rea

GLS would also have been the first Chairman, voted on by members thereafter, but the division between Club and CIC was very clear, although it was so clear it actually caused issues, becuase it complicated the model, making sure that everything was kept legally separate, all water under the bridge, folk can learn from my errors or not, i just put it out there as to what my mistakes were

A, Did they ask? If they did they were presumably told no? if so why? if they did not ask but it is such an issue for those close to the bid like yourself then why did they not ask? B. they have GLS as an ex Director who knows plenty and there is still a Director on Board who was involved with 10000hours have SMISA spoken to him or any other former directors for help? C. I dont think the board have done any more or less PR than before, other than the amount of time has passed. 10000hours had a few joint statements similar to SMISA, what PR did 10000hours that SMISA have not had the opportunity to do also?

A very simple thing we said at 10000hours was that if we had control of the board room then any SPL vote that was of the special nature that required an 11/1 vote we would poll all 10000hour members rather than it just being the decision of the board. Stuff like this is a very simple strategic goal that is deliverable and very easily communicates in 10000hours case that we were serious about fan consultation. The SMISA bid does not need to give a big plan out just some actual deliverables that the operation can be judged on if successful. The reality is numbers will drop unless targets set now are met.

You have to be careful to distinguish between the Club and SMISA who will mearly be a most significant shareholder. The board of the Club has to work for the benefit of the Club not Smisa...and that's where a strategy document that lays out why and how it would be good for both needs articulated.

Well handily I can answer that. SMISA are using the same system the 10000hours did...in fact so did FoH and RF. I will confirm the exact numbers when next at my desk but we had a DD of individual members whose bank details we had of well over 1000. ( I think 1103 ) we then had our community members (@ £500 each) think we had 35 and then Club numbers at £3000 each which IIRC we had 42. The only database that was not through the system which I had was the international sign ups as GC did not do overseas at the time again IIRC had 130 members. So overall our members database (actual real members not guys paying double membership fees and being counted twice) was in the region of 1300. We certainly did not take a £600 pm donation and count it as 60 members. I personally think there have been some very good aspects of the bid organisation from SMISA..but also some bits that could be much better. Just like my own bid there were bits we were very good at and bits that if I could do again I would do entirely differently. I suspect the SMISA guys already know their strengths and weaknesses and what they would also do differently if they had their time again

I have certainly said so on here in the past...and I am supremely confident they read this forum.

Bit of both. The magnificent 7 (ish) largely I.d themselves in error when one of them contacted a third party who had someone with them at the time who they did not know knew me very well. I was working with them on a project for another Club which I was giving them a wee steer on re funding. It was a pure coincidence but just an example of "7 degrees of Kevin Bacon"

If someone would delete this and last post please...app does not seem to have a delete function that I can see....ta...have a nice day

Some good reasons why "Yul" ain't about, posting at least anymore.I am undecided as to whether a bit more "agro" rather than "meh" ness would help any or not in the final push...... .....I could always try "poacher turned gamekeeper" might be quite fun and at least I would not be anonymous

They cannot make SMFC a not for profit as they are not buying all the shares in the company. Unless they do their responsibility as a board of smfc is still to all shareholders and not just smisa or GLS

FoH is but HMfc is not and right now FoH own zero hmfc shares

Eh....Hearts I is still a PLC..though not a listed one so is still a for profit org and BigHearts is independent of the Club like the Community trust at SMFC...not the same as SMISA

Cheers

Didn't attend and though I tried to watch the broadcast I did not see it all and have not had the chance to watch the recording.So no idea yet if the queries I have personally have been asked yet by others. But as there is now a month left there is plenty time yet. P.s I thought you played at the dome? If so we do know each other

The only problem with that is that to grow the Club you need to grow the fan base and turn non SMFC fans into SMFC fan within 10000hours membership numbers were a significant number of people i would estimate 100 who had no previous ties to SMFC but agreed with the idea of Cooperative ownership of Community assets, in this case SMFC and so got involved, so dont underestimate that there is a base out there on non SMFC fans that would joinwith the right message and that is not an exclusive one. Some folk thought this was bad, non SMFC fans (at the start) getting involved, but IMHO it was a great approach to growing future fans from non historical supporting families. Take for example the Church that did meet in the Stadium on a Sunday Morning when no one else was using, a couple of hundred people would meet and the kids etc would see and feel the stadium, it did not take too long before some kids wanted to goto a game, and some adults who had not been to a football match for years went to SMFC games when they had formerly gone to other grounds....it is this interaction with the community on all levels around the biggest physical asset the Club has (the Stadium) that will grow the Club beyond its normally family tied generational growth or decline, Fitt fans is also an example of this as is the Dome But each to their own

It already has been officially launched and tonights meeting is advertised as Next #BuyTheBuds Public Meeting is on Thu 19th MayThe bid team (who other than George, i have no idea who they are, but presumably they post on here) though Buddiecat has told me he is not on the team...yet he seems to be doing most of the donkey work for them, need to get their heads up and get themselves some exposure, to push the bid onto the number which we know are possible as well over 1000+ were engaged before

a very good point! Meeting Tomorrow not tonight....though perhaps a Q will start forming over night

If you are a member of SMISA you own a single share and have IIRC £1 liability in the CBS SMISA is owned by its members. It is this Member Owned company that owns the shares, and through its articles of associationthe members control the election of the board of SMISA who as Directors control the voting rights of the shares that SMISA own at the CLUB AGM. SMISA must stay as the owning organisation and members should make sure they understand how it all legally hangs together, hopefully the Bid team will make this clear tonight

...and that to bring in a facebook post is how the snafu start with sponsoring match worn shirts!

also got a Victory Cup final winners medal http://www.stmirren.info/id18.html

I think it was £500

You have to be a member as being a member of SMISA is what gets you your single share in SMISA which then give you the right to vote on SMISA matter such as how any vote to which the shares they one in SMFC are relevant is cast. It SMISA that own the shares collectively on behalf of the members.

Care just has to be taken to recognize the separate legal entities that are involved. The Club is owned by its shareholders. It just so happens that one of those shareholders will also be a company SMISA owned by its fan members, but despite them (hopefully) owning the majority they are simply a shareholder like any of the other IIRC 900 shareholders and so the Company (which is the Club) needs to be careful not to do anything that treats one shareholder differently than another, no matter how justified it might be in terms of promoting a FO bid....equally the bidder needs to be careful not to appear to be offering (as a result of its shareholding) any assets of the Club to just itself and by default its members as a result of a potentially majority shareholding position.

The first point is not technically correct. The board decide but obviously the membership decide the board. Not a condition of SD membership as such but is a condition of being a trust either a CBS or IPS which then allows you membership of SD .