garzo Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Please look beyond the tone of animal and yul It is entirely possible that they have something to say What does happen if members lose Interest after say 1 year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I've never said anything about disliking anything that you have said. All I have seen is you bitch and whine about hidden agendas, how this is going to be a disaster etc, yet you have not came up with one credible alternative. So what's your solution? Like the former Dunfermline striker Andy Smith, I'm all ears...................... There's a fairly simple solution - the club doesn't accept the CIC's bid and things carry on as before. Not great, going on the last few years, but a perfectly reasonable way to run a football club - there is no threat to the future of the club. A few of the CIC's ideas could be "borrowed" and put into place to raise more cash. All we seem to be hearing in detail is what will happen in year one - would be good to know what will happen in years two or three once things are running. It would also be nice to hear a proper contingency plan if a large number of the supporters, or four or five corporate members, decide it is not for them, pull out and can't be replaced. At the moment it seems the answer is to run around shouting "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Er, whose money are you referring to exactly? Are you slow? You asked why would the five members of the consortium sell their shares if they want to hang on to power. I've responded perhaps it was to get the £2m that they are clearly going to get. Now if five of them pay £10,000 each that gives them five votes towards getting their nominee elected to the elected members board and I'm sorry if my suspicious mind is simply working overtime but I'd be incredibly surprised if Stewart Gilmour and Bryan McAusland both didn't become nominees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Sorry if you are so puzzled, but I am sure it will become clearer to you as time goes on. There were several other 'dissenters' present at the meeting including the gentleman who spoke rather well on behalf of the other 48% of shareholders who have been forgotten about by you, and several others who have expressed their concerns privately to me. Are you the spokesperson for the "opposition" then ? Can I clarify then that you and your fellow "dissenters" plan to scupper the sale of the majority shareholding to the CIC ? If so you better get your skates on. Thanks for the red dot by the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Zippy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Are you slow? You asked why would the five members of the consortium sell their shares if they want to hang on to power. I've responded perhaps it was to get the £2m that they are clearly going to get. Now if five of them pay £10,000 each that gives them five votes towards getting their nominee elected to the elected members board and I'm sorry if my suspicious mind is simply working overtime but I'd be incredibly surprised if Stewart Gilmour and Bryan McAusland both didn't become nominees. And you seriously think Gilmour and McAusland are going to put themselves forward as nominees when it is clear to all and sundry that the point of all of this is for the likes of them to get out lock, stock and all smoking barrells? If they want corporate memberships then that is their perogative, just like anyone other business in Paisley and wider Renfrewshire who wishes to participate in this manner. Yep think it is your suspicious mind, not to mention your almost psychotic hatred of Gilmour, that is coming to the fore here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animal Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I've never said anything about disliking anything that you have said. All I have seen is you bitch and whine about hidden agendas, how this is going to be a disaster etc, yet you have not came up with one credible alternative. So what's your solution? Like the former Dunfermline striker Andy Smith, I'm all ears...................... Sorry for the delay in replying. I had to Google (images) of Andy Smith to get the joke. Did you know he was manager of Gretna for a while - hope that is not a parallel for this conversation. I would refer you to a possible solution from Yule - maybe you did not read to the end of his post. ""Maybe the board should change THEIR minds and put their shares on the open market and allow the relative insurance of a mixed board to look after the club as it has done since we became a limited company. After all that is exactly what protected the club from Brealey. With the CIC there is no turning back."" I'm closing down for the night to watch the Living Dead it's much less scary than the CIC scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Zippy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Sorry for the delay in replying. I had to Google (images) of Andy Smith to get the joke. Did you know he was manager of Gretna for a while - hope that is not a parallel for this conversation. I would refer you to a possible solution from Yule - maybe you did not read to the end of his post. ""Maybe the board should change THEIR minds and put their shares on the open market and allow the relative insurance of a mixed board to look after the club as it has done since we became a limited company. After all that is exactly what protected the club from Brealey. With the CIC there is no turning back."" I'm closing down for the night to watch the Living Dead it's much less scary than the CIC scheme. I didn't bother. Mainly because I was falling asleep by the end of the first paragraph, such mindless drivel that it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I think Yul summed it up best in post #1536 especially where he says When another pesky villager asked what would happen when people lose interest, stop paying into the CIC and if it goes bust, the Stranger’s answer defied belief. ‘We will have a problem. We will just have to go back to the funders’. Why should I pipe down simply because you don't like what I am saying. What's next ? Will you send your dad round to give me a doing ? That doesn't sum anything up. IF (big IF) the CIC does go bust that is what will happen. The same as if any company goes bust. The same as if a single private investor went bust. Maybe you should be telling us all why the CIC has more chance of going bust than a single private investor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 And you seriously think Gilmour and McAusland are going to put themselves forward as nominees when it is clear to all and sundry that the point of all of this is for the likes of them to get out lock, stock and all smoking barrells? If they want corporate memberships then that is their perogative, just like anyone other business in Paisley and wider Renfrewshire who wishes to participate in this manner. Yep think it is your suspicious mind, not to mention your almost psychotic hatred of Gilmour, that is coming to the fore here. Zippy, clear to all? Let me quote you from the original article when Stewart Gilmour announced the club was up for sale - 'We would hope to conclude the sale of shares by the opening of the next transfer window at the beginning of January 2010. We are not disappearing. If asked by anyone who takes a controlling interest, we would be quite happy to remain individually or collectively to help run the club for a time after we have sold our shares. This would make sure there was continuity.'Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1211740/SPL-St-Mirren-sale-confirms-chairman-Stewart-Gilmour.html#ixzz1KNlqN2jd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Zippy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Zippy, clear to all? Let me quote you from the original article when Stewart Gilmour announced the club was up for sale - I think the key words in that quote was IF (yes Stuart a big IF) whoever bought the controlling interest needed help FOR A TIME to ensure continuity then Stewart or whoever would be more than happy to help out. Which they are actually doing just now in many ways since Richard Atkinson and Chris Stewart were co-opted onto the board Don't quite think that confirms SG's long term intention in staying with the club now, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Please look beyond the tone of animal and yul It is entirely possible that they have something to say What does happen if members lose Interest after say 1 year? Seriously? You're asking what happens if the members lose interest in the club to such an extent they can't find £10 a month? You have people in that room with a proven track record in business and in the community and that was just the three people at the top table. Animal says the 48% are forgotten about...how? Fair enough, maybe the 5 getting together was dodgy but is that the CIC's fault? The 48% at the moment have no power, they could I suppose vote the other Directors off perhaps but on a day to day basis they are absolutely powerless. They will get a seat on the club board under this, hell if some join the CIC and put their points across they could probably run the board. It's like every issue, turn it round and there's the answer. Animal states RB was more open...had RB signed any deals with funders or the club board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I think the key words in that quote was IF (yes Stuart a big IF) whoever bought the controlling interest needed help FOR A TIME to ensure continuity then Stewart or whoever would be more than happy to help out. Which they are actually doing just now in many ways since Richard Atkinson and Chris Stewart were co-opted onto the board Don't quite think that confirms SG's long term intention in staying with the club now, does it? Zippy - Stewart Gilmour was elected to the SPL Board two months before putting the club up for sale. I don't think he put himself up for nomination with the intention of walking away a few months later when the club was sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Zippy, clear to all? Let me quote you from the original article when Stewart Gilmour announced the club was up for sale - Yeah, it seems like not a lot of people have read between the lines. It's always seemed to me that when the consortium say "we're going to step aside and let someone else come in with fresh ideas" ....read "We're not going to be financially responsible for the club anymore, we're going to step aside and let someone else come in with fresh finance". I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmour etc. would be more than happy to stay on the board and be in control of the board as long as their own money is safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Zippy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Zippy - Stewart Gilmour was elected to the SPL Board two months before putting the club up for sale. I don't think he put himself up for nomination with the intention of walking away a few months later when the club was sold. Don't see what relevance Gilmour being elected to the SPL board has in relation to putting himself up for nomination for any CIC board. Not that that is going to happen anyway. The club was never going to be sold in a matter of months as a matter of course. Even Ray Charles could see that. The fact is that the club has been up for sale for over eighteen months with the CIC deal nowhere near completion tells its own story. FWIW Gilmour would have been nominated by other SPL chairmen/board members in any case. He was put up for president of the SFL just after he took over the club. His own words were that he was 'press-ganged into that role by Bill Barr' and took up that position with a great deal of reluctance. The fact is that the whole point of the shareholding being put up for sale by the consortium is in order for them to relinquish complete control of the running of the club. They have taken the club as far as they can and want to get back to running their own businesses again. I'd be utterly amazed if Gilmour and Co were still around in an official capacity Edited April 23, 2011 by The Real Zippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Morrison Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I think the key words in that quote was IF (yes Stuart a big IF) whoever bought the controlling interest needed help FOR A TIME to ensure continuity then Stewart or whoever would be more than happy to help out. Which they are actually doing just now in many ways since Richard Atkinson and Chris Stewart were co-opted onto the board Don't quite think that confirms SG's long term intention in staying with the club now, does it? He said that before we he could have guessed the new set up. The likely takeover would have been a businessman or a consortium who'd make up their own board I assume. Now there is this new development with the CiC in which there will be an elected board. He's already shown that he is quite up for staying in some capacity or time, so I wouldn't rule out him having an in intention of staying the club. While saying that I think he's happy to let the fans decide what we want, and if it turns out we want him he'll be happy to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Zippy Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 He said that before we he could have guessed the new set up. The likely takeover would have been a businessman or a consortium who'd make up their own board I assume. Now there is this new development with the CiC in which there will be an elected board. He's already shown that he is quite up for staying in some capacity or time, so I wouldn't rule out him having an in intention of staying the club. While saying that I think he's happy to let the fans decide what we want, and if it turns out we want him he'll be happy to do so. All well and good, but that depends if he puts himself forward for nomination. Which I suspect he won't. But then it is St Mirren we are talking about after all....................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Seriously? You're asking what happens if the members lose interest in the club to such an extent they can't find £10 a month? Seriously? You're asking what happens if the members lose interest in the club to such an extent they can't find £10 a month? Yes that's what I'm saying - partially The collective loss of interest and therefore funds may be a problem Remember the 3 routes to membership If collectively all 3 routes fail to sustain the required funding then what happens Is that not a reasonable question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Seriously? You're asking what happens if the members lose interest in the club to such an extent they can't find £10 a month? Seriously? You're asking what happens if the members lose interest in the club to such an extent they can't find £10 a month? Yes that's what I'm saying - partially The collective loss of interest and therefore funds may be a problem Remember the 3 routes to membership If collectively all 3 routes fail to sustain the required funding then what happens Is that not a reasonable question? I don't think anyones saying it's not a reasonable question. It's already been asked. It's already been answered. The CIC will go to the funding bodies (not banks) to try and resolve a new repayment plan. The same thing any company will have to do if it goes bust, including a traditional individual takeover. The question which should be answered is WHY would the CIC lose the interest it requires to be sustainable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Yeah, it seems like not a lot of people have read between the lines. It's always seemed to me that when the consortium say "we're going to step aside and let someone else come in with fresh ideas" ....read "We're not going to be financially responsible for the club anymore, we're going to step aside and let someone else come in with fresh finance". I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmour etc. would be more than happy to stay on the board and be in control of the board as long as their own money is safe. I've been saying it on here for a while Steve but I suspect no-one wants to listen. Maybe Zippy is right and he's happy just to walk away and get on with his life. I have my doubts and it's pretty obvious that there is a danger that St Mirren could go through this whole process and land up with almost the exact same board as they have now and the only difference being that the majority no longer have a personal financial stake in the success of the club. I know many St Mirren supporters would be happy to see Stewart Gilmour remain anyway so maybe others don't see it as an issue but for me it's the one nagging doubt I have about the whole CIC thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 All well and good, but that depends if he puts himself forward for nomination. Which I suspect he won't. But then it is St Mirren we are talking about after all....................... I suspect he will Zippy, and I suspect that other members of the consortium will also put themselves forward for nomination too but there is little point arguing about it. Time will tell which one of us was right. Gilmour is on record stating his intentions from 2009 - we'll see what happens in 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I've been saying it on here for a while Steve but I suspect no-one wants to listen. Maybe Zippy is right and he's happy just to walk away and get on with his life. I have my doubts and it's pretty obvious that there is a danger that St Mirren could go through this whole process and land up with almost the exact same board as they have now and the only difference being that the majority no longer have a personal financial stake in the success of the club. I know many St Mirren supporters would be happy to see Stewart Gilmour remain anyway so maybe others don't see it as an issue but for me it's the one nagging doubt I have about the whole CIC thing. I wouldn't call it a danger ending up with the same board. RA said it himself at the meeting, St. Mirren is a well run football club but not necessarily a well run business. I would be one of the many saints fans happy to see the current board remain and don't grudge them taking their money out the club - they've probably deserved the right to do that given the time effort and money that they have invested over the past 15 years. I think it's fair to say the current board have probably had to dig into their own pockets at various points to help the club out and to pay for a few players fees/signing on fees etc. Maybe without that possibility hanging over them, the job will be a lot less stressful and they might even do it better than they currently are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I'm pretty sure Stewart is looking to move to South Africa, heard it a few times from various people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ck1 Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 We have 2500 season ticket holders and so far only 433 pledges (this fig based on all pledges coming from STH) Are the fans having a decisive say in what they really want, how about some sort of vote on this to determine what the real views are. What happens if the CIC goes through and the remaining 2000 STH don’t renew because they are not happy how the club is getting run 433 £10’s won’t go far. I’m not for or against the CIC but I’m a little unsure and undecided so many questions some answered, some maybe answered, some not answered. Yes maybe in principle it is a very good idea but why does it have to be my team that this experiment is happening to, why not try it out with a lower league team to see if it works. But the biggest question for me is how can these guys who don’t know the first thing about SMFC turn up not spend a penny to buy the shares and sit and run our club. If this was to fail I’m I correct and saying that it can’t go back to being a LTD company so who can take it over some other community group with lots of money, not many of them going about. I have followed St.Mirren for over 35 years seen so many highs and lows but this is the biggest test and it’s not even about what's happening on the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I don't think anyones saying it's not a reasonable question. It's already been asked. It's already been answered. The CIC will go to the funding bodies (not banks) to try and resolve a new repayment plan. The same thing any company will have to do if it goes bust, including a traditional individual takeover. The question which should be answered is WHY would the CIC lose the interest it requires to be sustainable? its all about risk and there is a risk that members will lose interest,drop out, not renew and the finance may not be there to sustain the CIC, e.g. 2 businesses sign up for year 1 but drop out after year 1 and no others take their place - entirely possible? resonable to ask what are optioins in this scenario. A new payment plan to extend debt may result in no extra investment ever in the football side of the model i would like to know about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Sanchez Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 When another pesky villager asked what would happen when people lose interest, stop paying into the CIC and if it goes bust, the Stranger's answer defied belief. 'We will have a problem. We will just have to go back to the funders'. Read that again. This is akin to buying your house, defaulting on the payment then asking the building society for more cash! Bet you don't fancy putting your club in that position. So if you sign up you damn well better expect to stay. For a holding company to propose incurring debt to purchase the shares then to TRY to take on more debt if it doesn't work out is no business strategy. As far as I was concerned, 'going back to the funders' meant renegotiating payment terms with them, in the style of an informal debt management plan, and not asking for more money. The answer supplied by Richard Atkinson related to a question about future a shortfall in the optimal membership levels, not about the entire collapse of the CIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.