rea

something about two rights and to(sic) wrongs...

St Mirren v Clyde

Ok just this once "season tickets are valid"

That will be a 500quid appeal deposit then....more for the kitty

I would take note of any unexplained increase in the kitty now that the spending date has been announced

would rate as the best sporting comeback in history if Oracle pull it off. I hope they do.

Nope its the Footie

Although i have to say that calling Football "football" and not "Soccer" is a recent event. Soccer is a derivative of Association and not an Americanisation, it is just that for some reason the media sometime in the 60/70's stopped calling it soccer while the US continued with it, thus now making it look like they are calling it something diferent

That Cheese Joke may be Gouda but mine is Feta!

but Mascarpone is the only one you can use to hide your horse

Cue the Cheese jokes!

mmm,, Fruit Corners, although Mulller are German not Swiss

Last question may be closer to the truth than you think

Remember the Club does not make a profit it makes an accounting loss of approx £300K each year

The Club did not have to Pay the debt back. The CIC with the 1000+ members did. No Debt or security, bond or floating charge existed or would have existed between the Club and the CIC creditors. If the CIC had failed to pay its way the only recourse any creditor would have had would have been to sell the shares that the CIC owned to someone else that wanted to own a the Club, but it would have had to do this in a responsible way not a fire sale due to the kinds of organisations involved. Although in the history of the lenders involved they have never foreclosed on any creditor and obviously would not have agreed to loan the money to the Fans Group had they not done their homework on the business model and the sustainabilty of it.

Spliters!

You missed a " Final"

Sorry I mean a new group but made up of exactly the sort of people you mention. The group IMHO needs to be single issue to avoid any baggage from the history of others but the members need to be well known and skilled whi know what they are doing and will be trustedby the community at large. The single biggest issue we faced was being completely unknown in the community we were trying to engage with and for some that was an insurmountable problem.

Personally if the Fans were to try again my feeling is it needs a single Issue New group, not a SMiSA or a 10000hours (Mark 3!) or Even a Fans Council. No matter the right or wrong of it, all groups will have historical baggage, but a new groups with the unity of the Fans behind it and all the lessons learned stands a decent chance IMHO. the number of things I would have done differently now that I have had a go at it and seen behind the scenes at a Number of other Fanownership proposals is significant. Remember the Club as a loss making company is unlikely to be worth more as time goes on, but less. But Unity and Focus on Cooperative Fanownership would be Key

The offer made to SMiSA was the same as made to the Fans Council, which was basically that as the Club was still for sale and that if after the failure of 10000hours to conclude a deal if either OR both of those groups wanted to meet to go over what 10000hours tried to allow them to try a bid engaged with even more people (which is what would be needed to raise more money than £1.25m) then we were happy to do so but that this was expressly to be a New bid and not a rebirth of 10000hours for a third go. A new Bid, engaged with new people trying to raise a New total but learning from what we did right and what we did wrong.

Broadly agree with your sentiment Paul. An offer of £1.25m can in no way said to be "blowing it" it was simply not accepted by the Sellers as is their perfectly reasonable right.

The offer made to SMISA in May remains open.

Not in the slightest bit true. If you had read and listened correctly to all the presentations you would have heard and read that "any assets used of the Club by the CIC would have been paid for" e.g any hospitality used by the CIC would have been paid for to the Club and if the Void had been used the Club would have A. been able to use the new Space seling it and creating revenue and B the CIC would have paid the Club for the rental of the space on a commercial basis thus creating revenue for the club One of the main points of the proposal was to use the Ownership model to increase the resources available to the Club for the Squad. So I totally dispute that the CIC in anyway set out to sell Stuff that was owned by the Club without paying fairly for it. The whole point of the law about the "rights of the minority" is that we legally understood that this is the way it had to be. we could have come along and said "if you are a member you get discounts on season tickets and hospitality, (like Motherwells model)" but that seemed somewhat against the point of the process which was to get more money into the Club and build it up by being Cooperatively owned by the Community and Fans that love it the most

But I certainly agree that under the right ownership structure the Club has a great future. IMHO that structure is Cooperative Fanownership

At one of the presentations I think I described how after the first bid failed due to funding being withdrawn after it had been approved we did in fact look at doing it ourselves but the legal advice about the "rights of the minority" was exactly why we didnt but for slightly different reasons than the financial ones i posted earlier. In our case, as you saw we were getting significant abuse (might not be the best word) both publically (all be it anonymously, although we knew who they were) and significant private interference with our funders. With this in mind if we privately owned 51% the same individuals could use the "rights of the minority" rules to cause further issues. There was also a major conflict of interest potential as I would have been on both sides of the equation both buying the shares and selling the shares to the Fans CIC. With this in mind and some other minor points the Legal advice at the time was not to proceed and regrettably when that is the advice you get that is what you have to do. It was the time taken to explore all of this that caused the delay over that Christmas between the first bid and the restart of the second