GLS

From the joint statement issued by 10000hours and the selling consortium. "It has therefore invited 10000Hours to gather opinion and comment from it's members with regards to the Newco proposals as they become clearer and to pass those thoughts formally onto the Board." Which part of what we set out to achieve have we failed in?

Given the negativity around these questions today I was a bit sceptical about going through with this poll. However, as the guy who would have been voting on behalf of the CIC members at an SPL meeting if the CIC owned the controlling interest in the club at this time I would have taken great comfort in knowing that I had the knowledge that can be been gleamed even at this early stage from the voting patterns. If we had put up a simple yes/no vote and any of the other scenarios had raised there head what would I have done? I know the answer is "vote no" but do you not have greater piece of mind knowing that all the fans are firmly behind a no vote no matter what and are prepared to help the club get through it? I certainly am.

I guess we need to make sure the pre amble to the questions is very clear as to what we are trying to achieve as it appears that most people on here are viewing it the wrong way. As always your input is appreciated.

We are looking to present the fans opinion to the board so they can take it into consideration when they make their decision. Simple as that.

I dont understand the problem. 10000 hours will gain no benefit from how the questions are asked or answered. We are simply trying to present a fans opinion to the board in a way that they can consider which way the fans would have them vote under every eventuality. If we wanted to court popularity we would simply say YES/NO and everyone would vote NO! That would be treating folk like idiots! We have provided as much information as we have on each scenario to enable people to vote YES or No. Do you honestly think that everyone who says No to Newco would say NO if it meant St Mirren going into administration? Is that really what you want from the people who will potentially run our football club on your behalf?

I do like your 3a though

Although people on this website may be aware who Sevco 5088 are the majority of our members will have no idea what we are talking about therefore it makes sense to use "Rangers" and "Newco" terminology. There are three probable possibilities if we vote No. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the revenues remain the same. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors re negotiate their deals at a level that will not put the other clubs at risk. (We feel that figure for SMFC is £200k) Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors pull the plug on their contracts at which point the other clubs have to decide whether to vote Newco back into the SPL or risk the financial consequences. A simple yes/no is a waste of time as we know the answer. .

http://10000hours.or...bers-newco-vote Second last paragraph before the questions. "Our intended questions are as follows but we will consider changes or alternative questions prior to publication." The board of the football club do not have any more information than you or I at this stage. This is why we are trying to cover all possible scenarios. (The quote from the website is in " ". The paragraph afterwards, although in the same case is my input.)

Firstly the questions are draught questions. We are encouraging debate and input from supporters. Secondly these are the most likely scenarios that the board of SMFC will have to take into account when they vote. That is why we have proposed these questions. I think we all know how everyone feels about this situation so to simply ask yes/no would be a waste of time but if that is what you want we are listening!

To be fair to Richard he has had no contact with the other shareholders. I have spoken to two of the largest shareholders outside the consortium and both have expressed an interest in doing what I am doing if it helps make the deal more sustainable. There are no deals in place but it would have been irresponsible for us not to gauge an interest from these people before going down this route.

I think maybe I understand now where the confusion is. The funding is now pretty much 50/50 between the 1877 buyers and the CIC. We have halved the monthly CIC payments required by doing this and the CIC will still have 52% of the club shares and thus will have control. The only concessions made from the original CIC plan is that it now requires 75% of the members to vote for a resolution for it to carry the full 52% of the shares it owns and the board will now be made up of a mixture of successful businessmen, who will most likely be fans as well, along with a majority of board members appointed by the CIC. The new deal empowers the whole St Mirren support, CIC, old share holders and new share holders all of whom are fans of the club. That is it, plain and simple. If people preferred the old model then that is their prerogative but this is the deal that the people behind the bid think is most sustainable and best for all the fans of St Mirren football club who have supported them in the past and will support them in helping make this happen.

Correct

Most certainly. The whole ethos of this is engaging the fans. I see that as much a part of what we are doing now as after we get control.

It is important the initial 5 man board has the required experience to help us set this up properly. There is no point in bringing people on for the sake of it. As per our statement on the website Tony and I will ensure continuity on the football side of things till the AGM and Richard will deal with getting the CIC side of things organised. Do we need anyone else? If the right person comes along that can help us then I would like him on board. If not I am happy to run with 3 until the AGM. Small point but both Tony, Richard and I are all CIC members.

But it is now ready for the race.