this can't happen, any profit made by the cic first and foremost goes to the club etc. Although this won't be technically legal, we, as members, would have to ensure this code is adhered to - if you don't then you're expelled from the cic. And of course its easy to suggest that they don't have to do this, going by cic legalities, but if they are being honest and upfront about things as it stands then I don't see why they wouldn't want to do this. I suppose it comes down to believing them or not. If the business plan is correct - and at the moment it seems quite modest anyway - then we wouldn't need to worry about it not paying its bills.

The membership of the CIC is seperate to the club. The 500quid from community members goes towards ownership of the club - not the clubs finances. It gets free use out of the previously empty facilities. The payback is the 500quid to the CIC - so technically it doesnt get free use out of the facilities. As has been mentioned before, the CIC is not going to be initially injecting funds into the players budget (although this could happen later, depending how succesful it is). The club is self financing at the present time - any money it makes from gate sales, merchandising etc. goes to the club. If this goes through, the club will not be any worse off. In fact as far as the club is concerned, it'll probably be business as usual. It's the way the club is owned that is changing and how decisions are being made.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of what theses debts actually are. I remember when they first came out, a lot of people seemed to be not too worried about them, saying they were to be expected, just operating debts that all companies have. It may also be that when it was said we are debt free, it meant there is no debt against the assets - ie, the ground etc. are secure.

I doubt any profits from the bar was included in the business plan presented to the funding bodies - they'll probably be concerned with the membership take up. IF the bar makes a profit then it'll probably be a bonus - as long as it doesn't make a loss it'll probably exist as a facility that can be used as a further conference/ function area. However I can see it being open for more than just pre and post match. It could be used for football specials - Scotland games, Champions League, cup finals etc. Plus I could see it being used for CIC functions, maybe monthly quiz nights, race nights, charity auctions. I think maybe it wouldn't be open full time due to it not being able to make money....however, there's no other pubs in the area so it could well be a local pub for the ferguslie park area (I'm not aware of the licensing issues, it may be that it can't stay open full time due to licensing).

I've sort of mentioned this before, and partly related to what sid has just said...... If any new business is started by the cic, ie, the bar or 7 day use of the conference facilities, is this business the responsibility of the club or the cic? Ie, will it be the cic who'll be managing this new business? Will certain staff - such as someone letting people in and out of the buildings - be expected to be voluntary by members of the cic? Is it planned that, if possible, the cic members contribute not just financially but also contribute their time and skills for free aswell? And if e.g. the bar, begins to make a profit (I would expect that the bar staff would be paid staff) would any profit that is made by new business go to the cic bank accounts or the club bank accounts? Obviously this would matter in terms of paying off any cic debt or going towards team budgets.

It would be good if this eventually happens - because it is a possibility - but I see the ownership of the club as a seperate issue. This is why it is optional. If youre not really interested in who owns the club and only want to support the team as a form of entertainment then you can. The club will continue to be self financing, with youth being the primary source of improving the team in the long term. As I said elsewhere, the cic is totally different from a sugardaddy coming in and splashing the cash on the team. That would be good in the short term but long term would spell disaster and put the security of the club at risk. The cic is playing the long game, as we have done since gilmour et al tookover, with minimum risk involved. As far as st. Mirren on the park is concerned, it looks to me like business as usual.

You're right in saying that the forum is open to all opinions and the best questions are coming from the cynics but somner9 has consistently tried to imply that some people have underhand intentions to make money from the cic, based on no evidence at all. He's also been exaggerating the amount of loans and debt that wel be in and is trying to discredit the cic at every possible opportunity - despite constantly being put right. However, Some people just have a cynical, negative Outlook on life - maybe he's one of them.

I can still see them being on the board for the first year or two until the cic gets up and running properly, as part of the transition phase. Although maybe not as active as they are currently.

Maybe in future, if the cic is extremely successful, there would be a seperate 10000 hours charity pot fund - funded from the cic income - for the community members to apply to use for various events, ie maybe a church group would have a kids Xmas party paid for from the fund. Any applications would be decided by the members board, just like any other funding body - it would probably operate like a credit union. Nobody takes anything financially from these community groups anyway so to imply that they would be profiting out of it without any evidence is a bit of paranoid scaremongery. Even without the possibility of this until maybe a year or two down the line, for these community groups, even being part of the cic could be to their advantage. The contacts network within the cic could be put to good use - a skills trade for example - and they would actually be contributing towards a greater community, which has maybe been lost lately, as opposed to being an isolated group.

They probably could. But if the current board nominate themselves then I can't really see past them being voted back in. For the most part itl probably continue as it is now - however at least the board will have the members to answer to and any majorly important decisions , such as the 10 team spl, would be voted for - much like how a trade union operates, and by all accounts, that's exactly what itl be like.

I took it as being that any new business as a result of the cic would be used to pay off any debt - this would include a bar (would this be cic owned or club owned in terms of profit making and running?) - so the club wouldn't be any worse off as we don't have these income avenues at the moment anyway. And you say its fans money because they are spending it in the bar, but if they are going to spend that money elsewhere anyway, ie, the last post or bar point, then it makes sense for that money to stay in house. On the 10,000 hours thread it states that RA won't be taking a wage from either the cic or the club board...I'd assume that would be the same for any other elected board member (to either board) and in this sense, we won't be any worse off. Maybe the community members are making money purely by using the facilities for free. How much would a church group spend renting premises a year? Over 500quid a year would seem plausible (im just guessing - 500quid would be about 11quid a week). They would have the benefit of greenhill road and maybe use ralston for village fetes etc. - the church group is an example, I'm sure if you were to look at the different types of community groups, you could have the same argument. The debt isn't strictly 2m quid, the majority of it will be grants - which I know can get called in ie, by the national lottery if they are not used for what they were given, this won't happen as long as the cic is run properly. So even saying 500,000 of the 2m is a loan ( again an assumption, probably lower than this, could be higher) this 500,000 is paid off over the next, say, 10 years via 40grand ind members + 12grand comm members + 120grand corp members --- 170grand a year, minus running costs. As long as the cic is run properly, this could easily be achieved with some left over to improve the team or the facilities - and the loans are "soft" which safeguards any facilities from being sold off and - I'm not an expert on it - does this not mean they are considerably more lenient than a bank if it can't be paid in the agreed time, ie, they're happy to extend the payoff period for not much more extra cost? If all if this happens, the club will not be worse off than we are now....as long as the cic is run properly - any cic dealings will not be able to be hidden, the members board ultimately answers to the cic members - which means as many people as possible signing up. Sounds like a no brainer to me!

Really? And who were these organisations that we were in debt to ? I thought it was actually a loss of that amount? And this was only because the new stadiums value had depreciated from brand new to .....2nd hand so to speak.

It states its funding comes from the enhanced trading of smfc, ie, the new business it will attract thanks to the cic - birthdays, weddings, funerals etc. No supporters money there. And as has been mentioned recently, can and won't are two different things. If anyone was getting paid which would go against the whole ethos and morals of what the cic is apparently standing for, then a mass exodus of members would occur and the cic would collapse. Also, there would be nothing preventing yourself from nomination as a member of the board, or any other cic member, which would make it highly unlikely that any directors would do anything to jeopardize their position ie, take a wage. This isn't a traditional takeover where the new owner promises x amount to the team budget, its a transfer of ownership from 5 saints fans to over 300 saints fans. And if its successful, in future any money the cic makes can be transferred to the team budget. It can't be successful without the community being interested, that includes yourself, for the price of a pint a week. If you don't like it, then you don't renew. But the initial uptake is important as it generates more interest, ie more members, which in the future can help the team!

I know they haven't and they said they wouldn't from being on the board - but does that mean they won't from the members board but they will/might from the club board if elected on? If they are involved in the day to day running of the club, going to SPL committee meetings etc. then I don't have a problem if they do. I don't know what the current situation is regarding board members getting a wage? Allan Marshall might have more of a case of getting a wage than the others as he's the club secretary.

I see there is in fact two boards being discussed: The 10 man CIC members board, which, as I read it, will be made up of 5 from the community and corporate members and the other five from individual members. The Club board, which will probably contain 5 or 6 members/shareholders - 1 of which will most likely be Ken McGeoch as the voice of the 48% - and the rest probably being Gilmour, Campbell, McAusland, Atkinson(assuming they take a corporate membership) and maybe one other from those involved. Taken from the intro document: "The minority shareholders will be able to nominate at least one Director to the club board to represent their interests" ...this leaves open the possibiliy of another of the 48% nominating themselves as a director. Although Atkinson said he hasn't been taking a wage and wouldn't take a wage from being on the board - did he mean the members board or the club board? I'm unaware if the current board are taking a wage from the club or are doing it for free? I'll assume that whatever is happening now (whether they take a wage or not) will continue as per the norm when the CIC become the majority shareholder.

Really? I thought the entire board (minus the two CIC guys) were part of the selling consortium? Who is the board member that is one of the 48% minority? I honestly don't know. (and can't be bothered checking!)

But that's not what he said, he said he initially contacted St. Mirren about Glasgow City playing at Ralston and his interest stemmed from there. And I don't see how being associated with Glasgow Ladies would encourage others to rip the pish - they are arguably the best Ladies team in Scotland....unless you're taking a sexist view there?? It seems to everyone on here you're just looking at cheap shots to get at Atkinson instead of having an open mind.

On the other 48% of the shares... Could the owners of these shares transfer them to the CIC for an equivalent membership share in the CIC? So everyone with a small share - <1% - could use their share in the club as part or all of a down payment on a CIC membership? This could reduce the overall number of shareholders of the club and help lead to a totally fan owned club.

OK so in the simplest terms, it seems to me that this is happening: St. Mirren FC For the past so many seasons, the club has been running at even, or as close to it without it being a worry. That means that any money being made by the club is immediately reinvested in the playing budget and the day to day running of the club - there have been no external finances, ie donations from the BOD own pockets since we moved to the new ground as we have no secured loan which is draining the clubs resources. Club policy, ie youth, signing policy, contracts, ticketing policy, strips, ideas for gaining new fans etc. have been made by the board of directors, who own 52% of the club. This majority share will become owned by the CIC. The CIC The CIC will get the money to raise the 2M quid from a variety of grants and soft loans etc. This money has already been promised, dependant on a business plan which the final part of is being implemented at the moment. This business plan shows that the CIC can make a minimum of 130,000 quid (apporx) a year which satisfies any loan agreement. And even if this number falls short of 130,000, the loans are soft so can't be called in and are not secured against anything - as far as i can see, it'll just take longer to pay the loans off? The 130,000 pa is got through local companies, communty groups and individuals who will be members of the CIC and will have an interest in the CIC being successful - this interest will not be directly related to the club being successul as the club is self running. The CIC would be as it says, for the "community", so any vote that these members would have, would not be self motivated - ie, brownie clubs not voting for a bar - but for the benefit of the members community. (On a side note....if the bar makes a profit, would this be a profit for the CIC or the club?). So every member of the CIC should have an interest in all the other members businesses/community organisations being successful. This way, the CIC will become more successful, the company members will become more successful, the company organisations will become more successful and indirectly - because the "hub" of this community will be at GHR and Ralston - St. Mirren will be more successful, through a mutual interest of the CIC being successful. So, to ensure that the CIC gets off to a flier - rather than waiting to see how it goes - anybody interested should initally sign up because the more who sign up, the more interest generated which leads to more members signing up. Please correct me if any of this is wrong? The only thing worrying me, is worst case scenario - which doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet?