rea
-
Posts
771 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by rea
-
-
Div - Welcome but, and no offence meant, insignificant in a business with a £2.4m turnover.
What seems to have happened is that there was next to nil working capital left after the previous directors loans were repaid.
My understanding, but I may be wrong, that previous directors loans had been repaid when the old stadium was sold.
In other words the £257k had been needed as working capital in recent times.
That begs the question - Has Gordon Scott personally injected any working capital into the club from any sourse?
Nuying the shares of the previous directors brought no money into the club
There has been for at least the last 7 years (including when GS was last on the board) a working capital need or circa 100k per annum. I am sure Gordon will have taken this into account in his plans. It is normally between Christmas and April that the cash is most needed...though that was in prem div so might be a bit different now. -
Why on earth would the club do that? Richard when did that take place ?
Maybe i am wrong. But i recall sending a truck to move them so we certainly had some and if they are not being used then where are they...if i remember i will check back on my emails and see but would think someone else on here would know if we still have them or not -
Yeah I'd heard that before but I find it bizarre. Why sign an agreement that doesn't allow you to raise the cost to maintain and improve it? Even Wishaw Juniors managed not to fall into that trap.
There's got to be a way to get that changed though. If Renfrewshire is anything like Lanarkshire schools don't have sufficient facilities to meet the basic curriculum requirements for PE. Perhaps a bit of give and take
Conditions of lease and planning consent -
I'm no Harry Potter but I've been putting forward ideas for years. It's just no-one listens. How many times have you seen me stress how important working with the community. It IS the answer yet GLS seemed to bump it down the list of priorities because he saw it as a cost.
Bear in mind I've not seen the facilities and I'm not on the board and I don't know what clauses are in contracts but here's some starters for 10.
Make the plastic pitch at Ralston available for let's. Don't rip anyone off just charge what the council does. If you can raise £500 per week from this — which should be easy — that translates to £25000 per annum. Roughly a quarter of the cost I was quoted by NLC five years ago as the cost for replacing a pitch, which according to them should last 10 years. £500 per week from lets over 10 years covers the cost 2.5 times over.
Is the gym at Ralston worthy of opening to the public? Could local amateur teams be sold packages to use the gym on training nights?
Is there a place at Ralston where parents wait on their kids? If so is there a facility — even just a vending machine - that allows them to buy coffee, tea and to buy their child's water, sports drink or whatever?
The academy. Should the kids there really be playing for free? Could the club make it subscription based? Do the kids need a Carbrini jacket each, polo shirts, sweatshirts, training kit, tracksuits, bags etc all supplied by the club? If they are essential, and remember most other clubs aren't so generous, why not have the academy kids do fund raising - bag packing, race nights, dinners etc - to generate the cash? Why tie up SMiSA or Fans Council time raising money to help an academy where kids are being handed everything on a plate?
When working with clubs in the community use them. Get their coaches providing intelligence on local young talent - incentivies it even. Offer to host sportsman's dinners at Greenhill Road. Let them raise money while St Mirren take profit at the bar and from the catering. If the JD Sports deal is at an end look to form one huge buying group with local clubs. Buying in larger volumes generally means bigger discounts from suppliers. Buying kit at a cheaper price benefits both St Mirren and the community clubs. Mutual benefit.
I could go on for pages. As I keep saying the potential of fan ownership and working with the community is massive. If the buildings at Ralston need replaced then that is an opportunity. Don't f**k it up.
You are not allowed to rent out the pitch at Ralston. -
FFS We're more fcuked than I thought if the stadium air isn't being handled properly.
Don't joke. It's hugely serious. If the Air Handling Units are f**ked that could cost even more money from supply and extract fans, replacement filters, the boiler or gas heaters, pumps etc, it could run into tens of thousands and that is more essential than the USH.
There is nothing wrong with AH units or lift...question was as to if Due Diligence was a full report that SMISA paid for or if it was just pure financial analysis based on accounts etc.
The DD report we did was about 40 pages worth of questions etc for what it is worth -
Any SMISA office bearer comment on this ?
And by that question i dont mean was it broken at that point...but were the repair and maintenance issues or things such as USH and stadium air handling and lift etc reported upon in the report.
-
Look at the forecast, buy/borrow some covers at the start of the week, put them down and the pitch wouldn't have been frozen to the extent it the game was called off more than 24 hours before kick-off.
Might not have tried but would at least have shown all the stops were being pulled out. No excuse for not having a contingency plan if the fault was already known about.
We did have covers but gave them away/sold them IIRC i want to say to Stenhousmuir but someone will remember -
IIRC at the last few AGMs there were questions raised about depreciation and ongoing maintenance of existing assets. It would seem that no money was set aside.
Either that or all of the "rainy day" funds have been used to pay off the long list of employees that were deemed unfit for purpose over that last few years. Perhaps someone can answer the question at this AGM as to how much money has been used to pay off contracts of players and management staff since 2010.
FFS disnae even cover it.
The depreciation point i have been banging on about for a very long time. Each year i was involved warning was made that saying we were not making a "cash loss" while marking up 6 figure depreciation losses was missing the point of depreciation and that eventually a major capital expense (new carpets, heating, PA etc) was going to be needed and not reserve fund was going to be available. Lets hope insurance does sort this issue and that this just acts as a wake up call to start making some capital funding savings. SMISA money would be ideal for this (with certain share %age rules ) in 10000hours once payments were complete all money was to be ring fenced for capital funding.
-
Wouldn't be very fair on the new owners of the club if the USH was broken when the club was sold and that was not disclosed?
That is what due diligence is for SMISA paid for a report was it in there? -
Ross County and Motherwell also went out and spent money on players in January whereas at St Mirren, we dithered about giving a rookie manager the job for 6 weeks, and gave him no money to spend and he had to mutually consent contracts and return loan players to bring in 2 or 3 players, and then we sold our top scorer leaving our rookie manager no time to find a replacement.
Ross County and Motherwell both had multi millionaire owners at the time...doubt motherwell will do much business this January -
Been broken a wee while IIRC
-
Yeah, it's Network 90.
https://www.network90.com
One of my clients is involved with that, and they also produce Linked-In profiles for football players [emoji33]
http://sportcareers.co.uk/product.php?id=2
It's a growing platform for Sports Professionals.
BTW say hi to David for me -
Yeah, it's Network 90.
https://www.network90.com
One of my clients is involved with that, and they also produce Linked-In profiles for football players [emoji33]
http://sportcareers.co.uk/product.php?id=2
It's a growing platform for Sports Professionals.
Indeed. Just checked JR is certainly on it cannot find JF though.
But there are plenty of players floating around it. Dont know if the FA still produce their lists or not. -
Thing is there is actually a social network owned IIRC but Luis Figo just for this sort of thing..
-
Good update
-
Richard
i can assure you this was not suggested and had it been, it would not have been agreed to
Fair enough. I personally dont think it would have been a bad agreement to have. Means there is no issue re special resolutions if needed. So not so sure i would have been so quick to not agree to such a thing finally as i said was not talking about if it was suggested to smisa but if it was suggested to GS by his advisors
-
1 hour ago, barrymitchell said:
Nah you said "You are right when you say that the 75% shares controlled now by GLS give him virtual carte blanche." That is not a given by any means.
I would be surprised if GLS solicitors did not advise him to put a clause in the SMISA deal that allows him to copt the SMISA shares to pass any Special resolution that he deems nessesary, which requires the 75%.
whether if the solicitors suggested it, it was actually actioned i know not
-
2 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:
This is progress.
We are (amost) on the same page.
All we are discussing is the ranking of creditors.
I acknowledge that any any preference shares issued would be of limited value to investors.
But they can rank before other shares.
You are right when you say that the 75% shares controlled now by GLS give him virtual carte blanche.
They (he) could therefore seek and of course gain permission to alter what you call The Prospectus.
As for issuing additional ordinary shares, there is no way that I would personally invest in these where an individual or group owned more than 75%.
Either option would provide cash for the business.
My personal favourite is Preference Shareas as this brings some protection to the 100 people I suggested might invest/lend the club £1k-5k each.
Like Stuart Dickson, any plan provided would need to be long term.
At the moment for very limited funding in relative terms, GLS has it all ways.
Good luck to him and I mean that very sincerely folks as one Hughie Green used to say.
below are the two key pages. note clause 7
-
Gordon doesn't control over 75%....
He does via him and Smisa. Sorry i was typing on phone so just said GLS rather than splitting it down -
Your prospectus would be set out the terms and whether or not the ranked first on the assets
Irrelevant. It is against the law and constution of the Club to use Club assests as security in the transaction of shares.
I will post the relevant clause later on.
Using a different class of shares with no voting rights is as good as just making a donation as it entitles you to nothing going foward and so is generally only used by large existing shareholders. So it could make sense as a way of SMISA or GLS getting cash in without upsetting the share balance.
However the most sensible way is to do it the way the old board did and just issue new shares on the basis that a rights issue say 1 new share for every 3 existing. This will certainly not be taken up by most small shareholders but just by smisa and gls and so allows new money to go in while not upsetting the share balance.
This is the way it has been done in the past and GLS controls over 75% so that he can make it happen with no legal difficulty.
It allows him to put cash in for something and smisa can put their £2 per member amounts in and also get something while at the same time the cash can still be soent interally at the Club on the member projects but with the added bonus of shares and GLS matching the investment...or even some other putting a wee bit in.
-
How can it possibly be negative to suggest alternative ways of raising money to accelerate the turn-around of the club using alternative share offerings which provide working capital in a long term way which benefits the club, complements the SMISA share scheme and leaves the authority to act with the elected board of directors. Any share issue relies upon those with the money to invest are confident in the business plan put forward by the board and secured.
I have the feeling that the previous 52% group made directors loans that were adjusted to be prime creditors of the club in reality if not In name and repaid when the sale of Love Street rook place leaving both the directors and the club debt free. A good deal if you can get it and get it you could with 52% of the shares.
What that did was leave us open to the practice proposed that the only way to go was through increasing revenue. The speed of growth using this methodology depends on a number of factors, not least of which is how bad a job the previous board were I'm doing so. The new board see this as an open goal and there is undoubted scope in many areas.
The velocity of money however is not fast enough. I can understand that peoe had lost faith in the old board and that their energy and ideas were past their best. Natural decline.
Our choices are no investment. Difficulty in strengthening the squad, poor results Continue and relegation threatens.
Investment ahead of January. Strngthens budget and enables better players to be appointed to the squad. Result mid table sefetu and ability to to an to raise further capital.and improve the squad result able to challenge for mid to to top positions.
Take your pick guys.
Directors loans were paid back in full at the end of each season. Fact. -
I am not asking him to invest.
But
This doesn't mean there can't be investment.
But
Any investment made would need to be made against a sensible business plan.
What if?
There were 100 fans who were each wiling to invest say £1,000-£5,000 each into the club.
Preference shares, voting or non voting could be issued.
Would the board welcome that and how would they handle that?
Would they for example set aside 100 seats in the directors area for these people.
Who would still be expected to pay for their season ticket each year.
Perhaps membership of the 1877 club could be included.
Surely they could make good use of £100,000 - £500,000
You cannot use assets of the Club as encouragment for the sale of shares in the Club it is against Club rules IIRC -
3 minutes ago, HSS said:
It's Gordon Scotts job to provide money for the Club,the fans are already digging deep enough.GS was keen enough to get his hands on the Club.......let's hope he's just as keen to put his hand in his pocket and get us out of this mess.If he dosent he stands to lose a lot more than a place in the Championship.
Thing is the way the deal is structured it is not all that easy to "put money in" no point in putting it in for shares when what you are trying to do is sell them and GS creating shares waters SMISA down to below the key number of 25%+1 share.
So either money has to be loaned in, donated or put in as sponsorship/commercial...all of which have difficulties.
On traditional ways of doing it the become a Director for £50K is hopefully not further resorted to
-
2 hours ago, Kendo said:
Now is the time for more to join up, cancelling will only make things much worse.
The money raised is not going into the Club currently, vast majority is going to pay a debt to the previous shareholders and a small amount for projects that i dont think have been defined, so right now if probably makes little difference either way....but momentum does matter, and a momentum of cancellations will be tricky to reverse, without a reversal in Club fortune
Kyle Hutton - 2 Year Deal Confirmed
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
Might be enough for the USH though