smfcbuddie

The REA offer was as good an offer as the club were ever likely to receive but Gilmour and some fans didn't trust the support to come up with the cash over the few years it was required to fund the deal. Meanwhile HMFC and MFC are getting on with it. Talk about shooting ourselves in both feet!

We played better when we used two up top.

Someone somewhere will be able to tell us what the exact drop in income will be from being relegated but I reckon £500-600k at least. Perhaps that explains the number and level of signings. We are where we are, and I don't think there is much scope to go beyond three or four more new faces, but hopefully they will address some of the concerns listed above. I am more than happy to give Murray the chance to prove he is a good manager. After all it took Fergie a while to pull a team together before we were promoted.

Like Thommo did?

I honestly don't care what they say about the town. These guys don't have two brain cells between them. If they thought it would sell papers they would pretend Rangers never died.

An 18 year old. I suspect this isn't going to appease the fans. Utterly shambolic. The sooner the BoD leave the better.

What kind of fee is involved?

I thik that just about sums up the would be SNP candidate for wherever quite well.

Depends on ownership but GT has the players on his side and scoring goals

There was no risk to the seller. £1.5million in thee bank and they walk away. 10000 hours took the risk, not the club as they were separate. Ultimately the ones who might not get their cash were the social funders but they were happy to proceed. So how would the club have lost out, remember as well that the assets would have been ring fenced to prevent anyone from loading debt in the stadium.

The point I answered was the plan only required 1/3rd of those who eventually signed up for Direct Debits. If what you are saying is only big clubs can do this, then what about Motherwell? It surely depends on how much you owe, the terms of the deal and the amount the fans or others pay in. The numbers of members is only one part of that equation. My recollection is that there was enough support to offer £1.5million. A genuine offer which met their amended price but they turned it down. Makes no sense at all, and as it is now developing, wholly counter productive.

No way. Three times as many fans signed up to pay £10 per month as 10000hours were looking for initially. So how is that too few or the cost too much? Ultimately the loans could have been forgone assuming 10000hours met the funders community engagement targets, so we might never have had to repay the full sums. If anything the deal on the table was better than Hearts and that is pretty good. In any case it was miles ahead of where we are now in my opinion. Not one of us knows what is going on, if or when something will happen and we certainly won't be asked to be full or part owners. Now we can just wait and hope for the best on and off the park.

The monies coming in to pay off the loans was new money and wouldn't have affected the existing income. Likewise, the idea was to bring in new types of income by engaging even more with the local community, such as the church using space on a Sunday morning. All this was possible in a quite short timescale. Once the loans were paid up any contributions would have increased the playing budget or anything else that was needed. As far as I can tell Hearts fans are making their similar scheme work, and Hibs have a variation on the table. Why were we so special that it wouldn't work? Now we face the prospect of new owners, a short time to get the manager and players sorted and the potential for the club and its assets being put at risk!

That is my point. They snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even though it seems to be against their interests - knocking back 10000 Hours being the best example and possibly the English consortium falls into the same bracket. In light of where we are, both seem to be strange decisions.

I find it incredible that there has been virtually no communication from the BoD and little by way of action in relation to improving the playing side. Something is clearly happening in the background but the silence is a bit ominous. I no longer know whether to trust the BoD or just assume the worst. In either case it seems we as fans are not able to influence anything at present. Oh for those halcyon days when Coughlin, Hendrie, Fitzy et al were in charge.

If there are 3,000 members paying £2 per month then in 2 years we might accumulate £144,000. This assumes a timescale where debts are built up and administrators are called in and are able to put a deal to the creditors. Depending on the level of debt, is this sum of money likely to persuade the debtors to do a deal or would they want the assets sold? In the case of Hearts, £2M was needed, with Budge being the equivalent of the CIC funders under 10000 Hours. Personally I don't think SMISA can have any influence on the outcome if we go into administration. However if they thought about bringing on board other funders - not banks- then it just might work. I would therefore agree to support SMISA if they begin that process and commit to a fan funded buyout akin to Hearts or even Motherwell. Will SMISA update its aims and get fans fully on board a realistic campaign? Oh and BTW, a big welcome to our new owners whoever they are.

There is clearly something rotten at the core of our club. Whether it relates to the sale, to the managerial appointments or to declining investment or interest by the BoD, all are so badly handled one might think it was deliberate sabotage. How on earth did we get here? Why do so many fans continue to trust this BoD?

Has anyone said that the guy quoted in the press is wrong? Has the BoD slipped out a statement contradicting his claims? It seems there are too many people willing to back the BoD without any explanation or background info being offered to the fans. As it stands the silence is deafening.

Far fewer ifs than handing ownership to anyone who can borrow against the value of the assets and build up debts the club can't afford. If it was about safeguarding the club, stadium, etc then short of me winning £100 million on the lottery, nothing could beT 10000 Hours bid. It is just a pity it seems to have created division when it set out to hand control to the fans and to get extra monies in at no risk to the club.

So the consortia get their cash and walk away. Hooray for them. The fans have been used by the consortia for their own purpose. Gives you a warm feeling doesn't it.As for SMISA they could have backed the bid by 10000 Hours but didn't. Not sure that I can support their strategy as the notion of having one place on the Board is a lot less than having a controlling share. Unless we get some more info from the BoD and soon, I would rather sit tight and see what comes up.

The question is do they have funds or players all set to go?

You are completely right as always. Considering the BoD have said next to nothing on the matter. If the guy suddenly appeared on the scene long after discussions started why wasn't that mentioned by SG? I need why doesn't he come out and tell us the 'correct' version. Why the silence? There is something odd going on and I don't think that is the doing of the English consortium.five years, which included a genuine route to fan ownership / control, and nothing to show for it! Somebody needs to explain that.

Oh wait, Google the guys name and guess what comes up. Did they not know his name or did they simply forget to Google him? Did SG honestly sit on his hands when that information was there for anyone to see? Does he think we believe that he only just found out the guys history? Does he think that the buyers wanted to sneak the guy past the SFA when it came to the fit and proper test? So the guy has a history - anything he says can't be believed according to some, yet it seems probable (in my opinion) that they sat down and went through confidential commercial information with this group. Is that really something the club would do if there was public info that one of the buyers was dodgy and would be buying the club? Or is it just possible he was only ever an agent as he claims? Which is more likely? Perhaps the journalist who reported the story has a better insight to all of this and will let us know. I certainly don't expect transparency about it from the club. There is no hard evidence that the BoD are actually progressing the sale of the club. In fact when push has come to shove, they appear to have found a reason to turn the offer down and start again. They even turned down a considerable offer from a group representing the fans. Why? With all that has transpired that decision seems completely unbelievable.

If true, the BoD are misleading every fan and need to go!

Months of discussions when the BoD knew (or ought to have known) the agents history. So why string everyone along? Why are the fans given next to no information? Saints don't have much debt, but how exactly are we going to stop the downward trajectory if no one at the top is able to take a decision or preferably invest? The lower reaches beckon irrespective of our financial integrity. Change is required - the Board can stay and invest or they can leave. Why are they wasting time?