Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by rea

  1. 2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

    Can you point to an instance where cash is NOT king in scottish football?this is certainly a setback with most clubs happy to have gotten to this point in the season without significant weather disruption.  We have survived extended frozen spells and can stand the 2-3 weeks of disruption that we face

    perhaps it would be better had i said that Cash Flow is king as opposed to P and L.

    I hope it will be only 2 to 3 weeks...but i suspect more like 2 to 3 months


  2. 2 hours ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

    I think you're missing the point.  We are talking about CONTRACTS.  I'm postulating as to the existence of clauses which may exist.  Many clubs couldn't continue to pay wages if gate money stops.  It's not a case of clubs 'cheating' their players.  Would you be happy for the club to continue to pay a player(s) who has a 3 year contract when there is no revenue coming in.  How long would clubs last?

    and i am postulating that such a clause does not exist

  3. 4 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

    Eh? eh?

    It's not what I want and its not possibly applicable to St Mirren.  The likelihood of 'small print' would be universally applicable throughout the football industry.  There will be circumstances whereby clubs would be incapable of paying wages in circumstances where, for example, there is a social upheaval and, as I said, wars etc.  


    nope, if businesses cannot play their bills they go bust, or shareholders inject working capital; etc etc.

  4. 12 minutes ago, Desnold said:

    They will have business interruption insurance however I have noticed on the majority of the policies I deal with there is an exclusion in the event of a pandemic announced by the World Health Organisation therefore insurance companies are not going to pick this up for the vast majority of businesses.

    They might have now, but i dont recall buying it when I was doing it previously and i dont think BI cover would cover for this sort of interuption

  5. 32 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

    Well, at least it helps time-wise to get our injured players back to fitness.  This is an unprecedented situation and I wonder if the players will still be paid as it could last for some considerable time.

    you would still get paid if your work stopped selling its "product" the players will also. One issue would be if they extend the season, players will be out of contract, so not only will Club face the losses from the shutdown but it will cost them more to put the squads back on the pitch after the point in the season when they would assume less waged as less players on the books

  6. Cash will be king if the league is suspended.

    Banks wont lend to the majority of clubs and most of the clubs costs will continue while the revenue takes a nose dive.

    Historically Board members of the Club would contribute 6 figure sum to tide over the club when cash was tight.

    So if the club need cash now, then who on the board is going to sort and we now now have two Kibble members so will Kibble be contributing.

    This is potentially a disaster for a vast number of Scottish Football Clubs, let alone all the other Sports and Business that live hand to mouth

  7. 6 hours ago, Dickson said:

    Kibble, as a charity, have a legal obligation to publish their investment policy (if they have one) in their Trustees Annual Report. The last annual report published by them was for 2017-18. This is what their CEO said about their investment strategy 

    Charities are allowed to invest in companies. Usually it is done for financial profit. However in some cases it's about furthering their aims and achieving a financial return. I reckon that since St Mirren have never paid a dividend, and shares are unlikely to be sold on again at a profit, that this must be about free use of facilities. That is going to impact on St Mirren's potential revenue streams and it seems to be being done so Gordon Scott can get his investment back quicker, whilst continuing to be club Chairman. 

    I'd rather see a situation where the shares were held by the fans, and where Kibble could continue to rent out whatever facilities they require without having to purchase a shareholding. The money that comes in from the rental for facilities should be kept out of the playing squad, and should instead be re-invested in expanding the facilities at the club which would allow Kibble to help grow the club without the big initial financial outlay whilst St Mirren would benefit from an expanding list of facilities that could be used by the club when not being rented out. 

    I will try and put some more detailed thoughts together should anyone be interested, but please note that "normal rules" would mean that a shareholder e.g Kibble cannot be offered preferential treatment e.g discounts, from a company they own shares in without imprinting what is called "the rights of the minority" basically the rest of the shareholders. Now as in all matters it is more complicated that just the few sentences above, but I personally did spend a lot of time making sure that during 10000hours days the governance structure made sure this was not an issue....For example any preference was available to one member was available to all and no external party other than the CIC and Fans owned shares,  e.g none of the Corporate members owned shares (or indeed needed to own shares) as a result of membership. I also did present to the full board and trustees/advisors of Kibble about 30 people iirc, and took extensive questions, would be interesting to know the process of engagement this time......

  8. 1 minute ago, bazil85 said:


    The Purchase price is set.

    But you are spending £50K more on the product by putting money in that you could otherwise spent on something else, or saved for a rainy day, and that the Club out of its own resources could fund.

    It is like buying a house for £1m that needs £50k spent on fixing a roof that is already leaking.

    Giving the current owner £50K to fix it before you own it thus allowing the current owner to  go and buy a Jag instead

    The wondering in 20 years time when the roof needs fixed again where you can get £50K to fix it 




  9. Just now, bazil85 said:

    Okay well answer this question then.

    In what way is this a poor business decision by SMISA? You're the one saying we need to think like a business, I think it's very business astute. Please tell me why it's not? 

    I'll even happily turn it around for you. Please give me your reasoning's and benefits to why SMISA should keep a 'professional distance' in relation to an asset and football club they'll soon own? 

    Because when I buy a company I don't first build them a new office and then buy it.  I buy it and then build the new office

  10. 2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

    The members cant vote to disapply the asset lock (theres a clue in the name there). To spend the ring fenced funds on anything other than share purchase, as has been explained,  a special resolution would need to be drafted, presented and voted on, BEFORE any vote can take place to decide what the other thing to spend it is the membership want to spend the funds on!

    That brings you back to the asset lock which prohibits the Society from transferring its assets to a private company, especially in this instance where the primary reason is to buy advertising & sponsorship rights. I know you and others have said the astroturfing will indirectly benefit the community, however as we know the primary objective of the club is to lay a rinky-dink 4g surface as Ross has said he wont let the first team train on anything else. 

    So whete is the community benefit? Where are the numbers, key measurables, how many more, less, better..? How will this enable the community to become more resilient..? How will this affect youth crime and anti social behaviour... in numbers?

    i could ask smisa to fund a new shop in paisley as it could directly benefit the community, i could give you a swathe of facts and figures to back it up. The club & smisa haven't offered one stat on how a new 4g pitch for Jack & the boys would benefit the community. And shot themselves in the foot saying the justification is that we would appear to be paying an inflated fee for a service (advertising/sponsorship) which is again an offence in its  own right..!

    *takes deep breath...


    Thing is on a CBS you can vote to disapply a more complex  asset lock, to all except giving the money to the members.....


    ...in a CIC...however you cannot....


    ...I am sure I have one of those CICing (sic) around somewhere....oh wait a minute.


    ..steps back

  11. 2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

    Here’s my answer - ‘I’ll give it twelve months’. Now guess the question. First prize is a tub of Stelios Brand beard gel....

    How long until StuD is banned for being an insufferable knob.

    How long until the club board tap’ SMiSA for a pint of Fusiler Lager, a packet of pork scratchings and 50k for a player.

    How long until I post something remotely funny.

    How long will REA continue to make baz look stupid on here.

    How long until  Brechin City win a match.


    All answers on a postcard to: Bank of SMiSA, c/o The Clansman Bar, Craiglang.

    You missed the how long till I buy you that craft Canada beer you were always going on about!

  12. 1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

    2&3. We own the training facilities with no debt. Sounds like you're talking about the lease on the land, which is not uncommon. My understanding is it's on very favorable terms. Just splitting hairs, St Mirren own our training facilities. 

    5. Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. 

    Ok....you just cannot seem to accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.


    My understanding is what the facts of the lease are.


    It is a commercial lease from the council at rates appropriate for the facility, councils cannot do "favourable terms" they have to do appropriate terms to pass audit and COI tests


    The training facility is not a separate company so linking ownership and debt of Ralston is irrelevant.

    This is the lease bit from the accounts.





  13. 5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    1. :lol: Okay so we are in a fantastic situation of having the very best facilities in the world for a club our size. What a positive aspect for our club, there is zero negativity that even the St Moan loyal can take from that surely? Fortunately we have no rent or borrowing costs against the training facility so it must go a long-way to covering the running costs and maintenance. 

    2. Yes we do http://www.stmirren.info/id393.html 

    3. See above link

    5. It's not Us Vs Them, we're all in this together and all for what's best for SMFC. It's curious that people have got issue with our football club benefiting from funds that would otherwise sit gathering dust for close to a decade. 

    Para 2 and 3  you want me to post you a copy of the lease?


    We categorically do not own ralston


    Para 5.  they would sit being able to be spent in 10 years time when ground needs done and SMISA need £150K to do it not £50k contribution

  14. 6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    Are you suggesting to me St Mirren are the only team on this planet with our rough income and club size that have a training facility like ours? Baffling. You also seem to be hinting at this being a bad thing.

    Here's a  few question for you, if we can't afford to replace the pitch in X number of years what's the worst case scenario for the club with an owned training facility with no borrowing against it? 

    Do you agree a number of clubs at our level don't have the luxury of owning outright a training ground? Do you think any of these clubs will have rent/ borrowing and other costs that exceeds £150k over a 10 year period? 

    What about clubs like Dunfermline, Dundee United, Kilmarnock that have much bigger older stadiums than us with similar crowds and income? How do they fund stadium upkeep? 

    You're hinting that £150k would be an issue, it won't be. It'll come out of our budget like any other expense would do. We have used an opportunity to save £50k from the budget, it is in no way an indication that we won't be able to cover it in the future. 

    As for your second paragraph, I'll refer you back to my previous point. We are going into a league where the majority of teams will have bigger budgets than ours. This money saved give us a wee bit extra for next season. That is all, it's a bonus that we wouldn't have if BTB wasn't currently happening. We won't have that in the future but like we've been fine for the last 140 years we'll be fine in the future as expenses come our way. 

    Para 1.  yes...  I cannot think of another club SMFC size with these facilities

    Para 2  SMFC don't own the facilty

    Para 3 we don't have that luxury either

    Para 5 your understanding of what a "saving" is  when the future owners are spending £50 is odd 


  15. 1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

    Well that's not necessarily true. The details on the balance sheet will show a credit and a debit. The funds don't require to sit for any length of time. We also have no set information that's the way they'll do it. SMISA could pay the money to the company direct.

    Also even if the money was transferred in and sat for any length of time, realistically what profit would our shareholders make off £50k. It would be absolutely minimal. What do you think the FCA would say if someone complained that St Mirren Shareholders made enough to buy a mars bar out of this deal? :lol: Weakest argument yet, do you know what a risk acceptance is? 

    Yeah i know what risk acceptance is...it is very little to do with risk to the Funds, but the appropriateness of using money in a different way than what the money was raised for, and as to the rules as to if and how the members can change the uses.

  16. 1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

    I know what a balance sheet is.

    You're really struggling with your point here. The money is to buy an asset, the money is from future discretionary pot payments, the money has a direct and indirect benefit to the community, community benefits do not have to be completely detached of club benefits. Still waiting on you showing me where the members profit?

    Members profit because the value of their shares bump due to the benefit to the balance sheet of the company.


    Just as you have a Discretionary fund you also have a Restricted Fund, you should not lend from a Restricted Fund one and fund the lending from the other

  17. Just now, bazil85 said:

    So where's the profit? Asset £150k club funding £100k, we're giving £50k, the full £150k payable to the company. 

    Really...do you know what a balance sheet is?

    So you agree that SMISA is loaning the money directly to the Club?

  18. 1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

    What members are making profit? The money is going directly for the purchase of an asset (Not to St Mirren) that has a community benefit as previously stated. 

    Eh, the money will be going to the Club....


    The Club will buy the asset.


    do you agree?



  19. Just now, bazil85 said:

    So you think providing a benefit to a private organisation and to a community can't be mutual? That's the beauty of the proposal. Benefits our team benefits our community.

    You know who would be okay with that assurance? the FCA  

    Finally you admit that the private company benefits......

    Thing is the shareholders of that private company are also members of SMISA...


    I refer you to clause 3 of the constitution which defines the Community Benefit Purpose...


    3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.



    you see where the problem is now?


    Now i admit the profit is minor but these clauses are there to stop more blatant use and development of conflicts of interest


  20. 2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    They’ll have a better facility to use. That’s the whole point. 

    Again yes they will but that ultimately will be money out our budget for our return to the top flight. If that happens fine, I think the risk is very low of it not being repayed so I’m happy to vote yes. 

    So as you have said above. SMISA money is being used  for the benefit of a private organisation.


    SMISA spend money of a Club Asset, Clubs balance sheet sees the benefit, Club gets to spend more money on paying players, no one extra gets to use the 3G pitch.


    I hope you are not providing risk analysis for any org i have a relationship with!

  • Create New...