civilsaint

like I said, "achievements" isn't my word and, indeed, didn't feature in your original comment. You suggested that he hadn't contributed "anything positive" and "not one positive". Are you saying that not one single point mentioned previously was of a benefit to the club, not even of limited benefit? Why have you now changed to mentioning "real" achivements, why not stick to your original assessment? Is this an acknowledgement that you were initially wrong? Not just mixed up, but now changing the goal posts, things are getting worse for oor Glen.

Make up your mind. You've gone from sguggesting he had done nothing good, to then say his work over the last year was irrelevant when others highlighted a few decent aspects of the club which he has been involved in. And, now you're back saying that his "achievements" (your word not mine) should be examined. What will it be tomorrow? More mixed up than a woolworths pick-n-mix. It appears you have a problem with consistancy, clarity and substance to start with. It doesn't bode well for your credibility.

Looks like your recollection of things inaccurate, but i'm sure you already know that. Dbbles and others commented on his "achievements" in response to your suggestion that he has contributed nothing to the club. Hence my question, if his work over the last year is now irrelevant, why did you bring the subject up? Here's a wee reminder:

So why did you bring it up then?

In other words total and utter speculation on your part with absolutely no substance. One positive change, aesthetic improvements to the stadium.

I see you chose not to answer my question. I guess you have an inability to look at the situation objectively. If you can't find "one positive" you clearly haven't looked for any (or maybe tried to avoid them?)

In what way have they been (possibly) proved right? I don't recall any of those mentioned saying that the CIC would take too long to complete or that it would reach a snag on technicalities. If they did, then well done.

You joined to tell us that? If there was a good discount to season ticket holders and Shull will be there in an instant.

Agrenda

Somner was comparing their plan to ours, it can't be "better" if it isn't even a possibility at St Mirren, which it isn't.

In terms of specifics, chalk and cheese, because circumstances are totally different. Anyway, what is "better" about their plan?

When your kids grow up I think you should encourage them to have a full blown 18th birthday party in your house. Like you say there won't be any trouble.

Ok, maybe I should have explicitly stated that if someone is willing to pay top rate, they are more than welcome to hire the function for pretty much any event. I was basing my analysis on average, run of the mill functions, rather than anything fancy. For not making that clear I apologise. It is worth mentioning that the University of Strathclyde charge a small fortune for the Priory. Firstly the high fees will off-set against minimal damage and secondly they will prevent most schemies from being able to justify such a function, meaning they are few and far between. The Priory is used mainly for university related conferences. If you think St Mirren park should charge the level of fees the Priory charge, then fair enough, but I doubt the club will get much business.

Folk who think that holding birthday parties on a regular basis in the function suite won't have an adverse effect on the facility are poorly researched. If the club allow any old function in the current suite it becomes just that, any old function suite. People will be less willing to fork out £100pp to eat lunch in a pungent room with sticky carpets, just as a corporate customer is not going to want a conference venue with these characteristics. I'm not suggesting anyone intentionally sets out to cause damage, but events like parties do cause excessive wear and tear and the current suite is hardly fitted out with this in mind. You may not agree with that assessment but it is the commercial reality. However, if the stadium has a second suite which could be fitted out in a more robust and flexible manner, the club would be able to cater for both markets and everyone is kept happy, well almost everyone.

* and insinuations

People with the attitude of somner9 are potentially a significant problem for the CIC and its success. The type of people who have been prepared to shout their mouth off about negative rumours (and pass them off as fact) without any evidence can cause PR damage, throw as much mud as possible and some will stick. He is clearly the type of person who will be prepared to continue to slate the CIC at every potential opportunity (justified or not) just because he doesn't like the way they recruited members. These detracters are more of a threat to the CIC than any constitution or individual effort. Somner9 looks intent in causing a rift between supporters, don't let him and his lack of substance succeed.

We're delighted that your here to stay. Healthy debate is good. Would be better if the anti-brigade had some more clout in the IQ department though.

Look back at the question you asked, then look at my answer. All going well it will make perfect sense. Anyway, why all this pish posting? Are you trying to deflect away from the fact that the CIC looks like it is going to happen, and that it has insignificant support, and that it will benefit St Mirren Football Club?

Depends on context whether it is physical of figurative.

Indeed, the devil is in the detail. The use of "veneer" points to the fact you are suggesting credibility is only surface deep. In other words, the main body of the CIC has no credibility. Or maybe you didn't understand the meaning of veneer, and that isn't what you meant.

Did you ask to see the details? They would have been available had you asked. Clearly publishing the finite details in the public domain wasn't going to happen. If you don't understand that, you are beyond repair. Go on, tell us how a credible business works.......

In what way does the bid lack credibility? As far as I'm aware there's a big pile of documents, direct debits, funders, business, fans backing the proposal. Surely this tangible support gives credibility? Certainly more credibility than you currently have, not one piece of factual evidence has been provided by yourself. You may not like the bid, you may not support the bid, but to say it lacks credibility is laughable.

You don't seem to understand this process could not have happened if it were not back to front. They have acknowledged that it may not suit some people. What more could they have done. It is a means to an end and will achieve the exact same outcome if it was done the opposite way around. The word "hope" with emphasis added is entirely misleading. If I'm not mistaken there is a rigid business plan in place, which has been scrutinised by stakeholders.Taking your line of thinking every business transaction in every field would be one of "hope." You say nothing will be put the way of SMFC, that is completely disingenuous. Admitted in the early stages a large chunk of the CIC's earnings will be used to pay off the CIC's debt (nothing got do with the club),But after that, where do you expect the money to go? Strippers in the members bar maybe?

So ,in short, your sole reason for being anti-10000hours is because the deal has taken longer than anticipated. With all due respect, that is absurd. I've learned plenty from last night's meeting, maybe your inability to decipher data has prevented you from gaining any knowledge, but that isn't REA's fault. What difference doe the length of time until completion make to you or to the running of the club? Maybe you have a genuine concern and are unable to express yourself effectively (it must be frustrating if you do), but I really don't see your point. All you keep saying is that this is taking too long. Too long for what?

Is it possible that Somner9 could have a more epic virtual break down than Vikington? I think it is. In fact, I think it has already started..