uhhu

I've agreed with a lot of the stuff you've said Somner, but not the above. The CIC put in an offer and were asked to go away and come back with a better one. The BOD already knew everything they needed to about the funders, Big Issue etc. Nothing was changed over the past year in regards to that, so if they were never sure, why let it run all this time? The bid was supposed to be £1.5m before the Rangers thing, then it was £1.25 afterwards, so the CIC addressed the situation of not having the same income, yet it still isnn't good enough? I've never been one for the CIC, I thought it was unsustainable from the word go. But the Board have publicly backed it, until now...

But St. Mirren owe Maxi Group 100k. So RA has not only allowed for a company to have financial control over St. Mirren, but actually orchestrated the deal. The other alternative to having this "Charge", was for Maxi Group to give St. Miren a soft loan. If they had done this then 1) I wouldn't have seen it on the accounts and no one would talking about it, 2) The Maxi Group wouldn't have the same financial control over St. Mirren and it would still be above board as it is perfectly normal. Like Yul said, questions are being asked, but they aren't being answered. Why is there a charge on St. Mirren?

Let the board worry about the alternative, why should you or anyone else put your money into something which really you can't be 100% sure about? Why should you get behind this financially when it might not work. Yet Maxi Group has to secure its loan against the company? And in turn doing exactly what RA said would never happen: an company coming in and having control over the assets.

Why do you need an alternative? The club isn't in financial meltdown, we aren't in a position where we need to sell the stadium and move home. We're passed all that. If you aren't sure about something then don't support it. If the CIC don't get enough support and walk away then we still have a football club to go and support. I don't understand people wanting to run with this if they aren't 100% fully behind it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Not at all. I'm just in a huff so won't post it on here. I'll do it on the Official Forum. I don't get told to 'piss off' over there.

A little bit harsh to tell me to piss off, do you not think? Why have you got such a negative attitutde? I don't have a personal agenda at all. And why are you labelling my information as 'negative'. My last piece of information brought to your attention that Maxi Group have an element of financial control over St. Mirren, this was 100% true and confirmed by REA. Who would you not want to know that? However, I am now in a huff, so I won't post any other info.

REA has hardly destroyed the argument, which I brought to the attention of other people like me: St. Mirren fans. He merely confirmed that Maxi Group have an element of financial control over St. Mirren which is not a legal neccessity. To lend money between two Private Limited Companies, does not legally neccessitate a charge being brought aginst the company receiving the money. You made the point that my point was well informed. I am saddened that a lot of the people who are against the CIC are simply not doing their homework to find out what is going on, the information is there to see. It also saddens me that people who support the CIC do not know whats going on either way. Every fan has the opportunity to be well informed. What we all want is whats best for the club and everyone has their opinion on how that should be achieved, and that is how it should be, the world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed. But why don't people go out and get all the information that is out there. I in no way intend to get peoples backs up over this, but I am finding that people who are Anti CIC decided to be this way and are running with it, i am also finding that people who are PRO CIC have listened to the man with the plan and no-one else. If there is another Q&A, I'd go.

Rumour has it he has 0. If you can tell me what date he bought them then I can go into the accounts and check this. There is far too much information to do a search over the past 10 months.

The CIC doesn't have to go tits up for St. Mirren to have to pay the money back. Company B can ask for it back whenever in accordance with the loan agreement, whether the CIC is a success or not. RA is a Director of the CIC, which is buying St. Mirren, which he is also a Director of, who have taken a loan from Company B, who he may also be a director of. He doesn't own any St. Mirren shares so he would stand to lose £0 if Company B decided to recall the loan and St. Mirren goes tits up. He has also invested £0 in the CIC which would own St. Mirren, so would stand to lose £0 of his hard earned cash. If I have said anything which is untrue then please let me know and I will make changes to my post accordingly.

Apologies for the previous confusion. I was refering to RA and not Graeme McPherson. My bad. Anyway, my post: Company A has secured a loan from Company B. Company B has secured this loan against the assets of Company A. If Company A don't pay Company B, Company B are legally entitled to put Company A into receivership until the debt has been paid. The "Charge Lodged" means that Company B have put a charge (security) over Company A. To allow this to happen a Director has to sign the agreement. St. Mirren is currently being run by RA in order for him to do his "due diligence" and make this CIC deal happen, as you can see from the dates shown in my previous post. Whilst doing so, he has put St. Mirrens future into question by allowing another company to have legal rights to its assets should a debt not be paid. Company A = St. Mirren Company B = ???? ????? The question a lot of people have been asking is "What's in it for him?" - I think I know now. Why would St. Mirren need a substantial enough loan from a company to warrant a "mortgage", and why do we need it only months before this deal is due to be completed? I don't think these questions have been asked before, so perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Ah good, well if he posts on here. Perhaps he can explain: 4/02/2009 Change in Reg Office Address 5/06/2009 Change in Share Capital 21/07/2010 Directors/Secretary/Officers 21/12/2010 Accounts filed at CRO on 7/02/2011 Last Annual Return filed at CH 5/04/2011 Charge Lodged This has come straight from the company accounts filed with Companies House. Charge Lodged? Who has a Charge on St. Mirren and why? As we can see below: Mr R.E. Atkinson Richard (removed) Director Address : {removed} Full Postcode : {removed} Appointment Date : 21/06/2010 Total no of Current directorships of Active companies : 4 Total no of Current directorships of Inactive companies : 0 Total no of Previous directorships : 0 RA has been at the club for almost a year. If Charges are being lodged against St. Mirren then he isn't doing his "due dilligence".

The void area is the same size as the current hospitality suite. However, not all of this space is bar space. There are offices in the plan as well which are to be used by the kibble. The space for punters is safely 200-250.

Of course the argument still stands up. If there is room for 200 people in a bar, then you can't have 700 in on a match day, can you? There are 19 home games a season. £10 a month for entry = £6.32 for every week you would want to go to the bar. But not everyone will get in. Doing the sums, one person would get in 5 times a season. Meaning it would cost around £30 for every time a fan goes into the bar. Then you will need to pay for drink on top of that. A good deal for fans?? Aye OK then.

That is a ridiculous statement. Why would you pay £2m for something if you can get away with paying £1.2m? You should think before you type.

I think some people aren't doing the proper maths here. The bar will hold 200 (250max). 800 into 200 doesn't go. What happens to everyone else who forks out for bar entry? You would need to re-do the sums for 200 people paying in. Figures aren't that impressive any more.