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

Green dot. I agree. I feel sure Richard Atkinson would address any questions, fears or even direct accusations at the meetings. I'm sure he could be emailed as well. I am satisfied that he is entirely open about this idea, and open to suggestions.

From what we are being told, these commercial activities would not exist without a CIC. The extra money (membership) would not exist (as far as St Mirren are concerned) without the CIC. These are points you should direct to Richard Atkinson for him to address. It would hardly be in his or the executive board's interest to act against the express wishes of the membership, IMO.

Re "The 2 Million Pound Question" - The bottom line is that the shares are the consortium's to sell and in purely business terms (ie the worth of the shares taking into account the value of the assets) I am quite happy to accept that it is a "cheap" enough deal. I totally accept the points made that they are making a return on what they paid but I think the comment that "they haven't earned it" last night was a pretty cheap shot - it is indisputable that under Gilmour's stewardship the club has taken great strides and it's arguable that on two occasions he/they have either saved or at least safeguarded the very existence of the club. I do not doubt that they have made mistakes (we will all disagree over the footballing side, that's the nature of the game) but I have no doubt that they have always operated with the club's best interest in mind, sometimes at personal sacrifice. Of course from the club and the CIC's point of view, the less debt the better, and it is a valid question for fans (future members?) to ask "why that price". Maybe someone could squeeze the price a little - but again I think we must defer to Richard Atkinson who at the end of the day is the man who has come up with the idea and put the work in. I was impressed by his presentation and seeming open approach last night. If we're going by gut feel then mine is that this guy has done his homework and would not be doing all this if he wasn't sure it would work. To my mind it will work if we make it work. There is another angle that is perhaps less significant but a point worth making - by insisting the price is as low as possible, are people devaluing the club itself? Given the price is (we're told) "significantly" less than they could get for it, why would the very lifeblood of the club (the supporters) be so insistent that we get it for cheap? While it is important to me and to the CIC that the club is seen as central to the community, we should not forget that the club itself is also a terrific asset to the community and shouldn't just be flogged to anyone. I accept that "cheaper is better" in most respects here, but if at 2 million quid buying price this can not only work but potentially transform the club for the better, we (the future CIC) should be prepared to show that we are serious about this. St Mirren is worth more than 2 million quid to many of us - it's priceless.

I think 300 is a relatively low bar to set but I'd imagine that is intentional - the best way to sell the idea to the fans is to make it appear easy. I would certainly like to think that there are 300 supporters who will pay a tenner a month simply because they want to be part of it. Of course once it is all in place, the best incentive to genuine supporters is to tell them that if they don't pay a tenner a month, the club falls apart Btw I'm not saying that adding incentives/benefits isn't a good idea - I think that there are plenty that could be added and if it brings in a much larger number than the required 300 then that can only be a good thing. I'd need to have a much more detailed knowledge of the finances of the club to decide which are sensible but I certainly agree that eg car parking is an obvious one that you might expect. I guess I'd like to know a bit more about how the club and CIC intend to engage with the wider community - it's important that it does not become seen as an exclusive club. As St Mirren fans we want as many people as possible on board and even more coming to games. For me I don't want or need anything other than membership of the CIC for my money - but by all means use incentives to get more people on board

Other than the point over the current board's conduct, this is a far more interesting point than playing spot the difference. My feeling as a supporter is that the CIC will work if the support/community make it work. Whether they will over a period of time is in question.

It's a valid question but the answer to it is self evident in comparing SMiSA to the CIC. SMiSA were never in a position to offer majority share in the club, the CIC is. SMiSA never proposed a scheme that would give majority share in the club, the CIC has. SMiSA operated almost entirely independent of the club - the CIC are already working from within the club. It is of course valid to question whether or not there will be the level of support required to sustain the CIC, and SMiSA's low uptake is one example of the fans seeming apathy where involvement with the club is concerned. But the answer as to why the CIC would be different is redundant - it might be different because it is different.

Is that a serious question? This scheme is about majority ownership of the club - it has been presented as a viable (and likely?) way for the fans to be involved in taking over the club. Importantly, it is being presented in this way not just by an external body, but by the club itself. With the greatest respect to everyone involved in SMiSA, this is on a completely different scale. The stated aims may be similar in some respects, but they are not the same. There are no "tangible benefits" required in my opinion. This is not about being a customer.

The most obvious would be that there are hardly any and to say so might put people off

I am sold on the overall concept and will certainly participate. I think with the right level of enthusiasm it is the right approach to the future of the club. I do have some level of scepticism though - over whether we will get the required backing of the community in general, and therefore what the implications would be where the "loans" etc are concerned. I guess I also have a concern over whether the CiC can long term provide the right candidates for the actual running of the club. That's a concern in any case though, and at least it should guarantee that the motives are correct.

Trembling Bells - Abandoned Love Dubkasm - Transform I Sam Spence - Same Spence Sounds Lee Perry & The Upsetters - Sound System Scratch Demdike Stare - Liberation Through Hearing