The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[Big Fras]

So what would I get for my £10 per month? Apparently there will be a pub at a ground that I hardly ever visit, filled with people I wouldn't want to drink with and I'll get less of a voice in running St Mirren than someone like Grahamston might from posting on one of the St Mirren forums (is he still around?)

For me this is the fatal flaw. According to the .pdf it doesn't matter how they raise the £36,000. They can get £10 per month from 300 supporters or they could just increase the cost of season tickets by £15. Why not just do that then? If it's to try and gain a wider appeal then why not bundle in incentives like free accompanied admission for Under 16's? Something that would give the club the long term benefits of bringing in a new generation of supporter.

Sure they might get 300 people in the intial wave of enthusiasm but what chance is there that they will all see out the first year, never mind a second, or a third or a fourth? And with no value for money benefit, and little geared towards bringing in the next generations of supporters where are the CIC going to find new people to throw £120 per year away for access to a pub they probably won't use?

From the document produced and published, would I be correct in my assumption that the companies that are interested in signing up to date are Maxi Group, Kibble (who will probably be contributing through the "equivalent" of £10,000 through works done to fit out the community area), JD Sports (who have just won the clubs kit deal and exclusive rights to the sale of kit), and then Stewart Gilmour, Allan Marshall, George Campbell, Brian McAusland and Evelyn Purves? After all Gilmour is quoted as saying "The consortium members will continue their support of St Mirren through each taking a corporate membership of 10000hours". Is it just a co-incidence that those would make up the quoted 75% of the corporate members required? Even if you take the two more obvious ones out of the consortium you could just replace them with a firm of Glasgow solicitors, and a Paisley based taxi firm and still get the 75%. Hardly impressive if I'm right.

Take the blinkers off folks, this is a very good post. May not agree 100%, but this exactly what an independent website is all about.

[Kemp]

Take the blinkers off folks, this is a very good post. May not agree 100%, but this exactly what an independent website is all about.

The knowledge that f**king leech won't show his face in the bar should boost membership somewhat.

I don't see why the number of corporate members so far is being described as "not impressive". The whole thing has just been launched. The 300 individual and 12 corporate members seem very low numbers to me. I'm sure they could both be reached within a couple of weeks once the ball starts rolling.

[St. Sid]

Take the blinkers off folks, this is a very good post. May not agree 100%, but this exactly what an independent website is all about.

I think what is happening to you is a real shame Fras. Think for a moment what you have just done. You have aligned yourself with the malignant and reviled Stu Dickson. It is a slippery slope for you if you continue to let what ails you fester and grow larger than your love of the club as has happened to Lawfud.

Some of the posts are borderline desperate as you scratch around for some small crumb to try and blow out of all proportion. The twisted pitch you are trying to put forward doesn't even make sense. You are throwing ideas forward that under the current ownership model can be completely ignored - not even discussed by the BoD. With the CIC model there is a complete shift from what is effectively a financial dictatorship based on ownership of shares to a community based model where the community becomes the driving force in the club rather than a supporters trust begging for influence.

You talk about "taking blinkers off". It is clear that you are blinded by your own personal issues with the club. Rather than sniping on the Internet why not bring your issues into the open. You could even have SMiSA represent your concerns or I and others am sure would be more than happy to get involved and ensure that your grievances get an airing. However, this underhand attempt to undermine a fnatastic opportunity for our club and our supporters is undoing all the very good things you have done for us in the past.

Sort your head out Buddie.

[Stu]

Apparently there will be a pub at a ground that I hardly ever visit

: : :

[Stuart Dickson]

: : :

Stu - I've been to Greenhill Road eight times since it opened. However lets say I went to every single home match I'd still have to drive to get there. Now if I told my wife that I was going to pay £120 per annum to use the bar at the Country Club at the end of my estate she'd think I'd gone soft in the head but at least there I can have a drink and walk home. If I was to pay £120 per annum to use a bar a maximum of 20 times a year that I couldn't drink in she'd be quite right in calling for me to be sectioned.

Kemp - the reason I said it was less than impressive would be because Atkinson wouldn't have sold it to anyone. If I'm right, and I'm being totally speculative, then all that is happened is that JD Sports have bought a £40,000 per annum contract for £10,000, five consortium members have paid £50,000 to make a profit of £1.95m whilst retaining seats on the board, their seat in the stadium and access to all the facilities they use at present, and Kibble and Maxi group see their owners get involved in a football club in return for a bit of graft.

[Stuart Dickson]

I think what is happening to you is a real shame Fras. Think for a moment what you have just done. You have aligned yourself with the malignant and reviled Stu Dickson. It is a slippery slope for you if you continue to let what ails you fester and grow larger than your love of the club as has happened to Lawfud.

Some of the posts are borderline desperate as you scratch around for some small crumb to try and blow out of all proportion. The twisted pitch you are trying to put forward doesn't even make sense. You are throwing ideas forward that under the current ownership model can be completely ignored - not even discussed by the BoD. With the CIC model there is a complete shift from what is effectively a financial dictatorship based on ownership of shares to a community based model where the community becomes the driving force in the club rather than a supporters trust begging for influence.

You talk about "taking blinkers off". It is clear that you are blinded by your own personal issues with the club. Rather than sniping on the Internet why not bring your issues into the open. You could even have SMiSA represent your concerns or I and others am sure would be more than happy to get involved and ensure that your grievances get an airing. However, this underhand attempt to undermine a fnatastic opportunity for our club and our supporters is undoing all the very good things you have done for us in the past.

Sort your head out Buddie.

What a strange post Sid - even for you. He hasn't "aligned" himself with me. He's just given me a bit of credit for a post that he thinks is a good one. He's even said he doesn't agree with it 100%.

FFS even you said a few short pages ago that I come up with some good ideas in amongst a pile of shite. Were you aligning yourself with me too....

[Big Fras]

I think what is happening to you is a real shame Fras. Think for a moment what you have just done. You have aligned yourself with the malignant and reviled Stu Dickson. It is a slippery slope for you if you continue to let what ails you fester and grow larger than your love of the club as has happened to Lawfud.

Some of the posts are borderline desperate as you scratch around for some small crumb to try and blow out of all proportion. The twisted pitch you are trying to put forward doesn't even make sense. You are throwing ideas forward that under the current ownership model can be completely ignored - not even discussed by the BoD. With the CIC model there is a complete shift from what is effectively a financial dictatorship based on ownership of shares to a community based model where the community becomes the driving force in the club rather than a supporters trust begging for influence.

You talk about "taking blinkers off". It is clear that you are blinded by your own personal issues with the club. Rather than sniping on the Internet why not bring your issues into the open. You could even have SMiSA represent your concerns or I and others am sure would be more than happy to get involved and ensure that your grievances get an airing. However, this underhand attempt to undermine a fnatastic opportunity for our club and our supporters is undoing all the very good things you have done for us in the past.

Sort your head out Buddie.

Oh dear Sid. You've done it again, and you are doing a wonderful job of presenting yourself as a trigger-happy cretin.

Please go and check out my recent comments, which were actually very supportive of the CIC bid. I have no "issues" whatsoever with the CIC bid. I will sign up as a member and have already stated that it is great to see some supporter involvement, stretching beyond the Paisley locale.

All I have ever done is query the strength of the private sector backing.....and then stated that if it comes off then this is terriffic. Hardly the work of a cranked up malevolent troublemaker. This forum is meant to be for a debate, and if someone makes a valid point (in the eyes of another forum member) without abusing people, then surely there is no harm in suggesting that he has some good ideas/opinions.

However, your desire to have a real go at me is duly noted.

Mind how you go sunshine.

[pozbaird]

Stu - I've been to Greenhill Road eight times since it opened. However lets say I went to every single home match I'd still have to drive to get there. Now if I told my wife that I was going to pay £120 per annum to use the bar at the Country Club at the end of my estate she'd think I'd gone soft in the head but at least there I can have a drink and walk home. If I was to pay £120 per annum to use a bar a maximum of 20 times a year that I couldn't drink in she'd be quite right in calling for me to be sectioned.

I'll be using it every game, for caffeine and something to eat. Beats getting to the car park and sitting listening to Chick Young and James Traynor fighting. If there's an early EPL kick off, I'll be in there even earlier, taking in the match on the telly. After the match, instead of sitting in the car for 20 minutes plus waiting for the car park to clear, I'll be in there with fellow Buds' discussing the match, watching the scores come in, letting the car park queue die down...have another coffee even. Might have a Kit Kat chunky too.

There's more to life than beer my friend, in a purpose built multi-function members and guests facility.

[Guest somner9]

Really? I thought the entire board (minus the two CIC guys) were part of the selling consortium?

Who is the board member that is one of the 48% minority? I honestly don't know. (and can't be bothered checking!)

i think what's confusing the issue is the 10000 hours document doesn't make it clear that there are TWO boards being discussed

1 - the board of directors of st mirren foorball club

2 - the board of the members of 10000 hours

the one board member that 10000 hours gaurantees the other 48% shareholders will have is on the 10000 hours members board

the bod of SMFC still exists as it's own entity controlling SMFC i.e. all of it (Obviously the gilmour led consortium would go if they sell there 52%)

the bod of 10000 hours members controls its 52% stake in the club should its proposal come to fruition

which all could feasibly mean that SG et all get their £2m

invest 10k in 10000 hours

and hey presto are back on the board!.............. but probably only a real cynic would think that, and also a cynic would probably flag up that any profit made by 10000 hours can be paid to community members

[Stuart Dickson]

I'll be using it every game, for caffeine and something to eat. Beats getting to the car park and sitting listening to Chick Young and James Traynor fighting. If there's an early EPL kick off, I'll be in there even earlier, taking in the match on the telly. After the match, instead of sitting in the car for 20 minutes plus waiting for the car park to clear, I'll be in there with fellow Buds' discussing the match, watching the scores come in, letting the car park queue die down...have another coffee even. Might have a Kit Kat chunky too.

There's more to life than beer my friend, in a purpose built multi-function members and guests facility.

Yeah well perhaps if the club was willing to give me access to the car park for the £10 per month that might make sense to me. However my match day experience at Greenhill Road has been about driving around trying to find a place in Ferguslie Park that looks suitably safe to park a car - then walking to the stadium to go through the ridiculous rigmarole of queuing to purchase a ticket, to then queue to get through the turnstyles - and all that when the stadium is a quarter full.

[ktf]

I'll be using it every game, for caffeine and something to eat. Beats getting to the car park and sitting listening to Chick Young and James Traynor fighting. If there's an early EPL kick off, I'll be in there even earlier, taking in the match on the telly. After the match, instead of sitting in the car for 20 minutes plus waiting for the car park to clear, I'll be in there with fellow Buds' discussing the match, watching the scores come in, letting the car park queue die down...have another coffee even. Might have a Kit Kat chunky too.

There's more to life than beer my friend, in a purpose built multi-function members and guests facility.

Wonderful! As soon as I get my dots for today, you can have one! MAybe you could reciprocate and get my reputation score back up after the debacle on the "church" thread

Oh, I'll see you there for that coffee! Let's hope they sell good stuff!

[saintnextlifetime]

I suspect the corporate members will wait until everything is finalised before showing their hand. If you consider the fact that it hasn't all been completely signed sealed and delivered as yet it might also answer some of the questions around some of the numbers. I think the good news is that the numbers being offered into the public consciousness are in fact very much erring on the side of caution. If offers an interesting contrast to the hysterical objections being posted by dopey f'k'rs like you.

It is in fact a fairly modern marketing approach - promise little, deliver much, delight the fan base. It is called guerilla selling. I was one of the first in the UK to utilise it back in the 90s. I'm f'k'n majik so I am.

That is an old sales principle known as "exchange in abundance", utilised by some merchants/retailers for a long time. .

[pozbaird]

Wonderful! As soon as I get my dots for today, you can have one! MAybe you could reciprocate and get my reputation score back up after the debacle on the "church" thread

Oh, I'll see you there for that coffee! Let's hope they sell good stuff!

It might be that posh stuff that comes out of a cat's arse, but that's dependent on 24 corporate members signing up.

[Guest somner9]

interesting point, or not?

the directors of a CiC i.e. 10000 hours can pay themselves from the company's turnover.

[Seaside Nipper]

It is in fact a fairly modern marketing approach - promise little, deliver much, delight the fan base. It is called guerilla selling. I was

Hmm, rather like a typically Sydley rambling Magnum Opus type post , only in reverse eh

[steve_the_saint]

i think what's confusing the issue is the 10000 hours document doesn't make it clear that there are TWO boards being discussed

1 - the board of directors of st mirren foorball club

2 - the board of the members of 10000 hours

the one board member that 10000 hours gaurantees the other 48% shareholders will have is on the 10000 hours members board

the bod of SMFC still exists as it's own entity controlling SMFC i.e. all of it (Obviously the gilmour led consortium would go if they sell there 52%)

the bod of 10000 hours members controls its 52% stake in the club should its proposal come to fruition

which all could feasibly mean that SG et all get their £2m

invest 10k in 10000 hours

and hey presto are back on the board!.............. but probably only a real cynic would think that, and also a cynic would probably flag up that any profit made by 10000 hours can be paid to community members

I see there is in fact two boards being discussed:

The 10 man CIC members board, which, as I read it, will be made up of 5 from the community and corporate members and the other five from individual members.

The Club board, which will probably contain 5 or 6 members/shareholders - 1 of which will most likely be Ken McGeoch as the voice of the 48% - and the rest probably being Gilmour, Campbell, McAusland, Atkinson(assuming they take a corporate membership) and maybe one other from those involved.

Taken from the intro document:

"The minority shareholders will be able to

nominate at least one Director to the club board to represent their interests"

...this leaves open the possibiliy of another of the 48% nominating themselves as a director.

Although Atkinson said he hasn't been taking a wage and wouldn't take a wage from being on the board - did he mean the members board or the club board?

I'm unaware if the current board are taking a wage from the club or are doing it for free?

I'll assume that whatever is happening now (whether they take a wage or not) will continue as per the norm when the CIC become the majority shareholder.

[TsuMirren]

interesting point, or not?

the directors of a CiC i.e. 10000 hours can pay themselves from the company's turnover.

Can and will are two very different animals. Don't assume, especially as this will be for the good of the club.

[TsuMirren]

The 48% will have a seat on the club board, neither Richard or Chris have taken a wage.

[bluto]

Oh dear Sid. You've done it again, and you are doing a wonderful job of presenting yourself as a trigger-happy cretin.

................This forum is meant to be for a debate, and if someone makes a valid point (in the eyes of another forum member) without abusing people, then surely there is no harm in suggesting that he has some good ideas/opinions.

However, your desire to have a real go at me is duly noted.

Mind how you go sunshine.

Don't take it to heart or even half seriously, Fras.

Sid's still a Shellic fan at heart. Once a bhoy always a bhoy. He waxes lyrical on here about 'tolerance' being a Buddie trait (and, on that, I'd agree with him) but Sid just can't bring himself to practise what we preach: Buddie tolerance.

If Sid was Buddie-tolerant, he'd have been able to respect your pov - which I do. As you noted in your post - open debate is why we come on to a Buddie forum, such as this. And on such an important topic EVERY ANGLE SHOULD BE SCRUTINISED and by as sceptical a critic as possible.

If Sid was Buddie-tolerant, he'd have been able to respect the energy and passion that the supras bring to every game and would support them in singing, standing, bannering .... whatever they wanted to do as best they could, and whether or not he thought it misconceived. They are Buddies doing their thing, he should be tolerant of that. Sadly, he has been as spendthrift as usual with his spleenish words of attack on them - some of them only 12 or 13 years old... and yet I would bet that even they are longer-standing Saints supporters than the bhoy Sid is.

If Sid was Buddie-tolerant, he'd have been able to respect that McCluskey, when seen on a hidden camera celebrating a televised excellent goal by a c*ltic player, was acting according to his nature - and this was a merely a foolish error of judgement by a young man who could do great things for St Mirren. But Sid couldn't do that, he couldn't be tolerant, indeed he led the lynch-mob.

So dinnae fash yersel, Big Fras. It's only Sid: one day he may be one of us. Till then, let's be tolerant.

Edited April 15, 2011 by bluto

[JP87]

Yeah well perhaps if the club was willing to give me access to the car park for the £10 per month that might make sense to me. However my match day experience at Greenhill Road has been about driving around trying to find a place in Ferguslie Park that looks suitably safe to park a car - then walking to the stadium to go through the ridiculous rigmarole of queuing to purchase a ticket, to then queue to get through the turnstyles - and all that when the stadium is a quarter full.

Park in one of the side streets off Murray St - always plenty space and never had a problem there.

Happy to help in any way I can.

(And I've never had to queue more than a couple of mins for a ticket or turnstyle - you must be really unlucky. )

[steve_the_saint]

The 48% will have a seat on the club board, neither Richard or Chris have taken a wage.

I know they haven't and they said they wouldn't from being on the board - but does that mean they won't from the members board but they will/might from the club board if elected on?

If they are involved in the day to day running of the club, going to SPL committee meetings etc. then I don't have a problem if they do. I don't know what the current situation is regarding board members getting a wage? Allan Marshall might have more of a case of getting a wage than the others as he's the club secretary.

[bluto]

Park in one of the side streets off Murray St - always plenty space and never had a problem there.

Happy to help in any way I can.

(And I've never had to queue more than a couple of mins for a ticket or turnstyle - you must be really unlucky. )

On the two occasions on which I've actually had a lift to the ground the drivers involved never had a problem parking.

The does-not-compute statements in Lost Ud's sentence would almost make you think this was a made-up fib!

However my match day experience at Greenhill Road has been about driving around trying to find a place in Ferguslie Park that looks suitably safe to park a car - then walking to the stadium to go through the ridiculous rigmarole of queuing to purchase a ticket, to then queue to get through the turnstyles - and all that when the stadium is a quarter full.

btw I did see the smilie, added...

[Guest somner9]

to clarify the set up of a CIC allows it to pay its directors. so thats the directors of 10000 hours being able to pay themselves from the enhanced profit made by the club.

10000 hours will be a separate company to SMFC. it will have it's own directors, and a members board

the bod of SMFC could in theory be made up of anyone that gets a majority support at a vote of the board. at present one person comes from the 48% group to vote someone else on would require support from the proposed 10000 hours 52% group.

eually the 10000 hours group being the majority can vote off whoever they want.

so if a scenario occured where by say one of the community groups (church?) fell out of favour with the fans, and the 48% other shareholders then the 10000 hours group could veto any attempts to remove that group by simple majority.

this is where i believe more considered thought needs to be applied before deciding to back 10000 or not. it's putting an awful lot of power and decision making at the club into the hands of one group! yes it will have a "Members Board" but the individuals will be in a MINORITY on that and will not be in a position to vote against 10000 purely down to it's majority interest.

by all means ask about this at the public meetings

who will the directors of 10000 be?

and if???? the 5 individual members of the 10000 hours board vote against a proposal will they in fact be in a minority position in respect of the directors influence, and the corporate/community groups influence?

think of it liike X-factor, if simon cowell wants someone in or out then really thats what happens regardless of what his other judges say. he just puts it to a vote of phone call votes made which obviously mean zilch

[Guest somner9]

Can and will are two very different animals. Don't assume, especially as this will be for the good of the club.

as directors of a CIC they can do anything within their power.

the whole concept is being marketed as "The Fans" controlling the club, when in fact with only five 10000 hours member board place available to individuals the control will rest with the Corporate and community members and the directors of the CiC.

the whole point of a CiC is to give a community/corporate group control of a specific company that benefits the community in SOME way. it will not be controlled by the fans.

to access the funding they need to tick the boxes by showing their is SOME involvement from all the stakeholders, this means if the community/corporate groups unite (and it would be silly if they havent already) there is little five individual members could achieve, IF they all agreed

please do not misconstrue my angle, is the status quo better or worse than 10000 hours proposal???? impossible to say at this point.

but the devil as they say is always in the detail and if anyone believes that "The Fans" will control the club should this proposal go through then that is not the case. a bundle of community groups if they so choose could outflank the individuals at every turn

Edited April 15, 2011 by somner9

[pozbaird]

as directors of a CIC they can do anything within their power.

the whole concept is being marketed as "The Fans" controlling the club, when in fact with only five 10000 hours member board place available to individuals the control will rest with the Corporate and community members and the directors of the CiC.

the whole point of a CiC is to give a community/corporate group control of a specific company that benefits the community in SOME way. it will not be controlled by the fans.

to access the funding they need to tick the boxes by showing their is SOME involvement from all the stakeholders, this means if the community/corporate groups unite (and it would be silly if they havent already) there is little five individual members could achieve, IF they all agreed

please do not misconstrue my angle, is the status quo better or worse than 10000 hours proposal???? impossible to say at this point.

but the devil as they say is always in the detail and if anyone believes that "The Fans" will control the club should this proposal go through then that is not the case. a bundle of community groups if they so choose could outflank the individuals at every turn

To be fair, and I mean this sincerely - if this was going to be an organisation completely controlled and run by St Mirren supporters - I'd emigrate to Helmand Province rather than be part of it. It would go tits-up within a week.