Big Fras

I think the guy made a very balanced post. The "ideas bank" generated by the CIC debate has been terriffic.....but not something that couldn't have been done if a consultant had been brought in to look at furthering commercial opportunities.

For a completely neutral perspective...... I had to take my lad to a kids play centre party today, with a promised running time of 3 hours To keep in touch with all things sporting, although officially under the guise of “doing work”, I brought along my laptop. Got talking with another Dad, and for such an affable, regular sort, it transpired he was a senior partner in a private investment bank. Luckily, he was a big fitba fan, and recalls seeing SMFC as a spotty teenager at Oldham ! I started talking about the CIC bid. I showed him the 10,000 hours site, and gave him as much background as possible, before asking him to have a quick trawl through the last few pages of the thread. His answers were quite interesting: *Surprise at the proposal looking set to go through at SMFC given the current state of affairs compared to many other teams. *Thought SMFC looked like a decent investment opportunity compared to most provincial sides, but that would need to be quantified when looking at the BoD asking price. *Suggested BoD may be losing patience with no formal offers from other parties *Said that at least one of the existing BoD should be on the new executive board to “guarantee some form of continuity and vital knowledge of current/past operational performance” *Presumed that any negative press reaction to the issue of “public money” and pay-outs to BoD members (one or two then going on to be on the board) will have been identified already, and a suitable strategy is in place Strangely, he thought that Yul Bryner made many valid points – in between p*ssing himself at the cod western dialogue He was only looking at it from a cold business perspective..........I said that this is no bad thing. I’m not going to expand upon this, as I will be derided/abused by the usual suspects. Until 2.10pm today, I was all for the bid. Now I am far from certain. The guy is more qualified in these matters than virtually anyone else on this thread, and has no axe to grind with anyone. He just called it as he saw it., so I had to respect his views. I wish I hadn’t talked to him now .......

Very good post Div - and that's from a cynical old bassa like me. I feel uneasy about certain elements of the whole CIC concept, but by and large it is worth a go. If it fails, then I am sure some interested parties will be watching to pick up the reigns. At the moment the pros outweigh the cons, and Gordon Smith's backing is interesting, as he had been rumoured (allegedly) as being part of a consortium to buy the club in the past. The most positive thing for me so far ? A lost of attention is being paid to maximising operations at St.Mirren to increase revenue that would be directly fed back to the club budgets. This is simply good business practice. The most negative ? Other than the PR shambles in the weeks leading up to the meeting, my main concern is the sheer number of voices who will all be wanting to be heard in decision-making processes. This could cause massive delays in getting anything done, and the whole management of the CIC "board structure" seems like a job for the UN. In that respect, an Executive board is necessary just to get things done efficiently. One word of caution - a lot of the information that is available at boardroom level of any SPL team can be fairly sensitive. With supporters involved, and heart often ruling head, best of luck to those trying to keep a lid on things like who gets paid what at other clubs; who asked for what payments; who should be getting a free; etc. ETA My preferred choice would have been a group of businessmen sinking in some serious dough, with a concurrent commitment and business plan to keep SMFC out of the red. That hasn't happened, so realistically the CIC option is the only show in town, but seems to be a lot more "safe" (debt/expenditure promises) than had previosuly been percieved. The natural reaction is to be worried about us being a high-profile experimemnt in community ownership......but life's too short. Give it a go - there will always be a "get out" option for all parties.

I think that was actually quite honest of RA. However, with SG attending the next meeting I'm sure he'll set the record straight.

(Apologies in advance for length of message) Hmmm. I feel a bit underwhelmed by all of this. We were promised that “all would be revealed” at the meeting, yet not an awful lot more has been said that wasn’t already being circulated on the forum, bar the bitchfest about the “Executive Board (and someone has to referee this democratic ownership). Will the CIC bid go through ? Plainly YES. The BoD want it to happen, and the shortfall in funds raised towards the £2m asking price is covered by a loan system (which happily has been explained properly to most folks satisfaction). I admire the remarks that the bid will be abandoned if the fans don’t back it. However, in reality the individual targeted membership revenue is £36k pa......very much the minority party. I find it hard to believe that if the Community and Private Sector backers are on board, yet the fans aren’t, then the scheme gets dropped. However, that’s what the man says. I’ve followed SMFC for long enough to be acutely aware of supporter apathy being the most common background to the last 30+ years, punctuated only by a smattering of memorable highs. All along there has been a hardcore of about 2,500 - 3,000, with the herd naturally maintaining its numbers (!). I hope this “client base” is enough. I do think the 300 mark will be surpassed. I don’t find the individual membership attractions very exciting, nor well thought out. A lot of play on using the boozer, then a suggestion that “any other benefits could be discussed later”. I would have expected more at a meeting aimed partly at selling the idea to the supporters. Clearly, there is scope for more commercial enterprise at Greenhill Road, but these ideas should be implemented regardless of CIC ownership or not. SMFC do a lot of things right, but a lot of things could be done even better. This doesn’t need to be reliant on CIC/Private Ownership. I’m only interested in team affairs, and if this was a Brearley situation then I would be delighted at the CIC proposal. However, where we are at the moment is a BoD who have turned the club round from the abyss, and are looking to get their payout, leaving the club to people who will not sabotage the good work, and provide the fresh energy and financial muscle (sentiments being bandied about at the end of last season by SG just prior to Gus’ exit) to take St.Mirren from this sound base and onto higher levels. I just don’t get that vibe from the CIC proposal. I think RA was encouragingly honest in that respect, but even if all goes to plan, don’t expect extra investment for at least 12-18 months. It all seems a very complicated way of maintaining the status quo. I just don’t see this as the great leap forward that the BoD were looking for originally when the sell-off was first mooted. I don’t blame them for wanting to take the £, and I don’t think the CIC bid is necessarily putting any serious risk onto SMFC or the legacy left by SG & Co. I just wish that the BoD could stick around a bit longer and encourage a financially tooled up consortium. But that is just a wish, and not likely to come true through nobody’s fault. CIC is the next best thing, but not as exciting as the main proponents would suggest. £10/month is £10 less to blow on B&H so it will do me good.

I know. I've been wondering what the fighting was all about

Thanks for the Twitter feed Div. Concise and easy to follow what was going on......and barely a single typo ! I wonder if this was noticed by @bluto

I wonder if this means Div will be "trending" on Twitter tonight ? Div's going to be doing more tweeting than @StephenFry

I thought that was what he meant, as how else could people moving seats = more ticketing revenue. Unless a season of swilling lager and necking Nachos leaves the supporter with an arse as wide as the Clyde, and they get so unfit that they need to be nearer the boozer for the pre-match stroll....but need two seats to be comfy.

Presumably based on the belief that people will chose a more expensive ST/match ticket, to be nearer the boozer ? Cannot see that being a widely held policy, but we'll see. I don't know the legals, but leasing out space to a bookies on site might be a good option to pursue. It may be legal if you can bet before going in the ground, then collect afterwards (if you have been lucky !). Just realised that my ideas are heading down the boozer / bookies scheme of things. This may not sit well with some of the community groups !

Cannae argue - £10 adults/£5 kids for the forthcoming derby v. Bolton (and that is for away fans as well). The supporters bar idea is probably as close as we can get for legal reasons to the English situation of bars & bookies on the concourses inside the stands. When the Geordies went 0-3 down against Arsenal earlier this season, the fans weren't leaving the stands to go home as the TV coverage insinuated......they were heading downstairs for a pint and to watch the game on the telly, which is why the stands were full for the 4 goal comeback. That's a lot of spending in the ground beyond the match-day ticket I get a questionnaire from Bolton Wanderers every year asking for supporter feedback on the "matchday experience".....and unsurprisingly, they publish the poll results and take the relevant action where viable/legally possible. As Phil Gartside said: "Its simple - give the customer what they want, and they will want to come back to matches and will increase the chances of bringing new fans, This increases revenue to the club, which will be reinvested in the team". Bolton's gates are up, despite local competition and rising local unemployment. Revenue is up. Investment in the transfer kitty/wage structure is up. Team performance (bar the Wembley "experience") is way ahead of reasonable expectations. In short - it works. This doesn't sound too dissimilar from what is currently going on at SMFC, so this sort of thing (supporters bar) should be encouraged, and any other initiatives like it.

I posted a while back that the 300 level of supporters could easily be surpassed, and the vibes look good. However, the real fiscal muscle is coming from the private sector when you look at the sums of the proposal. Many of those directly involved in the bid seem to be lined up already in that regard, so perhaps the critical shortfall may be achievable with equal ease ? I get the impression that the current BoD really want it to happen, and that is significant. Lochwinnoch Saint still raises the main (and most common) point of concern, so I would expect this to be clarified at the meeting. Beyond that its up to the persuasive charm of RA, and he seems to be working wonders with the natives so far, so a few major companies wanting to re-invest some capital, and generate some good PR for themselves......shouldn't present too many problems ?

Yes, those were the days my friend (as the song said). Initially the numbers stacked up, then we just went mental - Tony's enthusiasm spellbound the BoD, and the majority of the supprt base lapped it up. It was great ! And lunacy. The wheels were already way off the lorry before H*y came and delivered the final nail in the coffin. I think everyone has learnt the lessons of that 3 year period of mayhem, which arguably led us to Greenhill Road. Memo to RA - don't let Tony take over the transfer kitty

Worthwhile have a word with Chick Young, Supermac & crew to get the meetings and web feeds publicised in the wider media ?

Technically speaking it is already here if you want to be a corporate backer for the CIC Bid

....as I tried to point out without such foul language. I'm outraged, shocked and horrified at such profanities. You'll never get a book published potty-mouth

As far as I know and have read,PSL had a contract with St.Mirren FC, regardless of who the owners were. Provans could walk at the end of the contract, or SMFC could opt for another way. None of this had anything to do with the CIC bid. It was between the current BoD (admittedly of which RA is a member) and PSL. Provans deal with other sporting clubs in their merchandising (eg. Mo'well - and how Big Al must have enjoyed their S/F win !!), and I would imagine that it is a policy not to "rock the boat", as these things get noticed by other clubs. Saying that, Alan is a big lad, and I'm sure didn't need his arm twisting into backing the CIC bid. All things considered, it certainly puts him and PSL in a positive light given everything that's gone on. I'm pretty sure that its been mentioned elsewhere that JD Sports will be a backer.....but let that come from the horse's mouth. Apologies to RA, I'm not suggesting you are a Ruud Van Nistelrooy lookalike, buit its polite compared to some previous comments

I don't think this is what happened at all. As far as I know, PSL had a contract with SMFC which was up for renewal. For whatever reasons, it was decided to go different ways. AWP posted about this in his "farewell" thread. I've spoken to Al, and he certainly has no issues with the CIC bid, having been aware of it for obvious reasons (ie. dealing with RA on a daily basis) for some time, henceforth the backing "in print". To be honest, I think most people hope it works, but quite a few are naturally worried/sceptical of how it will work, probably given the lack of detailed information thus far (bar the recent pdf). We'll all be much the wiser after the meetings...........which for the sake of ease, Div should film and stick on this sub-forum......it may save a lot of typing No business is ever run perfectly, and a lot of good ideas are being generated at the moment, many of which should still hopefully be carried out if the bid doesn't work. I think it will, mainly for the reasons that almost uniquely, there are (apparently) no predators watching proceedings, and that the current BoD want to get out.....yet this deal may offer them the chance to get out, yet still be heavily involved but with much less personal risk. Entirely understandable. This situation certainly narows down the chasm of the private sector fiscal requirement, and if RA has some "big guns with small change" lined up, then it could happen with comparitive ease. Then the administraive fun begins...... Jeff Stelling:"St.Mirren's game is off today, due to double-booking with a wedding, bowls AGM and Renfrewshire Line-Dancing Q/F. Police levels were too stretched and the game is OFF. What do you make of that Charlie ?"

Sid - I PM'd you to provide a bit of background as to why a certain situation had arisen, in the light of several comments you had made. It would not have helped anyone involved for it to have been posted on the forum. It was not libellous, and not a "character assasination". It was indeed fact that could be backed up by several people in a business arena that is unrelated to SMFC. It had nothing to do with the CIC bid (for which I am behind), and you damn well know that. I took this forum at face value, and PMd a regular fan (you) and nobody else. Your twisting of my words and intentions is getting out of hand. I'm quite a chilled out chap these days, and have no time for violence. Time, experience and some sound business contacts have taught me that there are much better ways to sort things out. Keep out of my way and I'll do likewise.

Oh dear Sid. You've done it again, and you are doing a wonderful job of presenting yourself as a trigger-happy cretin. Please go and check out my recent comments, which were actually very supportive of the CIC bid. I have no "issues" whatsoever with the CIC bid. I will sign up as a member and have already stated that it is great to see some supporter involvement, stretching beyond the Paisley locale. All I have ever done is query the strength of the private sector backing.....and then stated that if it comes off then this is terriffic. Hardly the work of a cranked up malevolent troublemaker. This forum is meant to be for a debate, and if someone makes a valid point (in the eyes of another forum member) without abusing people, then surely there is no harm in suggesting that he has some good ideas/opinions. However, your desire to have a real go at me is duly noted. Mind how you go sunshine.

Take the blinkers off folks, this is a very good post. May not agree 100%, but this exactly what an independent website is all about.

It seems glaringly obvious in the sums that the thing that is most risky in scuppering the CIC bid is lack of private sector investment. Say that does happen, and the bid is left high & dry, it would be a shame if nothing was done to harness the backing being given by the actual supporters. Some good ideas are being bandied about, and perhaps some scope should be given to looking at a "member scheme" for the fans who sign up. Possible ideas... * Money generated goes to the youth development system - critical to the club's long-term well-being * Investors get a number of benefits, similar to what is being proposed as part of the CIC * Perhaps a seat on the board for a supporters representative - surely no bad thing if 500 fans are chipping in £60k pa to the clubs coffers (although from working knowledge of similar schemes, there is a need for adhering to conidentiality clauses as BoD meetings can/do involve (for example) legally sensitive information relating to clubs other than SMFC I'm sure there is plenty more than that, but at least the current debate does seem to (at face value) have a consistent theme of involving the supporters. It would be a shame if that evaporated following a lack of business backing. IF RA & Co are so positive about the supportersv involvement, and seeing as RA is now a Director, then surely some of the above can happen even if the the CIC bid doesn't make it through.