Colin M

I think that the questions are fine, in broad terms - but they do highlight a lack of information for the members (and public in general) as to what the realistic financial shortfall would be. Appreciate that may be because it's not clear, but if anything I think that lack of clarity means the driving force should be to do what is right and fair rather than what suits financially. I guess that's why some of the reaction here is just "we've already made it clear we want to say No, if you can't give us detail as to why we might change our minds then why ask?".

Thanks for that - it has nothing to do with my point that I believe football players should be prepared to assist in potential financial crisis, but I enjoyed reading it all the same.

I was referring to the preceding two sentences in the paragraph. How you or anyone else wants to vote on Q4 is your business and entitlement. Presumably that's the point of asking the question.

I would vote No No No Yes But with Q3/Q4 I do think that if we are literally talking about a crisis engulfing the entire sport at the top level then the players across the league would be prepared to assist, even in the short term. I am not suggesting that they do this out of the goodness of their hearts, and if it means that some are free to walk away then that is fine, but it seems that it is clubs' collective commitment to existing contracts that is the biggest issue here. It is in everybodys interest that there is some potential for negotiation there.

I fully understand why a "Yes" vote might be considered from our financial point of view - and I even understand (or would, with more information available) that there are circumstances where it would be a no brainer. In relation to my post above, if the only way we can ensure and protect the existence of St Mirren is to rig the league to make sure the new Rangers are in it, then this battle was lost a long time ago. However if that was to be the case, I'd have zero remaining interest in the farce that is the SPL anyway. I am committed to my pledge to 10000 Hours regardless of what happens but perversely I am not committed to watching and supporting whatever "product" Scottish Football decides to present to me. If they stopped thinking of it primarily as "product" then they'd be taking a massive step forward.

I would like this consultation to also cover the reports that a potential deal is being brokered involving the SPL and the SFL to relegate/parachute/dump Newco RFC into SFL1/new SPL2 as some sort of "compromise". This is as scandalous as the notion of them "carrying on" in the SPL - if reports are true, the game will potentially be restructured entirely to accomodate them! Like most fans I am wholly supportive of changes to the structure of Scottish Fitba but it must be done for the right reasons, not as some sort of political compromise to appease a TV vendor. Rangers cheated financially on an industrial scale to the extent that they ran themselves out of existence. They are starting again from scratch, and as such any admission of them into our game should be at the bottom of the existing structure - end of story. Anything else is rigging the game for financial gain.

How does that 60% break down Div? I agree that some clarity is required but to be frank, as I consider admitting a Newco to be rigging the league, there's not really even a pragmatic argument there for me! Appreciate that St Mirren and whoever is running it must do what they have to do, but if a Yes vote/result is a necessity for us, then we're aready in trouble.

The bid SHOULD be dependent on the current level of income being maintained. If the business is worth significantly less in income, then why shouldn't the price be lower?

Yes. He is leading the whole CIC process and given that he is already on the board and therefore ("St Mirren supporter" or not) working towards the success of the club I don't have any issue with him not being dyed in the wool supporter. In the longer term though it will be critical that we pick up the reins ourselves - that of course is the entire purpose of the exercise. I think that RA is the man to get us on the right course but ultimately we will be looking for people from the community to step up.

I don't believe that any individual or group should be able to, for example, "buy" a seat on the board (especially not for as little as 50 grand!). But I don't really want to speculate as to what the conditions might be which is why I'm asking what they are. IMO it's up to the CIC to allow a voice for anyone who can't afford the membership - my understanding was that that would be at least considered. SMiSA represent only a (fairly small it seems) subsection of our support - I believe there should be a greater opportunity for our fans to have a voice as individuals via the CIC than via SMiSA. That's not to say that SMiSA's voice isn't important and I am glad they are supportive of the CIC.

Indeed - if they had 86 thousand members it is still no justification in terms of how the CIC is being sold to potential members. I have no issue in someone contributing money setting conditions or requests on how that money is spent, but there should be nothing "in return" in those conditions.

I agree. The transparency is part of the appeal of the CIC for me. I'm not really sure how conditions can be agreed without being shared among members/future members? I'm not suggesting it is anything sinister, I'm glad that SMiSA are supportive, just feel that the CIC is all about its members being fully participant and equal in the scheme.

I'd like to think the future members of the CiC get to know as well ;)

What are the conditions?

I'm not so sure - plenty of them think we could have squeezed far more out of the consortium on the asking price. I think there will be plenty classic Paisley misers available only too happy to draw the purse strings tight