Vambo57
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Vambo57
-
-
-
Hi Richard.
To be fair to you, just from reading your posts on this forum (using your different alias) and also from having spoken to you, I do actually believe you will make a success of this project.
A word of warning however - and I suspect you already have a feeling regarding this - unless you win the Champions League you will be the subject of much abuse. Saints fans have very unrealistic expectations.
See, there you go again pigeonholing every Saints fan and talking pish
-
Fixed it for you.
succinctly put Sid
-
This is exactly right, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
Not only is it irrelevant to the CIC takeover anyway, but Richard Atkinson has NEVER claimed to have invested this money in the club.
(After all Div's opinion is his only, he's not a spokesman for 10000Hours. Maybe he made a mistake.)
This issue is not important simply an irrelevant distraction.
...and this is an elephant infraction...
-
would it be on a midweek night like the 2 meeting again as to hamper most people ,or maybe by chance try a saturday afternoon when maybe more people may be able to attend
That is an eminently sensible suggestion Bud. But will anyone take notice?
-
Maybe went a bit over the top in my previous post, sorry about that, Bud....
Absolutely you are entitled to your opinion and I agree completely with the sentiment behind your previous posts.
I do think that anybody should be allowed to express their opinion freely whether they are for or against the CIC. And then it's up to us to make up our mind's whether they have a case or are simply talking bollocks.
Nae Borra Bud
-
Perhaps I can help.
The motivation is in fact very important. Posting a question about the CIC is absolutely to be encouraged. A question such as "will a CIC provide additional protection for the clubs assets? Pretty good question. "What does the charge lodged with Companies House mean?" Again a very good question. Sadly the good questions are being lost in a bile of accusation and consiracy, that actually detracts from both the question and the answer and leaves the questioner looking like a c*ck.
How can we discuss an anonymous Internet aliases personal history? All the personal stuff is being directed at the consortium, Richie Rich, The Kibble and even Div, who bizarrely enough has supplied us with an excellent online resource to discuss the f'k'n thing in the first place. uhhu didn;t like the answer, it didn't deliver the results his motivation desired so he moves on to a frankly pathetic attempt at suggesting she / he has further revelations in the bag - a similar nonsense tactic being employed by the Yul alias. As has rightly been pointed out, the floor is open - let's hear the revelations, let's hear the reasons the CIC should not go ahead - because at the moment the anti-CIC posts do look driven by personal agendas.
We should care if the posters motivation is being driven by personal issues. It is quite important. If the motivation is to try and block the consortium getting their payday at the expense of the club moving forward at all costs then we should certainly be aware of that. And there is certainly an element of that doing the rounds. The CIC should be judged on what it brings to the club moving forward; not on chipped shoulders of individuals.
He is entitled to his opinion, just as I and anyone else is entitled to have an opinion that a fellow poster is a bawbag.
If you don't agree make your point and move on. Posting that you have more revelations to make in the future isn't adding to the debate is it - it is just w@nkery of the highest order at what is a critical time for the club.
Surely, making claims that you have revelations about the CIC and the people proposing it is more the behaviour of someone trying to lead a witchhunt campaign. uhhu cannot make a claim like that and expect not to be called on it.
I have said it in many previous posts. The serious questions should go into the Q&A. That is what should be influencing people. Serious questions and serious answers. Not the mudslinging of disgruntled dafties with chips on their shoulders and their childish attempts to raise doubt with providing any substance for their unjustified anti-CIC stance.
Cheers for that Bud
Now, THAT is what was behind my post, only I said it in ahelluva lot less words
-
I don't understand this at all.
Why do you care what this guy's motivation is?
Surely we're supposed to be discussing the CIC not this guy's personal history.
Maybe he had a fight with Atkinson at school and has held a grudge ever since…who cares?
If he doesn't support the CIC then he's entitled to his opinion.
If you don't agree either ignore the post or dispute the facts about the CIC.
There's no need to turn this into some sort of witch hunt.
That's not reasoned debate…
Not a witchunt mate and certailnly not discussing the guys personal history. I am just trying to point out that IMO uhhu's claim of possibly having dirt to dish out on the CIC may be deterring folk from signing up and he may not even have such information as he has not revealed such.
I have posted very liittle on this thread, unlike you. Am I not entitled to an opinion also?
-
uhhu said (and deleted) "This was just the start of what I have, there will be more posts to come, all of course 100% accurate and from sources which are publicly available and not infringing on anyones rights or comitting any crimes.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Well, you damned well did delete the damning last paragraph (above) from your original post after civilsaint outed you as possibly having an anti-CIC agenda! Why?
Please forgive me if I am wrong here, but this is the way I see it:
Were you trying to cover up revealing that you indeed do have an agenda against the CIC? You will need to remember that probably most of the folk on the Official Forum may well read and post here alsio...
If you were really concerned, you would reveal what you know now. Unless of course, there is nothing to reveal and you are attempting to dissuade folks from signing their DDs?
I can come to no other conclusion.
You know, the way this is all panning out, a person would not be surprised to learn that that uhhu, Yul Brynner, animal and all of the self proclaimed magnificent 7 are all just one or 2 individuals up to mischief.
-
Pozbaird got an answer on the thread, so I thought I'd pose my question too.
Always appreciate a point in the right direction.
. Cheers.Even better if you can do it without trying to be a smart arse. Maybe next time.
-
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?
The only reason we are talking about it is because it was OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, allowing yourself to see it and raise the concern in the first place! If they had done it the way you say above and it got out, then the detractors would be shouting Blue Murder.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't
-
I have another stoopid question and hoping one of the 10000 hours guys can step in and answer:
I'm printing a DD from out for my dad who wants to pledge, but hasn't registered because he has no net or e-mail access. I was also planning to give copies to my mates who are currently sitting on the fence / wait and see what happens and hoping they'll commit.
Is it the case you can only return a DD form if you've already made an online pledge? This appears to be the only way to tie up a DD form with an address / individual.
In the case of my Dad, how do you get commitment from the older generation who are still toiling with the mobile phone and have no net access? I'm sure they'll be a few.
Perhaps the correct thread would solicite an answer
-
Have had no contact details in my e-mail regarding direct debit for the CIC.
Has anyone else received their form ? I'm away next week back to work and would like to sort this before I leave.
Don't you read the thread? Try 3 posts back.
-
For 10000hours to ansewer only please:
On Matchdays, will the CIC Members Bar profits go to the CIC, St.Mirren FC, or a percentage to each?
-
Ah, I see. Your name isn't Gordon Brown by any chance is it....
I know one candidate who's name I won't be voting for if that's the level of business acumen you have.
Absolute Drivel... I'm afraid I won't be standing in the CIC Elections, but its good to see you will at least be joining the CIC then? Good man! Will you vote for St.Sid?
-
I can only assume you mean from the current playing budget - because if you think that five board members who are about to trouser £2m between them, are going to dig into that to fund the purchase of a new player just before a new owner comes in I think you are about as far detached from reality as you can possible be....
Duh
All it needs is someone to sign a contract and announce it silly...I have never been employed and given cash at the same time, have you?
-
Stewart Gilmour said there was a lot of activity now on that front at the moment. He mentioned that there was an SPL meeting at the beginning of June about it, (not sure whether Dunfermline will officially be allowed to participate then). He also gave the impression that teams who were actively against 10, like Kilmarnock, but who had not previously been supporting any alternatives, have now switched to supporting 14. So 14 now seems more likely than 10. He also said that any changes would most likely not now come into effect until season 2013-14.
Has YulBrynner or any of his Posse been to any of the meetings, or was that 'John'?
I must say, after being at two meetings now I am even more impressed and optimistic about the whole CIC thing. It really does seem to me to be a genuine attempt to have St.Mirren owned by the fans.
RA stated that in a week or so (I think) a first meeting of the pledgers will be held where a constitution can be ratified and the first CIC Board appointed (on an interim basis and for around 6 months) until proper elections can be held. The initial board will consist of those who have been working on it so far e.g. RA, the KIBBLE works guy, a lawyer, Tony Fitzpatrick maybe more. I also imagine that the format and price of membership fees will be decided upon.
RA also stated that ALL money raised within the Club, including oversubscriptions to the membership would go towards the managers team budget... and something I am really pleased about... All profits from the members Bar will also go towards the team.
-
And how would they do that Billy?
I'm sorry for singling your post out but there appear to be some pretty unrealistic expectations coming from St Mirren fans who just aren't able to get their head around the fact that this is not the same as having Brooks Mileston buy his way into the club throwing loads of money at Danny Lennon to spend on players.
It's going to be a much slower process than that. The CIC will need to get approval from funders. Then it will need to get everyone signed up an contributing. Then you're going to have a period where people come forward to nominate themselves as candidates for election to the members committee's. There will be the whole election campaign, members will need to have time to vote. Then the committee's themselves will need to meet to assess the clubs current financial position and agree on budgets and strategies going forward before any new money is likely to be put into the playing budget.
I would imagine that next seasons playing budget, at least until January, will be exactly the same - or perhaps slightly less than this seasons.
... or alternatively, the current BOD sign someone for DL.
Simples, unlike your scenario, which bears no relation to the present.
-
Sorry about this but both are actually true.
10000hours could not sell the 52% shares (should it end up owning them) without the permission of the members (the constitiion as you say will specifiy the detail) but also the board of SMFC has to approve the selling of any shares als.
At the moment every board meeting has a section where the company secretary deals with any share transfers, this is just the way that companies work.
10000hours CIC
Sorry but I am still a bit confused, by the bold bit above, do you mean 'by the permission of the majority of the CIC membership' or do you mean by the majority of the CIC Board members?
Also can you please answer these questions which I already posted:
Quote
As I understand it, any cash coming in from CIC membership goes to paying off the CIC debt? So any money given by the
fans (either £10pm x 300, or £5pm x 600, or £15 extra on the ST) is our annual debt contribution.
Any cash given over and above that amount will not be going to SMFC, but to pay off the CIC's debt. So, as long as SMFC contribute £36K pa till the debt is paid off, our side of the deal is being honoured.
Surely it should be easy for the club when sending out their yearly reminder to ST holders to include a poll with the various options before deciding on what route to take?
To allow the General Paisley Public to join the CIC, then you must allow them to buy a monthly membership, rather than buy an ST. Maybe both can be offered? and maybe there is the opportunity for SMFC to get more ST holders here...
Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but I only see that we - as SMFC - only need contribute £36k pa, so the cheaper the fans contribution the better in my eyes. Or is it in our interest to pay off the CIC's debt ASAP? Am I missing something?
-
It really does depend on what the circumstance it is that has lead to the 52% being sold.
However the constiution of the club means that the board of St Mirren FC have to approve the selling of shares.
Even today if you want to sell some shares or someone leaves you them in a will it requires a board meeting to authorize the transfer.
Wait a minute... I am sure that 10000hours have stated - on more than one occasion, that the controlling shares in SMFC CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT THE MAJORITY OF CIC MEMBERS voting for it.
You now seem to be saying that the SMFC BOD will be the sole decision makers in that scenario. Which statement is correct? Or is this the type of thing that can be changed in the constitution at the first members meeting?
-
A couple of questions below that I posted in the Q&A thread but may need some debate on this thread.
As I understand it, any cash coming in from CIC membership goes to paying off the CIC debt? So any money given by the
fans (either £10pm x 300, or £5pm x 600, or £15 extra on the ST) is our annual debt contribution.
Any cash given over and above that amount will not be going to SMFC, but to pay off the CIC's debt. So, as long as SMFC contribute £36K pa till the debt is paid off, our side of the deal is being honoured.
Surely it should be easy for the club when sending out their yearly reminder to ST holders to include a poll with the various options before deciding on what route to take?
To allow the General Paisley Public to join the CIC, then you must allow them to buy a monthly membership, rather than buy an ST. Maybe both can be offered? and maybe there is the opportunity for SMFC to get more ST holders here...
For an existing ST holder:
£10 pm (£120 pa) or and extra £15 on top of the the ST (£15 pa) - who would be daft enough to vote for £10 pm?
Of course, those who do not wish to be part of the CIC, can have a £15 discount.
For a Non ST Holder:
£10 pm (£120 pa)
Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but I only see that we - as SMFC - only need contribute £36k pa, so the cheaper the fans contribution the better in my eyes. Or is it in our interest to pay off the CIC's debt ASAP? Am I missing something?
BTW, I am not championing adding fifteen quid to ST prices. What I am saying is that if an ST holder wants to join the CIC, then there should be an option to pay £15 more for the ticket. Seems perfectly reasonable to me and I suspect would get more CIC members that way. A lot of fans maybe cannot afford £10pm ON TOP OF AN ST, but fifteen quid p.a.? its a no brainer
The more fans involved the better.
-
I posted the questions below 3 or 4 days ago on the Official site, but now realise it would be better asked here:
Can someone from 10000hours please clarify the points below?
As I understand it, any cash coming in from CIC membership goes to paying off the CIC debt? So any money given by the
fans (either £10pm x 300, or £5pm x 600, or £15 extra on the ST) is our annual debt contribution.
Any cash given over and above that amount will not be going to SMFC, but to pay off the CIC's debt. So, as long as SMFC contribute £36K pa till the debt is paid off, our side of the deal is being honoured.
Surely it should be easy for the club when sending out their yearly reminder to ST holders to include a poll with the various options before deciding on what route to take?
To allow the General Paisley Public to join the CIC, then you must allow them to buy a monthly membership, rather than buy an ST. Maybe both can be offered? and maybe there is the opportunity for SMFC to get more ST holders here...
Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but I only see that we - as SMFC - only need contribute £36k pa, so the cheaper the fans contribution the better in my eyes. Or is it in our interest to pay off the CIC's debt ASAP? Am I missing something?
-
yes you have the power to enact change, "after" what you don't like has happened when the annual accounts are published
But that's what happens NOW!
-
I agree that does need clarifying. The membership fees should be more than sufficient to service the debt so there should be no need to use any additional revenues.
It was my impression that perhaps just a percentage of the extra revenue generated?
I'm Listening To....
in General Nonsense
Posted