Robo

I don't think anyone would argue that a perennially unsuccessful club would see falling crowds. But fan ownership wouldn't guarantee such a state of affairs any more than it would guarantee success. What it would guarantee though, is that decisions made would always be made in the best interests of the club.

If SMISA were looking to organise a fan takeover of the club, even in the very long term, I would join today. But, I don't think that is their aim. If there are any others that are interested in coming up with a new plan, then I'd be up for getting involved.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that if St Mirren was owned by the fans the crowds at games would fall below 1000? If so, I don't follow your logic.

May regret saying this, but I'd be up for getting something together. Anyone else?

I think this is a good idea, even if the consortium aren't willing to accept payment in instalments, then we should be planning for what happens at the next opportunity to buy the club.

Same year as the Barcelona Cup win. Presumably it was part of a Spanish tour.

Hemmings is away to the US for a trial. Orlando, I think.

I thought this quote from Stewart Gilmour was interesting: "There is a big picture here. I want to be in the position where we can sit down with a talented young player's parents and convince them that St Mirren is the place for him to be." I'm not sure if this is meant to imply that there was a problem with Danny's dealings with young player's parents. "I want to be in the position..." surely implies that he's not in that position now. This, allied with the facts that Danny was allowed to see out the full season, and that the board are happy to keep a continuity with Tommy Craig, suggests to me that the decision to allow Danny to go was more about off-field matters than on-field. Complete speculation of course.

Fair do's. It wouldn't be the first time that a player has stepped up to become manager at the same club - granted, with varying degrees of success. I don't see it as a significantly bigger gamble than any other appointment we are likely to make.

I'm not making the argument that Danny should have been sacked so that Murray could come in. Danny has gone, rightly or wrongly. All I'm saying is that Murray has done a great job at Dumbarton, and could very well do the same at St Mirren. I'll assume that your questions are rhetorical. Could any manager guarantee a top six finish?

I dare say that, if I wasn't just finishing my lunch break, I could find numerous examples of successful managers with little or no experience in the top league. Yes, he has no experience of management, but those in and around the club will have an idea of whether he is likely to make a success of such a role. Is he a leader on the park, in the dressing room? If the answer is yes, then there's every chance he would make a decent manager. I'm not arguing, however, that Thommo should be our first choice. Just that someone suggested it, and I wouldn't be averse to the idea.

Murray has done a fantastic job at Dumbarton. They should have had no change of staying in the Championship, yet there are still there and were close to getting a play-off place. Didn't comment on the rights/wrongs of Lennon's departure, so won't argue with the rest of your post.

I wouldn't be unhappy if that came about. Every appointment is a gamble, and that one would have as much chance of success as any other that we could likely afford.

If a manager has a better than average track record at this level, we'll be unlikely to be able to afford him. Would prefer we went with someone who has exceeded expectations at a lower level, and see if they can do something in the Premiership. I could think of worse appointments than Ian Murray from Dumbarton.

As much as I enjoyed reading through all the 10,000 Hours stuff, I don't think any of them beat your Comet/DVD Player thread.

Any idea if the board's asking price is still the same that was being asked of 10000 Hours? The longer this goes on, surely they'll be forced to drop the price. I wonder if it would ever get low enough that a fan's takeover could come back into the equation. I note that since the demise of the 10000 Hours bid, the pledges, had they been allowed to accumulate, would be around the £200k mark by now.

I'm not overly familiar with the club financies - I've assumed that it's being run on a break even basis. Presumably the 300-500k you're referring to is a cashflow issue rather than a loss? If so, that would still have to be met by the owners/directors until such time as the co-op has a majority holding. Once the co-op has it's majority, the fund could be opened up to allow for loans to the club or for capital investment as the members see fit. There would definitely need to be strict controls in place to prevent money being donated or loaned recklessly, regardless of the temptation to do so.

Yes, with the added benefit of having funds available should we find ourselves in the situation Dunfermline, Gretna etc were in, rather than having to go throught the frantic fund raising that would be needed otherwise. I think you're right about getting a some sort of significant shareholding early on, and that would be in the hands of the existing holders so couldn't be guaranteed. Would need discussions with the various larger shareholders outwith the consortium (SMISA aswell? I've never been clear about their desire for fan ownership).

Yeah there's no way the consortium would sell a portion of their holding, or do anything to dilute their majority, so any purchase would have to come from the 48%. Perhaps this could be done via a tender offer where shareholders would be offered a fair price for their shares, up to a aggregate value, and it would be up to the individuals whether they accept or not. There could be maybe be an option to exchange shares for an interest in the fans group/co-op. Agreed, I don't think there's any chance the consortium will break ranks, and your right that most, if not all, small shareholders are in it for sentimental reasons. The ones I reckon would be most likely to sell are the larger shareholders - maybe messers McGeoch and Scott - and those who buy into the idea of fan ownership. In the long term the situation would need to be reassessed once new owners are in place. A fund would need to have rules put in place at the outset about what money can be spent on. Something along the lines of only allowing spending on share purchases unless 75% of members vote in favour of an alternative spending proposal. I agree, if a fund was set up and allowed to make donations to the club, then I wouldn't be interested in contributing - while fundraising has its place it would need to be kept separate from this type of thing.

I'm all in favour of a fan's group acquiring a significant shareholding in the club (and would put my tenner a month in if it came to it), but I'm not so sure that any of the consortium will break ranks. I also don't see the other 48% being united, if for no other reason than Ken McGeogh still having a large holding. I think, unless the wealthy benefactor weighs in ( and I won't hold my breath), then the only realistic avenue to fan ownership is by setting up a fund with the aim of incremental purchases of shares. This would be a long term approach and we would need to accept the current model of ownership for the time being, but at least having the fund in place would provide some sort of insurance should things go wrong, a la Hearts, Rangers, Dunfermline etc.

I'd be more than happy to make a monthly contribution to a co-operative that's purpose was to fund share purchase. I don't think a one-off purchase of a controlling interest is likely to happen now, but there must be some scope for smaller purchases over a period of time - though I understand SMISA have had some difficulty in that respect. I've never got the impression that SMISA were particularly interested in having full control over the club, and I remember reading an article in the Black & White magazine to that effect, but having a fans organisation with any kind of significant shareholding could only be a good thing IMO.

Great, thanks all.

Does anyone know where I could get a name and number printed on a strip. JD Sports in the Paisley centre says it's only the Braehead shop that does it, but they say they only have the silver letters for Scotland strips. I take you can't get it done at the stadium shop?

The problem with that is that by putting money into certain aspects of the club, without some sort of shareholding in return (which would be unlikely to happen with a new owner just having bought 51% of the club), then you are just increasing the assets for the new owners without them having to put any more of their own money in. Unless the 51% is owned by the fans then investment from fans is discouranged, in my opinion. I think we'd be crazy not to create some sort of fund as an insurance against any new owners doing a Gretna on us.

It should be, but it's not a particularly visible organisation - I don't know much about what they do other than organise the Saints Aid games. In fairness though I've not made much of an effort to find out. I'd be interested to know if they have a plan to achieve the goal of fan ownership.