The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[St. Sid]

Without having to back track through the thread was March not the month being thrown about by those in the know including yourself Sid.

If that's what you think is important LS track back to your heart's desire.

I know lots of things including the deviant nature of SPS's relationship with his dug, but I wouldn't go posting it on the Internet. If you do track back you will see that I was and still am skeptical about the timescales. This could easily drag on for months. I do think that the public sector financial year end at the end of this month will give the CIC chaps and the BoD a better idea of where they are in the process. You might get a press conference announced by me for the 1st April though.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

If that's what you think is important LS track back to your heart's desire.

I know lots of things including the deviant nature of SPS's relationship with his dug, but I wouldn't go posting it on the Internet. If you do track back you will see that I was and still am skeptical about the timescales. This could easily drag on for months. I do think that the public sector financial year end at the end of this month will give the CIC chaps and the BoD a better idea of where they are in the process. You might get a press conference announced by me for the 1st April though.

Like the bit about SPS dug.

[davidg]

Well said that man. 10 days until the end of March and no word on how all this will work. The 49% of us 'other' shareholders are being treated like mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed on S**T.

Does anyone know the number (or percentage) of shareholders needed to call another AGM ?

I feel we are sailing slowly to towards a disaster. The CIC scheme only makes (even a very little) sense if we are in the first or even second division. Is that the grand plan Mr. Atkinson ? I think we deserve to know NOW !

For an accountant you're not the brightest.

You can't call another AGM, it is an Annual General Meeting

If you are a shareholder you should have a copy of the Articles of Association and Memorandum, the rules for calling an Extraordinary General Meeting will be in there.

Edited March 21, 2011 by davidg

[Drew]

For an accountant you're not the brightest.

He's not an accountant, he's a very naughty boy!

[northendsaint]

During the 2000 reunion dinner i was approached by at least three people who had concerns about the future of our club if this cicc buy out goes through.Normally this would not concern me but the people were in my opinion massive Saints fans who have the club at heart and have contributed so much time and effort over the years for no reward.I have not studied the ins and outs of the deal so im in no place to say one way or another if its good or bad but what is continually alarming me is that it has been stated that it would work better if we are in a lower division.My other worry is that influential supporters have been targeted and brought on board to support this venture(Div and Smisa reps)and im concerned that such a good deal requires a canvassing of our supporters to see it through.At the moment all i see is same old same old with no money for investment in the team,the present board leaving with not only a tidy sum of money but the knowledge of running a football club(a job they have done well) and we are left with an accountant and lawyer who have no interest in football.I aint no accountant but something doesn,t add up.

[div]

During the 2000 reunion dinner i was approached by at least three people who had concerns about the future of our club if this cicc buy out goes through.Normally this would not concern me but the people were in my opinion massive Saints fans who have the club at heart and have contributed so much time and effort over the years for no reward.I have not studied the ins and outs of the deal so im in no place to say one way or another if its good or bad but what is continually alarming me is that it has been stated that it would work better if we are in a lower division.My other worry is that influential supporters have been targeted and brought on board to support this venture(Div and Smisa reps)and im concerned that such a good deal requires a canvassing of our supporters to see it through.At the moment all i see is same old same old with no money for investment in the team,the present board leaving with not only a tidy sum of money but the knowledge of running a football club(a job they have done well) and we are left with an accountant and lawyer who have no interest in football.I aint no accountant but something doesn,t add up.

The CIC deal needs the fans support otherwise it won't work, that much is very true. The whole model is about bonding the fans and the club together so that the supporters are no longer "just" customers of St.Mirren FC, they can actually have a vested interest in it's direction and the decisions that it makes.

I support this in as much as I have met the guys involved and am re-assured there is no sinister underlying masterplan at work here. The current board must have been persuaded about that as well and remember they are all St.Mirren men (and woman !) as well.

Whether or not the whole thing will "work" of course is a different concern, and I don't have my crystal ball handy to tell me either way what will happen. It's never been done before on this scale but looking at the club and the way it is now I would much rather it was in the hands of supporters and the local community rather than have some stranger floating in and splashing around money for short term gain.

Dundee, Gretna and Livingston are living proof that short term glory and living outwith your means delivers long term pain.

Would I rather Gordon Scott had taken control ? Probably, because it would have been a more traditional sale that I understood and I know Gordon knows how to run a club and had good plans for taking us further forward.

Unfortunately the board rejected his offer, so we were without a credible buyer until this opportunity arose.

[Drew]

Unfortunately the board rejected his offer, so we were without a credible buyer until this opportunity arose.

That's one of my key concerns as it happens Div.

I am aware that there were no alternative credible bids if you take those made by Gordon (note the plural) out of the equation. We'll probably never know the reasoning behind the rejection of his bids, but I have my suspicions, and they aren't very favourable in respect of the 'consortium' it has to be said.

Does it follow, then, that the CIC option was pretty much regarded as the only route to take - the best of a bad lot even? Or do the selling directors genuinely believe that this will work. I'm quite sure that they hope it will, but did it come to the point that they were prepared to take a bit of a punt on this, on the basis that they will get their £2M, and what happens after that will be somone else's responsibility?

I simply cannot shake off the sense that SG and Co. are willing to put their first principles aside in respect of the vote on league reconstruction (ie - their preference for a 14 top league) in order to support a structure being in place that will, perhaps, soften the blow if the CIC doesn't work out for a top-flight club, as many seems to suspect it won't in the final analysis. Why else would Gilmour even consider voting for a top 10 - something that, having discussed this with him, I reckon he is prepared to do?

As northendsaint has already pointed out, much of this seems to indicate that we might need to accept that a lowering of ambitions will be required if this venture is to be seen to be viable. I'm not sure how many supporters will be able to swallow such a bitter pill. I could just about live with it if we had reason to be confident that the club would have a strong foundation on which to progress to greater things. As things stand, this seems far from certain.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Drew

[div]

As northendsaint has already pointed out, much of this seems to indicate that we might need to accept that a lowering of ambitions will be required if this venture is to be seen to be viable. I'm not sure how many supporters will be able to swallow such a bitter pill. I could just about live with it if we had reason to be confident that the club would have a strong foundation on which to progress to greater things. As things stand, this seems far from certain.

I don't think there should be a lowering of ambition to be honest. There will be no dramatic increase to the playing budget, but similarly there should be no reason to expect any further decrease on what we have given the manager this season (which is a bit less than last season but not as much less as some would have you believe).

One of the aims of the CIC is to make better use of the stadium to generate additional revenue, there are various ways that may happen, but there is a general feeling that we are under-performing as a club like Motherwell who aren't significantly bigger than we are, are outperforming us substantially in terms of commercial revenue.

So, if it works, in theory there might be more money to put toward the development of the team, but it won't be coming directly out a directors pocket and it won't happen overnight would be my take on it.

[pozbaird]

I don't think there should be a lowering of ambition to be honest. There will be no dramatic increase to the playing budget, but similarly there should be no reason to expect any further decrease on what we have given the manager this season (which is a bit less than last season but not as much less as some would have you believe).

One of the aims of the CIC is to make better use of the stadium to generate additional revenue, there are various ways that may happen, but there is a general feeling that we are under-performing as a club like Motherwell who aren't significantly bigger than we are, are outperforming us substantially in terms of commercial revenue.

So, if it works, in theory there might be more money to put toward the development of the team, but it won't be coming directly out a directors pocket and it won't happen overnight would be my take on it.

There's an argument that since we came up to the SPL - as a 'traditionally owned' club, we've been pretty damn close to going back to a lower league anyway... Gretna season aside. As you say Div, I don't see why us being a CIC, instead of being owned by an individual, should alter the outlook that we worked hard to gain top-flight status, and this is where we want to remain. The re-construction vote, and the possibility of us voting for an unpopular new set-up is, in my view, a different matter to the whole ownership thing.

You get a different opinion on the whole 'ownership thing' depending on who you speak to. That's why I always say I am waiting to see the official launch of the plans before making my mind up one way or the other. I'm in the dark as to why Gordon Scott's offer(s) were rejected - other than to suppose it was all down to internal polictics / strife / We're no' sellin' tae' him... however best to put it. Gordon Scott taking over would be easier to understand, and would be more like what we know. What we're used to is David Murray at r*ngers, Vladimir Romanov at Hearts, John Boyle at Motherwell, Eddie Thompson at Dundee United, Brookes Mileson at Gretna.... that's what we're used to. CICs and 'community ownership' sounds new, and perhaps just a bit scary.

There's a lot of questions - I think Drew alluded quite reasonably to many of them. SG always said he wouldn't sell unless it was to the right owners - but having rejected Gordon Scott, the CIC plan does seem to be the only alternative game in town, so have the consortium indeed just taken a big deep breath and said 'Better go with this - there's nothing else now anyway?'

Too many questions - not enough answers. Yet.

Edited March 22, 2011 by pozbaird

[Leith Buddie]

One of the aims of the CIC is to make better use of the stadium to generate additional revenue, there are various ways that may happen, but there is a general feeling that we are under-performing as a club like Motherwell who aren't significantly bigger than we are, are outperforming us substantially in terms of commercial revenue.

So, if it works, in theory there might be more money to put toward the development of the team, but it won't be coming directly out a directors pocket and it won't happen overnight would be my take on it.

This is the main issue I have.

No disrespect to our Commercial Manager, but the fact is that we are still acting like a boy's club instead of a business when it comes to:

- Collecting fees for Corporate

- Sponsorship

- Advertising

- Use of facilities

- Commercial opportunities

- Public opportunities

Other clubs have at least 1 or 2 people responsible for each of these - I know through 'Er Indoors that there is a team of at least 10 at her club doing this - and from a mate of mine that's a Falkirk fan, they still have a team of about 3-4 people doing this - yet we seem to still have 1 doing 'all of the above'.

The CIC taking control doesn't change this overnight. In fact, a wee bit of foresight from the current BoD a few years ago would have probably sorted this - and the revenue stream would be much, much greater.

Even our Hospitality is missing a trick - granted, I've only been once and recently, but 'Er Indoors said that it was a good experience, only spoiled by the fact that it could be oh so much better if someone got more involved. Having the Commercial Manager speak for 2 minutes just before the game (and for 2 minutes afterwards) isn't a good experience.

We have been acting like a 1st division club since we came up - any change of ownership (or foresight and input from board members) would sort this...

[Drew]

I don't think there should be a lowering of ambition to be honest. There will be no dramatic increase to the playing budget, but similarly there should be no reason to expect any further decrease on what we have given the manager this season (which is a bit less than last season but not as much less as some would have you believe).

That's the crux, though. A similar budget to that which the manager currently has might allow us to progress in the current set-up or a larger (eg: 14 team) league. There is very little chance, however, that we would survive in a 10 team top league unless there is a significant step-up in performance in terms of the resources (ie - players and management team) that we currently have. Again, I come back to my contention that the developments within the club and the league restructuring agenda are inextricably linked.

Let's assume the squad budget would be similar under the CIC to that which we have now. In the context of a 10 team SPL, I suspect that we might have to bite the bullet in terms of taking the drop and potentially remaining there for a seaon or two at the very least.

I'm not suggesting that there is any viable alternative in terms of securing funds for a greater player budget. We need to operate in the real world. It seems to me, though, that for our BoD at least, there might be a realisation that the real world for a club like St Mirren (CIC or otherwise) doesn't necessarily include a place at the top table. The CIC might just provide a sustainable base for a club of SMFC's size, but where does this place us in terms league status? I have my concerns in this respect, though, as I've already noted, if I were confident that the CIC provided a springboard for further development, I might be more encouraged. Again....time will tell.

[pozbaird]

That's the crux, though. A similar budget to that which the manager currently has might allow us to progress in the current set-up or a larger (eg: 14 team) league. There is very little chance, however, that we would survive in a 10 team top league unless there is a significant step-up in performance in terms of the resources (ie - players and management team) that we currently have. Again, I come back to my contention that the developments within the club and the league restructuring agenda are inextricably linked.

Let's assume the squad budget would be similar under the CIC to that which we have now. In the context of a 10 team SPL, I suspect that we might have to bite the bullet in terms of taking the drop and potentially remaining there for a seaon or two at the very least.

I'm not suggesting that there is any viable alternative in terms of securing funds for a greater player budget. We need to operate in the real world. It seems to me, though, that for our BoD at least, there might be a realisation that the real world for a club like St Mirren (CIC or otherwise) doesn't necessarily include a place at the top table. The CIC might just provide a sustainable base for a club of SMFC's size, but where does this place us in terms league status? I have my concerns in this respect, though, as I've already noted, if I were confident that the CIC provided a springboard for further development, I might be more encouraged. Again....time will tell.

There's two scenarios:

1. Being a CIC means that IF relegation happens, it's OK, we can survive without suffering to the extent that Dunfermline and Falkirk etc have financially.

2. Being a CIC means that it would be better if we WERE relegated, and everyone running the club is trying to take us down, while giving the appearance of trying to keep us up.

Big difference. Not suggesting that you are siding with '2' particularly Drew. Well, maybe.

[GlenburnSaint]

I dont know much about this CIC myself but personally i dont like the fact that....

a) We are the first (either guniea pigs or panicstations spings to mind)

There is already talk of "going down" and "lower ambitions" and no deals are done

Maybe just hang in there and give us ust enough money to keep us up and eventually a suitable buyer will come in.

Yous all seem to be very business minded so maybe you have a more valid point than me but deterioration of the club in any way seems like a pish outcome.

[Drew]

There's two scenarios:

1. Being a CIC means that IF relegation happens, it's OK, we can survive without suffering to the extent that Dunfermline and Falkirk etc have financially.

2. Being a CIC means that it would be better if we WERE relegated, and everyone running the club is trying to take us down, while giving the appearance of trying to keep us up.

Big difference. Not suggesting that you are siding with '2' particularly Drew. Well, maybe.

Of those two, I would certainly lean towards 1. being the most likely scenario. I think it will be difficult to square, though, if St Mirren vote for a top 10 next month.

[TsuMirren]

I dont know much about this CIC myself but personally i dont like the fact that....

a) We are the first (either guniea pigs or panicstations spings to mind)

There is already talk of "going down" and "lower ambitions" and no deals are done

Maybe just hang in there and give us ust enough money to keep us up and eventually a suitable buyer will come in.

Yous all seem to be very business minded so maybe you have a more valid point than me but deterioration of the club in any way seems like a pish outcome.

We're not the first though, Clyde and Stenhousemuir are CIC run...are Stirling or is that a provident society? In each of those three instances it's very much the final throw of the dice, the last straw so to speak. I'll even throw Ebbsfleet United in there, a club who changed their name to get some cash from Eurostar then jumped at the MYFC money and utilised Will Brooks' naivety to work the deal in the clubs favour whilst screwing over the MYFC members. From what I've read and been told I see absolutely no final straw or wish to hoodwink everybody. SMISA have wanted to get a seat on the board, now it'll be possible for fans to have that chance (I believe the fans portion of the CIC may have as many as 5 slots on the club board and slots on the management board of the CIC itself).

So, we'll have a say of control in the club and a say of how the CIC itself is run.

Some members of this forum have discussed Richard "getting members and fans on board". I see nothing wrong with that, I don't think any (those I know of) are sheep and will blindly just follow. There's a need for information and a need to challenge, if that means some people contact Richard and sit down with him then where's the harm. It beats how things worked at MYFC...not going to go on about it here, but catch me in private and I'll discuss it a bit more.

The other aspect that a lot of people above have touched on is the current state of the club and the leagues. I think we know we've little chance of 7,000 at home vs Hibs for example, but would it not be nice to get 5 and try to push for 7 even knowing we might not get there. OF fans won't come to see us anymore as they can watch their games on TV or live internet feeds every single week and the local community is all we have. Fergie got them all together with a bit of work, maybe as a collective we can bridge the gap of not enough people doing the work and get away from the "I'll give you a jacket and tie, you go talk to them" mentality we have at the moment.

[pozbaird]

Of those two, I would certainly lean towards 1. being the most likely scenario. I think it will be difficult to square, though, if St Mirren vote for a top 10 next month.

'1' is fine by me - '2' is worrying if at all true. I don't buy it mind you, I just don't buy into any scenario where we actively seek to fail. Makes no sense whatsoever on any level. IMHO. If Richard Atkinson wants this to work, and naturally he does, then having a top flight club to 'sell' to interested parties such as local businesses and community groups, as well as individual fans, has to be a more attractive proposition than trying to sell a relegated club who have just dropped out of the limelight - such as the limelight is in the SPL, but you get my drift.

My biggest issue with the CIC is something I've mentioned before - if things get really bad these days, we could always resort to 'Gilmour Gilmour, get tae F'. If we, as individual members, have a direct responsibility, we'll need to sit in the West Bank and chant 'Me and you, and him in W2, get tae F'.

Anyone got Gordon Scott's phone number?

[Seaside Nipper]

Of those two, I would certainly lean towards 1. being the most likely scenario. I think it will be difficult to square, though, if St Mirren vote for a top 10 next month.

Practically, there are often more financial prospects to be had from struggling and failing , than struggling and just continually surviving. Twisted but true, although the counter to that is we are allegedly in no debt

So good or bad, CIC or despotic single owner, hmmm.

Sadly for now we are not even at the table never mind getting ready to roll the dice.

I tend to be concerned about the diddyness appeal of the CIC. Although I do notice that Clyde cite Bayern Munich and Schalke amongst others as great examples of the openness and management by community. Hmm, slight differences I' think.

We are more likely to template the Clyde and Stenny model , although , if this really is the only genuine way ahead, well , pish and cock you've got come to mind .....................

[BLF]

I openly admit to not really understanding how this CIC will work - my understanding is it will need fans and businesses to buy a share in the CIC the CIC will then buy the club. The club would then operate on a not for profit basis - with any profits being reinvested.

2 questions i have - as the CIC will own 52% of the club - what happens to the other 48%, how many fans would need to buy into this in order to make it work?

[div]

The league re-construction vote is a probably for a different thread, but wihin context of the takeover it is nonsense to suggest that St.Mirren "want" to be relegated, and any such notion should be put to bed straight away.

As for the current board voting for a 10 team league, there would, IMHO, be valid reasons for it.

We have to accept that in 2011, in terms of the 12 club SPL we currently have we are miles behind half of those clubs in terms of support, revenue and whatever. That means generally speaking we are going to be bottom six and inevitably sooner or later we are probably going to be relegated.

Currently if we get relegated that would wipe around £1m from our annual turnover. We could cope with that, because we have no debt but it would still mean savage cuts to the first team squad, a reduction in the youth and community programmes and redundancies all through the operational side of the club.

It would be far from pleasant but we would still have a club.

The 10 team setup doesn't massively appeal to me, but in that scenario relegation wouldn't have the same impact as above, and it would be easier to get promoted back to the top flight. I'm sure we would be a yo-yo team but to be honest based on the last 5 years experience of the SPL I'm actually not sure that would bother me too much, seasons 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 were far more enjoyable than any I've experienced since and winning "SPL 2" would I am sure be pretty enjoyable.

I'm not saying I WANT us to be in the second tier, I don't, but it would seem to me to be prety much inevitable that it will happen at some point just as it happened before, and if it is going to come to pass I'd rather the financial penalty wasn't going to mean loads of folk losing their jobs and Ralston being reduced to nothing more than a training ground for the first team.

[Drew]

The league re-construction vote is a probably for a different thread, but wihin context of the takeover it is nonsense to suggest that St.Mirren "want" to be relegated, and any such notion should be put to bed straight away.

As for the current board voting for a 10 team league, there would, IMHO, be valid reasons for it.

We have to accept that in 2011, in terms of the 12 club SPL we currently have we are miles behind half of those clubs in terms of support, revenue and whatever. That means generally speaking we are going to be bottom six and inevitably sooner or later we are probably going to be relegated.

Currently if we get relegated that would wipe around £1m from our annual turnover. We could cope with that, because we have no debt but it would still mean savage cuts to the first team squad, a reduction in the youth and community programmes and redundancies all through the operational side of the club.

It would be far from pleasant but we would still have a club.

The 10 team setup doesn't massively appeal to me, but in that scenario relegation wouldn't have the same impact as above, and it would be easier to get promoted back to the top flight. I'm sure we would be a yo-yo team but to be honest based on the last 5 years experience of the SPL I'm actually not sure that would bother me too much, seasons 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 were far more enjoyable than any I've experienced since and winning "SPL 2" would I am sure be pretty enjoyable.

I'm not saying I WANT us to be in the second tier, I don't, but it would seem to me to be prety much inevitable that it will happen at some point just as it happened before, and if it is going to come to pass I'd rather the financial penalty wasn't going to mean loads of folk losing their jobs and Ralston being reduced to nothing more than a training ground for the first team.

I agree that no-one wants us to take the drop, and have never suggested otherwise, but I suspect we might already be preparing for that eventuality, and the CIC model might fit that status better (at least in the short to medium term) than it would in respect of a club in the top tier - or certainly in a top tier of 10.

Maybe this is simple realism on the part of the Board. I'd still much rather Stewart Gilmour sticks with his preference and principles and votes against this option in favour of 14 teams.

[pozbaird]

The league re-construction vote is a probably for a different thread, but wihin context of the takeover it is nonsense to suggest that St.Mirren "want" to be relegated, and any such notion should be put to bed straight away.

As for the current board voting for a 10 team league, there would, IMHO, be valid reasons for it.

We have to accept that in 2011, in terms of the 12 club SPL we currently have we are miles behind half of those clubs in terms of support, revenue and whatever. That means generally speaking we are going to be bottom six and inevitably sooner or later we are probably going to be relegated.

Currently if we get relegated that would wipe around £1m from our annual turnover. We could cope with that, because we have no debt but it would still mean savage cuts to the first team squad, a reduction in the youth and community programmes and redundancies all through the operational side of the club.

It would be far from pleasant but we would still have a club.

The 10 team setup doesn't massively appeal to me, but in that scenario relegation wouldn't have the same impact as above, and it would be easier to get promoted back to the top flight. I'm sure we would be a yo-yo team but to be honest based on the last 5 years experience of the SPL I'm actually not sure that would bother me too much, seasons 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 were far more enjoyable than any I've experienced since and winning "SPL 2" would I am sure be pretty enjoyable.

I'm not saying I WANT us to be in the second tier, I don't, but it would seem to me to be prety much inevitable that it will happen at some point just as it happened before, and if it is going to come to pass I'd rather the financial penalty wasn't going to mean loads of folk losing their jobs and Ralston being reduced to nothing more than a training ground for the first team.

Div,

I've also had the pounds and pennies explained to me, and I'm not daft - I can see where the attraction in the 10 team SPL is. However, it is still being shockingly explained to us as football supporters - not just Saints fans, just football fans. The communication from the SPL on this is nothing short of disgraceful. We've had the spectacle of Neil Doncaster spouting from the steps of Hampden stuff that is blatantly rubbish, and the whole thing is still being dressed up as some sort of radical new dawn for Scottish football as a whole. It simply is not. Frankly, I'd have more respect for the administrators if they just came out, and showed us plain and simple the figures I was shown. I don't trust them as far as I could throw them.

[bud77]

The league re-construction vote is a probably for a different thread, but wihin context of the takeover it is nonsense to suggest that St.Mirren "want" to be relegated, and any such notion should be put to bed straight away.

As for the current board voting for a 10 team league, there would, IMHO, be valid reasons for it.

We have to accept that in 2011, in terms of the 12 club SPL we currently have we are miles behind half of those clubs in terms of support, revenue and whatever. That means generally speaking we are going to be bottom six and inevitably sooner or later we are probably going to be relegated.

Currently if we get relegated that would wipe around £1m from our annual turnover. We could cope with that, because we have no debt but it would still mean savage cuts to the first team squad, a reduction in the youth and community programmes and redundancies all through the operational side of the club.

It would be far from pleasant but we would still have a club.

The 10 team setup doesn't massively appeal to me, but in that scenario relegation wouldn't have the same impact as above, and it would be easier to get promoted back to the top flight. I'm sure we would be a yo-yo team but to be honest based on the last 5 years experience of the SPL I'm actually not sure that would bother me too much, seasons 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 were far more enjoyable than any I've experienced since and winning "SPL 2" would I am sure be pretty enjoyable.

I'm not saying I WANT us to be in the second tier, I don't, but it would seem to me to be prety much inevitable that it will happen at some point just as it happened before, and if it is going to come to pass I'd rather the financial penalty wasn't going to mean loads of folk losing their jobs and Ralston being reduced to nothing more than a training ground for the first team.

I think the sale and league reconstruction are tied together - for myself a 10 team league failed before and the set up that's been talked about for the first division seems to be purely in order to maintain the 10 SPL teams that survive and increase the finances of the OF. I think it's a bad move for Scottish football, in footballing terms, and will lead to a further lowering of the quality of the game and decrease in crowds and there's no way I will support it by attending SPL games under SPL1 or SPL2 which also means I would not support the CIC as that would effectively mean supporting the SPL.

[div]

I think the sale and league reconstruction are tied together - for myself a 10 team league failed before and the set up that's been talked about for the first division seems to be purely in order to maintain the 10 SPL teams that survive and increase the finances of the OF. I think it's a bad move for Scottish football, in footballing terms, and will lead to a further lowering of the quality of the game and decrease in crowds and there's no way I will support it by attending SPL games under SPL1 or SPL2 which also means I would not support the CIC as that would effectively mean supporting the SPL.

How about this for a scenario............

If the club is sold in the next 2-3 weeks it could be the members of the CIC (ie the St.Mirren fans) that decide whether or not the club votes for or against a 10 team SPL

[Griff]

This should be on a forum about league reconstruction , but I think its quite good that we vote against whatever the Old Firm wish to propose , so that the voting structure changes , the present voting structure is a joke .

[St. Sid]

Under a CIC there is nothing to stop GLS being put forward as an elected member of the management team, or being elected Chairperson for that matter. The difference is that the club will not be dependent on his finances for its future.

There are example after example of disastrous consequences of being dependant on a single source of finance whether they are a supporter of your club or not. The CIC removes that dependency and competely eliminates ther possibility of asset stripping. If you have a look at the finances of Maxi Group you will quickly see that RA is a pretty handy chap to have on board.

Would it be better if RA paid cash for the club and put himself in charge? Perhaps it would be as you understand that scenario better; we might have ownership that we understood, but we would not have the protection of our club and any say in the club would be at the whim of RA.