WeeBud

If you listen (metaphorically) to others on this site instead of just shouting loudest you will find that "my" position is one common to most who have taken the time to try and understand what is going on with the "CiC" project. Within the CiC "one memeber one vote" is what it says on the tin!!

Nonsense I have been intereted in the idea of the CiC, albeit with concerns, from day one and have read as much as the next person, attended meetings and shared dialogue with others on the matter. At no point was I confused as to whether I was entitled to a vote on CiC issues as opposed to a "direct" vote in all things SMFC. Where I believe the influence will be is with the power of the 52% block vote on the SMFC Board. If it's one member on vote within the CiC then the 52% influence will be determined by the majority.

I accept that's not what you were debating, what I can't see is whether you have a concern about people having a shareholding in SMFC and being a member of the CIC or if you're just trying to discredit the CIC on any basis??

Is that not true for anyone who already has shares and is also becoming a member of the CIC??

Not really an alternative to the CiC, more a poll of who is and who isn't in favour of the CiC. This is always an issue when there is change in the Boardroom at football clubs, there will always be people for and people against whatever the changes are going to be (see r*ngers, c*ltic and Hearts for examples) however change has to happen at St Mirren as the current BoD feel they have gone as far a they can. Asking fans what they want is all well and good but shares have to be paid for somehow and at St Mirren we have a history of fans not taking up allocations of shares when they are offered. This time over 700 have registered and interest in financing a change in direction (don't know the numbers of DD forms returned) which would suggest that a fair percentage of the fans are pro CiC. I'd be amazed if there is another club in Britain with as high a percentage of fans financially supporting or contributing to changing the direction of their club other than through season-ticket sales.

Not disagreeing DavidG however i think if the funding organisations agree the funding package then by and large the business plan must have stood up to scrutiny. However I would hope that the business plan will be available to those wanting to know the ins and outs before too long. What I couldn't give two hoots about is whether the guy "running" the bar is already known to Richard Atkinson or any other CiC or Board Member so long as he has the necessary experience and expertise.

If the consortium wanted to nett £2m then the amount paid over would be £2m + tax by any ordinary buyer. Although you may be correct that it could be in the CIC's interest to make this claim, it would be easy enough for someone to prove the figures as incorrect and therefore a pretty niaive claim to make if untrue!! In the current economic climate I would think that there would be a fairly heavy tax burden on £2m although I don't know for sure.

Your info may be more up to date than mine as I haven't seen "the plan" and only relying on figures quoted by the CIC. If, however, Kibble or anyone else is having offices in the void area then they will presumably be paying rental to St Mirren for the use of the space thus raising funds for the club. Must be pretty big offices though if they are going to take up two thirds of the available space.

If the only reason for joining/becoming a memeber of the CIC is to have access to a bar then I would seriously consider whether your £10.00 per month spend was worthwhile. with that said I think the "void" area has room for around 600 standing, 350 seated and there was another figure mentioned for "theatre set-up". I may be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere or heard it at one of the meetings.

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and am not miffed in any way whatsoever by the CIC or it's proposals, in fact I have pledged membership as an individual. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things have changed from that point of view. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal, I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club and I'm sure that's true of many of the 900.