BoWSaint

It's quite obvious that Stuart is in fact still a raging St Mirren fan. He appears to be in denial however and will claim no allegiance to the club. But he loves St Mirren. Deep deep love down to the bottom of his plums. Love.

Oh the irony

As long as the CIC doesn't become the Community Embracing and Local Trades Interest Company, I will be happy..............

I don't think suicide is the answer.

This was not a vote to start taking money out of our bank accounts. It was an opinion poll requested by SMFC, nothing more, nothing less. You are just trying to make more out of it for your own warped agenda. Fickle-souled people like me have clearly stated that I would actively like to change the voting structure from 75% to 51% majority rule on issues once the CIC takes over so back to the drawing board with that one Why would the money go to the selling consortium? Why not go towards SMFC as a whole?

I don't think a lot of 10000hrs pledger's will be too happy at the thought of starting their DD's with no assurances that 10000hrs will actually take control of the club in 12 months time. I'm happy to pay my monthly subs, but it is under the condition that I have an equal voice in the 52% share of the club i.e. the CIC bid goes through. Why should I start paying a year early to effectively have no voice during this time when there is a chance that in a years time things go tits up and I have just thrown away £120 for nothing and am left standing holding my Davina's with a 1000 other folk. If this is what was meant by Question 4 of the survey then I misunderstood. I am happy to increase my DD to help the club but with the understanding that 10000hrs already have control of the 52%.

For once I think St Sid actually has a valid point. I am yet to be convinced by his "under UK employment law" references but if the CIC does take over the club I will certainly be looking to get the voting structure sorted. Main points should be Percentage of members participating in a vote for the motion to be carried (I would guess something like 80%) Percentage of votes made for a majority rule to carry (51% of actual votes cast for me. I don't see why this should change for different decisions but I'm happy to listen to reasons why) The articles and procedures in the companies act of 2006 seem to contradict Sid. They say that if you have 10 members and only 8 decide to vote, then only 5 votes are required for an overall majority. For me, that is the way it should work.

You can email them [email protected] and get it straight from the horses mouth. No confusion that way.

They aren't taking a vote to pass a motion. They have merely been asked to poll their members on their views and gather comment. They have agreed to do this. There is no 75% majority needed to carry anything here or any guidance to be taken by 10000hrs based on the results. They will just deliver the results of their survey to the SMFC board and leave it at that. Even if we got 100% of members voting a resounding "no" we still coculdn't push it through.

This one http://www.10000hours.org/

I only signed up once for my email address and I got 2 forms too. The hyperlink didn't work in either of my forms but you can just copy and paste it into the address bar of your internet browser and it works. I am surprised at the number of yes votes so far, especially to question 3.

You don't! I'm sure the club will happily accept your personal cheque regardless of whether you are a member of the CIC or not. But 10000hrs can hardly ask the question "would ALL fans help chip in......". They can only ask their members. If the club wants help from all fans then the club can ask.

I think we are way beyond that. It looks to me like pretty much everyone has picked their camp and dug in, ready to hold fast for the long run. I don't really see anyone's opinions changing at this point and it is just purely a mud slinging campaign to pass the time and score cheap points. Many folk have chosen to sign up and be part of this. Many have chosen to not sign up. I don't think we could really have expected anything different. Can we agree to disagree? The people onboard with 10000hrs can band together to do whatever they can to make this work. The people against it can put some trust in the board to make the right decision and only sell to someone "fit and proper". Sid has been very vocal in the recent past about us trusting the board on the newco vote issue. He was right then, and it should follow through that we should trust them on the sale of the club too. If 10000hrs aren't the right people to sell the club to then the BoD won't sell the club to them. Simples.

Astounding that you still haven't quite grasped the concept of what 10000hrs is.

I think it came from div actually, not 10000hrs. As for scaremongering, you do a lot more of it than 10000hrs.

Or an equally reliable source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2160798/Rangers-crisis-Sky-wont-pull-plug-TV-deal.html

I'm sure Sky made a statement a few weeks ago saying that they had no intention of walking away from the SPL regardless of the rangers situation. It was on the bbc website. Sure, the deal could be reduced but they said that they will be here to honour their contract with or without the scumbags.

No Newco

It was a joint statement. It was not a statement from 10000hrs. They did not demand the BoD to listen to the members. The BoD invited 10000hrs to canvas their members because they are their preferred bidder and represent a very substantial percentage of the St Mirren support. All this has come from the selling consortium. Your anger should be aimed at them, not 10000hrs. The prospective members of 10000hrs are getting a sneak preview chance to see what it could be like to vote en mass on critical decisions before they have even committed a single penny. This is exactly what you were venting a spleen about about a month ago. Yet you continue to mump and moan. How can the BoD asking the fans opinion on something be a bad thing? And make no mistake, 10000hrs are fans. If you want your voice heard, feel free to join. That's what it's all about. Sitting on the outside and complaining because Stewart Gilmour didn't ask your opinion should show you exactly what 10000hrs is all about. It is widely known that every division of fans around the country would overwhelmingly vote no to newco so how you can twist todays statement to be a rallying call for fans to vote is yes is madness.

ok, That pretty much answers the question I just asked on the "Ask 10000hrs" thread. Can we not have updated membership numbers or monetary amounts from the 87 club and 1877 club? This was very encouraging for the individual membership and the sign up rate will be slower and easier to handle and would at least give us fans some confidence that things are progressing before Thursday.

Now that the bid has been postponed until Thursday and the individual memberships have soared with the corporate backing falling short, do we know how many extra individual memberships will cover the shortfall in 87 club and 1877 club memberships to make up the agreement in principle?

This time last week I didn't see how we could possibly reach the £7500 target. Can't believe we have totally smashed it. Feels great to be part of this. Feels like something very special is on the horizon. But this is only the beginning my fellow Buds................

You forgot the bit about the fans having all the decision making power at the club. Some might say that is priceless. And having it all paid off in 8 years, possibly less, is pretty good for something that valuable.

They trust the fans/owners enough to give them overriding control of the whole thing! If you don't like the way it has been set up but like the general idea then there is nothing stopping you joining up and voting to change it all. Make it however you want.

Economic participation is the very first point I made! Not sure how you managed to miss it since I only cited two. Rochdale rules say that everyone must contribute equally. We have the option of contributing more than a tenner if we want. Democracy was not missed out because we will have democracy. One member one vote. Doesn't get more democratic than that. And the fact that the economic participation rule doesn't hold true is a moot point because one member one vote trumps it by taking away any extra influence anyone can have by contributing more money. If this goes through then I fully expect to vote on many things. I am completely happy with the interim board that is appointed and I would happily vote to keep it the way it is. I am certainly not going to actively stop the entire buyout because I wasn't personally asked if I wanted this interim board. That is cutting your nose off to spite your face of the highest order. Digging into the wording of the origins of the initial concept of rules of how a co-operative should be formed is straw clutching at best. Zoom out and see the big picture that no-one here is doing any shady dealings. There is absolutely no reason to think that anyone involved in this venture wants to hurt the club in any way. And that is why I want to be a part of it.