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.

There's a fairly simple solution - the club doesn't accept the CIC's bid and things carry on as before. Not great, going on the last few years, but a perfectly reasonable way to run a football club - there is no threat to the future of the club. A few of the CIC's ideas could be "borrowed" and put into place to raise more cash.
All we seem to be hearing in detail is what will happen in year one - would be good to know what will happen in years two or three once things are running. It would also be nice to hear a proper contingency plan if a large number of the supporters, or four or five corporate members, decide it is not for them, pull out and can't be replaced. At the moment it seems the answer is to run around shouting "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK".

There are levels in the presentation that could be classed as the "executive board", however nothing that clearly states it. It's quite reasonable to come to the view it's been hidden - I'd been told there was a executive board level and assumed it had been left off the flow chart.
Still doesn't seem to be an answer to how all this will lead to an increased footballing budget and allowing debts to be repaid - would have thought it would be one or the other.
A lot of the stuff the CIC are proposing/hoping for is good, however the club should already have been doing it without a CIC.

I don't have any problem with the revelation of the existence of the Executive Board tier because I think they are mainly there to lessen the chances of an arse being made of things. However, further to the debate here, I believe that Richard Atkinson actually acknowledged that the Executive Board hadn't been mentioned before tonight. A guy on the pitch side of the room, near the back, pointed out that he hadn't heard of the Executive Board until that moment, to which Richard replied, "No, you haven't".
There is also talk of why we haven't already been using some of these revenue generating ideas outside of the CiC. While this, of course, has merit, I have been convinced tonight that it is the involvement of the community that would be the main factor driving these types of initiatives, and allowing the whole thing to snowball. If we can get it to the point where it's snowballing we'll be in good shape, but that won't be easy.
It was quite startling to see how much the budget could be affected by, e.g. 500 more people on the average gate, which made me reflect on the long term effects of the life draining football served up in the latter days of the last guy.
The clincher, for me, is the assertion that the worst case scenario supposedly brings us back to the situation we are currently in, with the 52% up for sale.
It's a cautious, but hopeful, 'yes' from me.

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

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.

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.

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

In fairness the money spent on those players was offset by some hefty money coming in from the sale of playersi n the years before hand.
We scooped £850K for Ferguson, we got £300K for Ian Cameron, christ sake we even got £275K for David Winnie and the same for Brian Hamilton !
In the pre-bosman days buying and selling players was very much part and parcel of the game in Scotland at that time.
Dundee Utd were beating Barcelona home and away back then, it was a totally different era from the one we are in now.
I think you are right though, that in 2011 the game needs a very different approach and it is one we are already well ahead on the curve on IMO whether we have a CIC or not.
The club took a very difficult decision to invest heavily in Ralston when we moved stadium, and I think the fruits of that are beginning to be seen with the number of Saints players making their way into the national sides at u-16, u-17, u-19 levels.
If we can keep up that investment the fuure is bright for us on the pitch and the frankly outstanding work the club is already doing in the community means we will hopefully have a whole new generation of support within the Renfrewshire area.
I have never seen as many kids wearing St.Mirren shirts in and around town as I have done in recent years.

You won't get sustainable on field success without off field success - that was the point I was making. Did you not understand the last line in my post? Fitzpatrick tried to buy on field success and you landed up with Stevie Archibald, Roddy Manley and Fraser Wishart. Your club spent a fortune of players that flopped badly.
Ferguson took care of the off the pitch stuff. Scouting and contact networks were built up. He dragged people into the ground kicking and screaming and he built a young side that could put on a show. Fergie did it right. What you are calling for is for candidates to come on here promising transfer budgets and more money for the playing side. Those promises won't be sustainable unless you can sort out the off the field activities to boost the revenue coming into the club. If you can't get your head around that then there would have been no point in trying to debate with you anyway....
Like you I don't know if the CIC thing is for the best or not. What I do know is that your current board ignored the massive potential that should have been tapped long ago and that at the very least the CIC mob are talking the right language.

Maybe that would be the wrong criteria for voting for a candidate though Poz.
Look, for the sake of clarity I'll declare my hand. I have no interest in being a candidate for three reason - I have very little spare time currently, I am already heavily involved on a football committee, and my wife would kill me if I volunteered away more of the precious time I have to spend with her and the kids. I have very little interest in having a vote in who is appointed, and the thought of watching some kind of promise auction on football websites and candidates campaign for votes puts a chill down my spine. I don't regard myself as a St Mirren supporter - I haven't done for some 9 years now - and to be honest it's irrelevant to me whether St Mirren enjoy on field success or not.
The reason I am on here following the debate, and the reason I'd consider becoming an individual member and the reason I'd consider paying the £500 to register the football team I work with as a community member is that I love football and I think football should be done much better in Scotland than it is currently. Senior football clubs SHOULD be actively involved with juvenile football right across the country. They should be sharing their expertise. Their players should be cutting their teeth as coaches helping out in training sessions. There should be a cooperation between the clubs that sees kit and equipment orders collated and submitted at the same time to save everyone money. And football clubs should be tapping into those clubs and bringing the kids in those squads through the turnstyles at football grounds ensuring football has an appeal for the future generations.
Now having said I'm out what I would like to see is candidates who will strive to do the right thing for future of football in this country. The game has been f**ked here by directors following their own greedy self interests and the protectionist bullshit in the SPL has done more damage to the quality of the game in this country than anything else. I'd be hoping that the strongest candidates at St Mirren would be the very people who recognised that without focus on the off the field activities the on the field promises will never be sustainable.
Remember Fergie gave St Mirren the era of Abercrombie, Stark, Richardson, Reid, Weir, McGarvey and Fitzpatrick. The Fitzpatrick era gave St Mirren Archibald, Wishart and Manley.

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

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 ?"

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.

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.

Classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVehMqCRj7E&feature=fvwrel

Oh dear. This is precisely the sort of stuff I was referring to.
BTW Sid, I am in support of a CIC bid, and like most of the people I have spoken to/e-mailed, I hope it comes true.
Animal may lose his argument through some bizarre ranting, but by & large all I see is a decent number of people making some simple queries about the whole thing, not slagging it off. Every time someone raises a doubt, they are cast aside and labelled a heretic. That’s where you get friction.
Your opening paragraph is quite amazing in its assumptions. I too am a small businessman, yet almost deal exclusively with major companies. Please try and stop making sweeping assumptions about commercial enterprises, then declaring it as a fact.
RE: Provans – Sid, you should practice what you are preaching: don’t make sanctimonious remarks about a situation you know nothing about. I’m not crying...just wincing at the words.

Sid. Read any of my posts over the last few days - against any RA abuse; supportive of the CIC bid; merely expressing a concern over funding, and asking for a positive reply. You have completely proven my point about anyone raising a query being blindly slaughtered. This does the CIC lobby no favours whatsoever. Read/think before clattering the keypad.