The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[pozbaird]

As I was driving, I allowed myself one bottle of Budweiser at the meeting last night. It cost me £3.

Membership of the CIC will cost me just over £2.30 a week.

For my £3 I got 20 minutes in the company of an initially pleasant, but ultimately disappointing brewed under licence in the EU, too-gassy, always makes me burp beer.

For my £2.30 a week I get to be part of something with all the other members in all three classes of membership, working alongside, not against, the club board and CIC, to genuinely alter the face of not only St Mirren, but possibly Scottish senior football. I'll get my vote, I'll get that unquantifiable feeling of doing something that is helping.

To give it a go, to give it a shot - all I need to do is to give up on one lousy bottle of lager per week.

I'm in. Fcuk yer' Budweiser. Sam Adams Boston Lager ya' bass!

[FTOF]

measure twice, cut once

So you're not in the mood to answer questions then.

Fair enough.

Strange that, for someone who keeps whining about 10,000 hours not answering questions,in a transparent manner.

[TsuMirren]

It's pretty obvious the CIC isn't going to win everyone over, the same people shouting Gilmour out will shout CIC out. Likewise they'll shout whomever out if it goes to a single person, then shout at Gilmour for accepting the sort of deal they've been demanding Gilmour accepts, and will just walk away if the club gets relegated and ends up in the bottom three of division one.

Luckily it looks like a lot more people are willing to put some time and effort in and understand things. I don't think you all want to be told what to do, but on the other hand some are demanding to know exactly what will be voted on.

It's probably unfortunate that safeguarding the clubs future involves so much reading, so much trawling through threads to find and answer (they are there) and will involve a bit of our time and money. Investment hasn't worked, indeed when has Saint Mirren ever really invested money it did have on transfers...it's sold directors seats, sold players on and had donations from the fans, but from memory the investment has been on the ground be it the squaring off of terraced ends, putting seats in or building a new stand. Strange that we now have people demanding money is invested on players when we've never really had it to do it.

There was a statement last night, outwith the meeting, that 2 SPL Chairman don't like this idea. Well, I wouldn't want any of the other 11 SPL Chairman anywhere near St Mirren and they certainly aren't an example to anyone.

[pozbaird]

It's pretty obvious the CIC isn't going to win everyone over, the same people shouting Gilmour out will shout CIC out. Likewise they'll shout whomever out if it goes to a single person, then shout at Gilmour for accepting the sort of deal they've been demanding Gilmour accepts, and will just walk away if the club gets relegated and ends up in the bottom three of division one.

Luckily it looks like a lot more people are willing to put some time and effort in and understand things. I don't think you all want to be told what to do, but on the other hand some are demanding to know exactly what will be voted on.

It's probably unfortunate that safeguarding the clubs future involves so much reading, so much trawling through threads to find and answer (they are there) and will involve a bit of our time and money. Investment hasn't worked, indeed when has Saint Mirren ever really invested money it did have on transfers...it's sold directors seats, sold players on and had donations from the fans, but from memory the investment has been on the ground be it the squaring off of terraced ends, putting seats in or building a new stand. Strange that we now have people demanding money is invested on players when we've never really had it to do it.

There was a statement last night, outwith the meeting, that 2 SPL Chairman don't like this idea. Well, I wouldn't want any of the other 11 SPL Chairman anywhere near St Mirren and they certainly aren't an example to anyone.

Really? That makes me even more determined to join in with the CIC plan. All we need is for Neil Doncaster to come out against it, and Div's webpage pledge counter will overload.

[10000hours]

With thanks for everyone for coming last night and apologies to the above poster who has a suspision about bit sized answers

That's not my understanding at all.

I'm sure someone from 10000 Hours will be able to confirm or correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed fairly clear to me last night that any additional income generated by use of the club's assets i.e bar sales or venue costs for parties etc will go to the football club to use as it sees fit. Maybe the profits from the new bar will go towards the cost of setting it up until that's paid off though? Presumably with one of our partners, Kibble building it, it will be much cheaper than it would be otherwise anyway.

Correct

The CIC's income will be the membership fees for individuals, businesses and community organisations. That will service the debt until such times as it is paid off then the CIC will have a decision to make about whether it continues to charge a membership fee and what that fee is used for. Bear in mind that would be up to the CIC members to decide ie us and if we don't like it we can just cancel our membership.

Correct

Meanwhile the football club continues to trade as now, with a balanced budget, although hopefully a bigger budget than now. Where exactly is the financial risk to St Mirren Football Club in all this? I just can't see it.

Correct

If we wait for a private buyer (could be a long wait) he would not be able to tap into the soft loans and grants the CIC can access, nor benefit from involving community organisations in the same way the CIC can, and would surely use credit to purchase the club, credit which he would then transfer on to the club once in place anyway.

However if the CIC buys it, the club has no debt to service and can use any additional revenue generated solely on the playing staff and we will have at least 24 community organisations on board that will all generate some aditional revenue for the club.

Correct

It's a no-brainer for me and after years of being depressed at the lack of investment and ambition at the club, I am genuinely excited at the prospects for the future. If we can make this work we will be increasing our player budget whilst our rivals all around will be struggling to maintain theres and at the same time servicing debt that we don't have. Gone will be the days of seeing the likes of Falkirk (ok bad example at the moment) and Motherwell nipping in to sign any player we show an interest in because they can offer bigger salaries. In the long run we would have a real opportunity of being a regular Top 6 club and bringing European football back to Paisley. That's a massive upside with the downside being that we end up back where we are now, which in my mind equates to no risk at all.

Edited April 22, 2011 by 10000hours

[Guest somner9]

So you're not in the mood to answer questions then.

Fair enough.

Strange that, for someone who keeps whining about 10,000 hours not answering questions,in a transparent manner.

er that was the answer, perhaps too succinct

this (CiC) is an idea, does it give concrete commitment to improve St Mirren Football Club? - it openly answers that by saying "maybe" if a whole range of ideas generate increased profit after its paid its own debt. so it incurs debt, with the aim to increase profit perhaps

it has THREE boards and associated spin off commitee's/vested interest groups

and i haven't seen, but perhaps someone will point me in the direction where it actually COMMITS to adding value to what happens on the pitch!

it's an idea, its had a lot of effort put into it, and may laudable aims. but no hard objectives i.e. read the language used. "should" "could" but not "will" or "when" or "how much"

and it definetly doesnt state that as a result the FOOTBALL will be improved because of????? next season.

all the community groups, corporate types, Kibble etc know exactly what their getting out of it but not DL his staff and players.

what really makes me sceptical about the speed by which this has been rushed through the "individual" members is this.

Q - who are the last group to be "involved" by which time it will be a done deal

A - the supporters clubs

well we wouldn't want those insignificants jeopordising it just cause they want to know how the "on field" side of things will benefit

[Stuart Dickson]

: the CiC wont be funded (grants/loans) unless the community involved i.e. Saints fans sign up as individual members. but those very people "The Community" were the last to know any detail about the proposal, some feel they still don't have sufficent detail, but the corporate and community members apparently know more?

Somner9 - as a potential community customer can I assure you that I don't. I've got an executive committee meeting at our juvenile football club on Tuesday where I had put this topic on the agenda for us to investigate further and the last response I got was to think of it as a blank sheet of paper and to put it to the committee that they have access to an SPL club and to ask them what they want. My guess is that's a good approach for the CIC because they get an influx of new ideas but it makes my job ten times harder at this end.

Where there is perhaps a difference is what I alluded to before. The on field performance won't matter a jot to the Motherwell, c*ltic and r*ngers fans on the committee. The thing that will float their boat, or sink it completely, is whether they believe they will get more out of it than they pay in.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Stuart Dickson

[Guest somner9]

Correct

Correct

Correct

Correct

cool so the CiC are investing in the playing staff can you give us an idea how much?

[Dirty Sanchez]

That's not my understanding at all.

I'm sure someone from 10000 Hours will be able to confirm or correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed fairly clear to me last night that any additional income generated by use of the club's assets i.e bar sales or venue costs for parties etc will go to the football club to use as it sees fit.

The CIC's income will be the membership fees for individuals, businesses and community organisations. That will service the debt until such times as it is paid off then the CIC will have a decision to make about whether it continues to charge a membership fee and what that fee is used for.

That's exactly as I understand it, but confusion might be derived from this statement in the literature:

1. Most fans that are familiar with the new stadium in comparison to the old recognize that there are a number of underutilized assets. 10000hours will exploit these opportunities in order to pay off any debt element of the funding

[TsuMirren]

cool so the CiC are investing in the playing staff can you give us an idea how much?

An extra 20% after year 1, it's all in the slides and has been mentioned in this thread since the meeting ended. That figure is obviously a perceived possibility, but it's doable going by the figures shown.

[10000hours]

An extra 20% after year 1, it's all in the slides and has been mentioned in this thread since the meeting ended. That figure is obviously a perceived possibility, but it's doable going by the figures shown.

Correct.

And as a CIC it will be transparent so you will be able to know the facts as to just how much extra money the club has earned and exactly where it has been spent, and if you dont like the outcome you have the power to enact change as it is your club.

[Guest somner9]

An extra 20% after year 1, it's all in the slides and has been mentioned in this thread since the meeting ended. That figure is obviously a perceived possibility, but it's doable going by the figures shown.

it's the perceived bit that it falls down on, yes the community groups know exactly wht their minimum return is, the footballing side (my priority) doesn't. figures i.e statistics are just that until they become lines on the balance sheet.

i sincerely dont wish to rain on you parade, you are for i presume the CiC and thats your right to be so.

[Guest somner9]

Correct.

And as a CIC it will be transparent so you will be able to know the facts as to just how much extra money the club has earned and exactly where it has been spent, and if you dont like the outcome you have the power to enact change as it is your club.

yes you have the power to enact change, "after" what you don't like has happened when the annual accounts are published

[Guest somner9]

Somner9 - as a potential community customer can I assure you that I don't. I've got an executive committee meeting at our juvenile football club on Tuesday where I had put this topic on the agenda for us to investigate further and the last response I got was to think of it as a blank sheet of paper and to put it to the committee that they have access to an SPL club and to ask them what they want. My guess is that's a good approach for the CIC because they get an influx of new ideas but it makes my job ten times harder at this end.

Where there is perhaps a difference is what I alluded to before. The on field performance won't matter a jot to the Motherwell, c*ltic and r*ngers fans on the committee. The thing that will float their boat, or sink it completely, is whether they believe they will get more out of it than they pay in.

and ther-in lies another rub for me. just exactly what "Community" are we talking? it is not exclusively the football fans (and their associated interests) of SMFC.

isn't it a bummer when you hear cries of "sack the board", you see neither hide nor hair of them then THREE come along at once

[10000hours]

yes you have the power to enact change, "after" what you don't like has happened when the annual accounts are published

As a CIC you will be updated as often as the members decide they want to make the information avaliable.

I would expect this to be much more often than just at the anual account stage, which i agree is far to late.

[Stu]

That's exactly as I understand it, but confusion might be derived from this statement in the literature:

Alternatively, you can have a rather clear statement from the document released last week:

"The upfront funding of the share purchase will come from organisations that specically lend to CIC type ventures. The funding to repay any debt will come from two main areas. Firstly, the enhanced trading of the assets of St Mirren FC

- an area all recognise as under-utilised, especially since the stadium move. Trading can be increased by using new social enterprise businesses operated between 10000hours and a number of the community partners. The second area

is the membership scheme of the CIC."

I don't see anything confusing there - it clearly states the increased trading will be used to pay off the debt. The same increased trading we are later told in the document will be used to increase the player budget. How can this be possible?

Edit: I'll even throw in two of div's tweets from last night to back it up further:

"Richard explaining that the club has many under-utilised assets. 10000Hours intends to use these assets to generate extra revenue. "

"This extra revenue will be used to help repay the debt. "

Edited April 22, 2011 by Stu

[spirit of 77]

The Executive Board may well have spent time on this but we are being asked to pay for this fairly risky financial experiment. And we are being told that the 'community' has some kind of power in this scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I have to admire Mr.A for dreaming this up. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money to be obtained in grants. Maybe a million in loans, and 300 supporters paying off the loans for them, while not putting a personal penny at risk. A touch of genius here !

The only reason the community is involved is to gain access to grants and loans.

I agree 100% with your sentiments, these are valid points and it is right to be sceptical.

I also find it reprehensible that the 10000 hours plants(i.e. any muppet with a tenatative connection to the media) have rounded on you in such a unified manner

[div]

I also find it reprehensible that the 10000 hours plants(i.e. any muppet with a tenatative connection to the media) have rounded on you in such a unified manner

There are plenty of people posting critical analysis of the CIC model and asking very good questions.

"Animal" was "rounded on" because of his "I am significantly better than all of you twats" attitude that he adopted right from his first post on the subject.

[Stuart Dickson]

and ther-in lies another rub for me. just exactly what "Community" are we talking? it is not exclusively the football fans (and their associated interests) of SMFC.

isn't it a bummer when you hear cries of "sack the board", you see neither hide nor hair of them then THREE come along at once

The point I'm making is that you are wrong when you say the Individual knows nothing but the Community Member does. I've asked Mr Atkinson directly a presentation for Community Members that I can take to the committee at the club I help out with and there's nothing more there than what you have got. There's certainly nothing that says if I get £500 out of club funds and give it to the CIC they'll give me £1000 in return, all there is a promise of a bespoke memorandum of understanding.

However you are absolutely right when you say that this isn't going to be limited to St Mirren supporters.

[Stuart Dickson]

There are plenty of people posting critical analysis of the CIC model and asking very good questions.

"Animal" was "rounded on" because of his "I am significantly better than all of you twats" attitude that he adopted right from his first post on the subject.

Rounding on him was unfair. Right or wrong it doesn't take much to be significantly better than all of you twats....

[bingboy]

er that was the answer, perhaps too succinct

this (CiC) is an idea, does it give concrete commitment to improve St Mirren Football Club? - it openly answers that by saying "maybe" if a whole range of ideas generate increased profit after its paid its own debt. so it incurs debt, with the aim to increase profit perhaps

it has THREE boards and associated spin off commitee's/vested interest groups

and i haven't seen, but perhaps someone will point me in the direction where it actually COMMITS to adding value to what happens on the pitch!

it's an idea, its had a lot of effort put into it, and may laudable aims. but no hard objectives i.e. read the language used. "should" "could" but not "will" or "when" or "how much"

and it definetly doesnt state that as a result the FOOTBALL will be improved because of????? next season.

all the community groups, corporate types, Kibble etc know exactly what their getting out of it but not DL his staff and players.

what really makes me sceptical about the speed by which this has been rushed through the "individual" members is this.

Q - who are the last group to be "involved" by which time it will be a done deal

A - the supporters clubs

well we wouldn't want those insignificants jeopordising it just cause they want to know how the "on field" side of thigs will benefit

Somner this isn't going to work overnight. It's not about injecting a large sum of capital into the playing side then sitting back watching how great we are only to find that when that money runs out we're back to square one, or worse.

This is about sustainable growth i.e the club generates more income on an annual basis and that allows us to invest in the playing side.

Any figures quoted can only be projections, no one can be sure exactly how much additional revenue the CIC can help the club generate but the assumptions behind the figures are cautious so the 20% increase in revenue in Year 1 is achievable (it could be more if we all get behind it)....but we can't spend the money till we receive it so it would be Year 2 before we would start to see an increase in the players wages budget.

I really think you're expecting too much and barking up the wrong tree if you think any new owner is going to sweep into the club with a big bag of money for new players when we can't sustain that level of expenditure in the long run. That's exactly the type of approach that got the likes of Livingston and Dundee into so much trouble.

Edited April 22, 2011 by bingboy

[Dirty Sanchez]

Alternatively, you can have a rather clear statement from the document released last week:

"The upfront funding of the share purchase will come from organisations that specically lend to CIC type ventures. The funding to repay any debt will come from two main areas. Firstly, the enhanced trading of the assets of St Mirren FC

- an area all recognise as under-utilised, especially since the stadium move. Trading can be increased by using new social enterprise businesses operated between 10000hours and a number of the community partners. The second area

is the membership scheme of the CIC."

I don't see anything confusing there - it clearly states the increased trading will be used to pay off the debt. The same increased trading we are later told in the document will be used to increase the player budget. How can this be possible?

Edit: I'll even throw in two of div's tweets from last night to back it up further:

"Richard explaining that the club has many under-utilised assets. 10000Hours intends to use these assets to generate extra revenue. "

"This extra revenue will be used to help repay the debt. "

You're right, this needs clarified.

[bingboy]

Alternatively, you can have a rather clear statement from the document released last week:

"The upfront funding of the share purchase will come from organisations that specically lend to CIC type ventures. The funding to repay any debt will come from two main areas. Firstly, the enhanced trading of the assets of St Mirren FC

- an area all recognise as under-utilised, especially since the stadium move. Trading can be increased by using new social enterprise businesses operated between 10000hours and a number of the community partners. The second area

is the membership scheme of the CIC."

I don't see anything confusing there - it clearly states the increased trading will be used to pay off the debt. The same increased trading we are later told in the document will be used to increase the player budget. How can this be possible?

Edit: I'll even throw in two of div's tweets from last night to back it up further:

"Richard explaining that the club has many under-utilised assets. 10000Hours intends to use these assets to generate extra revenue. "

"This extra revenue will be used to help repay the debt. "

I agree that does need clarifying. The membership fees should be more than sufficient to service the debt so there should be no need to use any additional revenues.

Edited April 22, 2011 by bingboy

[Vambo57]

I left the meeting last night in a very much more positive frame of mind about the CIC takeover.

There seems to me to be NO discernable downside, except Richard Atkinsons remarkable impression of comedian Franke Boyle, or if you wanted a Sugar Daddy to take over the Club and pay millions for 'top class' primadonnas and then go down the road of many of our rivals).

Upsides:

- The CIC's debt is not the Club's debt

- The members own the Club and it and the ground CANNOT be sold to anyone without a majority of members voting for it.

- Fresh ideas on revenue raising and the energy to carry it out!

- The Club benefits - and receives income - from all interested community groups and parties who will now be able to use our facilities. e.g St.Johnstone had approx 150 weddings at their ground last year. Think of the revenue that raised for their Club! We had one wedding.

- If the members don't think the Club is being run correctly by the BOD, they can be sacked. Normally this should be done at election time (not sure how long term of office is?) or if enough members call for it, by an EGM.

- The members can decide on the cost of yearly membership (once the initial debt is cleared), e.g. say we wanted to actually BUY a couple of players (unlikely I know), then fees can be increased. Conversely, if Saints are doing well, fees can even be free - if the membership want it .

- The members get a matchday bar, where the profits go to the Club. Apparently, that area will become well utillised outwith a matchday, adding more funds.

- Most importantly in my mind, the feeling that the Club belongs to you - the ordinary punter. That you have a real say in the direction the Club takes and facilities that are provided.

- In a word, PRIDE.

Feel free to add any other benefits...

Mmmmmmm...

However, I will not be taking up membership if the Club vote for a 10 team SPL Thumbs down

Edited April 22, 2011 by Vambo57

[Vambo57]

I agree that does need clarifying. The membership fees should be more than sufficient to service the debt so there should be no need to use any additional revenues.

It was my impression that perhaps just a percentage of the extra revenue generated?