ktf

Astounding that you still haven't quite grasped the concept of what 10000hrs is.

Most importantly? REA and CS have a legal standing within the club in that they are both directors and one of them is an official officer bearer as secretary. GLS also has a legal standing within the club as he owns a significant number of shares - enough to see him on the board of the football club is he chose to stand. As you continue to insist that 10000 Hours isn't the 1000 strong fan base that has sign up as members but the two or three who have put it together, by your own rationale 10000 Hours have a perfectly legitimate legal standing within the club.
It's good to have cleared that lie up.
Secondly, what is a legal standing to be representative of the St Mirren support? Ok, I'll answer that, there isn't such a thing. But morally, who has the right to claim that privilege if not 10000 Hours with their 1000 members? SMiSA with their 80 odd members?
The things is, the selling consortium and the St Mirren BoD have decided to consult the fans on the NewCo issue. That was their choice, the fans have no right to this consultation. The BoD/Selling Consortium have chosen to ask 10000 Hours to carry out this consultation. Again, there is no obligation and so the fans have no right for complaint who carried it out. 10000 Hours are interested in buying the club and once they have they will have to have a system in place to gather the views on their members on loads of different issues. What better way of trialing this system than with the NewCo consultation that they have been asked by the BoD to carry out?
Why would 10000 Hours then compromise a good chance to trial their systems in a live environment by opening it up to anyone who is interested in registering an opinion, like 2000 R*ngers fans? Or alternatively, why would they open it to those who have chosen not to sign up as members, who have not committed to supporting the company and, some of whom, are openly confrontational and abusive about the individuals who are at the centre of the company?
John, if I could be bothered, I could do that with every one of your posts, but I don't have the time or the inclination. You stated in one thread a couple of months ago, before you sit the dummy and became a turncoat, that you could sink the CiC in a matter of days if you chose to... Conversely, you have helped contribute to 1000 members signing up in a matter of days!
Everyone of your posts is lies, spin, nonsense, emotive drivel, inane ramblings and pish-soaked-bawbaggery (your own phrase ) It's become boring and repetitive and you have lost all of your forum credibility. To save myself the time that I would doubtless spend rubbishing another of your posts in a few days time when I have read enough of your shite again - I am putting you on ignore.

Son
I'm not the one who can't comprehend that someone would work for nothing because they believe in a cause... Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean everyone else is as selfish.
You contribute nothing to these forums except abuse and it is dished out without thought or prejudice. You name call and are very offensive towards other posters then when you are quoted on it you get even more abusive and defensive as if you are allowed to express your views in whatever language you like but no-one else is.
Oh and I almost forgot, when you realise you have Ben defeated in a public discussion you PM members asking/threatening then to "meet-up".
Very low.

Bang out of order.

It's downright disgraceful how Div has been treated on these forums. Oaksoft, Sid, Chic appearing out of nowhere with once of his many aliases, and other too - you know who you are.
Div has and continues to work tirelessly for the St Mirren community (got that now Sid) and has decided that he is in favour of the 10000 Hours bid. Because of these two things he has been a bit more involved at this stage than others have - is that any reason to accuse him of lies?
Some people on here need to take a long hard look at themselves and think seriously before posting another thing on this site. Some of the things levelle at Div have been downright disgusting!

Most importantly? REA and CS have a legal standing within the club in that they are both directors and one of them is an official officer bearer as secretary. GLS also has a legal standing within the club as he owns a significant number of shares - enough to see him on the board of the football club is he chose to stand. As you continue to insist that 10000 Hours isn't the 1000 strong fan base that has sign up as members but the two or three who have put it together, by your own rationale 10000 Hours have a perfectly legitimate legal standing within the club.
It's good to have cleared that lie up.
Secondly, what is a legal standing to be representative of the St Mirren support? Ok, I'll answer that, there isn't such a thing. But morally, who has the right to claim that privilege if not 10000 Hours with their 1000 members? SMiSA with their 80 odd members?
The things is, the selling consortium and the St Mirren BoD have decided to consult the fans on the NewCo issue. That was their choice, the fans have no right to this consultation. The BoD/Selling Consortium have chosen to ask 10000 Hours to carry out this consultation. Again, there is no obligation and so the fans have no right for complaint who carried it out. 10000 Hours are interested in buying the club and once they have they will have to have a system in place to gather the views on their members on loads of different issues. What better way of trialing this system than with the NewCo consultation that they have been asked by the BoD to carry out?
Why would 10000 Hours then compromise a good chance to trial their systems in a live environment by opening it up to anyone who is interested in registering an opinion, like 2000 R*ngers fans? Or alternatively, why would they open it to those who have chosen not to sign up as members, who have not committed to supporting the company and, some of whom, are openly confrontational and abusive about the individuals who are at the centre of the company?
John, if I could be bothered, I could do that with every one of your posts, but I don't have the time or the inclination. You stated in one thread a couple of months ago, before you sit the dummy and became a turncoat, that you could sink the CiC in a matter of days if you chose to... Conversely, you have helped contribute to 1000 members signing up in a matter of days!
Everyone of your posts is lies, spin, nonsense, emotive drivel, inane ramblings and pish-soaked-bawbaggery (your own phrase ) It's become boring and repetitive and you have lost all of your forum credibility. To save myself the time that I would doubtless spend rubbishing another of your posts in a few days time when I have read enough of your shite again - I am putting you on ignore.

It's downright disgraceful how Div has been treated on these forums. Oaksoft, Sid, Chic appearing out of nowhere with once of his many aliases, and other too - you know who you are.
Div has and continues to work tirelessly for the St Mirren community (got that now Sid) and has decided that he is in favour of the 10000 Hours bid. Because of these two things he has been a bit more involved at this stage than others have - is that any reason to accuse him of lies?
Some people on here need to take a long hard look at themselves and think seriously before posting another thing on this site. Some of the things levelle at Div have been downright disgusting!

As I said, some of the additional individual direct debits (now at £4k a month) can be converted to lump sum payments which make up a large percentage of the shortfall.
It's harsh to criticise on under delivery in two categories when we have absolutely smashed the other one by 150% of target.
I cannot say any more than that.

There are 982 individuals signed up, generating £11425 in monthly subs.
I don't have the up to date numbers on the other two categories but towards the end of last week we had roughly;
40 x 87 Club members fully signed up
1 x 1877 Memberships sold
We were able to monetise the £4k per month over subscription we have in direct debits which basically equated to the 1877 club being fully subscribed.
That is where we are.
It has proven to be very difficult in this climate to persuade local businesses, individuals and organisations to part with £3k, much less £25k.
Maybe the targets were over ambitious, maybe the packages aren't right, but it's all pretty moot as the over subscription of individual members actually allowed us to make up most, if not all, of the difference.
We made a very fair and credible offer on Thursday, and crucially one that we could afford.

Excellent stuff, div makes it all as clear as a bell.
The thing is that it also clarifies that if Sky do pull the plug then every team in the SPL would go bust. For that reason I cannot see Sky pull out, the negative publicity would damage their reputation.
The professional critics on here are incredible, people like yourself have stepped up to the mark and done what you believe to be in the best interests for Saint Mirren, what thanks have you got .................... Stuff like stick the CIC your ass etc etc. makes me angry.
If people on here think they can do better then put forward your plans, stop running down the very people working their butts off and have put their own 3k worth in.
I remain sceptical of the CIC, however I have joined it and I admire the efforts that have gone in to try and make it work, give div a break FFS.

At the start of last season, it would be an entirely reasonable assumption that Rangers and Celtic would be in the SPL in season 2012/2013. You budget on this assumption. Just in the same way that you would reasonably assume that there'd be an average home gate of around 3500 or upwards for seasons 2011/2012... so again you budget on this assumption.
The club have to budget on reasonable assumptions, as everyone does! What's the alternative, sign players on month to month contracts because there's a chance suddenly no one will turn up at St Mirren park to watch the team? Do you only budget that the attendance will be made up of season ticket holders.... as that's the only money that's in the bank and can be sure on? Of course you don't!
The fact that the club haven't budgeted for the the Sky deal POTENTIALLY falling through because of Rangers not being in the league is not mismanagement. It was a reasonable assumption, not a reckless one, that they would be and therefore the Sky deal wouldn't be in doubt. I don't think there's much chance of Sky pulling the plug, as a PR move it would be disastrous and as a broadcaster who boast that they're "the home of sport" it wouldn't be a good move to effectively shut down Scottish Football.

Unfortunately that is the way football clubs work and in fact most businesses work the same way.
Other than with season tickets pretty much everything is paid in arrears or in installments.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid if you think St.Mirren should be sitting with a few hundred thousand in the bank waiting for a rainy day.

I just can't see where that rainy day fund would have come from. Maybe if we hadn't signed Gary Teale, Steven Thompson, Paul McGowan and Graham Carey last summer we might have a few hundred K sat there.
We'd be in the first division though so the Sky deal wouldn't really affect us anyway.

That is actually the polar opposite of what we have. We are trying to make sure that this only happens if it's right for us and the club.
We are potentially holding on the hard earned cash of 1,000 St.Mirren fans and yet you (not one of those people) are actively criticising us for being unwilling to commit that money into buying the club when the financial environment around that club is very unrpedictable and very volatile.
This is actually a great demonstration of how much 10000Hours values it's members finances and should be celebrated rather then being criticised.
The fact that none of the members are criticising it (not a single member has pulled out since the statement yesterday) speaks volumes.

Hear Hear.Financial prudence is what the whole cic procedure should be about.
Start as you mean to carry on is always a good footing for any campaign
Nobody pulling out is great news, but i would not expect anyone to renage on their commitment as it would mean they have signed up without considering the whole situation and are indeed not the type of members needed to make cic a success, so well done to all and keep the faith.
ETA, note the line breaks Div

As Div pointed out earlier, there are terms built into contracts in case of relegation, what I would like to know is if everyone in the SPL signed upto the contract with Sky knowing the option of pulling out due to lack of old firm games was included, then why did no one at the club make sure these options were not carried forward to the players contacts?

What everyone seems to be forgetting in this whole story is the power the customers have. Football fans have made their clubs sit up and take notice and I wouldn't be surprised if Sky have been closely watching what's going on, but remember there are alternatives to Sky tv and the Murdoch press. It might be the same programmes that are received via Virgin or BT but Sky receive less money than they do from their direct customers due to bulk discounts. Do Sky really want to start driving their customers to their competitors ?

I realise we haven't been given all the info in order to make an informed choice. However on this occasion, all the info in the world won't change my mind. I believe we'll survive and I believe cheats don't. Do for me, it always has been as always will be:
NO TO NEWCO

Billy, sorry bud but this is bonkers talk! The reason R*ngers were liquidated, K*illie and the D*ng aren't far off and others are following closely behind is because they ended up with astronomically high wage bills in comparison to their income.
The answer for St Mirren is not to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "nah nah" very loudly. The correct course of action is to be up front an honest. Which is what is happening now and why the sale hasn't gone ahead.
And to reply to your post before this one, of 60% of St Mirren's income relies on TV and corporate sponsorship deals then that is simply that. "They should take what's coming to them" has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet that almost 100% of your household income comes from one source - job, benefits, pension etc.. Does that mean that you deserve all you get if your employer goes bust or the government changes the benefits entitlement or you pension scheme goes tits up?
St Mirren, as all clubs have, have budgeted the TV and sponsorship money into the general running of the club. Are you suggesting they shouldn't spend 60% of their income in case the company providing it say bye bye? That would be ridiculous and see us relegated immediately as we didn't have good enough players to compete.
In the same way that you would spend the large percentage of your household income that comes from one source, St Mirren have plans to spend they 60% of their income that comes from one type of source. It's naive to assume they'd do any different.

get your cash out then , i'm in and so is div according to his posts

Sid every SPL club bar 1 would be in administration if Sky pulled the plug out the blue - most sooner than we would be. This is not news to anyone who follows Scottish football. Perhaps it was news to you that every SPL club relies on the TV contract but to the vast majority of us it was common knowledge. Sky are undoubtedly going to play their cards close to their chest in all of this. They hold all the aces here and it's a cert that they will look to re-negotiate should / when the cheats are punished as they should be with a resounding NO vote to the Newco. I'm sure there would be financial carnage if they decided to walk away from Scottish football completely but that is highly unlikely given several clubs have already commited themselves to saying no to the Newco. I would have thought these clubs must have some inkling of how Sky are going to play it before nailing their colours to the mast so early.
You are scaremongering more than the joint statement was. Any company takeover is an uncertain time for employees and for you to start a thread emphasising that is of no help to anyone and is more likely to cause them further completely un called for fear and alarm. Stop it now ffs !

Utter nonsense! So you're suggesting 60% of St Mirren's income sits in the bank unspent IN CASE Sky pull out? Or maybe they could spend it on flower beds for the area around the car park?
If we didn't budget it we'd be relegated, and not just to the first! Remove 60% of St Mirren's income and we're competing with 2nd Div sides. Oh and we can sack 90% of the non playing staff too as there'd be no money to pay them.
Elvis, you're the first to moan about players and poor performances when the team lose and now you are advocating a business model that will see us lose, most likely, every match next season and the one after, whilst stockpiling cash in the bank unspent!

Billy, sorry bud but this is bonkers talk! The reason R*ngers were liquidated, K*illie and the D*ng aren't far off and others are following closely behind is because they ended up with astronomically high wage bills in comparison to their income.
The answer for St Mirren is not to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "nah nah" very loudly. The correct course of action is to be up front an honest. Which is what is happening now and why the sale hasn't gone ahead.
And to reply to your post before this one, of 60% of St Mirren's income relies on TV and corporate sponsorship deals then that is simply that. "They should take what's coming to them" has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet that almost 100% of your household income comes from one source - job, benefits, pension etc.. Does that mean that you deserve all you get if your employer goes bust or the government changes the benefits entitlement or you pension scheme goes tits up?
St Mirren, as all clubs have, have budgeted the TV and sponsorship money into the general running of the club. Are you suggesting they shouldn't spend 60% of their income in case the company providing it say bye bye? That would be ridiculous and see us relegated immediately as we didn't have good enough players to compete.
In the same way that you would spend the large percentage of your household income that comes from one source, St Mirren have plans to spend they 60% of their income that comes from one type of source. It's naive to assume they'd do any different.

Are you suggesting we should go the way of oldco and buy players we can't really afford and pay them wages we can't really afford ?
Other clubs may be looking at investing in the playing side but is that because they have released players from last season to free up wages ?, finished higher up the league than expected and received a larger payout from last season ? Qualified for Europe and will get a bonus from that ?
For all 'well have qualified for the champions league they announced at the end of the season that McCall's budget would be cut.
I'm fairly confident that 10000hours members will say no to newco but don't you think they deserve to know the entire facts of what that vote could mean and that the board and 10000hours would be morally wrong to ask for a vote without disclosing all the information available. This is how the CiC will work, decisions will have to be made after weighing them against the possible consequences/results.

Same situation all the other 10 clubs in the SPL are in give or take a few percent either way, and if you want to look at any top league in Europe, take away the TV money and see how many clubs could survive without it.
When you look at the new deal in England, in comparison, SKY\ESPN are paying peanuts to our league, out of the petty cash really, so they might not even bother to rip up the contract just now, rather sit back and see if Scottish Football can come up with a better all round product.
It may transpire that the CIC membership don't buy the 52% just now, and 1 of the 2 "outside interested parties" either dive in with funding, or walk away, or the consortium have to sit tight on a shareholding with a diminished value - one thing the rangers debacle has proved is that in administration or liquidation, the fixed assets of any football ground, training centre(we don't actually own ours) etc. are worth hee-haw, so book values and reality are miles apart. It may transpire we can buy that 52% for less than £1,000,000 and have it paid off a lot quicker.
Whole different ball game may be about to unfold for top flight Scottish Football.