The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[TsuMirren]

Hmmmmmm. More secrets. Given that Kibble is funded by public money and the CIC has no money until its gets its hands on the various member's money I guess I will have to wait and see. Maybe a brewer / drink supplier will chip in something. Not sure if they are still willing to do that sort of thing. A building warrant is not a difficult thing to obtain. A six figure sum of money might be a bit harder !

It's official, you are Michelle.

Confidentiality isn't secret, it's...well, it's in the word. I thought you said you're used to working with practise like this!

As for not having money, there is 800K already "in play". Let's see 8 - 1, 0 - 2, 0 - 3, 0 - 4, 0 - 5, 0 -6 ... oh, that'll be a six figure sum.

[Vambo57]

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

But that's what happens NOW!

[Stu]

Rememeber that there will now be two bars within the club one owned and operated by the club and one fitted out and operated by the CIC. It is worth noting that the CIC will pay rent after a time to the club for the space that the bar is in thus making the club money too

Excellent Question i have been waiting for someone to ask

The CIC elected board would be able to decide what to do with the surplus. We would expect this would mean that the CIC members board would look to put something back into the Club within the rules of a CIC

Does that now clear it up fully?

10000hours

It does, but I've just realised a number of things (document, presentation, Twitter), have talked about under-utilised assets - plural - to pay the debt. What are the other under-utilised assets other than a big space in the ground that will be turned into a bar?

[animal]

It's official, you are Michelle.

Confidentiality isn't secret, it's...well, it's in the word. I thought you said you're used to working with practise like this!

As for not having money, there is 800K already "in play". Let's see 8 - 1, 0 - 2, 0 - 3, 0 - 4, 0 - 5, 0 -6 ... oh, that'll be a six figure sum.

Confidential or secret - play with words if you like, but in both cases they ain't telling you they just want your money.

In play is not in the bank ! I ain't Michell, she is much better looking.

I never fail to be amazed that you and others are so keen to invest your hard earned cash in a scheme in which there are so many unanswered questions.

[TsuMirren]

Confidential or secret - play with words if you like, but in both cases they ain't telling you they just want your money.

In play is not in the bank ! I ain't Michell, she is much better looking.

I never fail to be amazed that you and others are so keen to invest your hard earned cash in a scheme in which there are so many unanswered questions.

So, in other words you work the reception desk at a company where people further up the ladder are used to working under setups such as this.

Confidential pretty much means that, it's not like when you put the sign in folder over your mars bar to hide it from others. (See, I can be pathetic just like you).

We've been told we'll see all the facts of where the money comes from etc, but agreements have been signed and that's just where it all sits.

[animal]

So, in other words you work the reception desk at a company where people further up the ladder are used to working under setups such as this.

Confidential pretty much means that, it's not like when you put the sign in folder over your mars bar to hide it from others. (See, I can be pathetic just like you).

We've been told we'll see all the facts of where the money comes from etc, but agreements have been signed and that's just where it all sits.

Wow - touched a wee nerve here. I have very confidential scheme you might be interested in. Could you please post your bank account details (account number sort code etc) on here along with your date of birth, e-mail address and mother's maiden name. Oh and your address and telephone number. I will let you in on a confidential deal which will make you a fortune. My company in West Africa will then send you an e-mail. Sound familiar ?

You want to buy my car, Sure. You want to know if its got an MOT ? No sorry can't tell you that it's confidential. Sound Familiar ?

Edited April 22, 2011 by animal

[TsuMirren]

Wow - touched a wee nerve here.

Not really, I just didn't want to be abusive.

[Big Fras]

The CIC needs to borrow £2m to buy the majority shareholding of the club.

A minimum of £800K of that money will be in the form of one-off grants that do not need to be repaid.

That leaves a maximum debt to the CIC of £1.2m.

The CIC will repay that money over a 10 year period, with interest re-payable each year estimated at worst case of £100K.

The membership money alone, if they get the minimum figures they need;

300 * £10 * 12 = £36K pa Individual Subs

24 * £500 = £12K pa Community Subs

12 * £10K = £120K pa Corporate Subs

Generates £168K revenue per annum.

So that on it's own covers the interest payments, and contributes almost £70K to the repayment pot.

I'd reckon that over 10 years the membership money alone would more or less cover the whole debt repayment. And that is before the CIC has even raised a single penny of extra revenue by virtue of the under utlised EXISTING assets of the football club.

If the membership all lose interest after a couple of years then clearly something has gone badly wrong, as these will be St.Mirren fans effectively turning their back on the club. In that absolute worst case scenario the CIC would simply sell the 52% majority shareholding to a private individual most likely, use that cash to settle it's debt and close it's doors leaving the football club with other new owner(s).

I don't really see much risk in all of that.

Very good post Div - and that's from a cynical old bassa like me. I feel uneasy about certain elements of the whole CIC concept, but by and large it is worth a go. If it fails, then I am sure some interested parties will be watching to pick up the reigns.

At the moment the pros outweigh the cons, and Gordon Smith's backing is interesting, as he had been rumoured (allegedly) as being part of a consortium to buy the club in the past.

The most positive thing for me so far ?

A lost of attention is being paid to maximising operations at St.Mirren to increase revenue that would be directly fed back to the club budgets. This is simply good business practice.

The most negative ?

Other than the PR shambles in the weeks leading up to the meeting, my main concern is the sheer number of voices who will all be wanting to be heard in decision-making processes. This could cause massive delays in getting anything done, and the whole management of the CIC "board structure" seems like a job for the UN.

In that respect, an Executive board is necessary just to get things done efficiently.

One word of caution - a lot of the information that is available at boardroom level of any SPL team can be fairly sensitive. With supporters involved, and heart often ruling head, best of luck to those trying to keep a lid on things like who gets paid what at other clubs; who asked for what payments; who should be getting a free; etc.

ETA My preferred choice would have been a group of businessmen sinking in some serious dough, with a concurrent commitment and business plan to keep SMFC out of the red. That hasn't happened, so realistically the CIC option is the only show in town, but seems to be a lot more "safe" (debt/expenditure promises) than had previosuly been percieved. The natural reaction is to be worried about us being a high-profile experimemnt in community ownership......but life's too short. Give it a go - there will always be a "get out" option for all parties.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Big Fras

[spirit of 77]

Rememeber that there will now be two bars within the club one owned and operated by the club and one fitted out and operated by the CIC. It is worth noting that the CIC will pay rent after a time to the club for the space that the bar is in thus making the club money too

Excellent Question i have been waiting for someone to ask

The CIC elected board would be able to decide what to do with the surplus. We would expect this would mean that the CIC members board would look to put something back into the Club within the rules of a CIC

Does that now clear it up fully?

10000hours

Something, but not necesssarily all.

Why do i feel nonplussed by that statement?

[Guest somner9]

The detail is subject to some confidentiallity, which will be revealed and made transparent upon the completion of the deal

What was said last night, was that Kibble would be involved, they will play a major role.

FYI - the process is very far along to the extent that the building warrant is in place for this development to CIC off asap.

10000hours

another revelation hot on the heels of the news we apparently need at least THREE boards to run all things connected or loosely connected with SMFC it seems the BIG carrot dangled before the members is not as anyone had so far stated!!!

can't wait for this one to land just after all those direct debits have been signed up

[Guest somner9]

It is staggering, verging on supernatural, the amount of times "The loans and grants of £2 million will be used to finance the purchase of the 52% majority shareholding in Saint Mirren." can be typed and absolutely missed by people.

i would say from my perspective its quite a simple yet unanswered question.

if in the very real scenario the funds raised by the CiC and its ventures don't raise sufficent cash to service the debt it has, as a 52% shareholder in another orginasation that also generates cash (not a lot) will the CiC in this instance or instances "Dip In" to SMFC funds?

i would imagine it would need to be put to the BOARDS, but i would also suggest when many have made their personal financial commitment to the CiC if it needs cash to survive may well be tempted to vote to access the funds of SMFC to meet any shortfall.

the big one for me! i know the CiC is a seperate entity, it comes with no guarantees, BUT it could access SMFC turnover to sustain it when it fails, having put NOTHING into SMFC.

to me that's not right, and any potential "Donaters" to the membership should be exploring this scenario, not just the very optimistic point "we could have 52 weddings a year" in Kibble's bar.

[bonzoboys]

another revelation hot on the heels of the news we apparently need at least THREE boards to run all things connected or loosely connected with SMFC it seems the BIG carrot dangled before the members is not as anyone had so far stated!!!

can't wait for this one to land just after all those direct debits have been signed up

[bonzoboys]

If you read the CIC document SG makes a comment that all members of consortium are taking a Corporate Membership. Good to see them putting something back in. Guess they were going to miss their seat in stand, probably didn't fancy West Bank as all the good seats are gone.

If that means they are 5 of the 9 commitments. Sounds like a good chance that they will be walking away with a tidy sum and at least one of them will be back on board of CIC. Like CIC idea but does that mean that in reality we only have 4 new commitments if 5 are from old BOD?

[Sonny]

My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. If I take out a single membership is there a time commitment on that? What if my financial circumstances change - can I give up my membership? Or can I become a member next year once I get a better feel of how it is all panning out?

[ds10]

The CIC needs to borrow £2m to buy the majority shareholding of the club.

A minimum of £800K of that money will be in the form of one-off grants that do not need to be repaid.

That leaves a maximum debt to the CIC of £1.2m.

The CIC will repay that money over a 10 year period, with interest re-payable each year estimated at worst case of £100K.

The membership money alone, if they get the minimum figures they need;

300 * £10 * 12 = £36K pa Individual Subs

24 * £500 = £12K pa Community Subs

12 * £10K = £120K pa Corporate Subs

Generates £168K revenue per annum.

So that on it's own covers the interest payments, and contributes almost £70K to the repayment pot.

I'd reckon that over 10 years the membership money alone would more or less cover the whole debt repayment. And that is before the CIC has even raised a single penny of extra revenue by virtue of the under utlised EXISTING assets of the football club.

If the membership all lose interest after a couple of years then clearly something has gone badly wrong, as these will be St.Mirren fans effectively turning their back on the club. In that absolute worst case scenario the CIC would simply sell the 52% majority shareholding to a private individual most likely, use that cash to settle it's debt and close it's doors leaving the football club with other new owner(s).

I don't really see much risk in all of that.

I agree that there is not much risk associated with the club borrowing money.

But by signing up corporate clients the CIC appears to be competing with the club for revenue. (If not investing in CIC these companies may invest directly in the club.)

In addition the CIC want to use the clubs 'under-utilised assets.'. The club could do that itself, several examples on this thread of other clubs doing that. That is more potential revenue that the club will lose out on.

Although the loan will not be secured on the clubs assets it will probably cost the club money (as they will be competing for sponsorship with the CIC). I imagine the turnover of the club may be affected for the next ten years it takes to pay off the CIC loan.

This amount of money could be the difference between playing in the SPL and the SFL....

[Stuart Dickson]

If you read the CIC document SG makes a comment that all members of consortium are taking a Corporate Membership. Good to see them putting something back in. Guess they were going to miss their seat in stand, probably didn't fancy West Bank as all the good seats are gone.

If that means they are 5 of the 9 commitments. Sounds like a good chance that they will be walking away with a tidy sum and at least one of them will be back on board of CIC. Like CIC idea but does that mean that in reality we only have 4 new commitments if 5 are from old BOD?

Yeah. That's my one remaining concern - that all this is just a vehicle to get £1.95m out of the club. I guess the thing is it's down to the members. If they are buying a corporate membership then they would need to convince corporate and community members that they have their interests at heart. I would have thought the more likely route back to the boardroom would be through the individual members but yes I think there is a very real danger that the new board would be exactly the same as the current one

[bingboy]

My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. If I take out a single membership is there a time commitment on that? What if my financial circumstances change - can I give up my membership? Or can I become a member next year once I get a better feel of how it is all panning out?

Richard Atkinson said at the meeting that individual memberships would be for a minimum of 1 year. I would assume you are free to sign up at any time, it's not as if there is a limit on the number of members.

[The Real Zippy]

Yeah. That's my one remaining concern - that all this is just a vehicle to get £1.95m out of the club. I guess the thing is it's down to the members. If they are buying a corporate membership then they would need to convince corporate and community members that they have their interests at heart. I would have thought the more likely route back to the boardroom would be through the individual members but yes I think there is a very real danger that the new board would be exactly the same as the current one

Why would they put their collective shareholding up for sale in the first place if any of the consortium wanted to cling on to power? Fact is, and Gilmour and Co have been quite up front about this, that the current board have taken the club as far as they can and feel that it is time for fresh input and brains. They want shot of the day to day running of the club. They are lifelong fans as well as current board members, so if they want to put something back by buying a corporate membership then what's wrong with that?

You'll probably find that Richard Atkinson, Jim Mullen, Tony Fitzpatrick, Scott McLennan and Chris Stewart will probably be the initial board in any case.

[bud77]

i would say from my perspective its quite a simple yet unanswered question.

if in the very real scenario the funds raised by the CiC and its ventures don't raise sufficent cash to service the debt it has, as a 52% shareholder in another orginasation that also generates cash (not a lot) will the CiC in this instance or instances "Dip In" to SMFC funds?

i would imagine it would need to be put to the BOARDS, but i would also suggest when many have made their personal financial commitment to the CiC if it needs cash to survive may well be tempted to vote to access the funds of SMFC to meet any shortfall.

the big one for me! i know the CiC is a seperate entity, it comes with no guarantees, BUT it could access SMFC turnover to sustain it when it fails, having put NOTHING into SMFC.

to me that's not right, and any potential "Donaters" to the membership should be exploring this scenario, not just the very optimistic point "we could have 52 weddings a year" in Kibble's bar.

There will be an asset lock on the club which means the club's assets cannot be used to bail out the CIC and assets should include club income or money in the bank. Also the board of SMFC have to legally act in the best interests of SMFC not the CIC. If the CIC is struggling it could either seek additional funding/renegotiate terms, increase subs or sell the 52% shares - this would likely be decided by the members.

If SMFC decided to fit out a supporters bar they would have to pay for the fitting out, until the money for that was repaid you could say that the fans are drinking in Joe Bloggs Joiners bar

[St. Sid]

A lot of circular dialogue going on now about the same topics, which suggests that the dissenters are running out of things to scaremonger about.

I think the criticism regarding the CIC competing with the club for revenues is more understandable than some of the guff being thrown up. However, a wee bit of thought about the drivers for investing in the CIC versus spending a tenner a month on an SMFC offering will actually demostrate how the CIC will increase revenues for the club rather than compete for them.

The driver for investing in the CIC is a very personal investment by supporters who care deeply about their club, who care about protecting the assets of the club for future generations, who want the club to be core to the community - an alternative to the OF that destroys lives rather than enhances the community, who want our club to grow both off the pitch but more importantly on it.

For a long time, supporters have been feeling disconnected from the club - that is across Scotland and elsewhere in the world. "Diehards" have been staying away. Fans have become disillusioned as they get ignored by BoDs in favour of TV Money, cow-towing to the OF and their quisling Scottish football administrations and commercial coniderations that mean little to us - over priced tickets, no access to information - even now there are bleatings about transparency of the CIC process, well compare that to the current running of OUR club.

In my always humble opinion the £10 investment in the CIC will bring fans closer to the club, they will feel that every investment in SMFC is an investment in OUR club. We will have transparency of the finances of the club for the first time in eons - not in a legally required annual report and AGM, but through being at the heart of the decision making of the club. At the same time we will be seeing our club doing great things in the community - things that we can all be very pwoud of. If Alex Ferguson and a loud haler could get the town excited about St Mirren, just think what will be achieved by the journey we about to embark on.

Someone was talkiing about putting poster walls in the corner of the stadium. I am thinking more of seeing the corners stands added to the ground - I don't believe it will happen in the first couple of years; however I do believe that the potential growth of the club could see those sort of dreams that we are completely dismissive of at the moment coming to fruition.

The club will continue to run as is with the same income streams they currently have. The big difference is going to be investment coming in from new areas, some previously unavailable to us - as in community project funding and completely untapped income streams from areas we have never went for.

Existing fans will be viewing their investment in SMFC very differently now the club will actually be US, not just in our hearts and in our minds but in terms of running the club the way we want it run. I am sure all of us give to charities where we have no real involvement, would we give more if our child had an illness related to that charity's work - of course we would. Club members spend in their own club - the membership fee is not going to be competing against the club - it will make us more likely to spend more on it.....ditto the corporate and especially the community members and their own memberships.

[Guest somner9]

heres a radical idea! instead of donating £10 a month to a company making NO Gaurantees what it will achive other than bars for its corporate sponsors etc....

why not INVEST £10 a month in the club?

it has NO debt

it won't be run by a plethora of boards and commitee's

the football will come first, not the local women's Institute whist drive

it's been around for a few years

the current board have managed it wisely including the creation of a brand new (Debt Free) stadium

you might have already worked out this is St Mirren FOOTBALL Club, not the idealogical whim of a Sugar Daddy (minus the sugar)

is it a runner?

[bingboy]

heres a radical idea! instead of donating £10 a month to a company making NO Gaurantees what it will achive other than bars for its corporate sponsors etc....

why not INVEST £10 a month in the club?

it has NO debt

it won't be run by a plethora of boards and commitee's

the football will come first, not the local women's Institute whist drive

it's been around for a few years

the current board have managed it wisely including the creation of a brand new (Debt Free) stadium

you might have already worked out this is St Mirren FOOTBALL Club, not the idealogical whim of a Sugar Daddy (minus the sugar)

is it a runner?

How many subscribers are you going to get to do that? Say it's the 400 or so that have pledged to the CIC already. That's the princely sum of £48k per year and if it all goes to the playing budget, it's only a 3.6% increase on the £1.3m we currently spend and wouldn't even pay for 1 player on a grand a week.

And what if the BOD said thanks very much for that money but we don't want to spend it on players - we would have no say in how it is spent.

You are completely missing the point in all of this, the current BOD want out, they're not interested in generating more income or doing anything other than carrying on the way we are until someone buys it off them.

To suggest Richard Atkinson is a sugar daddy minus the sugar is just embarrassing yourself. What he's proposing is a way the club can be bought and handed over to the community to run. There are no private individuals out there who want to pay the asking price for the club and even if there were surely you would have more reason to question their motives than that of Mr Atkinson who is not set to make any financial gain from St Mirren whatsoever?

Edited April 23, 2011 by bingboy

[bud77]

heres a radical idea! instead of donating £10 a month to a company making NO Gaurantees what it will achive other than bars for its corporate sponsors etc....

why not INVEST £10 a month in the club?

it has NO debt

it won't be run by a plethora of boards and commitee's

the football will come first, not the local women's Institute whist drive

it's been around for a few years

the current board have managed it wisely including the creation of a brand new (Debt Free) stadium

you might have already worked out this is St Mirren FOOTBALL Club, not the idealogical whim of a Sugar Daddy (minus the sugar)

is it a runner?

Even if the current board didn't want to sell, you're still leaving the club open to be run at the whim of a sugar daddy at some future stage, sooner or later the shares will be passed on or sold to someone, a Melville for example. With the CIC we, the fans, have a say in the destiny of the club and who runs it. Instead of trying to think of ideas against the CIC try to think of ways it can work.

If the club were to fit out a supporter's bar how long would it take for them to recoup the outlay based on it being open for a few hours every other Saturday for 9 months of the year with the occassional function ? It is a financial non starter. With the community and corporate backing of the CIC you have a bigger target. Imagine a company invites you to the launch of a new product, as they are a corporate member of 10000 hours they decide to hire the supporters bar instead of the function suite at the Glynhill, others there are impressed with the facilities and what's going on and decide they also want to become members. Some of these new members even take up the option of going to games and see the corporate hospitality and shock, horror decide to take out some packages, tackside advertising, sponsorship etc - the club benefits. Some of the community members go to a comunity function at the ground, possibly the first time some people have seen Greenhil Road and decide to take the kids to the next game or go as a group to a game - the club benefits from increased crowds. A community group working with disabled children decide they can safely take some of the children to Greenhill Road to see a game of football - the club benefits from good press.

With all the negatives surrounding Scottish football just now, the OF, parcel bombs, lawyers and politicians getting involved etc., Saint Mirren have a chance to show the positive side in action - something that could be appealing to the sane elements of the OF support and there is no more financial risk to the club than there is under the current system of ownership.

[St. Sid]

is it a runner?

Short answer - no.

Remeber the share issues that some posters are using to brief against the CIC strategy. Lots of cash into the club for no say in how it is run. Other clubs supporters have ploughed cash into supporters trusts to try and get a say doesn't work.

With the CIC the fans get to become part of the club with the very significant bonus of being able to attract new funding streams and investment streams into the club. The traditional model would just be play cash you an owner BoD to play with - and they pished it away on lapdancers and coke parties there's hee-haw you could do about it. The level of cash the tenner a month would raise would not even offer the level of investment required to open the supporters bar.

How you can be failing to understand that after all the information being provided is beyond belief - and for the avoidance of doubt that is an insult.

[ronaldo]

that's me signed up but no conformation through the e mail. not being a ST holder means i can now put something into the club each month if i can't attend games each week.

get signed up